Economic and commercial system

[Philippus]

Does anyone have any information about how the economic and commercial system will work?

I particularly like the house deepen this item.

An economic and trade system that could be controlled at the level of micromanagement and that had strategic implications in the recruitment, buildings, etc.

[ChairmanCrassus]

I think that besides diplomacy and internal politicking that trade and economics is the third thing that TW needs to improve upon. I think trade routes should become more important, as well as natural resources like purple dye and metal. Taxes should have a higher penalty to being raised because it is unrealistic to have very high taxes for prolonged periods with no problems in regards to economic growth or government popularity. Players should also have the ability to borrow money as part of a line of credit and get negative treasury balances.

[Philippus]

Truth, the economic and trade system as a whole, needs more depth and detail.

So the game is not limited to battles, politics and diplomacy, and gains with strategic content in the campaign.

[Rorarii]

I liked the ETW trade system.

R

[Biggus Splenus]

I liked the ETW trade system.

R

Same. I love the whole "world market" thing, and the addition of trading post on the shores of foreign lands

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I hope they will implement less currency dependant army maintenance for some tribes, like a call to arms that gives you an army for the season depending on how many towns you hold and your faction leaders authority.

[Princeps]

yeah i would like to see barbs and nomads with a different system of maintenance. like, they could raise armies like ck2 style but they take longer to deploy and concentrate and would suffer from a lack of discipline.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

yeah i would like to see barbs and nomads with a different system of maintenance. like, they could raise armies like ck2 style but they take longer to deploy and concentrate and would suffer from a lack of discipline.

They could actually be quite disciplined and tactical, but would definately suffer from lack of equipment, intertribal tensions and inability to remain long enough in the field to become a well oiled war machine as they had to return to their farms.

[Biggus Splenus]

yeah i would like to see barbs and nomads with a different system of maintenance. like, they could raise armies like ck2 style but they take longer to deploy and concentrate and would suffer from a lack of discipline.

Economic difference depending on the culture and nation would be great I think. Maybe some cultures would have to rely more on trade, other on taxes.

[Rhaegar1]

My idea is this, to keep the trade / diplomacy part easy enough trade goods are divided in 4 categories: Raw materials (iron, wood, building stone etc.), luxury goods (gold, silver, silk, spices, etc.) and food(grain, olives etc.) which are produced by (upgradable) buildings all over the world. Regions like carthage and egypt can produce lots of food, the iron mines in spain and forests of germany produce lots of raw material. Luxury goods are 'produced' along the silk route and in gold mines etc. The fourth kind of goods will be slaves which are produced for a certain amount of time when you won a battle or conquered a region and choose enslave as an option.

your empire needs a certain amount of 'shiploads' from each of the 4 trade goods which is based on your population, development, amount of buildings and armies. If you produce X shiploads less of something then you need you can get a trade agreement for X shiploads with a faction that produces more then they use. If you cant trade it you get penalties depending on what commodety you lack. Lower public order and higher upkeep for lack of food, higher building and recruitment costs for lack of raw materials, lower public order and and income penalty for luxury goods and a variety of penalties for lack of slaves.

If you produce more then you need you can sell it of course to other nations as well. The prices of the goods should be based on the total world production and need. Off course a trade contract has priority over your own needs so if you lose some production of something you should cancel the agreement or buy it off to save your diplomatic reputation or live with the consequences of not having enough yourself.

The advantage of this scenario is that factions will be forced in a very natural way to expand into, or trade with regions that have certain commodities in abundance. This is a nice tool of rewarding a historical expansion without annoyingly forcing the player to do that. Like roman trade with egypt for grain and Carthaginian expansion in spain for raw materials etc.

What do you guys think? O, and trading should be limited to neighbouring factions or factions that are reachable by sea (not to far away).

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

"Barbarians" were quite independent minded people, I think the main problem for a "barbarian" warlord would be to not be taken out by his "subjects" if they suspected he might turn himself into a permanent leader.

[Princeps]

"Barbarians" were quite independent minded people, I think the main problem for a "barbarian" warlord would be to not be taken out by his "subjects" if they suspected he might turn himself into a permanent leader.

yes. i think playing with the barbarians should be like herding cats. they can raise large armies and terrifying warriors, but theyd easily fall into civil wars. successions, especially would be bloody affairs.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

yes. i think playing with the barbarians should be like herding cats. they can raise large armies and terrifying warriors, but theyd easily fall into civil wars. successions, especially would be bloody affairs.

Well not large numerically due to small population, but large in proportion to the population, which leads to the issue of lost harvests and famine the "barbarians" should face if engaging levied troops in protracted campaigns.

Still there should be noblemens retinues accessable for all around the year fighting in true pre-feudal fashion. These should be superior warriors without actual upkeep costs, but few in number.

[Princeps]

Well not large numerically due to small population, but large in proportion to the population, which leads to the issue of lost harvests and famine the "barbarians" should face if engaging levied troops in protracted campaigns.

Still there should be noblemens retinues accessable for all around the year fighting in true pre-feudal fashion. These should be superior warriors without actual upkeep costs, but few in number.

i agree entirely. although id like to see levy system and the need to settle vetreans and returning soldiers to their farms, a problem for many roman rulers, as a feature of all armies. popular and charismatic warlords would be able to raise large barbarian armies, but they would be unruly and unstable. they would have win quick victories with lots of booty, or your warlord would face a revolt.

[King Beowulf]

Personally I think this would add a lot more depth to the politics to the game but then I also really liked the ETW trading mechanics.

[Philippus]

Yes, the economic systems of the barbarians should be distinguished, as the reality of history.

One question that I think is important in the trading system. If a locality has a resource called "horses", this location can recruit "cavalry." But for another location that does not have the feature "horses," recruit "cavalry", this will need a trade route.

The amount of trade routes, will depend the local production capacity of the resource and the ability to export. That is, depends on the level of farms or stables, the trading post and port.

The trade routes could be either internal or external. And also both by sea or land.

Would not it be something like a unique and simple business agreement between two nations, but a trade route between two locations.

[Biggus Splenus]

There definitely wont be a levy system, Total War has always been about supporting a permanent army

[Adreno]

Well fots/s2 garrison system was almost like having levies, it depends on your buildings.. plus it also sort of had the trade system some people are proposingwith the special resources

[Biggus Splenus]

Well fots/s2 garrison system was almost like having levies, it depends on your buildings.. plus it also sort of had the trade system some people are proposingwith the special resources

To a degree. The only thing is that you can't assault with them

[Ichon]

The militias of ETW were like levies. The provincial capitols always had extra troops based on the population. I am not sure how that would work in RTW2- Roman legions under the Republic were basically militias while barbarians had also a system for raising manpower- the Greeks and some others would be the more difficult to portray in that way. Perhaps a penalty for moving onto the path of Empire is giving up the ability to raise levies in return for the higher taxes and central control to raise more permanent and disciplined professional troops. So Rome initially would be in a sort of middle ground compared to Carthage or Selucids while the Germanic tribes would be relying on levied troops for 90% of their units so going on offensive campaign is quite difficult(maybe once a generation there is a migration where entire parts of German population are levied warriors and can be used in a giant wave of offense for 3-5 turns before migration ends) unless switching administrative systems which should be a process frought it difficulty but possible for every faction.