economic socialism in total war atilla

[anonimo272]

i am not here to discuss the ideology i am here to discuss historical acuracy regarding income in ancient times
since shogun 2 cities seems to have pretty much the same income/population
are the suebi equally powerfull as rome ? or populated ?

i understand the need for balance but i don't understand why every one is pretty much equal appart from units
how can a remote tribe in britannia support as much troops as the roman empire ?
conquering rome or conquering a city in britania as the same value
it's ridiculous

would the unequality ruin the game ?
empire did have the unequal economy and it worked well so no

i understand the need to make our actions counts more to the designed world
during the campaign we will make cities wich had 100 income to 3k cities that's not historical but game wise it's ok
however why put everyone on the same situation at starting ?
a simple solution would be to put really different base incomes

the question is do you prefer historical plausible incomes for settlements or every settlement gets the same income

[RGA]

You are simply wrong. Cities in Rome 2 produce vastly difference income, depending on their levels and buildings. What all factions have equally is the base income, but AFAIK, certain factions (Rome, Seleucid Empire, Carthage, etc.) are also buffed with bonus income to simulate their economic strength.

[anonimo272]

all factions have equally is the base income

that is my point
i know they can achieve very different incomes from each other given time but that's artificial
there mus be some sense how can a city in britania become richer than rome in less than 5 years ?
it's like all factions started in a comunist regime and then went to extreme capitalism

[RGA]

Eh, the base income is applied for factions, not individual cities. The term "communist" (I try hard to not think of it in a pejorative meaning) is clearly ill-suited.

Yes, the base income is artificial. It's there so minor factions won't end up with tiny armies because their economy is too weak. You can set it to zero with mod, but the game is then very boring.

[anonimo272]

i sincerily don't know if it's pejorative, maybe socialist then ?

it's not a binary option, theres no need to take it all otherwise as you say it affects gameplay
what it needs is to be adjusted, right now theres no minor factions everyone has the same income, armies, populations...
if CA implemented plausibles incomes then i would be happy

[Humble Warrior]

i sincerily don't know if it's pejorative, maybe socialist then ?

it's not a binary option, theres no need to take it all otherwise as you say it affects gameplay
what it needs is to be adjusted, right now theres no minor factions everyone has the same income, armies, populations...
if CA implemented plausibles incomes then i would be happy

What is your obsession with socialist/communist? There`s a dozen better ways to describe how the financial system works\don`t work in Total War and those two just don`t apply. Not even close. You obviously have no idea what socialist\communist actually means.

[anonimo272]

What is your obsession with socialist/communist? There`s a dozen better ways to describe how the financial system works\don`t work in Total War and those two just don`t apply. Not even close. You obviously have no idea what socialist\communist actually means.

obsession ? what again ?
the term used may not be the correct one i reckon but it kinda serves the purpose
you obviously have no idea what obsession means

i just mean socialism on a economic way, so every settlement gets the same income

@delicious
that's artificial income, like kings purse, the appropriate would be plausible incomes for cities not factions, factions lose power
i didn't say food wasn't more important
what i want i historical accuracy and if not possible for gameplay reasons at least something more plausible
how can we justify that rome has the same value has a british city in this period of time ?
the ancient world was unequal pretty basic stuff for anyone who knows History.

[Abdülmecid I]

I think the term communism is a bit misleading, bt I strongly agree with the rest. It's obvious from the region distribution that the map has been streamlined. Most regions are of equal size and financial importance, which leads, along with the lack of capital distance, to no strategic depth for the cm. In Rome I, Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt or Syria were incredibly wealthy provinces, basically thanks to trading and the abundance of resources, but unfortunately that's not the case for R2 and probably ATW.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Oh different inherit base income? Surely you don't mean the 1.5k Wealth that Rome gets default? Compared to 1k for Carthage and 2k for the Seleucid? Or take into account that Barbarians only get 500 + wealth income and sometimes even lower at 300! Also Rome has + Income from all sources while Carthage has + income from Commerce. That isn't even taking into account faction buildings or wonders, like the 10% tax rate wonder you get at Ephesus or the 20%+ Income from manufacturing income at Pergamon.

