Roma Surrectum II: Economic System

[Miltiades the Younger]

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...)

[♔Icebear77♔]

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...

[rory o'kane]

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?

[coinich]

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

[dvk901]

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.

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.

[Legionary Titus Pullo]

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

[Ibram]

As a tester, I can confirm that RSII will be naff.

Then again, I also bull**** a lot

[ray243]

How much would population affect the economic prosperity of the region? Several frontier regions in the Roman empire prospered because of the fact that Roman legions are stationed there, and together with the camp followers, they ended up buying a lot of goods from the people living there as well.

[dvk901]

There will be a happiness bonus for building a 'Roman Fortress'.

[dvk901]

Oh....if I or anyone has made it sound 'convoluted' in the sense of needing a degree in chart making and understanding, I apologize. My intention in the addition of buildings and\or the configuration of the economics is not to confuse the player with things that won't be easily understood just in 'playing'. In fact, I have BEEN playing it just to make sure it isn't something that will cause endless questions and confusion. The building browser, IMO, should be 'explanation enough' for anything that's required, or the building descriptions themselves. I really 'dislike' having to have 'external sources' to understand how to play anything...believing as I do that the game itself should be self-explanatory. I don't think Calvin...well I know he didn't....means RS2 won't be easy because we're trying to create a mod where you need a 'manual'. That's OK if you like that sort of thing, but I want RS2 to be easy to understand in a self-contained way. It's something I'm working on, oddly enough, and I play test...going through and making sure that building descriptions actually explain what the building does, and if it's needed for something else, that it is so stated in that description.

[Leeham991]

I'm both impressed and utterly terrified x)

Definitely can't wait though

[tone]

To be honest, I'm not really much of a micro-manager. I'll tend to build what I can and don't think about buildings much other than trying to build the ones that give public order or financial bonuses. I can't say I've looked at the buildings browser more than a handful of times in any mod. I've certainly not been at a disadvantage in RS2, but I've learnt a thing or two from reading the descriptions about metal working, glass making and so on. So in summary......immersion, yes; pain in the neck, no.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

I love empire-building, so this system is heaven for me... I loved (and still love) EB, but the downside is the it has almost no battles because of the horrible turn loading times, but RS II has! (I guess) Yaaaay! this will beat EB in every way!

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I am looking forward to playing RS again.

A lot!

[Durakkon]

"The results of your choice here allow, for example, stone walls and above to built in a fortified city, and upper level barracks (only for the player in modfoldered campaigns, as the AI is too stupid to use these wisely ). Or in an economic city, you can build great forums and above, along with a whole slew of other economic and economic upper level buildings we've added."

How do the AI auto run settlements perform under this system, are they competent enough to be left alone? And based on testing what seems to be the best way to utilize the auto govern setting?

While I am a die hard micromanager I am beginning to auto run entire regions of conquest to cut back on time between turns and the headaches of running a huge empire.

[Scarrus]

Will I be able to for example attack a city, plunder it and then leave it without occupying it? Like leave it to it's native people, but through plundering also destroying a lot of buildings in it?
I would love that feature, like if a Faction gives me trouble, keeps attacking me and thus drive my economy down, just plunder one of its cities and leaving it to suffer?

[Alavaria]

How do the AI auto run settlements perform under this system, are they competent enough to be left alone?

If some buildings prevent others from being built, I don't know if it would be a good idea to leave it to the AI, especially when it comes the the crucial economy/military choice.

AI factions, though ... well public order is not really a problem for the AI there.

Will I be able to for example attack a city, plunder it and then leave it without occupying it? Like leave it to it's native people, but through plundering also destroying a lot of buildings in it?

I don't think you can destroy buildings without owning the settlement? Most you can do is damage it 100%. Would be nice if you could sack like hordes in BI do (but while being settled, of course).

While I am a die hard micromanager I am beginning to auto run entire regions of conquest to cut back on time between turns and the headaches of running a huge empire.

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

[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.

[Legionary Titus Pullo]

Will I be able to for example attack a city, plunder it and then leave it without occupying it? Like leave it to it's native people, but through plundering also destroying a lot of buildings in it?

YES

[rory o'kane]

YES

errr, no. you can't destroy a city's buildings without owning the city. that's hard coded.