Economy feedback

[Pritzl]

Per the FAQs posted above:

Q: Have you changed the distribution of wealth any?
A: Yes - provinces, resources, and trade have all had their values tweaked, and costs are much higher than they were. The open beta may see imbalances in this respect, as we have not been able to balance the economy the way we want to, and will not be able to until our core systems are in place. This is part of what we want your help for, to balance the economy, and other aspects of EB.

Faction balance: Haven't played all factions but there certainly seems to be an advantage (as it should be) for Mediterranean-based cultures, particularly the middle east. I wonder though if the armies of other cultures shouldn't be cheaper to recruit/train? i.e. just like in the modern world, the richest countries in the world usually also have a higher cost of living and therefore higher wages.

Navies: Honestly this is the only thing I see as a step back in EB. It makes sense for a fleet to cost a lot to build but the upkeep is quite ridiculous. With pirates spawning with 2-3 shp-fleets in a stack the cost of maintaining any sort of effective fleet (4+ ship fleets per stack) is almost impossible. I know RTW 1.0 and 1.2 had terrible fleet battles, but these are a lot better in 1.5 so perhaps this should be re-evaluated now in preparation for the port to 1.5?

City garrisons: Didn't a lot of these cultures use cheap 'garrison' type troops for their cities only raising armies for campaigns? I keep seeing 'Vigiles' in the Roman recruitement options of the 2nd level MIC which sounds like they might be what I'm looking for but they aren't actually available for recruitment. I know that there are other ways to control cities and you could always find a substitute (e.g. the velites or what not) but I like the immersion of using a real garrison. i.e. a force that I know would be hopelessly outclassed in a real war but is cheap enough to use to garrison the cities while my armies camp out in the open/disband when campaigning is over.

Low road bonuses? I don't know why but I get the feeling trade bonuses from roads are not what they used to be but I could be wrong.

Anyone else?

[Frost, colonel]

I agree with you on the fleet issue, if decent wealth isn't easily obtainable later then a fleet will be a rare exhorbatant luxuary, certainly in my games so far!

[QwertyMIDX]

The price of fleets was a last minute tweak, they will likely remain very high but should come down a bit.

[Yamoto]

I agree with you on the fleet issue, if decent wealth isn't easily obtainable later then a fleet will be a rare exhorbatant luxuary, certainly in my games so far!

I agree with your fleet issue. :laughing:

[Blizzard]

I'm satisfied with high fleet costs (yeah maybe toned down a bit but not too much - maybe just for transport ships)
what I don't like and I think it scrues up the game is the script which gives the AI 30000 mnai per turn making it to depopulate is cities by recruiting dumbly all it can get. I noticed many cities end up almost depopulated because of this practice.
I know the AI is dumb but there must be another way to make it survive
damn CA and their hardcoding

[swabian]

i think this problem is only theoretical in EB. i usually play on vh/vh or vh/m. it is true that the AI recruits a lot, but obviously most cities can grow well in EB. i just wached a gallic city growing from 4700 (bibracte) to 12000 (without enslaving anything but rebels) during about 120 rounds. observing the history graph, i just see that the AI is recruiting armies multiple times bigger than mine while still having a decent population growth. some towns seem in deed to shrink constantly. the gauls in the mentioned example almost stopped expanding since about 60 rounds, so it can't be mainly due to conquering rebel factions. i think there is a critical population size (of about 3500-4500) and after reaching the latter, the high recruitemnt costs ensure enough growth. it is imho highly recommended to keep to the EB unit prizes, but i agree that the prizes for fleets should be reduced by at last 25%.

[Blizzard]

I played on M/M, H/M or H/H
I see no need to give the AI those extra 10000 mnai since they already receive financial help from the script
that would traduce only in more city bribes
just want to mention that on even on M/M my cities were attacked by rebel stacks (for those who said that rebel AI only sieges on cities on VH)

[swabian]

yes, that's true

[Ezequiel]

This may have been pointed out to you but...:

Major economical issued ive seen with the use of economical help for the ai (slightly OT but it doesnt merit a new post) is with protectorates.

