Reduction in trade wealth and boost tax!!

**Poacher886** · January 25, 2012, 11:14 AM

I realise that wealth created through 'sea bourne' trade was what made Britian so wealthy, but i actually think its unbalanced and creates un-realistic scenarios.

If i was to play as say 'Sardinia'...i can build a dozen trade ships no bother, and before i know it, im earning first rate power kind of money....hell better than first rate power, beacause their all killing each other!!, this suddenly enables me to build vast army's, and within a few years, i go from a little side-show island that few have heard of, to competing on equal terms with the likes of France!!!!

Personally, i think that sea-bourne trade values should be reduced meaning only those that can afford large shipping fleets really see the benefit, while City tax income should be raised, to better reflect the sort of funding that traditional non-sea trading nations were able to produce...Prussia being a good example (minimal sea-bourne trading, yet able to raise taxes for a standing 200-250 thousand strong army).

How many of you like to start as a minor nation and strugle with minimum cash and small army's, where a win and a gained province really means something, only to lose interest in the campaign once you have a trade fleet and start to steam roll the majors!!! i know i do..

**Alan.rio** · January 25, 2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Poacher886

I realise that wealth created through 'sea bourne' trade was what made Britian so wealthy, but i actually think its unbalanced and creates un-realistic scenarios.

If i was to play as say 'Sardinia'...i can build a dozen trade ships no bother, and before i know it, im earning first rate power kind of money....hell better than first rate power, beacause their all killing each other!!, this suddenly enables me to build vast army's, and within a few years, i go from a little side-show island that few have heard of, to competing on equal terms with the likes of France!!!!

Personally, i think that sea-bourne trade values should be reduced meaning only those that can afford large shipping fleets really see the benefit, while City tax income should be raised, to better reflect the sort of funding that traditional non-sea trading nations were able to produce...Prussia being a good example (minimal sea-bourne trading, yet able to raise taxes for a standing 200-250 thousand strong army).

How many of you like to start as a minor nation and strugle with minimum cash and small army's, where a win and a gained province really means something, only to lose interest in the campaign once you have a trade fleet and start to steam roll the majors!!! i know i do..

What if Sardinia HAD built up a large trade fleet? Then its perfectly possible they could have done what they did. What you suggest is that they didn't have the resources to build such a fleet. In that case your problem is not that the money is too good, its that it's too cheap to built a trade fleet and take trade nodes.

I think the cost of the ships is just fine. But that's not the real problem is it? In reality cost of running a trade route was not in the trade ships, its in protecting the route and the source with a strong navy. In your game Sardinia was able to reap the rewards of trade nodes because no-one was taking it from them!

I would suggest this problem is solved by making every nation more aggressive in taking and holding trade routes and pirating trade routes. In that way only nations that can actually put in the expense of building the large navy get the benefit. This is precisely what the British empire did. And if you are a good enough player to make Sardinia do the same when everyone is being more aggressive on the seas then you deserve your cash.

**Kake** · January 26, 2012, 11:53 AM

Alan.rio is right.
For more realism, raiding a trade route should result in the ship getting captured. After all, that is what happens when you raid a trade route; you capture the trading vessel(s). But I understand that this is not possible gamewise.

**Alan.rio** · January 26, 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Kake

Alan.rio is right.
For more realism, raiding a trade route should result in the ship getting captured. After all, that is what happens when you raid a trade route; you capture the trading vessel(s). But I understand that this is not possible gamewise.

It doesn't even have to be that. Think of the merchant ships as representing trade fleets, not individual ships.

My suggestions:
Increase the priority of trade nodes for CAI. (they are worth a LOT, they should be difficult to retain.)
Increase the amount a Navy can raid from a trade route. A large Navy on a trade route should take all of the trade. (Forces players and AI to patrol their trade routes to keep them open.)

**DuDeNine** · January 27, 2012, 02:13 AM

I certainly agree. It's tiring to always have control over the whole sea in napoleon. The AI never seems to understand the worth in creating such important trade routes. I think that raiding a trade route should also give more reward. It would make the whole campaign so much more complex.
France would have to decide wether or not they Should reap the benefits of trading routes or the conquest of Europe.
England as the player would have a far more difficult campaign. As the AI, they would build bigger fleets with (hopefully first rate ships), and not recruit 10 stacks of militia on their mainland.
Spain would be a huge competitor for Britain.
Prussia would focus more on land invasions. (since there are hardly any ports)
Ottomans would hopefully be a part of all this madness that would go on.

It is a good idea to make trade routes more of a priority, but it's a better idea to increase the priority of defending it!