Economic Workings

[LordK9]

In the years since this game has been released, has anyone been able to figure out how the economy works?

--- For naval trade, I thought alliances were important and possibly even neutrals can have their trade blocked in a war but now I am unsure. Generally each new ship pays more then itself but I have had my economy get worse with increased trade several times. It can go from 1000L excess to -1000L in a single turn with no apparent changes (ie, concerning my kingdom directly).

--- Does adding port actually do anything if one has no navy yet?

--- In the Med, it seems that if one completes a circle, ie, a trade link that connects to itself, the economy suddenly gets a lot better.

--- Economies in general seem to shift a lot and quickly?

--- Does an inquisition affect your economy significantly?

--- Does simply losing favor with the Pope (no sanctions or anything, noted by an uptick in assassins, etc) cause the economy to lower (it seems to)?

I do mostly understand the more or less obvious things like distance from king, poor farmers, natural disasters, lord character flaws, etc but there is obviously much more and what may be a large dose of randomness.

[caravel]

In the years since this game has been released, has anyone been able to figure out how the economy works?

--- For naval trade, I thought alliances were important and possibly even neutrals can have their trade blocked in a war but now I am unsure. Generally each new ship pays more then itself but I have had my economy get worse with increased trade several times. It can go from 1000L excess to -1000L in a single turn with no apparent changes (ie, concerning my kingdom directly).

You can trade with other factions if your're allied/neutral with them, otherwise no. If enemy ships are in sea zones along your trade routes, that will blockade your trade (and you theirs)

--- Does adding port actually do anything if one has no navy yet?

Adding a port does nothing for your trade, you need a trading post of some sort. If memory serves, this allows you to trade your goods with other factions and get the import tax from others trading with you (for the latter, if the other faction moves their ships around/gets blockaded, the import tax may disappear for a year or two and come back).

--- In the Med, it seems that if one completes a circle, ie, a trade link that connects to itself, the economy suddenly gets a lot better.

Not necessarily, but by having more ships in more seas adjacent to ports with traders you are trading with more provinces. You cannot trade goods which the province already has however.

--- Economies in general seem to shift a lot and quickly?

There are too many factors to list. Your governors may have picked up some vices, if you train more troops that's higher support costs, if you're at war your trade routes may have been blockaded, etc, etc. Ship support is also a factor. This is why the med islands are desirable, they give a home port to ships which are far from your homelands (ship support increases as ships get further from home). Taxes are another factor, but assuming you're not using auto taxes then you should be in control of these and able to factor in.

--- Does an inquisition affect your economy significantly?

Not really, all an inquisition does is raise zeal to a very high level before the inquisitors go berserk, then zeal drops again drastically. This makes inquisitors zeal raising capabilities a double edged sword. The only economic effects would be if an inquisitor took it upon himself to try one of your governors - thus leaving the province ungoverned and bereft of the additional income bonuses which his governorship produces (high acumen increases tax income/productivity).

--- Does simply losing favor with the Pope (no sanctions or anything, noted by an uptick in assassins, etc) cause the economy to lower (it seems to)?

No. If you're still allied to the papal faction and not at war, then this should not be a factor - though if the papal assassins/inquisitors kill your governors... (see above).

I do mostly understand the more or less obvious things like distance from king, poor farmers, natural disasters, lord character flaws, etc but there is obviously much more and what may be a large dose of randomness.

The random factor is mostly due to V&Vs and natural disasters.

[drone]

--- Does adding port actually do anything if one has no navy yet?

It won't effect trade by itself, you would need merchant-line buildings for that. By itself, a Port lets you transport units from the province via ships, and allows agents (yours and AI) to come and go with other port-possessing provinces regardless of the naval situation.

--- Economies in general seem to shift a lot and quickly?

Use the 'V' key to check for blocked shipping routes, this is the main cause of big swings in trade income. Not only does trade income get cut, but blockaded provinces can also lead to large increases in ship support costs.

Not really, all an inquisition does is raise zeal to a very high level before the inquisitors go berserk, then zeal drops again drastically. This makes inquisitors zeal raising capabilities a double edged sword. The only economic effects would be if an inquisitor took it upon himself to try one of your governors - thus leaving the province ungoverned and bereft of the additional income bonuses which his governorship produces (high acumen increases tax income/productivity).

Isn't there a correlation between zeal and the governor's piety? I was under the impression that a province's happiness will drop when a low piety governor runs a high zeal province, which might affect tax-rate depending on the garrison strength.

[LordK9]

OK, from reading between the lines on both posts I gather that a trading post will increase trade but adding a port to a trading post province without a naval link will not (directly). I also take that there is no trade bonus for trading with allies and that if they are at war and their enemy blockades their ports, my trade suffers too. I assumed (apparently correctly) that a lot of things going unreported (natural disasters, etc in far off lands) greatly affects my trade.

Quote Originally Posted by caravel: Not really, all an inquisition does is raise zeal to a very high level before the inquisitors go berserk, then zeal drops again drastically. This makes inquisitors zeal raising capabilities a double edged sword. The only economic effects would be if an inquisitor took it upon himself to try one of your governors - thus leaving the province ungoverned and bereft of the additional income bonuses which his governorship produces (high acumen increases tax income/productivity).
Quote by Drone: Isn't there a correlation between zeal and the governor's piety? I was under the impression that a province's happiness will drop when a low piety governor runs a high zeal province, which might affect tax-rate depending on the garrison strength.

[/COLOR]

That's what I thought too - but wasn't sure if it was significant. The inquisition helps me as much as not as it targets lords with flaws and lower zeal means less losses to crusades. It does knock down trade for a year those as Caravel noted and that's a bummer.

