What's this about merchants working together to monopolize resources?

[PhoenixFury23]

I've heard reference to it, and it's mentioned in the manual, but no one every explains how exactly this is done and to what effect it achieves, or if it's just a figure of speech.

Ie: Does it drive up the price of goods if you control all of them in a region, and how big is this region?

Ie: Is there some way that you can protect merchants by having other merchants near them, or maybe spies and assassins? Some kind of teamwork that can be employed by putting them all in a fort over the resource in question?

[PhoenixFury23]

Another question about trade in general: Do you lose anything by not having other factions to trade with as opposed to simply owning the two trading settlements outright and not only getting their trade money but taxes too?

The original medieval was wierd in that sea trade only worked with other factions, so if you controlled all of the ports in the land you were actually disadvantaged by not being able to trade as well with yourself...

[leplep]

sorry i cant answer all your questions but once you have a "monoploy" your merchant gains a market controller or monoplist trait. it gives them higher finance +1 +2 or +3 which in return gives you more income off them. Im not really sure how to get it but normally if ur merchant controlls a resource and it not moved off it by you or another merchant for atleast 10 turns or so you will get the most basic trait of it (+1) and the longer you stay there they higher the trait.

Also i think once your merchant has the trait they can change resource and they still have it?? if that makes sense

[Conquistatore]

Your merchants form a monopoly of they control all the resources of that type in the region. So if a region has 2 wine resources and your merchants control both, they should both get the monopolist trait eventually.

Protecting merchants with forts is considered an exploit by most of the community, but it can be done. (Not sure how)

You lose 'unearned revenue', meaning you could be makng more florins by trading with other empires but if you aren't then you aren't losing money, you are just not earning as much as you could be.

Trade and taxes are seperate

[PhoenixFury23]

Protecting merchants with forts is considered an exploit by most of the community, but it can be done. (Not sure how)

I'm sure that putting merchants in forts to get multiple gold per turn off one resource is an exploit, but I wonder if they did not intend for fortifying of resources to be a strategic part of the economic game representing little merchant outposts where the merchants can be protected by armies, spies, and assassins.

Or maybe not. But if so, why haven't they patched it out?

You lose 'unearned revenue', meaning you could be makng more florins by trading with other empires but if you aren't then you aren't losing money, you are just not earning as much as you could be.

Trade and taxes are seperate

This is what I never understood about the original medieval total war, but which does not seem to be an issue in rome total war - The former seems to penalize you for conquest by assuming that no interprovince trade takes place that you can benefit from, assuming that trade only happens between foriegn entities and is not an internal function.

In reality, the benefits of owning political power over two trading entities is that you don't just get to put taxes on goods traded, but you then get to tax both parties involved for the profit they made off the trade.

In medieval, owning all the coastal cities meant you shut off trade, unrealistically.
In Rome, however, trade takes place between cities you own, so if you own both links in the chain then you gain double benefit from the trade - The trade bonus never disappears just because the owner of one city changed hands.

I can't yet tell how medieval 2 functions with regards to this.

[PhoenixFury23]

And you know, realistically, trade rights should be required before merchants can move in to operate in a land - It's not the kind of thing you can really do secretly.

Many wars have been fought over the issue of trade rights, the right for merchants to exploit natural resources in given provinces - Yet in this game trade rights are something to be given away freely and without thought, with no downside.

In fact, trade rights are something you should be able to either earn through being close allies, or force as a demand in exchange for not acting on a threat or granting a ceasefire.

You should be able to demand exclusive trade rights with a region if you bully them enough, letting your merchants operate freely there in competition only with the locals.

But there is also the issue of assassins and merchants that confuses me, because it's infinitely easier to simply assassinate a merchant than it is to try and use another merchant to dispose of him.
So easy in fact, that it's a wonder the computer doesn't use them, probably because if they did you'd never get anywhere with your merchants even in your own territory because you've got no way to protect them (unlike generals and cities, who can be protected by surrounding them with spies).

This is why I think it would make sense if fortifying resources was a way of establishing hard control over them, something you could actually protect to some degree, thus necessitating people to go to war to destroy these strongholds and wrest control of the resources for themselves.

[Surgeon]

Or maybe not. But if so, why haven't they patched it out?

They have.

[PhoenixFury23]

So then, can you still place a fort on a resource to protect your merchant from assassination at least with spies inside?

[Conquistatore]

Pretty sure you can't get merchants inside forts anymore. I haven't tried it, maybe you should.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

The trade fort can't no longer be build in Kingdoms.

You don't need to have merchants on both resources to gain the monopoly trait. If you have a merchant on one resource and the other is empty you still will gain the trait.

