Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

  1. #1
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    46,927
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    The way it looks we took 'reducing' the income to a whole new level that has a few players stomped, especially the ones that start playing Austria right away. I bet it is the first time you have seen a faction with ZERO trade income.

    So let me explain: as you know various buildings give trade income bonuses which then add up to a nice total bonus count once they are all maxed out. This caused the massive income in version one which we aimed to reduce.
    And reduce we did, in a very unconventional way: for every region a faction owns the trade income bonus goes down by one 'point' globally for every region until eventually you have to rely solely on other income, forcing you to build mines, recruit merchants and squeeze your folks for their last ducat.



  2. #2

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    I have only played a few turns so I can't really say anything about it but it seems a bit weird. Especially because a faction like Utrecht and probably a few others to a lesser extent became very wealthy in that period because of trade.

  3. #3
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    46,927
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    If your faction stays within a certain range of regions owned that will still happen, just not as fast as in version 1.0 - it will force you to do some serious planning if you wish to expand.



  4. #4

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    If your faction stays within a certain range of regions owned that will still happen, just not as fast as in version 1.0 - it will force you to do some serious planning if you wish to expand.
    Can't tell you how much I appreciate the effort to make this mod more challenging in all aspects.

    Can't wait to play.

  5. #5

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Yeah, but that sounds more like BGR-level annoying.

    It should cost more to operate an empire than a small province, but trade income shouldn't go down.

    I'll revisit this thread once I've played the game (I did only 3 turns last night).

  6. #6
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    46,927
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by k/t View Post

    It should cost more to operate an empire than a small province, but trade income shouldn't go down.
    The problem was how to simulate increasing expense, doing it the regular way (deducting money via script) is somewhat difficult because deducting money will have to be fixed amounts. And it's usually an enormous script - we used 'Carl the Taxman' for a while in version one and it added nearly three minutes to the AI turn!

    This solution doesn't effect the AI turn time, just the player's sanity. (Your income from harvest can be higher then your trading income)



  7. #7

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    I'm very glad to hear about significant changes made to the economic part of this mod. Frankly, the whacked-out, grossly imbalanced economic system of version 1.x was the biggest reason I stopped playing it. Being able to bank $1 million as Bavaria within a relatively short-time completely ruined the mod. Not much fun or strategy involved when you can buy or build everything and literally buy any sort of treaty.

    Making ridiculous gobs of money was a major issue for 1.x, but another was the AI's inability to handle the economy. Whereas the player could be quickly swimming in cash, the CAI would go bankrupt in no-time flat because it would recruit swarms of the super abundant and cheap mercenaries and, as a result, fall into the red due to heavy upkeep costs. It really was the worst of both worlds: a super-rich player taking on bankrupt AI nations.

    I was really impressed with this mod's historical flavor as to its map and units, but its 1.x campaign really was half-baked due to the above issues. So, I'm hoping the 2.0 version addressed the above and it appears fromt his thread that the creators did make some significant changes in that direction.

  8. #8
    Bernardius's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    SACRUM IMPERIUM ROMANUM NATIONES GERMANICAE
    Posts
    595

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Yeah, now money is scarce!
    EB II is finally out! ...NOW!!!...

  9. #9
    Sir Althfons's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern Spain
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Greetings, men. I tried the mod, and I can see there's plenty of good work in there. The game is very interesting for the most of it, and your units really rock.
    But not for the incomings issue. Sorry, but I don't think it helps to make and interesting game, instead it makes everything stuck, inmobile and boring, since, there aren't enough founds for you to do anything.
    I've actually been cheating for money to make things funny: I don't have too much time, and need the game to provide me some fun after all...
    So I vote for changing the trade incomes reduction to slighter levers.

    Anyway, lots of congratulations on Dreissig Jabre mod !

  10. #10

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    income? ...what's that? I've seen no such marvellous thing as an ...income in my game!

    I'm playing Austria, it's (only) 1621 and I'm at -1,2million thalers and going (down) strong ... I don't bother looking the finances sheet, I've only ever built a market in Vienna and a jousting field in Aachen (in the first turn), after which I don't even bother looking at my cities any more. I'm reduced to fight with whatever armies I had at the start, and whatever armies spawn for me...

    All I can therefore say is that the new economy is no fun! It's a trauma! So, I'm not going to praise the new economy systems, or say I'm glad for it. I definitely prefer the old model! But I refuse to cheat or give up... because the battles are so DAMN GOOD!!!! (when they do occur, as the economy has hamstrung most all factions to a halt) [and yeah, I know how to mod the old economy back (more or less), but that would be like cheating too! So, I'm not doing it now]


    Hey... Now that I think about it, my current campaign with Austria doesn't feel like a "total war" game at all any more, it rather feels like I'm playing "myth" (you know, "the fallen lords", "soulblighter", "the wolf age"), where you get a fixed size force and try to get through each battle with minimal (or zero) losses - otherwise you could kiss your campaign goodbye!

