Love these types of videos, I thought I was decent at trade but the way you explained it got me to the next level. I appreciate it and hope you can keep it up!
2 things: 1.) Putting marketplaces in monopolized nodes doesn't technically do nothing, 20% of the provincial trade power there gets propogated one node upstream, so it can be helpful to boost your trade power in a competitive node upstream (though this is rarely too impactful, you're usually much better off focusing on said competitve node). 2.) The +4 trade power investment doesn't give 4 trade power per province, because the province being in a trading company gives it an inherent +100% trade power. So it actually gives +8 per province (before any marketplace bonuses of course).
This is fantastic! I'm never sure what to do with the Ragusa node in my Byzantium games, and this helped a ton in understanding how to treat different nodes.
The Alexandria example is part of why I like taking Estate Monopolies early on. The Mercantilism bonus to Provincial Trading Power is just a nice thing to have to further push your edge. If it costed mana like the normal increase method, it'd be flat out not worth it. But with the cost just being some production income it's not too terrible. That goes especially earlier on where you might not have too many provinces of the same good and may have multiple distinct goods, thus more monopolies to give out. The upfront cash they provide haven't been too great upfront for me, but an extra lil bit of cash to toss at a building or two isn't unwelcome. Same for the estate loyalty at no influence cost.
Agreed. It's not the best estate privilege, so only use it if you have space, but it is good to have. I would just be careful to choose a trade good that you aren't conquering into very much, since it'll give you money only for what you /currently/ have, but you won't get production income from those newly conquered provinces either.
Taking estate monopolies is for me an essential part of snowballing, with cash stockpiled early you are less likely to pay for nothing (interest) getting yourself into debt circle AND mercantilism benefit you since day one + 10 loyality early is a must to be able to gain crownland from seizing estates without long penalties for them being below 30
I did actually already know, but only because of your pseudo end node video way back. The further ideas and conclusions of where to efficiently expand into and build up in this video flow from that automatically.
@@BudgetMonk between your guides and RedHawk's, I am set to have all of the Balkans as Byzantium for the first time. Loving your content, man. Keep it up.
I did the math and you can actually get a minimum autonomy in territories of 0% (only in some provinces, 15% is likely more sustainable). I saw the modifier on a monument in India and couldn't help but look it up on wiki >Hindu USA economic hegemon with full expansionist and the monument in Doaba (Punjab) and Vietnam As soon as I thought of it I wanted to do that campaign but I'm way too impatient to even test it kek
Stacking autonomy reduction is really good. However that is mostly overkill. At a point you are so strong and you would rather ccr or admin efficiency from ideas then autonomy which is simply more money/manpower/force limit.
@@BudgetMonk undoubtedly, I just have a thing for campaigns where the ONLY goal is to stack a specific modifier as much as possible just for the sake of it. I have a txt document with campaign ideas; I was just playing one where you form Mughals as Bukhara while keeping Bukhara ideas, -75% fort maintenence as well as any other fort modifiers you can swing between ideas and monuments. Fortress India. Hindu Monastic Order Ladakh can get -90% maintenance but you're locked to a duchy. I haven't tested all of them yet but Zoroastrian Crusader Livonia should be able to get up to +70% discipline, Tengri Sich Rada Poland +145% cav combat, big number is LITERALLY my fetish.
I forgot this was a thing, I believe I knew about it but because it's not really something you'll see very often outside of super-optimised games I forgot about it. Trade is a surprisingly depth-filled mechanic in EU4 considering the amount of simplification it has (i.e. end nodes existing all trade flowing towards Europe, statically in direction)
Given how virtual means de facto or in form but not in reality, and pseudo means fake as in something appearing to be that way but isn't, they are essentially synonyms
@@tuluppampam They are near synonyms, but virtual also means something with a similar effect of something else, and pseudo has a negative connotation of something trying to deceptively appear as something else. I just think its better not to use negative adjectives for something that's neutral.
