Merchants and frustrations

**Musashi** · 12-03-2006, 09:47

Make sure you move your capital and move it back to get the distance to capital modifiers to kick in properly. The values you're talking about sound more like what you get in Timbuktu when you've loaded the game and not done that.

Evil, EVIL bug that knocks my 5000 florins per turn merchant income down to like 1000 at most whenever I forget about it after a reload.

I think skill gain is less about length of time spent on a resource and more about how many florins the merchant has processed. As in, you gain skill faster sitting on a 100 a turn resource than a 10 a turn resource.

**Shahed** · 12-03-2006, 12:05

I've done that. Now that I know of that bug I always check that if I reload.

I think the reason for the difference is because my capital is Caesarea, and it may be because the closest resource is closer than it is to yours AND possibly the base resource value is different in Zagreb than in Timbuktu.

Do you get different florin/turn values for Zagreb and Timbuktu with the same merchant ?

**Musashi** · 12-03-2006, 13:02

I just checked on it... On a fresh reload (So the distance-to-capital modifier is completely factored out) my max skill (I think he's actually several points higher than max skill actually, and they do keep counting above ten) would get 158 florins from the gold mine he's sitting on in Timbuktu, but only 79 from the mine in Zagreb, so yes, there is a difference in the base values (Timbuktu is the richest region in the game, as suspected--and it's logical enough considering it's utterly worthless in a strategic sense).

With distance-to-capital reinitialized by moving the capital and putting it back, he makes 1088 florins per turn in Timbuktu, and would make 544 from the one in Zagreb.

Moving the Capital to Granada or Toledo significantly nerfs the output of the merchant, but moving it to Valencia less so, which leads me to believe that it's a combination of distance-to-capital and also how built up your capital is (Since Toledo and Granada are castles in my game, and therefore poor trading facilities, whereas Valencia is a slightly smaller city than Cordoba, so I netted almost as much with my capital at Valencia as at Cordoba.

Moving my capital to Timbuktu actually lowered the merchant's trade output below the base value (What it was after a reload) so apparently being too close to your capital incurs a negative modifier (And also Timbuktu is a hick town at the moment... I haven't had any reason to build it up and the population is rather miniscule in the first place).

I then used the console to zero out the skill of one of my merchants and hovered it over one of my gold mines, and it showed that with 0 finance he would make 155 florins per turn on it. Upping his skill to 1, he would be able to make 233 florins per turn.

So as you can see, Timbuktu is a wildly profitable area. I can't account for the lower values you are getting there unless the game considers Caesarea to be vastly closer to Timbuktu than Cordoba (Which would make no sense since the game appears to make all distance calculations as the crow flies), or you are maintaining your capital as a castle, or are just at a lower tech level than me.

**Darkmoor_Dragon** · 12-03-2006, 14:05

Just as a heads up:

There appears to be a variety of different "Key resources" by faction that will generate different levels of income from the same resource.

For instance:

As England the Timbuktu mines are the ultimate resource for income from merchants - I cant find anything else that comes close.

However when playing as Venice this was not the case - the ultimate income earners were ivory and slaves. I originally thought that this was simply down to the distance-from-capital modifier being different, but having conquered England as Venice and moving my capital there it transpired that ivory and slaves still generated more income than the Timbuktu gold mines.... and that the venician income was lower than English income despite having merchants that (visible) were of the same level.

Unknown elements in the equation though remain the fact that merchants can reach levels higher than that shown on their cards - just as with assassins and similar level 01 is not the maximum, so it may have been that I had a level 15 or 17 on the Timbuktu gold mine when playing as the English and only a measly level 10 as Venice.

Its worth keeping an open mind though and checking out various resources when playing as other nations though.

The top resources "in general" do appear to be gold, ivory, amber, silks, slaves but I'd experiment a bit with various factions before just aiming direct for Timbuktu and assuming you will get "the ultimate income".

**Musashi** · 12-03-2006, 22:01

I think which resource is best may depend somewhat on whether your capital is a castle or city...

Gold deposits seem to be particularly sensitive to the level of development your capital city is at...

I just tried doing a test on my russian campaign, turning the FoW off and mousing over all the various trade resources... Timbuktu remains the best location available, but while switching my capital from Moscow (City) to Bulgar (Castle) increased the value of the amber deposits my merchants are actually on (Due to distance increase) it decreased how much I would be able to get from the gold in Timbuktu.

It would appear the formula is somewhat complex.

**Aenlic** · 12-03-2006, 23:04

Remember that you don't get as much credit for a resource if you have a closer resource available of the same type in a province you own. Venice might be a good example of this. There is a gold source much closer to Venice, just to the northeast, which would detract from the value of the Timbuktu and Arduin gold spots. Likewise, you can make good money off of the silk at Baghdad, unless you own Constantinople and Nicaea, with their own silk.

**Aenlic** · 12-03-2006, 23:15

Oh, and thanks for the details Musashi.

I've been seeing some interesting things with regards to resources.

It's most easily seen with the amber up around Novgorod, Vilnius and Riga. Let's say you are playing the Turks and send a merchant up there. Several of the amber spots will be worth more than other amber spots just as close. I haven't yet figured out why this is. checking just using one merchant shows two different values for all of the amber up there. Mostr will be one price, but a couple will be much higher. And it's clear that it isn't distance, because one of the spots is far closer to Iconium than another amber spot further north which is next to another high value one. It doesn't make sense to me. I haven't checked yet to see if this strange discrepancy in values applies to other resources. Maybe I'll check with a Danish campaign and see if I see similar results with the spices near Cairo and Alexandria.

**Shahed** · 12-03-2006, 23:30

That is a difference in base resource value. It changes the amount you can earn from the trading site.

-The higher the base resource value the higher the trading income that site will generate.

Also As Musashi correctly pointed out (Thanks):

-The level of development of your capital influences the rate of return on trading investments.
-The type of capital influences the rate of return on trading investments with cities favoring the equation over castles.

The above 2 points are not relevant to what you are saying Aenlic, just wanted to think out loud, and get it clear for myself.

**Shahed** · 12-04-2006, 00:01

BTW Iron in Zagreb is worth almost as much as gold if you are playing Turks.

**Musashi** · 12-04-2006, 02:37

Originally Posted by Sinan

BTW Iron in Zagreb is worth almost as much as gold if you are playing Turks.

I think Iron is worth more when your capital is a Castle than when it's a City.

**afrit** · 12-04-2006, 00:36

So does it ever pay-off to move your capital to some corner of the map to maximize the merchant trade? or would the unrest more than offset it?

**Shahed** · 12-04-2006, 01:25

It depends.

In my current game as Turks, moving the capital to Caesarea actually maximises the total income by aout 750-850 depending on harvest quality. But I don't yet have merchants in Timbuktu. I'm focusing on monopolising the amber market, first. It's closer and it's only 1100.

Next will be the iron and gold markets.

I'm not sure if moving the capital to maximise only trade income would be financially wise. For this empire I am runnning, it would'nt be. Perhaps with high level merchants monopolising gold it would but I'm nt sure.

One thing I am sure about is that moving the capital to maximise overall income will always be financially wise.