Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 181

Thread: Roma Surrectum II: Economic System

  1. #21
    Rt. Hon. Gentleman's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln, Lincolnshire.
    Posts
    1,868

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    So, have I understood this right: Making money by using natural resources, buildings, etc etc, is good in the long term, but is a slow way to make money and won't give you enough to build a full-stack army if your homeland is attacked. So, the player would then jack up tax rates to get a short-term cash injection. However, the act of doing this makes, in real terms, the populace of your country poorer and poorer, which leads to a lack of spending from them thus screwing up your building/resources long term economy and causing unrest from the vox pops at the same time? So, the player must strike a balance between "real" economics and quick-buck "taxes" that give you money but screw the economy?

    If that is right, then that is bloody brilliant. Did I get the point? Have I missed anything?

  2. #22

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Wow! the new economic system sounds very cool and realistic as well It was indeed a bit to easy to make a lot of money in RS 1.5. This is just another reason why I can't wait to play RS2!




  3. #23
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Gentleman View Post
    So, have I understood this right: Making money by using natural resources, buildings, etc etc, is good in the long term, but is a slow way to make money and won't give you enough to build a full-stack army if your homeland is attacked. So, the player would then jack up tax rates to get a short-term cash injection. However, the act of doing this makes, in real terms, the populace of your country poorer and poorer, which leads to a lack of spending from them thus screwing up your building/resources long term economy and causing unrest from the vox pops at the same time? So, the player must strike a balance between "real" economics and quick-buck "taxes" that give you money but screw the economy?

    If that is right, then that is bloody brilliant. Did I get the point? Have I missed anything?
    That is exactly what I am trying to do.....provide an 'adequate' income that allows you to 'exist'. By that I mean, defend your property, build up your own cities, and advance as a nation in your own areas. But as soon as you start getting aggressive and expanding you first, end up at war with somebody (if you aren't already, like Rome and Carthage, the Ptolemaics and Seleucid). Second, this incurrs their wrath, of course, and causes you to be attacked in turn by an AI that has many economic and happiness advantages in it's own regions. Third, (my experience so far is that) battles are no cakewalk as they tended to be in RS1.5 at times. Even if you win, you are hurt. So you start having to spend a lot to make a lot (buildings), but it isn't necessarily enough....so you raise taxes to get more. This drives your economy into the red, and apparently RTW actually DOES calculate that xxx amount of taxes on a diminishing amount of incoming profit really does mean that more taxes on less just = LESS. Fancy that.

    Anyway, it needs to tested out more, but that is the intended goal. And, it will have far more impact in the 'modfoldered' campaigns for various factions where things can be set up a lot different for those factions.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  4. #24
    Rt. Hon. Gentleman's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln, Lincolnshire.
    Posts
    1,868

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by dvk901 View Post
    That is exactly what I am trying to do.....provide an 'adequate' income that allows you to 'exist'. By that I mean, defend your property, build up your own cities, and advance as a nation in your own areas. But as soon as you start getting aggressive and expanding you first, end up at war with somebody (if you aren't already, like Rome and Carthage, the Ptolemaics and Seleucid). Second, this incurrs their wrath, of course, and causes you to be attacked in turn by an AI that has many economic and happiness advantages in it's own regions. Third, (my experience so far is that) battles are no cakewalk as they tended to be in RS1.5 at times. Even if you win, you are hurt. So you start having to spend a lot to make a lot (buildings), but it isn't necessarily enough....so you raise taxes to get more. This drives your economy into the red, and apparently RTW actually DOES calculate that xxx amount of taxes on a diminishing amount of incoming profit really does mean that more taxes on less just = LESS. Fancy that.

    Anyway, it needs to tested out more, but that is the intended goal. And, it will have far more impact in the 'modfoldered' campaigns for various factions where things can be set up a lot different for those factions.
    excellent!

  5. #25

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by dvk901 View Post
    So you start having to spend a lot to make a lot (buildings), but it isn't necessarily enough....so you raise taxes to get more.
    whats stopping me from having maxed out taxes from the start? i always have maxed out taxes in my campaigns.

  6. #26
    Ketchup's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London (well around there anyway...)
    Posts
    1,420

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by DaddyPro View Post
    whats stopping me from having maxed out taxes from the start? i always have maxed out taxes in my campaigns.
    There's nothing "stopping"you, but to do so would be, ah, inadvisable...