Hey Budgetmonk, i actually wanted to suggest a kind of tutorial series for WC from you. You seem like such a god at playing i always wanted to know what you focus on in your Campaigns. Keep em coming
I mean this is what I have been doing since I started playing. It is honestly not that complex and people who say "just collect" dont seem to understand how powerfull trade is. Great tutorial, so that everybody understands (though nothing new for me). You explain it in a really compact way and I was even planning to maybe do such a video myself (because most other tutorials arent as good as this one). Now I dont have to and can stay lazy
"Just collect" is for different cases. let say you have 80% in constantinople node and 100% in aleppo. Best play is to put collect merchant into aleppo instead of collecting in constantinope most of the time, just because the bonus you get from transfering is small
@@carlosdumbratzen6332 Why ? whats the benefit of pushing ? 10% trade power in constantinople or 5% trade steering Both garbage in comparison to losing 20% of the value in aleppo
@@siinuxxblume5123 you have to take into account moving your trade capital and the negative impact collecting outside it has and the fact that constantinople isnt just fueled by Aleppo. In a case where you have 100% in Aleppo you also have to control Alexandria fully. While you might not be able to steer everything from there towards constantinople, you will still increase your income in constantinople. Unless you have basically half of Asia behind Aleppo (at this point however it might be worth asking yourself why you still dont control constantinople fully), this will provide a huge extra percentage of your income. Also we havent even talked about Crimea yet... So in a case where you can put a merchant on all 4 of these tradenodes you have the choice to either collect in Aleppo, Crimea, Alexandria and Constantinople and have your trade capital in Aleppo (losing out on the extra cash from these other nodes) or you would move your trade capital to Constantinople and steer towards it
@@carlosdumbratzen6332 whats the negative impact of collecting outside your trade capital ? You lose trade power there ? Okay you are the only one there. It doesnt make sense to collect in alexandria/crimea, idk why you are suggesting it.
P.S. Additionally to everything mentioned, light ships are VERY nice, with a trade power per ship flagship especially, in a node where you can’t get a big percentage. It pretty much solved my Ragusa problem in my Florence => Roman Empire game
Great video! Some things I'm unsure about that might also be simple in regards to trade. Figure they might be good points to talk about in future videos. Don't think you've covered them yet since I've viewed every video but I also play at the same time so maybe I just missed. 1) What do subjects with divert trade apply to the node? They don't use their merchants right or do they? Does type of subject matter at all? Sometimes I seem to be able to yoink the trade nodes and core them in the middle of subjects and sometimes I can't. Maybe something I don't understand about core range? 2) When peacing out enemies in war, steer trade is always better if you can spare the war score right? Because then you get 100% of their trade power? Do they always steer towards your capital? What are the rules around that? Usually this is just small nations that I don't border yet and don't have the vassal slots. 3) When building manufacturies you should be toward the "beginning" of your trade route right? Because the income continues to get multiplied through each node? Or is it better to build in middle areas like Persia where you might control like 86% of the node to get even more control? 4) Do you have any quick mental math models to determine if a marketplace/trade company + trade/manufactory/workshop is better at any given point? I feel like I am always surprised with how much just 3 well placed manufactories get me. 5) How do lightship/flagship come into play into the money situation? Would it ever be profitable around the 1600s to have like 200 light ships and "dominate" venice with just a single province. Is such a think even possible? Should I be splitting them into multiple fleets? 6) In the mid game around 1530-1600 I have some major struggles with force limit until I get economic hegemon using the trade company nearly everything strategy. On one hand regimental camps help solve this, on the other hand it slows down my economic hegemon. Any tips or things I might be missing on this front? I have a pretty decent save where I played a custom nation -> Mughals just AI stomping with friends. Its about 1600 iirc and on the verge of getting economic hegemon. If it helps I can get it to you as a viewer who tries to implement your guides. Then you might see where the gaps could be in your audience.
Hey BudgetMonk, Would it make sense (since your capital is in Istanbul and on the "Eastern Europe subcontinent") to un-state a province in the Anatolian Region in the Anatolian Charter and establish a TC there? Was thinking strictly for the "goods produced modifier" you would get across the whole region as well as the TC building affecting the whole charter.
@@maras3naraz You can if your capital is in Istanbul (Eastern Europe subcontinent), so long as the state you're TC'ing is on the Anatolia side (Levant subcontinent). If you'd like to see it for yourself, start as the Ottomans and you can do it in 1444.
I would just like to add that you need merchants to steer the flow of trade to your main node. Trade company that owns more than 50% of the province trade power gives a merchant, colonial nation with more than 10 provinces and some wonders and embracing global trade. Its common knowledge and understood, but in my noob days I was struggling to get the merchant count up for securing at least the flow trough most important nodes.
If you control all the trade nodes that a node flows into, you don't need a merchant to make it go there That is also why you want to fully control trade nodes (though I never see someone wanting to do it)
@@tuluppampam Thats only if theres one outgoing direction. If theres two or more and some other merchant steers in the wrong direction, he can take all of it away from you even with small amount of trade power in the node.
@@tuluppampam and to add to what the other guy said, you still want a merchant since they increase the trade value by 5% and that really adds up as you increase the number of nodes you control
Hey BudgetMonk, Nice video and very well explained as always. But Constantinople is a bit "easy" node to use. On the other hand, it's not always as easy to maximise. I did some game in india recently and it's not that simple to build a good strategy, there is too many connections to take acount. (The cap in south africa with colonial nation is like vampire). I would love it if you plan to share your thought on other more complexe starter point ;) (Afriqua, America or Asia) As always thanks for your time and kindness.
