Market Priorities

I'm just getting round to pondering a bit more deeply on the lamentable state of French foreign trade in Game 8. I've been bootstrapping EH and general organisation/presence up till now - though investing steadily (by my lights) in trade. And it occurred to me to wonder if there is any such thing as a 'priority affect' operating in the game, whereby - if you are an early investor in a market area/product you get the best of the returns (and maybe an incremental build-up over the years?) While late comers get the crumbs? Anybody got any feelings/ideas/hard info??

I don't think this is true, and have seen no evidence of it. I think the more likely issue is that much like Hispania, you have a large and diverse economy, and so even when things are going well, you don't get the growth numbers that some of the smaller less diverse positions get. If things aren't going super well, you can get anemic returns.

My economy has been gangbusters for years, but even with very large investments each year, it's growth, while very good, isn't eye popping. But I work to spread my investments around.

One of the things I do know (or think I do), is that if others invest a fair bit in your areas, your returns are much worse. I also have a fair bit of economic technology which I think just adds to that effect of strengthening what investments return.

I think the way you get really crazy high growth is to bet the farm on certain markets that are under-served, or be the first in. The downside is that if people catch up to you and over invest in that market, your returns will crater.

Personally, I'd rather have good solid diverse returns and know that I am much safer from someone attacking my economy by going after my one key market.

well,

i'm having fun diving into the argument in those days. I handle Russia in G9 and of course Russian economy is quite the opposite of France.

Of course what Deacon says make perfect sense. Volume and diversity of french trade is so huge (and trade areas are so huge too) that it is hard to say wich single action could affect more the event. Should be possible anyway to identify some actions useful to "support" the EH stable growth.
If i might waste some of your precious time here is what i've been coming at.

Trade in 18th C. is mercantilism, but not only.

first of all. Who owns the money?

Nobles have money, but are more prone to invest in land, wich generates little revenue for the state (well, of course it is something out of wich you can assume to "extract" some of your noble taxes).
If you are lucky enought, they are also prone to invest in increasing land revenue.

Bourgeoise have/borrow money from bankers (Do you have a state bank that provides funds for them at a little lower rate that private bankers, as to provide them money to invest and keep calm private bankers from exceeding in loan interests?).
Once they had the money, they will set up trade lines, internal and overseas.

Internal, well you are France THEREFORE you have very good roads and canals. Trade fair helps products exchange and knowelde extange, and provides redistribution and sellout of goods and gold. But gold remains into France.

Overseas. This depends from the goods.

We have 2 separate kinds of goods.

A) Finished imported materials. Those are materials indispensable that require little or no technology from France to achieve. An example is Tea & Porcelain from China. The goods inflow is balanced by gold outflow. This is probably not good for EH, while nobles are happy to have silk, tea, porcelain, etc.. which consent them to show how rich they are.

B) Raw materials. You want to use them to produce goods that you will use (i.e. your gold flows into merchant bags, while you acquire good texile for uniform, good wood for ships, etc etc. etc.)
OR
You use them to craft valuable materials, like Furniture, weapons etc, that other nations want to buy (gold comes inflow, EH grow)
OR
You are the one selling it in Europe (like gold or cacao for Spain, or whatever exclusive products you can find in your colonies). Then you buy it at 1 and sell it at 100 and your RH grows rocket-like.

Taxation.
Taxation of trade cause 2 situations, you earn money, you reduce EH.
BUT
taxation (or better detaxation) could drive tradelines towards where you want to develop. For example, Russia wanted (historically) to increase trade in Siberia, to divert gold from Persia and central Asia and enrich those territories (who were really low on population). Then Armenian and Baschirian traders (who traded in Samarkand) were allowed total tax exemption in trade fairs of Astrakhan, Kazan and Tomsk. This helped develop the Siberian trade route and enriched russia.

last, two words on location.

You want to be present in the channel sea, and you want that all UK and UDP and as many german nations as possible to be there. A lot of merchants there, a lot of opportunities, and you can buy cheaper and sell to so many customers.
You want to be the exclusivist were you gather your raw materials.
You do not want to have somebody standing in your doorway, tacking benefits of your trade investment and "intermediating" your trade.

In the end, two words on developing opportunities. I suggest dive deep in what merchant need to pump gold into your nation. Do they have magazines were to store goods, and wait for the moment the good to acquire is cheaper (or able to sell it at the pike of price). Do they have ships & carts to carry goods? do they have offices? are they protected? etc. etc.

Hope not to be useless at all. thaks for reading it.

