Sea Trade Route question

[kgauck]

Yes, during wars states built ships (from the guilds who did this) then after the war they sold them to the guilders because without a day to day need, money was better spent elsewhere. Ships, however, take a long time to build, so states need an expectation of a long war to shift from renting existing ships to spending capital on ship ownership.

[The Swordgaunt]

Absolutely, although it was not uncommon for ships to rot in their moorings due to neglect of upkeep either - something that should not be ignored in this setting.

[AndrewTall]

Absolutely, although it was not uncommon for ships to rot in their moorings due to neglect of upkeep either - something that should not be ignored in this setting.

sounds like a random event...

[kgauck]

Letting ships rot was more of an unwillingness to pay upkeep for extra capacity shipping. Paying the maintenance to keep a ship seaworthy is only desirable if you plan to use it again in the near term.

[The Swordgaunt]

sounds like a random event...

After the English broke the French fleet during the Hundred Years War, several ships were left to rot. The Crown decided that they no longer needed/could afford a navy. The money was in stead funneled into more land units.

[Derthric]

I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.

I am trying to do this in my current BR game, only as the landed ruler and either going to sell off exclusive rights to access the seaport or get the guilds to form together to pay fees at the seaport to keep it as an open port.