Say that your own Coromandel trade node. The key is to expand downstream. by taking the surrounding trade regions you will 100% Bengal and pull into this. At a later date if you are able to take the Cape you now 100% Coromandel.
appreciate the video, although i think it just clarifies why I don't like the trade system in EU4. Best way to trade = bloody military conquest. conquer every single province in a region, as well as the upstream region. military monopoly > peaceful development.
This is exactly the tactic I use when playing any power in the Indian Sub-Continent. With the combination of Production and Taxation, bleeding Trade from Malacca/Molucca, and cutting it all off before the Hormuz and Persia nodes, you can put the Hansa and Netherlands to shame.
Definitely think the Military Hegemon is more valuable than the Economic Hegemon. By the time you're rich enough to become Economic hegemon, you're also making so much money that more money doesn't really do much extra. I'd happily take the extra war score cost reduction, unrest reduction, and late siege ability from the Military one. Still an excellent guide, though. You'll need plenty of money to afford that army for the Military Hegemon.
Is this all worth caring? I remember making calculations, my 100 coins in trade building investment would have returned to me in like 50 years. And it was the best option. I think, I can just build a lot of manpower buildings and conquer more land which will give me a lot of trade and taxes anyway.
Great video. I'm doing a fairly chill Sweden game right now as I just got the DLC, but plan my first WC / OF after that. Planning for Shia Mughals, specifically (for more warscore cost monuments than Hindu, Deus Vult CB, Legalism, etc). I was already thinking wealth first (I was probably undervaluing the min autonomy, but I think force limit buildings are essential to a later military hegemony, and I think that monuments are hugely important). So this just confirmed that taking Persia, India, then going to South-west Africa, is a good way to go. Conveniently, this also lets me assimilate Cushitic culture for an extra missionary earlier. I do have a question, not about general strategy, but about priorities. More or less, how much do you value money? Should I take Trade Ideas early until I have Economic hegemony, then wait until I exceed the hegemony marker by enough to drop Trade ideas, then switch them out? Is that worth it, or is the juice not worth the squeeze?
I've had a crack at a similar run the last couple days (Shia Mughals going for WC/OF) and here's my thoughts (I have also done a Mughal WC in the past but not OF) * Early game you want to go west, first Ajam, then rush QQ, then release Syria and rush the Mamluks so you can block off the Ottomans - this keeps them from getting too big. Block them off in the Caucasus too if you get the chance (I did it by diplo-vassalizing Trebizond). * Integrate Syria fairly early in the game, just after you feed them all their cores back as you want to state all that land and build manpower stuff in there (you should be TCing centres of trade in India for merchants, but don't need to in Aleppo or Astrakhan as the goal is to monopolize Persia). I did this way too late. * Expand into the Astrakhan trade node if possible (Astrakhan as a vassal is a great way to do this), I didn't do it and now I'm suffering in the 1600s as Russia and the Ottomans are stealing my trade power out of Persia. * Don't take Trade ideas, you need Diplomatic ASAP (the 20% warscore cost reduction). Take Diplo and Admin as your first 2 (doesn't really matter which one first as you won't have enough MP to get many ideas before having both open, then Religious 3rd (your mission tree will give you enough claims until then) and Influence 4th (if you want a military group you can take that 4th but I don't think it's necessary) * Don't get sidetracked by the middle branch of your mission tree, the far right one (first mission in it has you taking land from Malwa and Jaunpur) is the most important one as you need to go southward rather than eastward as going that way will get you the Deccan mission earlier. * If you get a foothold in East Africa, then by all means expand there, but I don't think it's entirely necessary beyond the Gulf of Aden and Ethiopian nodes as the rest of Africa won't feed into Persia and thus you're better off going into India in the 1500s and following the mission tree.
@@psychic_beth Definitely India and West is my priority, eventually turning Constantinople into an end node so that I can collect there (though Persia is fine until then). Vassals in the middle East and parts of Europe are definitely the way to go due to greatly reduced AE. My reason for East Africa was to stop Indian trade from being siphoned off, so that it can all go to Persia (and eventually Constantinople). A lot of trade can get pulled if you don't do this. My priorities aren't simply trade. Taking the Horn of Africa gives you missionary bonuses, plus there's some monuments there for more bonuses for Muslims. Then there's Alahambra monument. If I'm near Portugal anyways, I can speak their colonies (not for the money, since I can't take it to Constantinople, but because I'll get 30% their force limit). Getting monuments up and running, increasing force limit, increasing trade control. These are things I can do for the first 2/3 of the game until I get enough unrest modifiers (and other modifiers) that I can expand freely. So Ragusa to India, colonies, monuments, ideas, and East Africa is my first priorities. I agree that trade ideas is probably not necessary.