So no, buddy, just no. Classic example of someone who talks without even exploring the game, and they say our opinions are all equal, well they aint. Also for historical accuracy purposes, food matters more then money. How much food a region could produce would determine how much people it could hold. Many factions went raiding for income and paid their soldiers in spoils, pretty basic stuff for anyone who knows History.

[DeVrie]

and they say our opinions are all equal, well they aint.

We should open a new poll. Communism in opinions, Yea or Nay!

Seriously, I understand what the OP is trying to say, but the way this thread is proposed is just silly. Also wrong like DeliCious pointed out.

[anonimo272]

We should open a new poll. Communism in opinions, Yea or Nay!

Seriously, I understand what the OP is trying to say, but the way this thread is proposed is just silly. Also wrong like DeliCious pointed out.

just edited the op however in the answers i can't edit comunism
but the proposal isn't silly, like i said theres no need to go extreme on this and base income solely on historical accuracy i believe theres a need to be a balance just not the shogun2 and rome 2 balance

[Anna_Gein]

This is a big problem with recent TW games. The map have been mechanically balanced which prevent any reasonably historical scenario to happen. Not only does it throw interesting historical accuracy out of the windows (and I mean interesting as the politico-military equilibrium of whole regions in comparison to *sandals*) but it makes the layout of campaign just as much boring as if it was with it.

[Jean de Joinville]

How on earth can you call that aspect of the game "socialism/communism"? That is just as inane as calling the "Total War" series fascistic for its name.

[anonimo272]

How on earth can you call that aspect of the game "socialism/communism"? That is just as inane as calling the "Total War" series fascistic for its name.

thats not the point
i used the word because comunist economies distributed it's "resources" equally among it's citizens ( in theory) now imagine rome 2 factions are the citizens
and i used only to define the economy.. sure not the best one nor the "most" correct it's just the one i came up at the moment
now can we get back to the topic ?

[AnonMilwaukean]

The problem I have with the original post is that base-income is the same between settlements of similar culture, sure, but the buildings you start with were often very different. Even on turn 1 of R2, some sides starting with a trading port building already up (some Hellenics, Carthage IIRC, a few others) and some didn't. And some sides had easy access to trading with other factions (via diplomacy buffs and starting situation) while others didn't (Sparta being the classic example of a dilemma, since the only way to trade as Sparta was to take Athens).

So, yes, base-income was the same. Yet the starting economic situation was often very different. Especially because some sides started with a whole province, while others had a single settlement. In fact, barbarians were the worst-off, because they virtually all started with just one settlement IIRC.

Hence, I have no problem with Attila continuing down the same path. I mean, look at the campaign map for Attila: the Franks start with one settlement, and W. Rome, E. Rome, and the Sassanids all start with a tremendous amount of settlements. That alone sort of changes things up, economically. Now, I'm not totally sure how W. Rome in particular is going to work since it is supposedly cash-strapped and hemorrhaging money, but it certainly looks like starting economics will be even more different than in R2, given the sizes of factions and what not. And all this without needing to change base-income values for specific settlements.

And even beyond all that, there are even special cities in the game (which I don't know much how they are different, but I imagine one important element could be economic differences). Constantinople, Rome (the city), and two others are listed as special cities or something. So, that might mean there are a few settlements with higher base-income or whatever (I honestly don't know, so feel free to inform me if this is wrong or not).

So, while perhaps it is not historically plausible that some settlements have as much base income as certain others, it's by no means a big deal in terms of differentiating factions according to economics, because some factions have far more settlements or easier trade partners or economic buildings already up on turn 1, while others have none of those things. And in terms of historical plausibility (again I am not using 'accuracy' here), we simply can't figure out how settlements stacked up to one another in many cases, and in the few cases where logical guesses can be easily made, we do have some differences (again, special cities as well as differences in the type and number of buildings already built on turn 1).