    Read dvk's post and you'll see that taxing your citizens (and building the special "tax" buildings) generates short-term income. That is to say that you won't be able to sustain such economic growth through taxes alone. You will need to focus more on building up your provinces' infrastructure (roads/mines and such) and encouraging trade, if you want to have a stable, long-term economy.
    Last edited by Ketchup; August 12, 2009 at 01:15 PM.

    Roma Surrectum 2.0 Team Member
    R.I.P Calvin

  7. #27

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    i keep high taxes only to reduce population growth rate, so what gonna happen if i keep high taxes in RS2? ill start getting less income from taxes?

  8. #28

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Short term strategy such as high taxes can be used with the economic system but it definitely is more beneficial and indeed necessary to look towards a more long term method of sustaining finance

    **RS Dev Team***Reciprocal Repper!* RIP Calvin- you will be missed

  9. #29

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    For me the lower the taxes is the faster population grow and harder to keep public order.

  10. #30
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    One of the reasons for doing it this way is because your cities ultimately will hover around a 90-100% happiness....that's the plan. Happiness and law bonuses are not substancial...there are many OF them, but they are very small bonuses. So you need to build a lot to keep cities happy...and to do that you need money....and if you tax them a lot they will be un-HAPPIER...and you will need to build even more!! So it will develope into a vicious circle if you aren't nice to your people. As I said, this is all set up based upon 'High' taxes. If you want to tax them more...go for it. They'll 'love' you.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  11. #31
    Mulattothrasher's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    With the Thrash Metal Maniacs!
    Posts
    2,599

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Maybe Dvk should run for president and implement his RS2 plan into American politics!

  12. #32

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulattothrasher View Post
    Maybe Dvk should run for president and implement his RS2 plan into American politics!
    Nah, the senate would just ripped the RS2 bill into pieces by cutting out features left and right in order to ensure everyone votes in favour of the bill.


    By the time they are done, RS 2 would look exactly like what we see in rome total war vanilla.

  13. #33

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    But if it works anyway like vanilla, we'd be rolling in cash.

    Dvk for president 2012

    Crusades
    Historical fiction - Fifty Tales from Rome


    Can YOU dance like the Cookie Man?
    Improbe amor quid non mortalia pectora cogis? - The Aeneid
    I run an Asteroid mining website. Visit it before James Cameron takes it from me.

  14. #34
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    I just figured using the US Government is a perfect way to set up an economy. Tax the pi$$ out of everyone, wreck the economy, and then wonder why no one's paying all the taxes.
    It's the quintessential way to show how NOT to run a country, and how TO wreck your economy in one package. The object being that taxing 50% of little, is still very little. 70% of nothing is still nothing....at least that's the math I was taught in school. Funny thing is we had a Revolution over taxes, and now we tax ourselves more than the British ever did.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

  15. #35

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Great, I just wonder will this make the game much slower? like EB i.e. will turn time and campaign map be much slower? will I loose my patience? :p

    edit: (btw you think you have much taxes? come and try sweden...)
    Last edited by Miltiades the Younger; August 13, 2009 at 03:12 AM.

    Oooh pictures! Faber est quisque fortunae suae

  16. #36
    ♔Icebear77♔'s Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Switzerland and Germany
    Posts
    673

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by Miltiades the Younger View Post
    edit: (btw you think you have much taxes? come and try sweden...)
    But sweden has one of the best healthcare and social programs of the world... i think the us-habs would like to pay as much as you do for a superb healthcare and social program...

  17. #37

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Same in the UK - our highest band of income tax is something like 40-50% - but that pays for the NHS amongst other things, so we aren't complaining that much. and no, we aren't communists just because we have a socialised medical system (it's Nixon's old argument, but it's amazing that people still use it today)!
    Anyhoozle, back on topic - i'd like a little leeway when it comes to the economics of the mod - i don't want to be penalised in the late game because i build an extra stack or two...
    Also, DVK - something i've been meaning to ask - will it be better in the long run to plunder a conquered province (much as the Romans did - inject cash into the Empire by conquering the enemy) or by simply occupying?
    'Ecce, Roma Surrectum!' Beta Tester and Historian
    Under the proud patronage of MarcusTullius

  18. #38

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    How does the suburb-city or pop-growth lines work with this new economic system, or was it removed?

