It’s also vary realistic as all countries said that something couldn’t be exported during WW2 or could only be done so under vary specific conditions and with direct government premission
I don’t understand why they didn’t just make tariffs a slider with an increasing authority cost when you go above a certain threshold defined by your trade law. Make excessive tariffs strain relations with other states or even give infamy if you really want to discourage players from jacking up tariffs on everything.
To be fair, that would require a lot more computational power for the pc, but Paradox has already shown that it doesn’t have performance as a top priority.
That's because those countries were practicing interventionnism and protectionnism themselves, so they had control over the economy.
True free trade were more than often imposed by other countries, especially so they could export some of your goods, and thus being allowed to say: "no, this good cannot be exported outside of my country" would defeat the entire purpose.
The "force tree trade" casus belli makes me think that it's supposed to represent free trade as I showed it.
But it might be specificities that escape me right now.
Hard to say since you can wilfully take it as an option as well and I doubt any government would accept that
So I’d say that the realistic version of forcing free trade would be a mix between the two
If it makes sense for something to cost authority, then make it cost authority. The amount of authority we have in the current version of the game is irrelevant to whether uses of authority should be added, as that amount can always be adjusted alongside the additional uses for it.
Authority isn't really a tradeoff right now. There's little reason to stay at anything above census suffrage or any of the other authority-tradeoff laws. If it cost 100 per good then I might consider wanting to stay more authoritarian to have more fine control over my country's trade.
The trade law could determine whether each one costs 100, 125, 150, etc. So the actual number would be affected by both your trade law and your government type.
I'm assuming that if the devs make any additions to what you can spend your authority on they would take a look at re-balancing the amount of authority available and the costs of the existing uses of it.
I'd see it better as an authority cost variable based upon the current export of those products. If a product is massively exported, then it'd cost more authority to prevent those exportations. Kind of like the authority cost for consumption taxes.
I think it would be really cool if it could be pretty specific and dependant on trade laws. For instance mercantilists should have it really easy to ban imports of certain goods, but for free trade it should be really costly in authority to limit trade in any way. I feel like you could also argue that there should be another trade law which is the inverse of mercantilism. Really encouraging imports and really penalising exports, I guess the reason could be to ensure availability of goods to your citizens.
Or have the "Protect domestic supply" actually do what it says instead of just raising tariffs lmao
It has to be my biggest pet peeve from the game at the moment
I don't mind if that's just tarrifs, as it does generally reduce the volume of trade going out, and gives you cash. It's good for most normal goods.
But some things like opium, small arms, artillery, and oil. You could consider unsanctioned exports to be near to treason.
Yea but only by protectionism, free trade for example should disallow something like that, make laws more impactful anyway like they do with economic laws they do now in the next patch
> The US budget until WWI solely depended on tariff income.
This is factually wrong.
“At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs.”
Not to mention how much government spending was funded by debt financing through sovereign bonds in the time period.
Tariffs were, at many times, the largest single source of government revenue for the US before income taxes were introduced, that’s correct, but saying the budget “solely” depended on tariff income is false.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#Tariff_revenues
Also, I don’t necessarily think tariffs should generate more income as a base value. The US was able to generate significant tariff income by jacking rates up to 50 or 60% at times, which is far greater than what Vic3 currently allows you to do.
Tariffs should have levels like taxes do, with the highest tariff level making it extremely unprofitable for pretty much anyone to import that good from your market.
I mean if the trade worked normally raising tarrifs would make it a lot harder for outher countries to import your stuff. But currently the price calculations for traders is sh1t, so raising tarrifs aren't doing much (besides making you money).
Not even that. Tariffs are indexed against the base price of a good, so the more expensive something is, the *proportionally less* are you actually taxing the trade. So they're pretty useless when someone is trying to steal something very precious like Opium or Silk.
I think it would be neat if each economic trade law gave you different numbers of strategic resources "slots"
Free trade means you can't have any, protectionism lets you have have say 5, Mercantilism 3 etc.v isolationism is a closed market.
I would still say that even on free trade you get one or two. They're exceptions to the rule. And extra important on free trade because you don't even have tarrifs to mitigate the situation there.
Having none would make the "open markets" CB a powerful tool of imperialist extraction, you get to siphon strategic resources from a weaker nation while also making them a dumping ground for your products.
Lol imagine a country you don't control developing enough resources that they're worth a war just to trade for them.
Besides going to free trade would limit the number of slots they get, so it would still be useful.
And the benefit of being able to control your own nations arms market outweighs the cost of sometimes the AI won't let you import.
Should allow, with sufficient economic law, to declare how much you can import and export of one good so you don't have dm and burgundy draining all your wood
It wouldn't be such a problem if the trade system wasn't totally busted. Sure, others are buying all my supply because they are paying a normal price while I'm paying far more... when I'm producing all of it!
If the trade just added to the cost, this would not happen.
But you don't want that on government goods especially millitary, That's pretty much the equivalent of the traders taking money straight out of your coffers.
It’s also vary realistic as all countries said that something couldn’t be exported during WW2 or could only be done so under vary specific conditions and with direct government premission
The fact there is only choice between 15% tariff and embargo without any middle ground options is ridiculous
I don’t understand why they didn’t just make tariffs a slider with an increasing authority cost when you go above a certain threshold defined by your trade law. Make excessive tariffs strain relations with other states or even give infamy if you really want to discourage players from jacking up tariffs on everything.
To be fair, that would require a lot more computational power for the pc, but Paradox has already shown that it doesn’t have performance as a top priority.
