Deus Lo Vult mod has a feature about economy inflation but I don't know much about how it actually works.
Deus Lo Vult mod has a feature about economy inflation but I don't know much about how it actually works.
That's very crude - costs scaled with the number of cities, -500, later -1000 and -1500 or so, for each city above 10 (or so, I don't remember).
This shows that the flood of money problem was realized by the modders a decade ago ;-)
It can be solved in various ways. The SSHIP has very high upkeep prices (eg one city (2,5k income) can support only 2 heavy cavalry (1,3k upkeep each) and this gives a player a clear choice: either there's a mobilization of the forces or possibility to build new buildings (additionally, there're siege costs and expedition costs in a submod). The effect of scaling the empire is achieved through the large cost of garrisons - in the far-away cities, you need to keep many units, just have a look at the tables below.
Byg's Grim Reality has various historical costs, like wealth of the nobles, or costs of marriages of the vassals. Not to mention the BGR V various solutions.
The Gigantus' 1648 Thirty Years of War mod has a special feature limiting the trade income. Crudely put, for each large (or huge?) city there's a -1 trade income for all cities and the bigger the faction, the less money from trade.
Many possibilities, some might be very historical.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; March 05, 2019 at 02:19 PM.
I discovered that disbanding a unit in a province add the effect of refreshing that unit pool. Although I could imagine that for a brief moment, even if those veterans were disbanded they could still serve in the army if the need arises. It can be considered an exploit of some sorts so I'm gonna try disbanding them on provinces that don't belong to me or that don't have that specific unit.
About the better cash inflow when you disband an army, you can argue that in peace time that would be a thing, still what I do is that I replace the standing army in the same turn I disband but the process can still take 2 to 3 turns. I still gotta admit I usually have enough cash in the bank to do that all in one time, flowing from 20k to 50k.
I think that upkeep should go up a bit like 10 to 15% and if possible, the addition of a specific fee per unit you have to pay to have your army outside of your borders (like the raiding script in reverse). It seems logical that the upkeep of an army should be greater in enemy territory.
It's a bit too crude to my mind. But it's always a question of balance. For now, my conclusion from the opinions in this thread are that I'm not the only one feeling flood-of-money. I really think something should be done about it.
For me, this is a perfect effect. I don't think it's an exploit.
I'm not sure if it's true for the ancient times. I think the army was living out of the land and the pay was not higher. But I may be wrong.
Besides, I've once posed a question and proposal, but never got an answer/opinion:
Thanks for the answer! At least we know what not to do x)
And what about the field-costs-script with exponential values (like some costs for a small army of 1-9, higher for 11-14, high 15-17, extreme 18-20). In this case, the player would prefer (or could afford) only smaller armies in the field what would make fighting in advantage less likely than otherwise? Is historically accurate that armies on campaign costed a lot, we have plenty of examples of leaders having to conquer the town to be able to pay the army (Caesar was a good example for his campaigns). I have also recently read a paper about the First Punic War where the author said that because Carthage finances were exausted, they couldn't put big numbers on the field (it was also why they reconquered Agrigentum and destroyed it, because they hadn't the numbers to garrison it).
Last edited by Lusitanio; March 05, 2019 at 03:50 PM.
A massive empire with flourishing trade and at peace probably wouldn't have had restrictive money issues. If factions and units aren't balanced for gameplay reasons, rather purely based on historical accuracy, maybe cash flow doesn't need to be either and players can choose to exercise discretion. Though I appreciate reasonable means of slowing economic growth, like governor traits that make sense and ideas about making fielding or maintaining armies more expensive and the rest.
Last edited by Dooz; March 05, 2019 at 06:13 PM.
If you're doing everything in your power to make as much money as possible, be as efficient as possible, have as much of an advantage as you can muster, as little a downside as you can avoid, and the goal is simply to win and beat the computer - we're playing two very different games. I'm enjoying mine. Hopefully you can find ways to enjoy yours, even though you've become too good at it to find a challenge anymore, if that's what you're looking for out of this.
I've suggested this before in another thread, but I think there's grounds for allowing KH FM's to partake in mercenary service, like the barbarian factions.
I think there is historical precedence for this, as even during the EBII time period mercenary service was common amongst the Greek city states (Xanthippus being the most obvious example).
I think it would be a cool feature to add a bit of flavour (or at the very least it gives you something to do with all the FM's the KH starts with).
Me, I play a game - that means I optimize and play given the constraints the game gives me plus additional home rules that the engine cannot simulate.
So if I have money - I try to spend in the most productive way possible. If I have recruitment pools - I do recruit and go for a conqests. If I can build something - I weigh pros and cons and build or not (eg. in the Pritanoi towns the temples don't provide useful bonuses but they cost money - well, I don't build them since I don't have a home rule for it. Another example: I have an army in an enemy provice, but in winter I don't siege even if the engine allows me to - I have a home rule not to do it).
However, what I want from the mod developers is to make such constraints that my choices are both historical and rational.
As said for the moment I don't feel the money is a real constraint in the EBII. Maybe I'd introduce a home rule "sacrifice 1000 minai every turn to the goods" and I'd eg. recruit diplomata that sit in Mona island for their entire life... But I'd prefer the EBII team to remove that surplus money so that I don't need to make such artificial things.
What? Lol. I'm having fun. I wouldn't be playing a game from 2006 if it weren't so. The treasury is kept below 100k mnai because I do not like the trait penalties that FMs get when there is too much money around (damn you EB team, damn you all). I have no idea where you got this idea about me trying to beat the computer etc. Please don't twist my words for pointless and petty morale speeches.
Last edited by Rad; March 06, 2019 at 04:04 AM.
You say you want ways to keep money down, but are saying you don't like one of the ways the mod tries to do that, and are intentionally circumventing it (by consciously spending more than you would have I guess, which in a way means the design choice still works to keep cash lower than it would have been otherwise). I don't get it. But mostly I hope none of what a handful of people on a forum talk about matters too much to the mod devs and they make their own decisions because the silent majority just sit back and play and who knows what everyone wants.
Fixing the memory leak that cuases the game to crash. Playing a Boii campaign atm and crashes seem more prevalent than a previous Pergamon campaign, there also seems to be some differnece on the ctd, of the two most recent one taking place with 600mb memory used, another with 1.2gb used. Most of the Pergamon ones I remember had over 1gb memory soaked up.
It is interesting to read these discussions from our community. There seems to be a theme that permeates the fabric of many points; the balance of role-playing and game-playing. It seems quite a challenge for the EB2 team to satisfy both. However, it seems the emphasis on historical accuracy is a factor that binds the two divides.
For you and 65-70% of TW gamers. Including me.I don't. If there are two types of units I hate, it's chariots and elephants. It doesn't matter how good or bad they do against me, they always take the fun out of a battle by turning it into a huge mess.
I agree with you, but the mod can only be balanced for one setting. It could be VH/VH or it could be M/M. I always play normal, so its fine by me, even if I steamroll AI, its better than having Asbs hold off Chackaspides or however they are called.
PS: I also feel this is a finished product, but if devs think they can do better, great. I will still change the game so I can build Polis with Pontus and KH, though.
Last edited by Wolf Priest; March 06, 2019 at 04:58 PM.