  19. #39

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Take Slaves. the roman world was built on the back of slaves, thats the proper way to do it, but if a neighbour betrays you or heaven forbid a city rebels, well then they leave you no choice, KILL EM ALL :p
    I was a Roma Surrectum 2.0 Beta Tester

    Total War Veteran

  20. #40
    dvk901's Avatar Consummatum est
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,984

    Default Re: RS2 Economics:

    Quote Originally Posted by rory o'kane View Post
    Same in the UK - our highest band of income tax is something like 40-50% - but that pays for the NHS amongst other things, so we aren't complaining that much. and no, we aren't communists just because we have a socialised medical system (it's Nixon's old argument, but it's amazing that people still use it today)!
    Anyhoozle, back on topic - i'd like a little leeway when it comes to the economics of the mod - i don't want to be penalised in the late game because i build an extra stack or two...
    Also, DVK - something i've been meaning to ask - will it be better in the long run to plunder a conquered province (much as the Romans did - inject cash into the Empire by conquering the enemy) or by simply occupying?
    My experience so far is that it may be a bit 'too tight'. I want people to understand that I'm not trying to choke things to death to make it 'ficticiously harder'....afterall, it's easy to make a mod hard by just not giving anyone any money. Sure, it's hard, but who cares. It's no fun IMO. I like the whole idea of history, historical units, and a historical setting....but not historical bankruptcy, so to speak. I have enough RL problems with money...I don't want to relive it in a game. LOL So what I'm talking about in terms of economics is just the idea of implementing something into RTW's otherwise 'cruise-control' economy that makes the player do something to earn more, and make choices that will either have military or economic effects. My nephew was playing 'Civilization' a few years back and I remember how intrigued I was by all the economic stuff that was part of the game.....but of course, it lacked a 'battle system' like RTW's. I'm just trying to bring some decision-making into the system that will make it easier for a city to make money, for example, as an economic powerhouse. Still another city, depending on it's location may be more suitable in your empire as a 'Fortified City'.....big walls, higher level barracks and units, but a less 'robust' economy that has to be supported by other cities. In economic cities you'll be able to build ALL the goodies for making money...in fortified cities you'll get more 'law', but you won't be able to build all the higher level 'economic toys'. In many cases even the Temples you can build will be limited to, and more specific to a particular type of city.

    But, you won't be locked into this permenantly...although the buildings for this are indestructible. (I didn't want players cheating by building the thing just to get the goodies, then destroying it to get cash back.) Instead, you'll have the option to build a 'merged economic and fortified city'....meaning simply a government that is now trying to focus on both economics and the military....sorta like a rudimentary 'M2TW' castle\city thing. Once you've payed the piper to merge a city, then you can build all the goodies....but often at a lesser advantage ecomincally. The idea being that to convert a city from one focus to another costs a lot of money...you are in essence, 'changing direction'. Your internal regions are safer than before, so a strictly fortified city doesn't need to be a 'fortress' anymore, but can expand more economically.

    The whole intention, however, isn't to make it 'harder' or just irritate the player with a lack of money. It's to add some 'depth' to the game.....'immersion' as Cherryfunk calls it.....so you feel like you're actually doing something in towns and cities aside from just building a limited amount of rudimentary buildings and setting taxes as high as you can...then ignoring them. Empires were driven by, and supported by economics...or the pursuit of wealth and control of economics. So it really should play a greater role. It will ultimately (hopefully) just involve situations where you'd really 'like' to build several buildings in 'city A'...so you put them in the que. Then you look at another city or town and realize you better do something there...but you have no money left. So you have to cancel a couple building projects elsewhere. Or you check all your towns and cities and get the buildings squared away, and then realize you really need to recruit some units. Again...no money. So you cancel a few buildings, or raise taxes, or build a 'tax' building, etc.

    Plundering a province may well be necessary in the sense of a particular city or people that 'really' made you angry....a large and rebellious city, or an enemy who attacked without provocation. I really don't 'want' economics to be based on plunder, but in certain cases it may well be a 'boon' for your Empire and a more realistic depiction of things that did happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    How does the suburb-city or pop-growth lines work with this new economic system, or was it removed?
    No, it wasn't removed, it was 'improved'. It didn't work well in RS1.5, again, because of the 'cruise-control' settings of RTW. Certain things inherently gave you no control over population...I removed those impediments so that the player has some control over it now.

    Creator of: "Ecce, Roma Surrectum....Behold, Rome Arises!"
    R.I.P. My Beloved Father

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •