Dear NA Factions

[oprah_winfrey]

It can be caught, but probably not worth it to fight as long as the merchant is only carrying a moderate amount of goods.

If the merchant has 200 armed soldiers, carrying 150 goods. Assuming 150x25x3 is worth about 11,000 gold. meanwhile to beat such a decently armed caravan in field, assuming 1:1 kill ratio and even equip value, you'd lose over 20,000 worth of gear + 200 soldiers.

So to punish the intruder and protect your precious 150 S&D, you just spent close to net 15,000 gold, not to mention the opportunity cost of more productive activities that interceptor party could have been doing.

To enforce your closed borders will be costing much more than is offset by the sale of seized goods.

What about all of the cav they get from winning the battle.

also:

25 sittin on 25 mill S&D

[Zanze]

Of course I do make sure I get permission. But it's stupid. I'd do better just raiding people than being a legit trader. Either that or Mercanary company.

The invention of banditry/piracy. Didn't think it would take so long.

Risk vs Reward. Yes you make more as a bandit, but people hate you and want to stabificate you.

[Turboflex]

What about all of the cav they get from winning the battle.

also:

I was calculating for a no-cav merchant, if there's 200 horses involved merchant could lose more obviously especially if he can't hire many cav mercs for battle (although if he can, will be even more painful for his attackers to bring him down). Up to merchant to decide if its worth risk/reward in investing in a train of expensive horses.

All its gonna do is make you look like an asshole that is above everyone else which will ultimately lead the people you wronged to come over your nice little area of the map and wipe the floor with you leaving you with nothing in the process

Good way of thinking champ.

So the biggest beneficiaries to border running are small clans/merchants who have no home fiefs to strike at in retaliation.

Also even if it's a landholding clan ignoring your border and trade rules... What you gonna do march armies across map? And start a large war (if allies enter the fight) over  your precious S&D points? That will certainly get expensive, more expensive than what your points are worth!

[okiN]

It can be caught, but probably not worth it to fight as long as the merchant is only carrying a moderate amount of goods.

If the merchant has 200 armed soldiers, carrying 150 goods. Assuming 150x25x3 is worth about 11,000 gold. meanwhile to beat such a decently armed caravan in field, assuming 1:1 kill ratio and even equip value, you'd lose over 20,000 worth of gear + 200 soldiers.

So to punish the intruder and protect your precious 150 S&D, you just spent close to net 15,000 gold, not to mention the opportunity cost of more productive activities that interceptor party could have been doing.

To enforce your closed borders will be costing much more than is offset by the sale of seized goods.

You're forgetting one thing. Anyone who tries to steal from us is our enemy. Therefore to determine the net outcome of the battle, you need to subtract their losses from ours. The loot we gain from winning means we'll always come out ahead.

[Turboflex]

I did... The loot doesn't replace your losses. So waylaying a merchant for breaking your border rules diminishes you in relation to other factions.

[oprah_winfrey]

I did... The loot doesn't replace your losses. So waylaying a merchant for breaking your border rules diminishes you in relation to other factions.

I think okin is saying you arent factoring in the enjoyment of killing those who are robbing from you.

[Jarlek]

I think okin is saying you arent factoring in the enjoyment of killing those who are robbing from you.

Why else would there be traders apart from me killing them?

[okiN]

I did... The loot doesn't replace your losses.

It doesn't need to. Observe:

Battle outcome = Their losses - Our losses + Battle loot + S&D preserved

That will never end up negative.

[Turboflex]

You are double counting the loot + S&D, since presumably you'd be cashing the loot in with your S&D (that they were aiming for).

Also if they are just random traders their losses are basically meaningless to you if you're a large landholding clan presumably fighting with other large clans. Again assuming they have 200 armed troops and 150 goods, and the battle was 1:1 kd, you still lost roughly net 20,000 gold to protect your border & S&D from someone who is basically harmless. He may have lost more (over 30,000, cuz your losses are slightly compensated by the goods), but that still doesn't bring back your absolute losses. Defeating armed traders will be a costly business unless they are absolutely loaded with goods, he'd need to be carrying 450 goods with 200 troops for you to break even.

[okiN]

Refer to my earlier post re: enemies. Furthermore, by killing their party and gear (assuming they have proper gear), you're also destroying their capability to keep stealing from you, so potential future S&D savings there.

[Turboflex]

If he's a small, armed trade it would just take him a week to recruit troops back. One assumes he already has enough gold to replace gear losses instantly (not difficult for an individual to have made 30,000 already since start of strat 4).

[oprah_winfrey]

If he's a small, armed trade it would just take him a week to recruit troops back. One assumes he already has enough gold to replace gear losses instantly (not difficult for an individual to have made 30,000 already since start of strat 4).

You think a small armed trader can compete with a large clan on any aspect of strat?

I already know your answer to this, something along the lines of the large clan, nordsmen in this case could use their resources better then fighting this trader*, which is true. But you can say that about fighting in strat in general, and that would be boring as shit and defeat the purpose of playing a video game.

*Atleast by the economic definition, trade requires (atleast) two voluntary parties. That isn't really the case in which you are buying/selling goods when the fief owners don't want you to do it.

[CrazyCracka420]

That makes them smugglers

[Turboflex]

That's true, but at least a small rogue trader would has the option of poaching S&D, and it makes sense too, he is basically fullfilling the role of a smuggler (edit, beaten by Huseby), running demanded goods into an area where its restricted by the sovereign power who attempting to enforce mercantalist policies.

This small time smuggler also has ingame efficiency on his side, because to stop him it will cost the sovereign more than he gains. The landholder has the resources of course to keep crushing all these runners, but it still hurts him in absolute terms and weakens his power making him more vulnerable to actual rival powers.

That is why my original message to these small traders back on the past pages was don't be scared by threats of closed borders, go in well armed, and with modest cargoes and take the risk to poach that S&D, you'll have fun doing it, there's a decent chance you won't get caught, and even if you are, the cost of destroying you outweighs the value of protecting S&D so its a material loss for landholders and weakends them vs their real rivals. Resisting trade blockades is not futile.

[okiN]

You make a lot of assumptions. One of them seems to be that no matter how many we crush, there will be an infinite supply of traders who keep coming our way.

I don't think that's the case. If it was me, I'd go somewhere easier. Sounds like Norse Horde lands would be a great place, nobody watching the S&D there.