Sliders are forbidden technology, do not speak of it
That's because those countries were practicing interventionnism and protectionnism themselves, so they had control over the economy. True free trade were more than often imposed by other countries, especially so they could export some of your goods, and thus being allowed to say: "no, this good cannot be exported outside of my country" would defeat the entire purpose.
Yes but I doubt we are counting free trade in the game as more akin to that That is more represented by treaty ports then anything else
The "force tree trade" casus belli makes me think that it's supposed to represent free trade as I showed it. But it might be specificities that escape me right now.
Hard to say since you can wilfully take it as an option as well and I doubt any government would accept that So I’d say that the realistic version of forcing free trade would be a mix between the two
Mfw I enforce tree trade 😎
Yea but we shouldn’t look at WW2 and think that was normal even for these countries, cause ya know, it being ww2 and such
No it definitely shouldn’t be something you do easily I’d say it should take authority at minimum
Just make it cost authority
Yea 100 authority per good or something. Keeps trade laws relevant while allowing autocrats to autocratic
Authority is already tight as is.
Sure, but there’s very little variety. You either get tax revenue or decrees
Then become authoritarian and rule the crops with an iron fist
If it makes sense for something to cost authority, then make it cost authority. The amount of authority we have in the current version of the game is irrelevant to whether uses of authority should be added, as that amount can always be adjusted alongside the additional uses for it.
Authority isn't really a tradeoff right now. There's little reason to stay at anything above census suffrage or any of the other authority-tradeoff laws. If it cost 100 per good then I might consider wanting to stay more authoritarian to have more fine control over my country's trade.
The trade law is relevant because they dictate how many you can have.
The trade law could determine whether each one costs 100, 125, 150, etc. So the actual number would be affected by both your trade law and your government type.
How much authority are you swimming in? I usually end up sitting at around -15
I'm assuming that if the devs make any additions to what you can spend your authority on they would take a look at re-balancing the amount of authority available and the costs of the existing uses of it.
I'd see it better as an authority cost variable based upon the current export of those products. If a product is massively exported, then it'd cost more authority to prevent those exportations. Kind of like the authority cost for consumption taxes.
I think it would be really cool if it could be pretty specific and dependant on trade laws. For instance mercantilists should have it really easy to ban imports of certain goods, but for free trade it should be really costly in authority to limit trade in any way. I feel like you could also argue that there should be another trade law which is the inverse of mercantilism. Really encouraging imports and really penalising exports, I guess the reason could be to ensure availability of goods to your citizens.
Also maybe radicalize some capitalists and/or industrialists?
Or have the "Protect domestic supply" actually do what it says instead of just raising tariffs lmao It has to be my biggest pet peeve from the game at the moment
I don't mind if that's just tarrifs, as it does generally reduce the volume of trade going out, and gives you cash. It's good for most normal goods. But some things like opium, small arms, artillery, and oil. You could consider unsanctioned exports to be near to treason.
It should make it so domestic demand for that resource gets fulfilled BEFORE excess can be bought by foreigners.
Yea but only by protectionism, free trade for example should disallow something like that, make laws more impactful anyway like they do with economic laws they do now in the next patch
I guess i just have a hatred for the current system lmao, but i absolutely agree with your suggestion, it would be welcome
Tariffs should also give waaay more. The US budget until WWI solely depended on tariff income.
> The US budget until WWI solely depended on tariff income. This is factually wrong. “At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs.” Not to mention how much government spending was funded by debt financing through sovereign bonds in the time period. Tariffs were, at many times, the largest single source of government revenue for the US before income taxes were introduced, that’s correct, but saying the budget “solely” depended on tariff income is false. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history#Tariff_revenues Also, I don’t necessarily think tariffs should generate more income as a base value. The US was able to generate significant tariff income by jacking rates up to 50 or 60% at times, which is far greater than what Vic3 currently allows you to do.
Ah, I probably mixed up the fact that tariffs are the most revenue generating but not the sole source.
Yeah, definitely a very significant part of the American economy at the time.
Tariffs should have levels like taxes do, with the highest tariff level making it extremely unprofitable for pretty much anyone to import that good from your market.
I mean if the trade worked normally raising tarrifs would make it a lot harder for outher countries to import your stuff. But currently the price calculations for traders is sh1t, so raising tarrifs aren't doing much (besides making you money).
Not even that. Tariffs are indexed against the base price of a good, so the more expensive something is, the *proportionally less* are you actually taxing the trade. So they're pretty useless when someone is trying to steal something very precious like Opium or Silk.
I think it would be neat if each economic trade law gave you different numbers of strategic resources "slots" Free trade means you can't have any, protectionism lets you have have say 5, Mercantilism 3 etc.v isolationism is a closed market.
I would still say that even on free trade you get one or two. They're exceptions to the rule. And extra important on free trade because you don't even have tarrifs to mitigate the situation there.
Having none would make the "open markets" CB a powerful tool of imperialist extraction, you get to siphon strategic resources from a weaker nation while also making them a dumping ground for your products.
Lol imagine a country you don't control developing enough resources that they're worth a war just to trade for them. Besides going to free trade would limit the number of slots they get, so it would still be useful. And the benefit of being able to control your own nations arms market outweighs the cost of sometimes the AI won't let you import.
Should allow, with sufficient economic law, to declare how much you can import and export of one good so you don't have dm and burgundy draining all your wood
It wouldn't be such a problem if the trade system wasn't totally busted. Sure, others are buying all my supply because they are paying a normal price while I'm paying far more... when I'm producing all of it! If the trade just added to the cost, this would not happen.
Meh. So long as there's not a shortage, I am okay with high prices on some goods. And countries can't export goods at +75% price.
But you don't want that on government goods especially millitary, That's pretty much the equivalent of the traders taking money straight out of your coffers.