Ultimately, I'll re-iterate: while I get that the base-income is the same for many settlements in R2, a trend Attila is likely to continue with, I find this to be no big deal since so many other factors play into starting income (number of settlements, buildings, trade situation, etc.). And from a plausibility stand-point, it would be hard to determine the appropriate adjustments to make to base-income between, say, a Pictish settlement and a Frankish settlement, while the major settlements (Rome, Constantinople, Cestiphon) may have identical base-income but likely have more buildings up. And even then, those major settlements are listed as special cities, which may have some economic considerations.

And to throw in one last wrinkle: I don't know for sure, but will Attila continue with having certain settlements contain wonders? Because that was a huge economic factor, given that some wonders improved trade or certain building-line incomes.

Again, base-income being the same between some settlements is not always very plausible, but base-income is by no means at all the only factor. And in many cases, we honestly can't be sure which settlement made more and which made less money. So if Attila does what R2 did, I see little problem. Already I think back to R2 Emperor Edition and about how hard Marcomanni were just to get an army up without bankrupting myself versus playing as Parthia in that same campaign and having no issue with money whatsoever. That alone sort of makes me think Attila will be okay. Economics in R2 were not perfect, but different sides certainly had very different economic situations despite base-income being pretty universal.

And lastly, some settlements/factions in R2 did have different base-income anyways. Minor factions varied, and so on. So I don't see Attila having a problem in this area at all, even with some settlements having identical base-income.

EDIT: And beyond that: base-income rapidly becomes less meaningful or important when you consider that you can actually eliminate a settlement from the map this go-round.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Again, have none of you actually turned on the game and noticed that the base income vastly differentiate between factions? Seleucid 2000 Bonus income, Rome 1500,Carthage 1000,Suebi 500,Tylis 300.

And this base income is a big deal for gaining any early game tax infrastructure. Not to mention the vast disperity between traderesources,wonders and 4 region provinces(4 Region provinces provide the highest wealth potential).

Wrong is too weak of a word to describe how far off track the OP is.

[anonimo272]

Again, have none of you actually turned on the game
...
Wrong is too weak of a word to describe how far of track the OP is.

then read the op please

@anon
yes buildings are vastly different but my point is about the quantity not the quality of income, i agree that the sources of income must be diversified at the beginning as it is now what i don't agree is pretty much the same amount for everyone
you say that seleukids or whatever big faction has still the advantage and you are right but it is because of purely fictional income
i dont have rome 2 installed (had it for 9 months but played rarely) but you can check the income tab for every faction and you will see that settlements income (trade,tax...) is far less than fictional income
this means that we have a completely fake economy and it's problematic because it doesn't represent the true value of a settlement

as i said previously theres no need to exact figures, estimates are much better than what we have right now

[DeliCiousTZM]

then read the op please

@anon
yes buildings are vastly different but my point is about the quantity not the quality of income, i agree that the sources of income must be diversified at the beginning as it is now what i don't agree is pretty much the same amount for everyone
you say that seleukids or whatever big faction has still the advantage and you are right but it is because of purely fictional income
i dont have rome 2 installed (had it for 9 months but played rarely) but you can check the income tab for every faction and you will see that settlements income (trade,tax...) is far less than fictional income
this means that we have a completely fake economy and it's problematic because it doesn't represent the true value of a settlement

as i said previously theres no need to exact figures, estimates are much better than what we have right now

Wonders and city bonuses are ignored in this statement. Carthage has 25% to income from Commerce, while Rome has 15% from all sources. Also generally speaking Rome and Hellenic faction have higher income buildings than Barberians do, so even here you are wrong. If you however want to make that case that the AI isn't developing his provinces well enough, you might have a point, but that is a seperate point and not relevant to the actual potential.

Trade resources are not "Fictional" income either.

[anonimo272]

Trade resources are not "Fictional" income either.

i didn't say otherwise, i completely agree

wonders and city bonuses aren't ignored they simply aren't relevant in the op as the subject is income equality and those factors are futile at the start and till mid-late game, they later became relevant but the point is that base income should be revised
but even later that isn't enought

Also generally speaking Rome and Hellenic faction have higher income buildings than Barberians do, so even here you are wrong

i think you misunderstood i never said they are exactly the same i said pretty much the same, if you want open rome 2 and see how little the income varies, if you want compare the most extreme rich city at the start and the poorest one, the difference isn't much