Poland in high seems to be more affected then others I've played (so far) and those hordes from the east hit them before a solid economy can be built. Makes for an interesting problem.

[caravel]

Isn't there a correlation between zeal and the governor's piety? I was under the impression that a province's happiness will drop when a low piety governor runs a high zeal province, which might affect tax-rate depending on the garrison strength.

As far as I know zeal is only related to crusades and jihads, which is why orthodox factions don't really have zeal as such (well they do, but no manual means of increasing it and no use for it). Zeal gets raised in some catholic provinces at certain dates due to hard coded events and due to inquisitor activity. If zeal does have a bearing on the piety of newly created unit leaders/generals, that's not documented and high piety generals can be a result of a high piety king, etc.

The governors piety influences provincial happiness relative to the religious percentage in a province. So if you have a high piety governor that's good news for your 'core' provinces, but not so good for recently conquered provinces of an opposing religion. In such cases a low piety governor is preferable.

That's what I thought too - but wasn't sure if it was significant. The inquisition helps me as much as not as it targets lords with flaws and lower zeal means less losses to crusades. It does knock down trade for a year those as Caravel noted and that's a bummer.

I'm afraid that's an old myth - the Inquisition when controlled by the AI factions is indiscriminate in who it targets.

[LordK9]

I'm afraid that's an old myth - the Inquisition when controlled by the AI factions is indiscriminate in who it targets.

Oh well! With so many variables, the imagination sometimes wins. :)

[HopAlongBunny]

One more thing to remember: you do not trade with yourself
There was post a long time ago that showed precisely how trade develops; as you take more coastal area=>trade increases (provided you keep trade partners)
There is a point where taking more coastal provinces begins to decrease trade=>ie. fewer people to trade with because you own it all

[LordK9]

That wasn't the problem with my example (I only had one coastal area) but something I certainly didn't know (thanks!).

[Brandy Blue]

As a rough guideline, you get the most trade if half the ports within reach of your fleet are yours and have trade goods, while the other half (with or without trade goods) belong to countries you can trade with (not at war with).

For instance, suppose that there are 8 ports within range of your fleet. If you control 1, it can only sell goods to 7 ports. If you control 7, then each one can sell goods to 1 port, so you get the same amount of profit because 7 X 1 = 1 X 7

However, if you control 4 of the ports, then each of them has 4 trade partners, 4 X 4 = 16 trade relationships, which is more than twice as good as owning just one port or all seven of them.

That isn't taking into account that some provinces have more valuable products to trade. It also is not taking into account that you can't sell a product to another port if it is in a province that produces the same product. So it is only intended as a rough measure.

[Gilrandir]

Make sure your governors have at least acumen 4, especially in the provinces that give the bulk of your income.

[LordK9]

That's something I didn't consider - I've generally been using a three or higher rule of thumb.

[Brandy Blue]

Three is fine for a province that makes hardly any money IMO. After all, you need to use your 4+ govs for your cash cow provinces.

[Gilrandir]

The problem is that at the outset those with high enough acumen may be hard to come by. And it is preferable for them to have some dread - it will keep the province more loyal.

[drone]

I try to only give titles to nobles, which makes it really hard to find suitable governors after a while. There will be plenty of random spearman unit leaders with 4+ acumen, but the guys leading the horse seem to be mathematically challenged.

[LordK9]

Hmmm--- guys leading the horse were historically the warrior class that became the leaders. Starting to make sense ----

In the beginning, my provinces go govenerless for quite a few years as I found putting a "2" in actually lowers productivity. Then one finds a "4" but his loyalty is "1". In high (initial turns), I often give a title to the governor since they tend to add loyalty and acumen. For those horse guys, I like to give the titles that add loyalty and rank. Too bad one can't give them to all those bratty, disloyal princes. They're good for royal uncles too, though as they usually have high rank but lack loyalty.

[Gilrandir]

In the beginning, my provinces go govenerless for quite a few years as I found putting a "2" in actually lowers productivity. Then one finds a "4" but his loyalty is "1".

Too bad one can't give them to all those bratty, disloyal princes. They're good for royal uncles too, though as they usually have high rank but lack loyalty.

Keep low-loyalty generals/princes out of the stack or in one stack with your monarch. It will make them less likely to start a civil war.

[LordK9]

Do you know if they will rebel if they are not the leader of the stack? I've had so few rebellions that I haven't picked out a trend. I have been moving he high ranking/low loyalty leaders to the capital with the king.

"Leader of the Stack" - reminds me of a song from the 60s redone by Joan Jett. Maybe I should have worded that differently - now the song is stuck in my head.

[Gilrandir]

Do you know if they will rebel if they are not the leader of the stack? I've had so few rebellions that I haven't picked out a trend. I have been moving he high ranking/low loyalty leaders to the capital with the king.

"Leader of the Stack" - reminds me of a song from the 60s redone by Joan Jett. Maybe I should have worded that differently - now the song is stuck in my head.

If they don't have an army (a stack) at their disposal they are less likely to rebel. Even if they do you have an army already in the province to oppose a single unit of rebels.
Low loyalty leaders moving in with the king is not always an option - these leaders may have a high command and may be needed as generals elsewhere, so out-of-stack position is a compromise between a possible rebellion and leaving a province with an 0-valor army.
How do you choose the capital for the king to reside in? I choose a province reasonably far from possible invasions and with the highest level of armorer and metalsmith (if available). In the latter case all princes that come of age will appear in this province with all upgrades the province can give them.

[LordK9]

I usually stick with the historical one as it is (in "high") by far the most developed early and generally stays close to the center of your empire although for some, (again "high", what I am currently playing) like the Byzantines and Turks, I move it to Constantinople when I can.