    So, two thumbs up for everyone who's re-living the good old days of "myth" (the pain and the fun of great fixed-force battles) on the m2:tw engine, courtesy of the 1648 mod team




    PS: don't talk to me about building up at the beginning... even if I disband every unit I have, I still have a LOT of generals (who now have an upkeep) and most cities in the red - perhaps if I allowed half my empire to slip away I and loaded all generals in a boat (on a one way trip, if you get my meaning ) I might manage... BUT THIS IS NOT HISTORICALLY CORRECT (not appropriate - it's also like cheating in a way no serious power of those days would act ... and it spoils the feeling for me )
    Last edited by justme; April 08, 2013 at 04:28 AM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    income? ...what's that? I've seen no such marvellous thing as an ...income in my game!

    I'm playing Austria, it's (only) 1621 and I'm at -1,2million thalers and going (down) strong ... I don't bother looking the finances sheet, I've only ever built a market in Vienna and a jousting field in Aachen (in the first turn), after which I don't even bother looking at my cities any more. I'm reduced to fight with whatever armies I had at the start, and whatever armies spawn for me...

    All I can therefore say is that the new economy is no fun! It's a trauma! So, I'm not going to praise the new economy systems, or say I'm glad for it. I definitely prefer the old model! But I refuse to cheat or give up... because the battles are so DAMN GOOD!!!! (when they do occur, as the economy has hamstrung most all factions to a halt) [and yeah, I know how to mod the old economy back (more or less), but that would be like cheating too! So, I'm not doing it now]


    Hey... Now that I think about it, my current campaign with Austria doesn't feel like a "total war" game at all any more, it rather feels like I'm playing "myth" (you know, "the fallen lords", "soulblighter", "the wolf age"), where you get a fixed size force and try to get through each battle with minimal (or zero) losses - otherwise you could kiss your campaign goodbye!

    So, two thumbs up for everyone who's re-living the good old days of "myth" (the pain and the fun of great fixed-force battles) on the m2:tw engine, courtesy of the 1648 mod team




    PS: don't talk to me about building up at the beginning... even if I disband every unit I have, I still have a LOT of generals (who now have an upkeep) and most cities in the red - perhaps if I allowed half my empire to slip away I and loaded all generals in a boat (on a one way trip, if you get my meaning ) I might manage... BUT THIS IS NOT HISTORICALLY CORRECT (not appropriate - it's also like cheating in a way no serious power of those days would act ... and it spoils the feeling for me )
    hehe, yeah its very hard to play Austria. Actually I started a game with this Faction, too and dont have any financial problems anymore (bout Round 70). I disbanded whole armies and give some peripherical towns to the Catholic League. Then I sent just Generals in enemies territory and let them plunder the enemy land This is the only way to get money. Every second turn I get around 8000 florins.
    With this honourfull income I build up my towns. Now I get enough money to upkeep a whole army. Also I sent most of my merchantmen to the Goldmines in the south, where one guy generates an income bout 400 florins per turn.

    But there isnt any income from trade. Dont know if this a bug or intended. I got trade-treaties with most of the factions, built cobbled roads, even the "trade-routes-building" and ports but I dont get one florin from trade
    Last edited by Fuzzibo; April 08, 2013 at 06:06 AM.

  12. #12
    knight of meh's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,712

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzibo View Post

    But there isnt any income from trade. Dont know if this a bug or intended. I got trade-treaties with most of the factions, built cobbled roads, even the "trade-routes-building" and ports but I dont get one florin from trade
    it is quite intended especially for a large faction like Austria

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    The way it looks we took 'reducing' the income to a whole new level that has a few players stomped, especially the ones that start playing Austria right away. I bet it is the first time you have seen a faction with ZERO trade income.

    So let me explain: as you know various buildings give trade income bonuses which then add up to a nice total bonus count once they are all maxed out. This caused the massive income in version one which we aimed to reduce.
    And reduce we did, in a very unconventional way: for every region a faction owns the trade income bonus goes down by one 'point' globally for every region until eventually you have to rely solely on other income, forcing you to build mines, recruit merchants and squeeze your folks for their last ducat.
    to the horror of us all...

    highlighted the important bits if the OP for you

  13. #13

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    please look into installation thread. i upload a fast fix to correct that issue.
    generals have now again 0 upkeep. trade malus ist set down, now u get trade income.

