Too many farming penalties?

[Dr Spork]

I have noticed that a lot of the buildings have a penalty of reducing the farming income of a province. I am playing as the Bosporus kingdom and this is a major pain as I want to make the most use of the extremly fertile areas I have taken. Some of the penalties I understand such as those from graneries but do people think it is necessary for other building such as greek settler colonies? And why do waystations and garrisons show a farming penalty, surely they would increase input as the countryside is made safer? Can I just alter these myself?

Cheers

[Iguanaonastick]

Presumably, all these things boost the population that is eating your grain. Less left to sell on the market, and the grain that's being sold is the stuff that boosts your income.

[torongill]

I have noticed that a lot of the buildings have a penalty of reducing the farming income of a province. I am playing as the Bosporus kingdom and this is a major pain as I want to make the most use of the extremly fertile areas I have taken. Some of the penalties I understand such as those from graneries but do people think it is necessary for other building such as greek settler colonies? And why do waystations and garrisons show a farming penalty, surely they would increase input as the countryside is made safer? Can I just alter these myself?

Cheers

Waystations need maintenance and financing, i.e. they cost money. They increase the trade and law, but cost money to operate, so the money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the only guaranteed income - the farms tax income.

[Dr Spork]

So the farming penalty is just a maintance cost? Other buildings like walls, ports, temples etc would have maintance costs as well but they don't have a penalty. And OK there has to bne some kind of cost for stuff like waystations but would the cost of keeping some soldiers on patrol at various points really be equal in magnitude to the benafits of a farming upgrade? I've seen other MTW2 mods (HURB) where most buildings have a maintance penalty which is just a negative income so couldnt this be implememnted rather than always hammering the farming? Like when you build mines it says income +200 so when you build a waystation it could say income -100.

[torongill]

So the farming penalty is just a maintance cost? Other buildings like walls, ports, temples etc would have maintance costs as well but they don't have a penalty. And OK there has to bne some kind of cost for stuff like waystations but would the cost of keeping some soldiers on patrol at various points really be equal in magnitude to the benafits of a farming upgrade? I've seen other MTW2 mods (HURB) where most buildings have a maintance penalty which is just a negative income so couldnt this be implememnted rather than always hammering the farming? Like when you build mines it says income +200 so when you build a waystation it could say income -100.

Yeah, but fixed penalties tend to get negligible as your income from trade, ancillaries, traits and taxes increases. It's not a great system and it has its faults - but it works.
Also, the waystations and garrisons are basically your provincial police force+caravansaray+armed escorts. If you look at the benefits, they basically act like the law bonus of about two units that are not peasants - and those cost a pretty penny to maintain. Walls, ports and temples don't cost that much to maintain, because with the ports and walls the costs are up front, whereas temples in general are maintained by the populace at large.

As a matter of fact I don't understand the reason to lower trade if there's an awesome temple of some sort. Actually, the contrary would be true - the influx of pilgrims who buy all sorts of souvenirs, charms and memorabilia would actually increase trade, not lower it.

[ambereyes]

I've seen other MTW2 mods (HURB) where most buildings have a maintance penalty which is just a negative income so couldnt this be implememnted rather than always hammering the farming? Like when you build mines it says income +200 so when you build a waystation it could say income -100.

That would be nice, but in the mean time if a building gives a negative to farming income you can queue it up and check it's precise effect in the settlement details window. It may be different between different settlements.

[Tombles]

It's also worth pointing out that a reduction in farming income results in a reduction of the damage that an enemy can do to you via devastation. As far as I can tell, the money lost via devastation in a province is purely a percentage of the money gained from farming- a percentage that can, and rapidly does, exceed 100. Your early, strongly agrarian economy is therefore incredibly vulnerable to enemies, and building the waystations chain represents a costly investment into methods of wealth extraction that ultimately prove more stable. Of course, that stability alone is (usually) not worth the investment, but it's a factor the player should consider alongside law, trade, and mining.

I am of course only discussing this feature in game terms; I'm not commenting on the more complex economic factors that they model.

[Slor]

I liked their 'realistic' -farming input system at first, because as explained above it made total sense. However, i feel it kinda breaks the game once you reach a certain point. If your enemy isnt beating your armies and if he has 2 full stacks in your lands while you have everything built you dont get the starvation penalty. At the moment I'm just letting enemy stacks sit in my territory as it means nothing unless they attack(which sometimes they dont - maybe something built into the AI telling them to sit in ur land as you're supposed to be getting -1000 income from devastation..you know kinda making you want to take action) and doing my own thing. So for example I've built provinces with an aim on max farming with as little -farm as possible(like my capitol as I have no need for +law there) and others with everything. Provinces with everything built bring in around 4500-5500 income(not including mines) and if an enemy sits stacks in those lands I get -100 devastation if that.. If hes not attacking me why care?

So I've done a new campaign with balanced build to make it more challenging. Obviously my income is lower as I dont have those mega +trade buildings that kill ur farming, and when an enemy decides to sit a stack in my land it really kills my income as I feel it should. TBH I just like the challenge, I know not everybody wants it that hardmode. Maybe this was just an oversight by the team though.. either way feedback never hurts.