Thanks for writing that Nexus. I think that's a very useful post, and definitely something to think about for all players.

Mercantilism a Theory:-


1. That much as possible of a country be used for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
2. That all raw materials found in a country be used in local manufacture, because finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
3. A large, population is required , to fuel the economy workforce & build strong military
4. All export of bullion should be prohibited
5. Imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible to encourage local production
6. When importation of goods are necessary they should be obtained as cheaply as possible,& then only in exchange for other domestic goods instead of bullion
7. That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that are required to make finished goods for export.
8. Maximise opportunities to sell a nations surpluses & manufactured goods to foreigners, whenever possible for bullion.
9. No importation be allowed of goods goods are sufficiently and available at home.

Ideas for Implementation

1. Forbid colonies to trade with other nations traders,
2. Grant monopolies to certain goods/ Merchants/ Regions
3. Use “Staple Ports”, Merchants passing through a port/ city must display their goods for sale for a specified time, usually a couple of days,(Merchants can pay a fee to avoid this.)
4. Forbid the export of Bullion.
5. Ban carrying of trade on foreign shipping:- Navigations acts?
6. Give subsidies to exports & Tariffs on imports of finished goods.
7. Support Trade & Industry with research & subsidies.
8. Maximise the use of resources at your disposal.
9. Ban import of Finished goods that directly compete with those of the home market.

Just thought this may help people as well, Main draw back with this theory is that everyone wants to Export & No one wants to import finished goods.

Great Post JF, that is exactly what Colbert made for France (just add texile manifactures).

Obvious to say, but since we are in topic, the performance of your market activity will not be tracked by HH, but YoY groth on trade revenues.

J Flower wrote:Mercantilism a Theory:-


1. That  much as possible of a country be used for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
2. That all raw materials found in a country be used in local manufacture, because finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
3.  A large,  population is required , to fuel the economy workforce & build strong military
4.  All export of bullion should be prohibited
5. Imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible to encourage local production
6. When   importation of goods are necessary  they should be obtained as cheaply as possible,& then only in exchange for other domestic goods instead of bullion
7. That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that are required to make finished goods for export.
8. Maximise opportunities to sell a nations surpluses & manufactured goods to foreigners, whenever possible for bullion.
9. No importation be allowed of goods  goods are sufficiently and available at home.

Ideas for Implementation

1. Forbid  colonies to trade with other nations traders,
2. Grant monopolies to certain goods/ Merchants/ Regions
3. Use “Staple Ports”, Merchants passing through a port/ city must display their goods for sale for a specified time, usually a couple of days,(Merchants can pay a fee to avoid this.)
4. Forbid the export of Bullion.
5. Ban carrying of trade on foreign shipping:- Navigations acts?
6. Give subsidies to exports & Tariffs on imports of finished goods.
7. Support Trade & Industry with research & subsidies.
8. Maximise the use of resources at your disposal.
9. Ban import of Finished goods that directly compete with those of the home market.

Just thought this may help people as well, Main draw back with this theory is that everyone wants to Export & No one wants to import finished goods.

Would like to point out that in G10 Spain has taken a stand against the nasty French economic theories above which in the view of the Spanish Govt lead to economic ineffeciency and a reduction in trade/wealth and has declared itself a champion of the rival FREE TRADE theory.  Madrid's thinking on this issue is

-  If you go around banning merchants it will probably lead to bad feeling, piracy and smuggling which reduces Government tax revenue. If you offer merchants a good harbour, a quality glass of wine & a good steak in a nice brothel, plus the chance to rapidly sale his cargo and buy a new one on a nice exchange for a small 5% duty most of them are not going to bother with trying to smuggle into a mangrove swamp somewhere on the Spanish Main.

- Colonies and Industries need to bring in raw materials and business equipment and export their products......who carries them is not a issue.  If a copper miner needs spades, spades etc to work his mine and a Dutch Merchant can supply them and ship a load of copper  today and a rival Spanish Merchant in three months.......well the "Labourer is worth his hire" and "get that copper moving"!

- x3 shipments at 50/50 gives more profit than one at 100%

- "Monopoly" positions cause merchants and Industries to get fat and lazy.  They need the incentive of free and fair trade to develop, train workers and look to improve their products and customer service etc.

- "Bullion" is only metal.  Rather than being moved from one hole to another it needs to go to skilled Craftmen to be turned into silver candlesticks and alter plates for our Churches, Silver spurs and snuff boxes for Gentlemen and Jewellery for the the fair ladies of Spain.  Also turned into lots and lots of really nice coins minted with the handsome profile of Charles von Hapsburg........acceptable from Dundee to Canton and used to oil the wheels of trade.