  14. #14

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    it is quite intended especially for a large faction like Austria
    By the way, Monti just uploaded a quick fix for this

    b) set the Big-Empire-Trade-Malus to lower value, from 1 to 0.1. So, also Austria for example will have positiv income (approximately 5600) at start.
    So this is Service!
    Last edited by Fuzzibo; April 08, 2013 at 06:17 AM. Reason: too late

  15. #15

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by Monguntiacum View Post
    please look into installation thread. i upload a fast fix to correct that issue.
    generals have now again 0 upkeep. trade malus ist set down, now u get trade income.

    well. that's a pleasant surprise... thanks Moguntiacum!

    It probably won't make much of a difference in my Austrian campaign, but this gift is much appreciated (for my next campaign at least )!

  16. #16

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Hi! About playing Sweden, getting an stable income is really just too hard. But wouldn't it be better by reducing the amount of generals that Sweden has? U start with around 19 generals and 3 managable citites?? since they have an upkeep cost in like 250 each and that the generals unit can't be disbanded, it would be easier too decimate the amount too get an stable income.

  17. #17
    knight of meh's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,712

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    almost certain you haven't seen the most recent patch

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post12740837

    generals set to have no upkeep again

  18. #18

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by Jolenko View Post
    Hi! About playing Sweden, getting an stable income is really just too hard. But wouldn't it be better by reducing the amount of generals that Sweden has? U start with around 19 generals and 3 managable citites?? since they have an upkeep cost in like 250 each and that the generals unit can't be disbanded, it would be easier too decimate the amount too get an stable income.

    Knight of meh is correct: there is a quick-fix that reduces generals to no-upkeep.

    However, even with upkeep for generals, Sweden was not too hard to get into the black economically. Sweden has two minor cities near Kalmar and those, unlike major cities, provide 4-5 free upkeep slots for ANY unit. Stick your generals and any other high upkeep units (ie artillery) into those minor cities and that will definitely give your economy a boost. Meanwhile, get trade agreements with Denmark, the Protestant Union, and Poland (all with Baltic ports) and start leveling-up your trade ports. Don't go nuts recruiting units. And merchant income is key in this mod. Get your merchants on amber resources and get onto those four tobacco resources near the southern shore of the Baltic. I was eventually making a tidy profit as Sweden by following those steps even with general upkeep.

    I really like playing in a limited economic environment. One of the best things about 1648 2.x is its limited economic environment: putting an army into the field should be expensive and one should have debate each turn where and how to spend one's limited funds. That's what makes a TW game fun, and the best mods are the ones that find ways of curbing the awful "snowball effect" that occurs in TW games when one's nation gets so rich and so big that the game loses any sort of challenge. I stopped playing 1648 1.x because its economic engine was whacked-out. As landlocked Bavaria, I was banking a million within a decade of game time despite having one of the biggest armies and filling my construction queues every single turn. Despite 2.x's glaring stability issues, I really like the changes done to the economic part of the game. I really hope that the developers don't kow-tow too much to the "I want to spam armies every turn so I can gob-smack the CAI within 25 turns" crowd.

    Yes, the CAI is currently struggling with the economic engine, but it also struggled in 1.x. The same problem it had with 1.x still exists in 2.x: too many of nations start with armies they can't afford and then recruits too many of the cheap and abundant mercs with its initial funds/king's purse. The CAI isn't programmed to disband excess units. So, it goes broke, doesn't upgrade its cities, loses them to revolts, and goes even deeper into the red. The weird thing is that the CAI will have large armies, but it won't do anything with them. It appears the CAI takes into account financial viability as a factor as to whether to go on the offense or not. Since I'm always in black and the CAI is bankrupt, it doesn't attack me even if it has a stronger army. In my last campaign as Sweden, I was eviscerating Poland-Lithuania with almost no resistance. I observed a full stack Polish army that actually marched away from my siege of one of its cities. On the other hand, when playing Bavaria, I observed that one of the few AI nations that wasn't bankrupt, Saxony, was also the only AI nation that seemed to be doing anything with its armies.

    So, getting the AI to be financially viable within this mod is probably the best way to getting it to function as a viable opponent within this mod. The question is how to accomplish that?

  19. #19
    knight of meh's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,712

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Quote Originally Posted by MKeogh View Post
    .
    I really hope that the developers don't kow-tow too much to the "I want to spam armies every turn so I can gob-smack the CAI within 25 turns" crowd.
    i don't want this either but playing as Austria i experienced something new i got so deep into debt that i couldn't build /recruit and i didn't have the troop numbers to invade anyone so the whole game just sat there in stalemate ... so the economy did have to be made a little easier not so you can stack spam but so that you don't get stuck not being able to do anything at all

    and this is the third time i have edited this post saying i don't want to quote Gigantus...

  20. #20

    Default Re: The principle of diminishing trade income returns

    Many thx mate! :=)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •