Printable View
Another observation: Playing as Spain I fulfilled my core mission which resulted in New Spain joining my side. I was of the opinion that this would result in a major boost of my economy (many more ports, mines and plantations). Strangely enough the addition of all these developed territoties resulted in me making less money then before New Spain joined my side. :no:
Probably the New Spain provinces that just joined you are underdeveloped: you need to build these provinces up to reap the $$$. Also, check those harbors: most likely they're not trade harbors but rather fishing harbors. AI loves to build them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
Also, check your trade page: it's possible some of your trade partners have their harbors blockaded by their respective enemies. It's your job to fight these scoundrels off if your trade partners are not able to.
Yes, that bugs me too. Under the current system, one pirate ship blockading an obscure island in the Carribean can blockade my WHOLE American trade flow, from ALL American provinces despite my all other trade routes to Europe being open. That's simply BS...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I suspect this is actually a bug.
Thanks for the advice! Checking on all the trade issues lately, I became somewhat of a trade pro, so I was making very little money with New Spain fully developed and with the maximum number of trade ports operating in the region. That is why the pityful income from all those gold miney etc etc was so shocking/astonishing to me. No trade routes or ports being blocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
You were trading with New Spain. That trade was lost when they joined you. You were also receiving tribute because were their protector. Usually the lost trade is compensated by your other trade partners but since it is possible that their trade is blocked or raided your total income can be less then before. You should also be aware that since you get an extra five or six regions your tax income is reduced because your administrative cost will increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
Thank you for the advice! Administrative costs? O.k. - but then the richess of the New World made Spain rich or did I get my history classes wrong here? And since New Spain joined me voluntarily, why then lose trade and not get trade in addition? All very strange. I mean of course you are perfectly right with your assumptions, but then the logic of the game is that you lose when you gain. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monsieur Alphonse
In my Spanish campaign my income from New Spain was 2500 from trade and some 1500 from being its protector. Normally your trade is redistributed among your trade partners if you lose one. In my case I didn't lose any trade. That 1500 and the overall decrease in taxes because of admin costs, has to be compensated with the extra income from the newly acquired regions. In my campaign I had a bigger income after NS joined me. Mexico and Venezuela are very rich regions, but need some development.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
Think this is partly true, butpretty sure that protectorate income also shows under other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Venom
When I raided the Mughals trade route with 3 separate fleets, 1 full stack, 2 ships and 1 ship something strange happened. I sent the big fleet in, and their income dropped from 2,500 to 1,000, but adding the 2 ship fleet it went up to 1,800, and adding the single ship it went to 2,000. Err, what? Very strange.
I think the only way this can be rationalised is to remember that we are not really dealing with state adminstered trade but are seeing the benefits of a lot of private independantly negotiated trade agreements.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
So, if 'Ripoff and Scarper Cotton Imports of Bristol' have done a deal with 'Dixie Lee Cotton Exports of Baltimore' for the supply of cotton, then ships owned or contracted by one or both of these companies would be transporting cotton bales from the warehouses where they are stored in Baltimore to the warhouses that are destined to receive them in Bristol.
Consequently, if either Bristol or Baltimore is blockaded then the trade is effectively cut-off, either because the ships carrying the goods can't leave or enter port, or because the ships owned by the contractors can't put to sea.
In theory, 'R&S' could arrange to have the cotton delivered to London and transported overland to the warehouses in Bristol, but that would increase their costs no end and instead they are more likely to moan to their local MP about the appaling state of the navy and wait for someone to sort it out.
What is not very satisfactory is that in practice these private contracts would exist between companies in every trading port of both countries. So, if the French only blockaded Bristol then it would only cut off those trade contracts with companies based in Bristol. Those based in London would continue to trade without affect. So, a blockade ought to just reduce the trade in proportion to the number of ports owned and the number blockaded, rather than be a total blockade based on a single port.
Yes, protectorate income appears under "Other Revenue" in the National Summary page.
No, if one of your trade ports in New World is blockaded, that does not cause all trade from that theatre to be blocked. It's an interface problem. The Trade page makes it look like all of the goods being shipped to your home region are being blocked because the entire line shows red instead of just the units that normally would be shipped from the blockaded port and are too far from another port to be shipped out through them.
For example, if you're GB, you've got sugar coming in from the Bahamas and Jamaica, furs from Rupert's land, and let's say cotton from Georgia and Carolina. If Jamaica's trade port gets blocked, the Trade screen will show all exports from the American theatre. However, you'll still export goods to your trade partners. This is only possible because the sugar from the Bahamas, the furs from Rupert's Land, and the cotton from Georgia and Carolina are still making it to London and then on to your trade partners. Only the sugar from Jamaica is not getting through.
