Economy-corruption

**4th Regiment** · July 15, 2015, 04:11 AM

I have big discussion about this years ago during EBI.

Problem is bit better now, but it is still there.

In the beginning of the game, especially if you are smaller faction, you are in terrible debt. Even if you conquer, 2,3 provinces (thus increasing your kingdom 2,3 times), you are still in debt. Totally ahistorical and bad for game play (forcing player to either blitz or disband army and sit there for dozens of turns until you build up...)

On other hand, by time you built solid size state of 7,8 provinces, and if you take care in building your economy, you do not have any money problems at all. I would say, since you got 10 provinces you are totally relaxed. Again, bad from historic perspective, and for game play as now you do not have real financial challenge at all (on contrast to insane dept on start). In ancient history, as kindoms got bigger they tend to start to have much more money problems, corruption and managing and ruling big mass of land became difficult etc which in most cases actually led to downfall of all empires.

After long discussion, in EBI, I was advised as "solution" to simply give up money to other factions, rebels, etc

Now in EBII, problem is big smaller, but still is. Since you build up decent size state, you are fine and secured. This should be changed. I guess some script adding corruption as your empire go bigger should be implemented. You can slow it down by building certain "buildings" but not much. At point of having 10 and more provinces expansion due to this problem, rebellions etc should be very very challenging.

Thanks

**anonimo272** · July 15, 2015, 04:44 AM

I dont agree with you, but i am playing an earlier version
small factions have more money than they had in EB
big factions have more money and that's the way it should be, i think it's better than the solution in Rome2 in early turns, where massive empires had the income of small tribes
but with big empires comes more enemies, and by that i mean by more deserters, i mean sucessor states (represented by rebels) in such empires at leats thats the way i think they are going

in an earlier beta version corruption was so bad that they you could have negative income in settlements...

**Jervaj** · July 15, 2015, 05:44 AM

Well with the current system even building law giving buildings once you expand a bit you start to have great corruptions levels. If we would make even worse we only would make most settlements not worth it. Some are already a pain as it is. And I dont really think we should encourage not expanding.

The point of bigger empire is that it comes with bigger expenses. More settlements means more building, more garrisons and ussually a large frontiers that require several stacks to properly cover them.

I experienced that in my KH campaign. After a though start I started to expand and arrived a point where I was really rich with arround 11-12 settlements. But I started to have a lot of pressure too. I needed at the same time to fend off big rebel stacks, Romans and seleucids and the army I as maintaining till the moment was not enough. I had to triple the total troops raised at a given moment and with the big battles that meant a lot of losses that I had to be replenishing. I actually started to have refresh problems to keep up.

**bisthebis** · July 15, 2015, 07:18 AM

I m playing with an old version (that might change soon) and I found corruption very nice.
most small towns have 300 of net income, and, for example, Ptolemais theron owned by Ptolemaioi in early game has something like 80% of income wasted by cprruption. That means either I don t defend it, either I develop law buildings or try to get free upkeep.
So it's nice for strategy : either ypu pwn a useless town at losses,either ypu invest to make it wprth.

I think best way is to have big corruption when far away, bit having more ways to increase law (additional buildings)

**James the Red** · July 15, 2015, 03:44 PM

That's the thing about total war games and mods, some people may feel like the game gets too easy later on and thus looses fun, but then maybe others might feel like the game is difficult enough as is. So how would such a thing be balanced? Maybe if the player has lots of money, it gives all family members a negative trait, so it only nerfs players who are way ahead but leaves players who aren't ahead alone.

If I could suggest something for this, make the trait represent not the personality of the individuals, but just the overall situation the individuals have to work with, so that good characters who wouldn't think of gaming the system will still gain the traits. Call the line of traits 'systemic corruption', or 'ineffective bureaucracy' or something like that, and of coarse the more money the player has sitting around could trigger larger levels of this trait, but if money levels decrease than the traits go away, is this possible? I don't know too much about modding.

**delra** · July 16, 2015, 12:51 AM

You'd just build a large fleet to burn the cash and avoid having a too big account...

I'd start by lowering most of mining income on the map. It's too darn high at the moment. Once you have the mines going, you can stop worrying about pretty much anything. Even being in regions where mines aren't as crucial as elsewhere, you still get most of your surplus from them. If there's a city producing 6000 or 7000, you know it's overpowered mines in there doing that.

**4th Regiment** · July 16, 2015, 02:45 PM

Well, that was exactly the "solution" to the problem I was given back in EBI times...burn money on fleet, give it to the rebels etc

And yes, that is what I said in detail above...after let's say acquiring 10 or so provinces while taking care to develop properly (mines, farms, ports etc) mod is too damn easy (on contrast how rough it is on the start and first big number of turns when you do not have money to recruit or to build at all..)

It is very serious both game play and historical accuracy issue ..Since the mod is still in development phase, I hope it will be addressed sometimes soon..

**Jervaj** · July 19, 2015, 10:09 AM

Yeah, maybe making mines a little worse in some places may be it.
Mines is a bit crazy here. In some places they are totally useless, in others they solve are your economic problems xD

**V.T. Marvin** · July 19, 2015, 05:38 PM

Just as in RL...

I believe you never heard about oil in the Czech Republic, for instance, yet there ARE oil fields in south-east of the country but that does not make it Saudi Arabia either...

**Jervaj** · July 20, 2015, 08:50 AM

Yeah I know its like in real life. Some things have extremely rich deposits of whatever and others are barely profitable.

But as we are talking about trying to balance things out and dont get extremely rich maybe hat suggetion of making the best mines not so good could work.

Still I dont tend to find myself extremely rich unless theres little military demands as I do invest heavily in every settlement. But its true that your yearly balance is never negative after the start, cosntructions aside.