Eg. due to the add_money x that has been put in once each faction drops below a certain value, in my current KH campaign, after making Pontus a protectorate im able to rake in huge amounts of cash. Its a vicious cycle (for them) - each turn they pay me Protectorate payments, which makes their money drop below amount y so they get an injection of cash. This then passes to me through the next payment, and this vicous cycle allows me (only holding about 10-15 provinces, to gain an extra 25kish per turn. Im currently able to maintain three standing armys and still get this 25k.. This means of course that id be able to have five armies if i wanted them, something the computer just cant challenge.

Just a bit of a flaw in the economical "help the ai" issue, as having a protectorate is an easy way for the player to rake in cash at almost the same rate as the AI, which effectively nullifies any bonuses the ai gets from the cash.

I know ive read you plan to change the add money help to something different, but the protectorate "cheat" still stands if you give them any money bonus to help.. What other ways can you help them apart from cash which will stop this *bug*..???

The obvious thing to say is dont have protectorates but i find them *usually* more effective than alliances, Pontys have been mine for almost 10 years and havent attacked me (apart from the start of course ) while ALL of my other nearby allies have attacked me.

Apart from that, damn fine game, only had four/five CTDs in a while of playing so cant complain, and everythings much more immersing. My only other qualm is with KH adopted generals, as they all have awful stats..

Hope is isnt just a waste of a post, but thought youd like to know
E

[Blizzard]

if the add_money x oughta be kept then maybe a script that would disable financial help for states that become protectorates would do

[Lucasiewicz]

About the fleet issue:

I personally think that fleet costs should remain high and don't have to be toned down too much (i.e. if AI-factions are able to build enough of them in longer campaigns to be effective - I haven't really played a long campaign to know that for myself). What I do think that has to be done differently are the overpowering pirate fleets (you have to build a quite large, and so expensive fleet, to be able to beat them). They need to be powered down, though I wouldn't object if there were to be more of them. More, but smaller/weaker ones. This way you still have to hold a permanent fleet in order to 'patrol' the seas for pirate fleet and protect your harbours from them.

Offcourse this could all be regarded from an historical point of view (which some of you guys will have to inform me). From a rational point (though history, as some of you formentioned, isn't always a logic leap) I don't think that pirates were that big rulers of the seas as they are in my campaigns, though they might have been a frequent problem.

[QwertyMIDX]

Pirates were a pretty big deal, the war in which Pompey became "the great" was fought against pirates.

[Lucasiewicz]

Pirates were a pretty big deal, the war in which Pompey became "the great" was fought against pirates.

That's one account, perhaps one of the more there are to be found. But from the point I view it in the game, every pirate fleet is a massive threat (this can be mistaken, maybe there are some minor fleets to be found in the game -someone correct me if I'm wrong, please!- ). If there are multiple historical accounts on massive pirate fleets, I will settle for an accordingly proposal: more small/weak(er) pirate fleets and from time to time a massive threatening fleet (if offcourse such a proposal is manageable, depending on scripting and game-mechanics, which I'm not very accustommed to). If it was so that every pirate fleet imposed such troubles to the factions with such frequency as it is in the game right now, then offcourse I will adapt my opinion and suggestion. I'm only trying to help tweak the game to the utmost realistic perspective, as this mod has set the goal to.

[QwertyMIDX]

Yes, I was just mentioning it, the Pirate fleets are a bit out of hand at the moment I agree.

[Pritzl]

Can't you control the type of ships they use? Maybe give them a pirate-only, weaker than normal, type ship so that even when they spawn in numbers they are not a threat to anything but the weakest fleets?

[Blizzard]

there is a .txt file I think that contains rebelion in it's title... and in it there are a few values for brigands and pirates as spawning chance percentage for region... 10% means they will spawn a lot 75% means you will rarely see them
in 1.5 all is simplified in a similar file (that would be another solid argumet for porting it to 1.5)