A different example. Let's say both Georgia and Carolina have trade ports, and that the Georgian port is being blockaded. In this case, the cotton from Georgia will be diverted to the trade port in Carolina (so long as the Carolina trade port has the capacity to export that many units. Assuming it does, you will still see all red from the American theatre in the Trade window, but in actuallity, all of your exports from that theatre are still getting through to London and then on to your trade partners.
So, like I said, it's an interface problem. The way the Trade screen shows you that one of your ports is being blockaded is not very helpful. It gives you the impression that ALL trade from that theatre is blocked, which is false, and it does not show you which goods, or how many of them, are not getting through, nor does it tell you which of your trade ports is blockaded. This is exactly the opposite on the Export side of the Trade screen. That one will tell you which trade relationship is being hindered, which makes it a lot easier for you to know which trade port is being blockaded.
Hmm, in my experience, all New World South American provinces are worth a lot even if they produce 0 in taxes (when I exempt them from taxes) just by increasing my trade. Most of the New World provinces in South America export goods that can be sold to your trade partners. In early game, early-mid game, the trade income definitely outweighs the tax income.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
Also, note that fur good tax revenue you need high town wealth. Most likely, when you took those provinces from Mexico, town wealth was nil... You can build it up by 1) investing a lot in enlightenment techs (especially the right side of them) 2) by developing your roads 3) by developing your trade harbors 4) by developing your towns and farms; better even, by doing all 4 of the listed at the same time.
In mid/late game, town wealth is the biggest contributor to my tax income.
Thanks again Slaists!Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
I got the New World Provinces AFTER investing a lot of time in researching all techs available. Mailed roads (sp??) in place. Trade harbours teched up to trade basins. Still the boost in income was nil.
In general I am surprised about the little boost in income the game offers. E.g when playing Sweden, holding 5 provinces and having 4 trade partners I was making around 5000 per turn. After adding Lithuania to the Swedish empire + 3 more trade partners + all farms at max. mailed roads + trade ports up to second level, industries developed and a lot of tech researched I was down to 3500 per turn.
Well, I cannot prove my point on a scientific basis, since I don´t really know how the game works (lack of in depth documentation), but my gut feeling tells me that there is sth wrong in the way the game machine does its maths.
Check out the screens here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=117119. That's the end of a VH Russian campaign. I had 32 provinces and from about 1780 (that's when I stopped adding provinces) my tax income was 'popping' up by about 1000 gold per turn just from wealth growth; meanwhile trade income was growing even faster from the enlightenment techs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmk
All in all, I was able to make about 50K in profits per turn from mid-game on.
I think administrative costs are a bit misunderstood. In my experience it acts more in a manner similar to a progressive tax on income.
E.G.
My campaign as France is nearly finished, I hold 49 provinces and all but 2 trade nodes. My income with 4 full stack armies was 45000. I now have a whopping 10 full stack armies and income is 43500.
On one blockaded port to blockade them all:
I actually like the blockade one port and it blocks all trade concept.
There's no need to micromanage blockading multiple trade ports. If an enemy can keep a naval fleet blockading a trade port in your home region they can blockade them all. It's just a question of macro vs micro and going micro offers no real benefits I can see from a gameplay or realsim perspective.
Most nations of the era kept fleets at home precisely to protect trade, or in the case of GB also prevent seaborne invasions. Let's not talk about "logic" or "realism" if you're playing GB and don't keep a Home Fleet ready to repel invasions or attempts to cut your trade. Because that's not realistic at all.
On trade with the 13 colonies:
It doesn't matter if you have overaseas territories connected to the 13 colonies. The market for everything in this era is Europe. So you still have to get the goods back to your home region, which is still blockaded.
The game mechanics are much simpler this way and are more effective at portraying the era. Major fleet actions were fought to prevent blockade for precisely this reason. It shouldn't be possible to simply destroy the blockading force of some piddly backwater port and suddenly your trade is all functioning again. Specific trade ports had massive infrastructure for loading/unloading/storage/administration/etc. If someone blockaded such a major port your trade was going to suffer big time, even if you had 100 small ports elsewhere in the country that could in theory offload goods.
So you need to protect your home region port with a fleet at all times if you don't have enough money to hold out a few turns. 1 turn is representing 6 months - that's a long time to be without any trade.