It probably should be pointed out that in G10 Spain does give its merchants a slight edge in home markets by having lower tax rates on own subjects than foreigners (but its fairly relaxed about say Dutch merchants who claim a Flanders Granny).  It will also seek to protect its mechants against unfair treatment so Spain and France now have a 50% tarriff on each other.  

But the good news is that on recent trade reports the lovable, friendly free trading Spanish have been ahead of their evil, mercantilist English & French rivals  

Small point of Order Stuart your not playing Spain in G 10 yet, I know you want to get your man on the throne, but maybe that won't happen till the next game turn.

Also I can agree with your point on Free trade, however Historically it is the Mercantile theory that is being used in, so it is probably in game what your merchants accept as "Modern Economic Practice in 1700."

Both systems have their pros & cons.

Maybe a mixture of the two methods is the way forward, Protectionism is something the Dutch for example didn't go in for, Historically they were advocates of free trade, so you can also argue that both systems run a parallel course.

Even in the modern environment there are still quotas & Non- Tariff Barriers in place, so that one could say Mercantile theory is slowly going but the door hasn't completely been closed on it yet.

J Flower wrote:Small point of Order Stuart your not playing Spain in G 10 yet, I know you want to get your man on the throne, but maybe that won't happen till the next game turn.

Also I can agree with your point on Free trade, however Historically it is the Mercantile theory that is being used in, so it is probably in game what your merchants accept as "Modern Economic Practice in 1700."  

Both systems have their pros & cons.

Maybe a mixture of the two methods is the way forward, Protectionism is something the Dutch for example didn't go in for, Historically they were advocates of free trade, so you can also argue that both systems run a parallel course.

Even in the modern environment there are still quotas & Non- Tariff Barriers in place, so that one could say Mercantile theory is slowly going but the door hasn't completely been closed on it yet.

Damn........yes I did mean G7 not G10. I think the current Spanish Govt in G10 has got more to worry about than a new fangled economic theory.

Historically, Mercantilism or Colbertism was a new cutting edge economic theory in 1700 and can perhaps be viewed as the economic equal of absolutism which is also associated with Louis XIV France. It is this association of Mercantilism & Absolutism with Louis XIV France which has caused Hapsburg Spain in G7 to take a position that its against all these new fangled French ways of doing things and is for defending tradition, customs & Spanish values.

This may not be strictly true since Mercantilism/Colbertism is actually not so much a brand new Economic theory as a write up and standardization of many practices which were already practiced by many countries including Spain.

For example France, Spain, England and the Dutch as well has many others had all sold sole control of certain goods or trade areas to single merchants or groups of merchants for centuries before Colbert. Classic examples would include the French Tobacco and Salt monoply, the English HWIC & HEIC, the Spanish Asciento Corporation and their Dutch rivals. But prior to Colbert the sale of a monopoly to produce something or trade in an area was viewed as a way to raise cash for the Govt rather than as a theory.

The English Navigation acts are even closer to Colbert's theory but were adopted not out of a theory but out of a pragmatic concern to secure enough English Flagged ships and English sailors to serve the Crown in Time of War.

The other way of doing things and one which still dominated Ottoman & Persian thinking in 1700 was to encourage all merchants and trade no metter were it came from. This had two main reasons: 1) Trade or rather the tax paid by merchants and caravans in transit was seen as a vital source of Govt revenue and 2) Lots of merchants and goods in the market place ment no shortages and lower prices which in turn resulted in lower levels of unrest and a happy population.

Not sure were I would put the Dutch in all this in some area's esp the Spice trade they could be very strongly mercamtilist. But coming from a small country with very limited raw materials they also needed to trade to survive and much of that trade included services like shipping which was the target of English & French Navigation acts.

Lots of interesting info and answers, prompting a further question:as to what works best in game (i.e. what Richard applies as pros and cons to trade). If you use the appropriate economic theory for your nation at the period, does that benefit your trade (even though in practice the theory might not have worked so well)? Or does applying a non-historical, but practically effective, approach bring the better benefits?

The Real Louis wrote:Lots of interesting info and answers, prompting a further question:as to what works best in game (i.e. what Richard applies as pros and cons to trade).  If you use the appropriate economic theory for your nation at the period, does that benefit your trade (even though in practice the theory might not have worked so well)?  Or does applying a non-historical, but practically effective, approach bring the better benefits?

