Merchants and frustrations

**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.

**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.