Why are people upset with EB Economics?

[SomeJedi]

I don't get it. The high upkeep of armies, the expense of fleets, the high building prices. They sound like rotten deals, but they play well in the game.

Having $$$ fleets is the best part. You don't see 50 fleets per sea floating around doing nothing, rather you have 1 or 2, which makes them worth so much more. I often only raise a fleet to ferry over troops, then promptly disband it.

High army upkeep and cost gives me more incentive to win battles with minimal casualties. I often disband low experience troops after major battles. I keep some of the gold and silver stars around. But if it's calm, I disband the lower end soldiers to increase my bank account.

Building prices have forced me to make smarter choices for building. I don't randomly build "whatever" when I have money. I read the descriptions and make sure my choice is a wise one.

I think this is what EB is all about. Forcing the player to try different tactics for a game that is over a year old now. The old style is a bit passe, this new one is very refreshing, and can only get better when ported to patch 1.5.

It saddens me to see people complain about the economics in the game. It's the best part and it's what drives many of the big desicions you have to make, especially in the early game.

Does any one feel the way I do? Or do you think that EB over did it with high prices? What were you expecting?

[DEMETRIOUS II]

The problem is there are a lot of people (kids) that play this game and they like to build fancy armies and not think about anything else. They now cry because they can't manage to recruit these nice looking units and win every battle make money and rush the AI quick.

I love the economic set up for the campaign. You have to think twice before building any unit or building and when you loose a battle like I did and started praying that the Macedonians would not rush me. I had to act quick and ally with the Greeks just to keep Macedon off my back and buy some time to recruit some additional cheaper units and climb out of debt. I lost my first campaign as Macedon bribed all my settlements (my only beef so far with EB) but overall I loved the new game mechanics and strategy both economically politically and battle mechanics (again my beef is with ovepowered genearals bodyguards).

But also I'd love to build all these new buildings in EB but with no money I'll have to wait. I guess many people lack this characteristic. For those people I say set all building costs and units costs to 1 denarii and have fun.

[Epistolary Richard]

In my own campaign with the Hayasdan I worked on a very simple system - I knew from my budgets that I could afford one new building or one new unit a turn (which isn't so bad when you consider that I only had three provinces). It's just a matter of prioritisation and it makes building an army and potentially losing it in a city assault that much more significant.

[Sparton Matticus]

I dont understand why people are getting upset as well with the economics of the game. Maybe they have the game on very hard! try taking it down to hard or medium and see how it is. I noticed when I played as the romans on very hard it was very hard! you didn't have much funds. It kind of reminded me of the roma mod.

I also have a question for the mod team. After you have won a battle, do you think that maybe the winning army should get a bit of money from looting the dead or captured? of course it wouldn't be a huge amount of money.. but maybe a little.. ie looting money bags from the dead or selling their armour and weopons. What do you think?

or maybe if you can capture an enemy general or leader? you could get a huge ransom for that?

Not sure if those two questions are do-able, but let me know what you think

[mike_D]

i do like EB economically but u can get into mass debt very quickly and thats more likely what people dont like. u can get over -1000 debt on ur first turn and then have to disband so many men to try and improve ur finaces but the enemy dosnt need to and turn up with huge armies u cant withstand.

[Ahiga]

I can understand some of the concern over it. It's a question of why your faction would even have so many units to begin with if they can't afford it (Kinda like the US government spending twice as much as their army budget, before even having the money on hand).

I think that it's also a bit unfair, when factions like Rome are apparently without such a weight (When their wealth primarily came from conquest and pillage, I had thought) and others are not. As Carthage, I don't feel it's absolutely terrible. I do disbelieve the idea that nations centered on trade and naval activity have to be hindered with such crazy upkeep costs. As carthage, with only my half-sized army in Sicily and garrisons, even with my profit, to have a navy competitent to do just about anything (And probably not able to challenge the one star 3 unit pirate force by the horn of africa), I would probably be unable to make any building at all. Maybe it's just my game, but I would wonder if theirs and others who centered upon naval activity could have a bit of a benefit from it.


Plus, I think forums/traders are broken. I've testeed building them in almost every province and it never shows the slightest bit of trade increase on the faction listing.

The thing I really like is the unit costs, which really force you to go for lesser units, and not have a perfectly chosen army.


Edit: And quite frankly I love the building and economic affairs. It's RTR's citizenship on steroids, with all new buildings and requirements that make me rethink and question how to operate my kingdom. It's become far more than just something to pass over in order to get to the combat.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

IMHO the system works great. Playing as Parthia I choose not to disband my army because I'd porbably never be able to build a new one so I had to attack and plunder Seleucid settlements with my horse and foot archers. It took about 20 turns before I was out of debt but by that time I had carved out a considerable empire in Kazachstan and northern Iran.

The great thing is you actually have to make live or dead choises with your armies and battles are actually meaningfull.


Mad Guitar Murphy

[Little Legionaire]

I've started Epeiros campaign on H/H settings. I didn't make any single unit. I've just made two shrines. That's all... But after third turn later my economy collapsed... Mass debt was nearly at 4000-5000 Mnai. Then i could'nt never control it. My enemy the Makedonia has come upon me with his mass armies again and again. I'm not saying about Romans you can wonder it what they did my pretty Hellenic colony on Latin peninsula...