That is a very interesting question. I would like to try an answere.

First of all 18th century is not only a beautifull period for military and philosophical matters, but also home of the new “world”economy. Is the century that shaped our world as we know it now. Therefore, tGoK promise not only to be a sound and beautifull diplomatic and wargame, but also a very inteesting simulation of the modern economy. It would be interesting to explore this at the head of a trade company, or a syndac of a trade town like Hamburg or Genoa.

Coming to your question, i think Richard do consider economic environment. I tend do start by imagining that a world trade environment exist, and simulation are conducted to integrate into a mainstream the various actions that players and npc provides. Those probably are reflected into product prices, wich affects trade value.

Parallel to that is what is usefull for a nation.

Spain for example starts with huge gold and silver revenue, but a poor transformation industry. France and England has them. UDP is not all that manufacturer, but is able to move goods from east to west easily.

So Spain wants nobody to trade with their colonies, because shat spain has to offer is the unique ability to bring a lot of gold from europe. While udp colonies has less this problem, because thei are mainly trade post. France and england needs raw materials in order to transform them into finished products. Mercantilism is good, because it protect manifactures from foreign competitors, and push foward the benefit of productive and trade monopoly (navigation act for example). But the same mercantilism would be negative for udp and a problem for spain.

You could go against history, and for example try to implement manifacture in spain, and therefore allow more degrees of freedom in the colonies. It would take years to work, but you woulden’t suffer spanish weakness in the long term.

So i think it quite the same as war.

Sweden for example could make war to russia, or cede a couple of provinces and survive as a regional power and explore becoming a trade/colonist nation.

In the period we look to play Absolutism is the direction most monarchies have taken their Nations & with it their economies, the "Control factor" is everything all stemming from the one person at the top, the same can be said for trade as for the military, most funding comes from the Monarchy/ Government & this fits in with the real politics of the game( Especially as we are mostly single player positions, so De facto Absolutist rulers)

The theory put forward on Trade was only a theory, in practice it may have been implemented to fit the situation & circumstances.

Simple in game things like having taxes on foreigners higher than taxes on your Commoners(  or group that contains most merchants as well?) is a form of Protectionism,.

Having a large Bullion reserve allows paper money which also promotes wealth, something that got out of control in France.

As to economics in game, I think like the honour score there is a framework in place but we probably most of us will struggle to understand it. My personal guess is that every trade area has a certain  "pool" of money that can be collected from it, by making a trade investment in the area you get a part of this pool, how much depends on the amount you invest, time of year of the investment, & the goods you propose to trade, geography may also come into play with distance to market having an effect but I am not as sure about that. If other countries also invest then they take a part of this initial pool of money as well when the starting pool is empty then future investments start to take market share from other countries investments, this may especially be true if you all trade in the same goods type.

There are of course other factors, including wars & famines which will effect matters, as well as the Economic Health of the various importers & exporters, so there is no straight line answer as to the best Trading practice. If you do have an odddleplex of taxes & tariffs, it make your customs officials complain            ( probably because it makes Richards job harder) & may also encourage smuggling by those nations merchants who are suffering from higher taxes, this may not even be player driven but simply an in game mechanism, as seen by officials saying it is hard to differentiate between various nations merchants.  

Trading Nations Like Venice ,The Dutch&Portugal basically just want to haul goods from point A-B, so are against too many taxes at the port of destination, all are however were willing to grant monopolies to help protect their own merchants trade interests.

I suppose you can equate your trade policy as which ever method brings in the most gold for the monarchy, no matter which way you get the gold, Bullion is probably just a way of keeping score amongst the heads of government, so how do you do this & stop the other nasty son of a mother getting his hands on the money which of course rightly belongs to you.

Also we should see that trade was an extension of or rather used to fuel the expansion of the military power of each nation, the more money available the more troops/ships you can raise /hire, UDP is a prime example of this it relied on being able to get troops from various sources & using it's trading power to fund them. England could also be said to have fought wars by Proxy, sending various subsidies to it's allies & partners to help them continue the fight.

I suspect if you ask your advisor's for help, you will get given what to them is the current trend in Economic practice; maybe setting up an academy to study "Modern" Economics would open new vistas for players in game, even during the 18th century there were critics of this method, as Stuarts post above clearly points out.
It probably favours a large country with large resources & Colonies with raw resources to follow the principles as laid out above, but may not work so well for countries that are operating from a narrower base to start with.

