Roma Surrectum II: Economic System

[Cavalier93]

I didn't really get the "borrow from the future" thing.

What I'm trying to say here is that I feel it is a bit stupid... u get money every turn even if u'r not taxing the shi*t out of your cities then you're called to war u raise a small defensive army booom your economy has shi*ted it's self? even if u still get money from your cities, not as much as u did when u did not have the army, but u still receive it.

This I don't get. Maybe I'm stupid. I love to micromanage cities. I love making bilions and recruting dozens of armies... but this... I don't know. I'm all for realism but I'm not sure about this.

[Durakkon]

Ergh, it's so annoying when you have like 60+ settlements. How much efficiency do you lose doing that?

In 1.5 I find that once you establish a sizeable empire its hard to not make money so Im not suffering terribly it just requires much more time than an AI run city should.

[dvk901]

There are a number of reasons for working so hard...as I am...on a more dynamic economy for RS2.

1. I want to avoid the 'large empire overkill' of tons of money flowing in that enables the creation of endless stacks both by the player and the AI.
2. To add more realism to the game and a sense of 'buildings an economy'...not just inheriting one.
3. The economy is based on buildings and buildings that depend on the presence of other buildings, and bonuses that depend on the presence of certain buildings. It's quite straightforward...so the player who doesn't want to micro-manage can just build stuff and pay little attention, but the person who likes to micro-manage can pay closer attention and reap greater benefits perhaps by having a 'plan' for his or her building.
4. I want to produce a 0-turn mod that plays more like a 1-turn....with income that limits the military that a nation can support.
5. I want players to be ABLE to build things and appreciate all the new buildings and the rationale behind them.
6. I want cities to be 'different'....a difficult thing in RTW where, in the end, all cities tend to be the same thing with the same things in them. I am hoping to produce a scenario where one city may be extremely economically powerful....whereas another is very militarily relevant to your empire.

This is all a big task, and lot to ask, I suppose, of the old 'not very intuitive' RTW engine. But I'm going to try my best.

[Abreas]

That is one of my gripes with RTW, is that by the mid to late campaign all of your cities are more or less the same; Aleria, eg. has the same population and for the most part, buildings, as "mighty" Rome.

I enjoyed the additions in RS like big trade harbours and the like . It's a good start and I'm glad you guys are trying to keep on with this, while unfortunately limited by the engine.

[Alavaria]

That is one of my gripes with RTW, is that by the mid to late campaign all of your cities are more or less the same; Aleria, eg. has the same population and for the most part, buildings, as "mighty" Rome.

Especially if you can effectively target your population to stabilize at something like maybe 16000 to 20000 (and use enslaving/peasants to jump up to 24K to queue up the last level of core building). Maybe with a bit of coordination you could stabilize at 12K and get 2/3 enslaves off to get high enough. Or depending, you could get to 24k and then destroy the population increasing buildings.

You mentioned that population is more under the control of the player instead of simply the base farming rates. Does that mean population growth will be much lower earlier on (when you haven't built buildings, like the first 20 or so turns)?

[lolgast]

This is sounds great guys

[apple]

And the best part is that it work!

[lolgast]

And the best part is that it work!

Now I like it even better

[Ian Altano]

I'm really looking forward to this aspect of the game (as I am quite the micro-manager).

And I really like this:

5. I want players to be ABLE to build things and appreciate all the new buildings and the rationale behind them.

Because some mods promise really challenging economy, but it often results in the player being able to build almost nothing.
It's important to find the balance in that sort of thing. But I have no doubt dvk and the RS-team will succeed in making this system work perfectly!

[tone]

My impression from discussions with beta testers is that things are just about right.

To quote one of our beta testers on the Roman campaign on H/H:

At 565AUC (approx 30 years into the campaign):

ROMAN ADVANCEMENT

At first i expanded up into northern italy and secured sicily, and then began to expand very very quickly up the western front of the western balkans i spread across present day southern France along the coast joining Genoa with Emporium.

But then the arverni, and carthage began to strike back on my western front and then on my eastern front macedonia began to smash back into me! i just couldn't hold both sides. i retreated to the bridges at massilia and blocked them with 2 legions to stop the arverni advancement which did work. on the eastern front i allowed macedonia to slowly take me, however leaving my troops there to make macedonia at least struggle! I only allowed this because i knew there were rebel settlements between me and macedonia on the coast whereas allowing averni to walk free would bring them in direct contact with my provinces!