[PhoenixFury23]

Back when you could do trade forts, could putting multiple merchants in there mean that they offer protection to each other if another merchant tries to come "kill" them?
Kind of how multiple spies in a settlement decrease chances of other spies being successful?

I'm also trying to figure out how I'm suppose to protect my merchants from simple assassination, which is much easier to pull off.

[Conquistatore]

You couldn't actually get at merchants that were in the forts, unless you took the fort.

The only way to protect your merchants from assassins is to get their finance ranking to the maximum level asap. Merchants that have high financial skills will be less susceptible to assassination.

[PhoenixFury23]

You couldn't actually get at merchants that were in the forts, unless you took the fort.

The only way to protect your merchants from assassins is to get their finance ranking to the maximum level asap. Merchants that have high financial skills will be less susceptible to assassination.

Intentional or not, it makes more sense to be able to fortify your trade points and force military intervention in order to take resources from others. Rather than remove it, they should have expanded on it.

[Jianadaren]

Intentional or not, it makes more sense to be able to fortify your trade points and force military intervention in order to take resources from others. Rather than remove it, they should have expanded on it.

Yes, protecting trade via force is totally legit and should be part of the game. The problem was that you could put multiple merchants on the same resource. The amount of money that a resource could generate should be independent of the number of merchants trading it (i.e. if one merchant is exploiting 5 units of fish, he shouldn't make any more money than if 100 merchants were exploiting it, because the amount of fish remains unchanged.)

You lose 'unearned revenue', meaning you could be makng more florins by trading with other empires but if you aren't then you aren't losing money, you are just not earning as much as you could be.

This simply isn't true. The way trade works is that each settlement trades with every other settlement provided that a) the two settlements are connected via roads or ports AND b) they are allowed to trade with each other (i.e. the settlements' respective factions are not at war with each other, have established trade rights, etc.). And as settlements trade goods, each participating trade member benefits. The exporter earns income, and the importer earns the good, which it otherwise could not have, or at least could not have as cheaply (for proof, refer to David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage). In this way, the economies of each individual settlement are improved when trade options are maximized. So, if you own all the settlements, then there are no trade barriers, and your faction benefits from all benefits of trade.

For example take the settlements of Rome and Genoa. If the Papal States and Milan are at war, then Rome and Genoa will not trade, and both cities' incomes will suffer. However, if the Papal States and Milan have trade rights, then they will trade with each other and they will split the benefits of trade (not necessarily evenly). A third possible scenario is that the Papal States invades Genoa and takes it over. Now Rome and Genoa will trade with each other, but all the benefits of the trade will go to the Papal States.

However, the way the game works is stupid, because trade in itself does not improve the coffers of the state. What happens is that trade increases incomes all around, and then those increased incomes are taxed and thus the state benefits indirectly. Realistically, there shouldn't be any farming or trade income going directly to the King, only tax income. But Tax income would increase relative to increases in farming output and trade. They would thus make the Government richer, but indirectly.

[Conquistatore]

My statement was true with regards to NOT trading at all with other empires. It does not apply when you ARE trading.

[Pink Beard]

o.O my merchants do get the monopolist trait even when there are 2 others dealing the same stuff -_-

must be some sort of illegal smuggler operation...

[Monsieur Alphonse]

o.O my merchants do get the monopolist trait even when there are 2 others dealing the same stuff -_-

must be some sort of illegal smuggler operation...

Are they in the same region? You only have to monopolize the resources in a region, which means that you are the only one trading it, to gain the trait. Other merchants in different regions do trade the same stuff doesn't matter.

[Conquistatore]

A cartel!

[Old Geezer]

In Kingdoms you can (unless there has been a patch since I last played in September) stack merchants with a general who is sitting on a resource. So once you get to Timbuktu and take over all you need is a reliable general (or just any military unit iirc). I did once lose a stack doing this when the unit rebelled, but such is highly unlikely if your king has very high dread or very high chivalry. This is a very despicable cheat and should not be used by anyone under the age of 62 as doing so could so damage your character that you might be fit to become a politician or a banker.

[Pink Beard]

In Kingdoms you can (unless there has been a patch since I last played in September) stack merchants with a general who is sitting on a resource. So once you get to Timbuktu and take over all you need is a reliable general (or just any military unit iirc). I did once lose a stack doing this when the unit rebelled, but such is highly unlikely if your king has very high dread or very high chivalry. This is a very despicable cheat and should not be used by anyone under the age of 62 as doing so could so damage your character that you might be fit to become a politician or a banker.

lol!

first thing: There's no Timbuktu in Kingdoms (Or am I missing the spanish reconquista somewhere? )

second: A king with high dread/chivalry is no better then no chivalry/dread in terms of leadingship and preventing rebellions. It's Authority that makes generals rebel (or not)