Doesnt trade power in a node like allepo gives you more income from other nodes like persia? I though I read something like that, if that is true developing trade power there isnt that useless until you conquer it
Would it be worth it for Byzantium to make the state of Smyrna a trade company? (So it could buff the goods produced of the entire node of Constantinople)
Hi, something I'm not too sure about is what I am meant to core if trading companies are necessary to blobbing. When should I consider moving from coring to not coring new provinces? When they're not of my primary culture group/unable to accept their culture? When they're only far from my primary center of my empire? Or should I just core so long as I have gov cap and admin points to spare?
It honestly depends on your situation. Govn rank gives GC so Byz has more GC then most nations due to Empire rank for example. In the case of Byz I would do 100% of Constantinople trade region as states. And more or less Ragusa aswell. Some provinces in Ragusa may take you along time to access, at that stage you might not wish to state it. Other options are territories or a subject that you must transfer trade power from. As far as Aleppo is concerned, when pushing easy. I would try to TC all of it. however you may feel a little weak in terms of FL and manpower. Consider stating the area around Karaman with no trade centers which you will probably obtain sooner and TC the rest later. But honestly have 2 trade regions Rag/Con fully stated is a reasonable amount. I hope this helps you.
Excuse me Mr. Monk, is there a reason for only putting TCs in the trading cities outside of just stating up everything else in the node? Like, what I'm wondering is, say you're at or over governing cap, is there a strong reason to not state *and* not TC a tile? Recently I've been TCing almost everything I can cause well, $$$.
TCs, as monk says in the video, does not give you man power and force limit. So TC'ing everything is not a great strategy. TC the high value trade good provinces as well as trade centers until it gets 51% of the trade power in the node (which will give you a merchant) then state or leave the rest as it is. This way you get both the money and the army.
It is just about Governing capacity. TC is unnecessarily complicated, and very hard to put in simple terms. With that being said. Just TC everything if you have no Government cap issues.
how do i still learn new thing after 400h, i mean, it took me a while to understand trade, bu this video is adding yet a few more detail on how to use them
Half states are temporary while you have no governing capacity issues. They would also only be used in the same subcontinent or else I would just TC under the same assumption that I don't have GC issues.
He means when you’re in the age of absolutism you’ll revoke estate privileges which will lower their influence and your crownland will naturally increase through conquest
It does but it is very hard to hard high CL early while playing wide. My point is that everyone is used to having high CL in the lategame for absolutism.
The pseudo-end node is not as powerful as it used to be. Going into the 1500s, the Europeans' trade power propagates upstream to such an extent that they will steal 10-15% of the trade from your "end node." It doesn't matter if you own the entirety of Ragusa. They will steal most of Ragusa through propagation and that bleeds into Constantinople. The demonstration in 1444 via console commands is not accurate to the player experience.
This is true. The reason why is as your node grows and becomes insanely rich. Nations will view it as the best option for merchants even if it is only 0.3% for example. Combined with trade range increases that more nations gain at a later date. When you have many nations doing this, it will add up. You want to "transfer trade power" through separate peace deals and also even through diplomacy for free. To any nation who will potentially do this. It will often compel them to leave the node entirely as they have such a small piece of the pie. It is about maintaining all the trade that you can until the point at which to competition no longer exists.
i was just wondering about how to conquer the world. Also, has any of you any ideas on what to spend money on? I've got this campaign with brandenburg->prussia->germany where i've conquered half of europe and now in the 1700s i'm getting some colonies in the new world. I'm just so full of money, between eco, trade, the dutch polders etc.. and i'm making 1,3k a month
You're missing the vital step. 1. Make too much money to know what to do with it. 2. Spend it all on going massively over forcelimit (or building forcelimit buildings if you're a weirdo.) 3. Conquer everything. It eventually just becomes a grindy mess of microing a shit tonne of armies and possible coalitions.
@@DanielRBW that"s exactly what i did, in the end i had a 2000k army, comquered the new world, conquered the rest of europe, stole from uk and spain coastlines in guinea and south africa aroud the cape, subsidized 100 to all my colonies so that they could develop a decent economy and actually went out to build forcelimit and manpower buildings for them so that they reached 100 or more divisions. And about money i ended up with 3,600 income (1,800 minus the expenses) and i had 1000k money (wich is max money) for the last 10 years of the game
If I see any Byzantium players that take some sh!tty desert provinces instead of Delta+Benghazi / Aleppo+Damascus in Mamluk peace deal, I know they actually don't understand how EU4 trade works 😐 Also, I found it really annoying since 1.34 AI vassals add themselves to HRE when they are loyal, you no longer can TC their provinces in Eastern Europe while playing Western country like Austria or Italian minor
Yeah. In the past hre provinces could be added in the trade window. People used to exploit this. Now they are incompatible which is kinda hurtful haha.
building a market does do something in a monopolised node. if you are only putting COTs and estuaries into the TC. the market will increase the trade power that the TC controls. if you have built them only in TC provinces. which will increase the % of GP that all the other provinces get. so for teh small cost. they are still well worth