I then left a legion at patavium to safeguard that passage in case any nations tried anything funny! Then i reinforced my western front with a legion and, began pushing up through southern france again gaining back all my regions and taking the arverni capital gergovia which was a real strike to the arverni armies! But they still had a vast amount of stacks and it was still a big struggle!

I also gained a lot of ground on in africa taking carthage-lepis magna across the coast, which fuelled my income greatly! But i still find it very hard to keep a good income coming in!


ECONOMY

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have just enough money to keep my empire going i dont earn more than 20000 denari a turn on average and that is if i am lucky! the only time when i surpass that amount is if i have taken and sacked a big city!
Overall this has meant it has halted my quick progress and has meant i have had to really struggle and give up provinces to hold my empire in italy and sicily intact while attempting to expand my small empire at the moment!

GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE

I'm finding it a real challenge at the moment to get anywhere and it has been real fun and the economy being so low has meant i have had to struggle for everything i get!
The battles are hard also but still is very fun and auto-resolve is a lot more even i think you could use some more touch ups but it is far better! and as for any CTDs there have been none it has been working really well!

Gameplay-*****
Enjoyment-*****
Battles-*****
Campaign-****
Economy-****
Graphics-*****(surpasses five stars to be fair)

Thats how i would rate it right now! With economy and campaign i haven't be able to decide whether it is right now or whether it needs to be easier.

As for the arverni and dacia: arverni has been a real struggle to gain ground on them but not only do that but keep my land from them! however dacia hasnt touched me as of yet so i cant tell you anything about that!

(can afford)....about 3 stacks stationed about at most but i do have quite a few provinces heavily guarded so overall i could probably field about 5 or 6 stacks if ever needed too!

At 578AUC (40 years in):

....but eventualy everyone just comes at you and you have to fight everyone from all sides :/ but as of yet dacia havent touched me, i have a moved a little further on in my report, destroyed arverni, belgae assaulted me with 4 or 5 stacks and pushed me right back in france. luckily i was able to send some reserves and now i have taken most of northern france off them with some strong fighting

[Durakkon]

Wow that sounds fantastic. Just perfect!


I absolutely love the idea of a challenging economy to add some real difficulty to the game, as opposed to giving the AI battlefield bonuses and extra money per turn.

Adds a lot more challenges to your empire as funds/armies are no longer limitless unlike most campaign games, which end when you get bored of recruiting armies and smashing enemies.

My dream has always been to lose as some nation and be forced onto an island/peninsula only to slowly rebuild and conquer that which was taken. As of today I don't think I've lost more than a dozen battles on any given campaign, which makes me sad, wheres the challenge? The more I read about this mod the more I feel it will be the answer to everything Ive wanted out of this game

[Beast Within]

glad it sounds appealing! it is truly a awesome mod, they could release it now and it would still be great but there is nothing wrong with striving for perfection....so you only have a couple more years of waiting....

[tone]

ha, ha.

My dream has always been to lose as some nation and be forced onto an island/peninsula only to slowly rebuild and conquer that which was taken.

The question really is just how serious do people want this? Just how big should the challenge be?

[Beast Within]

I think it is well balanced right now personally! But if you want to push it that little more further i will start a new campaign and test it for you, see how much of a struggle it is i dont mind! and i suppose people can always turn down the difficulty as i have been playing on H/H

[intel]

You can as well make a "hardgame" patch, after releasing normal version. I don't want any delays, so I'd advice not to consider this issue for too long. I'd like a hard campaign, which would be a challenge, but not hard enough to actually blitz unexperienced players, at least not instantly

regards
phunkracy
(thats an alt, due to loss of my original computer)

[ray243]

ha, ha.



The question really is just how serious do people want this? Just how big should the challenge be?

I would be fun for me at the least to watch my Empire collapse, and try to emulate Justinian.

[apple]

Well it is more of the Caesar/Pompey Augustus/Antonius civil war that we strive for, but a late rebellion would be fun to.

[SonOfAlexander]

Very good, realistic - but how can you raise taxes and end up loosing money? I don't get it.

[apple]

People gets poor. Poor people=less taxes.

[tone]

economy comes to a standstill as well if businesses are taxed too much