J Flower wrote:In the period we look to play Absolutism is the direction most monarchies have taken their Nations & with it their economies, the "Control factor" is everything all stemming from the one person at the top, the same can be said for trade as for the military, most funding comes from the Monarchy/ Government & this fits in with the real politics of the game( Especially as we are mostly single player positions, so De facto Absolutist rulers)

The theory put forward on Trade was only a theory, in practice it may have been implemented to fit the situation & circumstances.

Simple in game things like having taxes on foreigners higher than taxes on your Commoners(  or group that contains most merchants as well?) is a form of Protectionism,.

Having a large Bullion reserve allows paper money which also promotes wealth, something that got out of control in France.

As to economics in game, I think like the honour score there is a framework in place but we probably most of us will struggle to understand it. My personal guess is that every trade area has a certain  "pool" of money that can be collected from it, by making a trade investment in the area you get a part of this pool, how much depends on the amount you invest, time of year of the investment, & the goods you propose to trade, geography may also come into play with distance to market having an effect but I am not as sure about that. If other countries also invest then they take a part of this initial pool of money as well when the starting pool is empty then future investments start to take market share from other countries investments, this may especially be true if you all trade in the same goods type.

There are of course other factors, including wars & famines which will effect matters, as well as the Economic Health of the various importers & exporters, so there is no straight line answer as to the best Trading practice. If you do have an odddleplex of taxes & tariffs, it make your customs officials complain            ( probably because it makes Richards job harder) & may also encourage smuggling by those nations merchants who are suffering from higher taxes, this may not even be player driven but simply an in game mechanism, as seen by officials saying it is hard to differentiate between various nations merchants.  

Trading Nations Like Venice ,The Dutch&Portugal basically just want to haul goods from point A-B, so are against too many taxes at the port of destination, all are however were willing to grant monopolies to help protect their own merchants trade interests.

I suppose you can equate your trade policy as which ever method brings in the most gold for the monarchy, no matter which way you get the gold, Bullion is probably just a way of keeping score amongst the heads of government, so how do you do this & stop the other nasty son of a mother getting his hands on the money which of course rightly belongs to you.

Also we should see that trade was an extension of or rather used to fuel the expansion of the military power of each nation, the more money available the more troops/ships you can raise /hire, UDP is a prime example of this it relied on being able to get troops from various sources & using it's trading power to fund them. England could also be said to have fought wars by Proxy, sending various subsidies to it's allies & partners to help them continue the fight.

I suspect if you ask your advisor's for help, you will get given what to them is the current trend in Economic practice; maybe setting up an academy to study "Modern" Economics would open new vistas for players in game, even during the 18th century there were critics of this method, as Stuarts post above clearly points out.
It probably favours a large country with large resources & Colonies with raw resources to follow the principles as laid out above, but may not work so well for countries that are operating from a narrower base to start with.

J you are absolutely right. I just want to point out that my impression is that the polls value is dynamic, depending on trades investments, hh of involved areas, and other actions in place. Dis could somehow disrupt the economic theory of that age's efficacy. I agree that ministers will respond with respect of their personal belief and interests.

I guess it is a one size fits nobody solution.

If you keep track of the trade investments you make, you can make a rough prediction of returns you expect to receive, however it is no hard & fast rule, there are a lot of contributing factors that as an individual player are out of your control.

I think Some Nations may also have a trade benefit factor calculated in +/- to reflect historical position, I think( Dangerous I know) that UDP gets a + to trade, this may reflect the historical founding of a good financial system prior to game begin, this may also be true of England & Venice.

Spain may suffer from a weaker economy due to all the Bullion that was historically imported as this did cause inflationary pressure to effect Spain, although I am not 100% sure this in reflected in game.

You probably know your doing well in trade when your trade income starts to outstrip your taxation income, especially with the Nations with the larger populations.

While Mercantilism gets a lot of attention, I'd point out that early free trade thinkers were also around in period. While we're a bit early for Adam Smith at game start, wikipedia credits a 16th century Spanish thinker for the first thoughts on the subject: Wikipedia Free Trade Entry

In game 8, since I began the game I have held a policy for open ports and relatively free trade. I kept the posture as the position grew into Hispania. I have retaliated twice against other positions whose trade policies impacted mine. Otherwise, my publicly stated position is that if your ports and markets are open to our traders, ours are open to yours. In that game, I’ve viewed trade policy as an extension of foreign policy. Start out friendly, and close the trade door only on those whose actions warrant it.

I've had very good results with this approach. (Though, of course, many other factors are at play, etc, etc.)

Thinking about trade policy as an extension of foreign policy, I'd also point out I think that mercantilism to me is an inherently aggressive trade posture, or at least a deeply suspicious one. You start by denying people things, and maybe at some point will grant trade concessions. But how can other players evaluate the value of the trade concession you're offering without a track record on that trade? Hard to miss what you’ve never had.

I've had much better success across my games with taking things away from players I think have wronged me rather than holding trade back with the thought I might trade more with folks later.

I do think that the pool of money/opportunity is limited in various markets and goods in some way. So over-investment in certain goods can be wasted, and competition in goods and markets reduces profits. So betting large on single commodities can be very profitable, but puts your whole economy at risk if others start competing in that good.

I have, in game 8, developed quite a lot of manufacturing (I think), as Spain/Portugal. I have very deliberately not tried to focus too much on mining gold and silver. Historically, those could cause pretty nasty inflation. If you mint a lot more gold coins, but there are no more goods in the economy for people to buy, the extra gold doesn’t help much.

I do think that my income may not have grown as much as if I'd done the easy/quick road of depending upon new world gold that Spain and Portugal historically took. But I think I have a much more robust and sustainable economy as a result, so I'm fine with that. The economy in game 8 has been so great, it is hard to know how much of that is in my control though.

All that said, I think that as players we can be prone to overthink this kind of thing. Richard is very smart to hide the detail of the economic model because it makes it all mysterious (which it should be), and to seem much more complex than it probably actually is. But I think if you’re doing clear and consistent things to improve your economy, you’ll generally do fine.

Apart from which trade pattern provides your Government with the most money the other question's to keep in mind are:

1) If I adopt a hardline mercantile policy inc Navigation acts and the like who am I going to annoy?  

2) Do I care?

If you are playing England or France and enforce or pass acts which limit trade with your colonies to Ships of your Nation only the answer is:

1) Some Johonny foreigners and some ex convicts

2) No & No

But if you are running Spain or Sweden and you could soon be faced with a crisis do you really want to annoy major trading partners and large chunks of your own population?????

Alternatively you can turn the question on its head and ask which part of your population you will keep happy by passing navigation acts or by allowing free trade?  Using Sweden for example if you pass a navigation act which says all goods going too and from the Baltic Provinces & Finland must go via the Stockholm exchange & must be carried in Swedish ships this is clearly going to advantage Swedish shippers and merchants while putting up costs and lowering prices for landowners in the Baltic provinces and their hinterland.

And who provides the Officers or the Swedish Army plus most of your courtiers? Landowners? Or Merchants?

Of course to properly enforce Swedish control of Baltic Trade and stop people just going elsewhere for the timber, saltpetre, flax, hemp, grain etc you will also need to take Danzig and establish control of the sound.  Do this and use you ability to make tax foeigners to reduce taxes on Nobles and the Church and they will probably forgive you. (But will the Czar etc?)

Playing the Hapsburg Spanish faction while another player ran the Bourbon faction on the Royal Council we had a porposal from France that we allow French & Spanish merchants access to each others colonies but ban everyone else in an attempt to corner the market in various colonial products:D .  The problem with this from my point of view is that it would have ment that a English bombardment of Spanish ports would only hit French &  Spanish ships and trade missions.

If someone is going to bombard or blockade a port of mine I want them hitting as many different people a possible!  Think headlines like Russian Fleet bombards Riga 8 Dutch, 5 French, 3 Spanish, 7 English & 12 Swedish ships sunk and Austrian Trade mission destroyed looks so much nicer than Russian Fleet bombard Riga and sinks 20 Swedish ships.

In game 8, I implemented a version of the navigation acts with zero apparent impact to me - no noble complaints or honour impact, nor any to impact to EH.

Since England closed all ports except London to our traders, I closed all ports except Lisbon and Cadiz to them. I got the impression from the then English player that the impact had been noticed by them, but have nothing other than that.

I think that we as players, looking at history, tend to know all the nuances of different nations and how they're all different. I think, in-game, that most of these differences in economics don't exist because of the level of abstraction of the game.

I suspect that if you play those differences up and address them that Richard will give you some credit for them in the game, but they aren't inherent. I remember reading one of the books on Portugal that talked about how taxation worked. It made my head hurt to imagine trying to simulate that. Never mind trying to do it with all the nations in the game!

I think the abstraction lends itself to the very concept of alternate history. You have more choices in how to approach developing your national economy than you might have had historically.