[Barbaren]

I like the new expensive system, you always get bored after a while in the old days when you fight and fight all the time. Now my only complaint is the rebels god damn they respawn all over Italy 2-3 armies every third turn something. I got 6 cities with 2*5 stacks armies - one for cleaning, and the other one for small painfull attacks which i lost several times all because of that i must afford to build upgrades in cities/squalor.

Its a really great system except for the annoying rebels. (Has always hated rebels)

[Bonheddwr]

Yeah, they seem to be having the same problems with rebells that RTR had in its first few builds, they spawn all the time, and if you leave them alone for a while they build these massive stacks, and with the new economic system you just can't feild an army large enough to fight them. I've been having trouble with my Yue-zhi campaign where I had to wait a while to feild a decent army because of my economy, but by the time I was able to go on the offensive all the rebells had full stacks of horse archers.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

at first i was annoyed that the buildings etc took longer and cost more to build but then i thought 'wait a minute.... four turns a year!!!' so the time it took to build them made sense and now i think the price is a lot more challenging and actually adds to the game rather than ruins it
i also have a new tactic -for me- to keep a small proffessional army to expand and have cheap garrisons for my cities which (i think) is more realistic

[Alcibiades of Athens]

I am not upset with the economics I just have to get used to it.To me (playing Macedonia) it didn't seem very logical, that I have to disband both fleet and cavalry just to reduce the debt I am inevitably to amass in the following turns, how could my faction afford these units in the first place ?

Now, that I have conquered the greek, epirote and rebel cities in my vicinity I earn lots of money, can afford to build in every city and maybe even to upgrade my army...though through the very hard beginning of the game I am still very reluctant to wage a new war, if not attacked first.

I like that...

[SomeJedi]

Its a really great system except for the annoying rebels.

While I agree they can get annoying, I don't mind them in my EB Romani Game. When they do spawn, I grab my nearest general, buy a few mercs, then crush the Rebellion.

They get my general out of his den (ancillary bonus) and get him to polish his battle skills.

I have so much money right now (130,000ish) that I can hire and fire rebels simply for the sake of, and some times I do!

[Maethius]

These are my small thoughts about the economics. First of all it takes, as has been said, time to get used to. Playing with huge units is murder and keeping a fleet even more so. My latest experiment with the Casse tribe of Britania with only large formations has been acceptable. Not once did I become indebted and with my tiny army, mostly troops of the crappier (that is cheaper) type, I have taken two additional cities. I expect that with nations who have more provinces from the start the results can be even better.

[John I Tzimisces]

In all honesty, I LOVE what EB has done for the feel of RTW. Every army MEANS something. Every captured city is a PLETHORA of wealth. Capture one city, and easily, if you can hold it, you will get the money lost from debt. In my opinion however, EB should have fewer fleets at the start of the game. Much fewer, their upkeep is HUGE, and people don't often pay attention to that...Carthage's income is slaughtered by its large fleet.

I digress.
Basically, all I have to do is capture a few cities, strike where my enemy is weakest (for the romans, that happened to be Roma and Cannae , huzzah for Epirus), and hold on for dear life. All it takes is to slowly build up your army (note: Singular), and strike again once you have consolidated your strength. Great stuff, great stuff.

[Little Legionaire]

On my second campaign with Pahlava i disbanded majority of my field army to keep my debt lower. Cavalry has gone... On my Epirius campaign was much more harder. Coz Pahlava has been isolated behind mountains but Epirios has surrounded by plenty of enemies or potencial enemies such as Romans. Please guys make a favor. Which elements to take care a healthy economical growing while we have to face against strong enemies.

[O'brien the Protector]

if only it was possible to take out loans. if your a faction like epirus in debt and someones attacking you, you take out a 1.5 thousand denari loan which you have to pay vag as 300 denari for 7 turns, and you use to buy a levi army you disband after use.

[Maethius]

More like an 15 000 denarii loan! :original:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Use your initial money to do what will best help your economy. But first think about trade partners. (as an example) Athens shouldn't have roads built first, as they are surrounded by the evil Makedonians. Upgrade their port maybe - but think about the fact that you might lose Athens to the Maks very soon too. Whatever the faction, think about income and trade. Some are in bad situations (yuezhi, Casse, Sweboz at first) with trade partners, so focus on anything that helps trade between the cities you do have yourself.

On the other hand, you can always use your start money to get a few more units and grab another province to start the game too. Whatever you think might help you the best in the long run.

[Province]

I tried Baktria, Macedon, and a little Roman. As Baktria, attacking Seleukeia early is bad idea since you lose a lot of trade income. Taking that rebel city to the south as your second one is a good idea. Eventually, the Seleukeia will have some rebelling cities that are sometimes near your base. Taking them is beneficial. Slowly, you'll gain profit and plan accordingly. I use the II or I if it's there government everytime if they are available. The IV if they're not.

As Macedon, it's different than from starting with one city. The fleets are just insane to keep. 3 fleets that are 1500 upkeep each. I decided to disband them all, disband some horses, some infantry, only keep the ones necessary, put all cities on very high tax, and still in debt but not as badly as before. Then I attack Sparta and Athens to get some wealth. Once you conquer them, some money will start flowing.

The Romans have it so easy compared to these two when I played them. Is it intentional? They are best for someone starting off since you don't have to make as many do or die decisions in the beginning.

Overall, it took some getting use to, but it's really fun.