What else is to be added/ changed in EBII going forward?

[Lusitanio]

Deus Lo Vult mod has a feature about economy inflation but I don't know much about how it actually works.

[Jurand of Cracow]

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: 

[Lusitanio]

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).
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.

These two seem to be the best for EBII but would have need to be adjusted accordingly. I wouldn't go for raising upkeep prices because in this time period, it was pretty normal to raise thousands of troops for battle.

[Raiuga]

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.

[Jurand of Cracow]

These two seem to be the best for EBII but would have need to be adjusted accordingly. I wouldn't go for raising upkeep prices because in this time period, it was pretty normal to raise thousands of troops for battle.

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.

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.

For me, this is a perfect effect. I don't think it's an exploit.

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.

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:

Quintus, I've got 2 questions on this issue:
1. a similar solution was introduced by Byg's in the SS-BGR - generals would acquire trait called Overconfidence (- morale etc). However, after fighting personally a battle (or more) this trait would disappear. Is the EBII solution similar, or are generals stuck with that bad traits?
2. why have you decided to implement this solution? Actually, my case against it (I didn't like it in the BGR) is that it forces you to play a myriad of irrelevant battles. If the AI sends stacks of 3-4 units, it makes no sense to split your armies and fight dozens of battles 4 versus 4 etc. It's tedious, the player shouldn't be expected to do this.
I've come up conceptually with two other solutions:
a) provide the player with positive incentives: the good traits develop only if a general wins battles against the odds, but with serious forces involved. In this sense, the player would prefer to detach some units before a battle to get those "bad" odds, but he wouldn't play these 4-4 battles.
b) introduce 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.
What do you think?
/this is not to criticize any of the solutions, I'm just trying to find out what's the best way of dealing with the problem of fighting with advantage in the M2TW engine - in the Warscape it so bad that I don't think it's possible to save it/
JoC

[QuintusSertorius]

These two seem to be the best for EBII but would have need to be adjusted accordingly. I wouldn't go for raising upkeep prices because in this time period, it was pretty normal to raise thousands of troops for battle.

We tried it, didn't like the way it skewed the economy. You can still see the results in the EDB, there are commented-out lines at each level of the core_building.

[Lusitanio]

We tried it, didn't like the way it skewed the economy. You can still see the results in the EDB, there are commented-out lines at each level of the core_building.

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).

[Dooz]

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.

[Dooz]

keeping the treasury below 100k mnai is the goal because I am trying to avoid the "corrupt scumbag governor" delight

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.

[Aodh Mór Ó Néill]

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).

[Jurand of Cracow]

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.

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.

[Rad]

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.

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.

[Dooz]

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).

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.

[Raging_Ferret]

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.

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

We can't fix memory leaks, they're a problem with the way M2TW is coded. Only CA can fix that.

The only way to clear memory is to end a session, so every couple of hours or so, save, quit and restart. More frequently still if you're fighting lots of big battles.

[charlieh]

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.

[Rad]

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.

I don't like that design because it turns my FMs into human trash - not that they were perfect to begin with. I know it's a needed feature, but one of the things I enjoy is having capable and good FMs.

[Wolf Priest]

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.

For you and 65-70% of TW gamers. Including me.

EB2 is not inaccessible. Those mods I mentioned are more difficult, but still perfectly playable on their recommended difficulty settings - VH/VH. The people who bother playing mods for a game from 2006 are good at playing a game from 2006.

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.

[Dooz]

one of the things I enjoy is having capable and good FMs.

An empire being run by a bunch of those would probably be running at a healthy surplus

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

Categorically not a finished product, there are factions, units, events, multimedia and more missing.