The problem with money...

**Jarl_Ragnarr** · August 30, 2016, 02:40 PM

Greetings, everyone!

So, I haven't found quite some solutions on this so I'm asking here. The problem is, when I play WotN, I quickly run out of money, mostly after 3 to 5 rounds. The units have a huge upkeep costs aswell. What do you suggest me to do for dealing with this problem? (Exept cheating).

Thank you!

**absinthia** · August 31, 2016, 02:29 AM

you need to raid, raid and raid.
you need to pillage, burn and conquer. use the income to build you best settlements until they can support your armies.

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 26, 2018, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jarl_Ragnarr

The problem is, when I play WotN, I quickly run out of money, mostly after 3 to 5 rounds. The units have huge upkeep costs aswell. What do you suggest me to do for dealing with this problem?

There's one secret which I've just discovered (and I'm not sure it's dealt similarly in the other mods). Namely: you pay a lot for the generals' bodyguards. You pay wages (200 per general), but you also pay upkeep for his men. Eg. in case of a Slavic king with 50 riders, you pay hefty 1300 gold coins. The pitfall is with adopting. If you decide to adopt, you've got to pay for the guys. As said, I didn't know it and I've decided to adopt what the engine offered - and out of 5500 for the army, some 4500 is paid to the bodyguards.

You should also be careful with marriages. The game gives a lot of wifes, then gives a lot of children. You may end up with many nobles, each costing 900 gold (200 wages + 687 for 25 bodyguards). Then there's a question if you want to be somehow unrealistic and kill them artificially (just attack against javelins - they'll die), you want to stick to history: nobody was willing to be killed just because the treasury didn't have money...

The problem with this mod is: a noble cannot pay for himself being a governor. In the other mods a noble is not such a burden (there's more money in general, the costs of a general are lower (I believe)) and there're traits that he can get by governing a settlement which makes him valuable (eg. any trade-related: +20% trade in a good settlement may make him not making much loses). However, in WotN the settlements provide little money in general, and the generals are unlikely to get governing making traits. This means: big loses from many nobles, and you want to kill them.

**Mr_Nygren** · January 29, 2018, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

There's one secret which I've just discovered (and I'm not sure it's dealt similarly in the other mods). Namely: you pay a lot for the generals' bodyguards. You pay wages (200 per general), but you also pay upkeep for his men. Eg. in case of a Slavic king with 50 riders, you pay hefty 1300 gold coins. The pitfall is with adopting. If you decide to adopt, you've got to pay for the guys. As said, I didn't know it and I've decided to adopt what the engine offered - and out of 5500 for the army, some 4500 is paid to the bodyguards.

You should also be careful with marriages. The game gives a lot of wifes, then gives a lot of children. You may end up with many nobles, each costing 900 gold (200 wages + 687 for 25 bodyguards). Then there's a question if you want to be somehow unrealistic and kill them artificially (just attack against javelins - they'll die), you want to stick to history: nobody was willing to be killed just because the treasury didn't have money...

The problem with this mod is: a noble cannot pay for himself being a governor. In the other mods a noble is not such a burden (there's more money in general, the costs of a general are lower (I believe)) and there're traits that he can get by governing a settlement which makes him valuable (eg. any trade-related: +20% trade in a good settlement may make him not making much loses). However, in WotN the settlements provide little money in general, and the generals are unlikely to get governing making traits. This means: big loses from many nobles, and you want to kill them.

I believe Regnum Francorum has a completely different economical system compared to vanilla. Maybe vanilla Will be more to your liking.

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 29, 2018, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mr_Nygren

I believe Regnum Francorum has a completely different economical system compared to vanilla. Maybe vanilla Will be more to your liking.

Four notes:
- it's not that I like or don't like the system. I'm just giving the advice on the gameplay: don't accept adoptions and marriages because they're the reasons for the budgetary troubles (unless you want to use the "free cavalry conquering the world" strategy)
- the issue I've pointed at is not related to the RF submod and it's economy changes in particular. In the vanilla WotnB3.1 it works in the same manner. However, it's related to the size of the units you play with (you may change it at the beginning of the campaign in the Game settings: Huge, Large etc.). The numbers I've put in my post were for the "Huge" size. If you play "Large" then the prices are lower becaus units are smaller (wages stay the same, but you pay less for the bodyguards). However, the issue of the money-drainage lingers irrespectively.
- the RF submod doesn't have a "completely different economic system". There're changes in the building chains (eg. many buildings are disabled for the Slavic factions) but overall they are rather negative for the income (fewer buildings - less money). I might be wrong in the assessment of the RF mod if it has introduced changes in the files describing parameters to the economy - I haven't checked them.
- anyway, in the WotN it never pays off to have a governor of a settlement (maybe in Osnabruck - the Frankish city, once it's build it up). This is because you'd always lose money. The result is: in this mod the generals are only for conquest.

**Mr_Nygren** · January 30, 2018, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

Four notes:
- it's not that I like or don't like the system. I'm just giving the advice on the gameplay: don't accept adoptions and marriages because they're the reasons for the budgetary troubles (unless you want to use the "free cavalry conquering the world" strategy)
- the issue I've pointed at is not related to the RF submod and it's economy changes in particular. In the vanilla WotnB3.1 it works in the same manner. However, it's related to the size of the units you play with (you may change it at the beginning of the campaign in the Game settings: Huge, Large etc.). The numbers I've put in my post were for the "Huge" size. If you play "Large" then the prices are lower becaus units are smaller (wages stay the same, but you pay less for the bodyguards). However, the issue of the money-drainage lingers irrespectively.
- the RF submod doesn't have a "completely different economic system". There're changes in the building chains (eg. many buildings are disabled for the Slavic factions) but overall they are rather negative for the income (fewer buildings - less money). I might be wrong in the assessment of the RF mod if it has introduced changes in the files describing parameters to the economy - I haven't checked them.
- anyway, in the WotN it never pays off to have a governor of a settlement (maybe in Osnabruck - the Frankish city, once it's build it up). This is because you'd always lose money. The result is: in this mod the generals are only for conquest.

- I haven't played the submod..

But i know that the only way to get money at the beginning of the vanilla 3.1 is to raid, like Absinthia said above - you are supposed to send your troops to raid settlements and then get money from looting those same settlements. I believe Regnum Francorum added ship trade and stuff? That's not included in 3.1 due to the economy being too easy.

- All i am saying is 3.1 is made to be very hard, and you are not supposed to have Governors siting at home and earning money - in RF that may or may not have changed.

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 30, 2018, 03:21 AM

I don't think there's much contradiction in what we're saying

.

Yes - the economy is difficult and you need to raid / conquer to build up your main town. I've just drew attention to the fact that part of the "difficulty" of the economy lies not on the income side of the balance, but on the expenses caused by too many generals.

I haven't used any ships from RF, so I don't know. What we do contradict is the assessment of the impact of the RF submod on the economy: I haven't experienced it's to be such.
And the issue of expensive generals it's definitely not related to the RF. This is an issue / feature of the WotN itself.

The case for no governors at home - ok, I accept. The RF submod doesn't change it.

**Mr_Nygren** · January 30, 2018, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

I don't think there's much contradictory in what we're saying

.

Yes - the economy is difficult and you need to raid / conquer to build up your main town. I've just drew attention to the fact that part of the "difficulty" of the economy lies not on the income side of the balance, but on the expenses caused by too many generals.

I haven't used any ships from RF, so I don't know. What we do contradict is the assessment of the impact of the RF submod on the economy: I haven't experienced it's to be so big. And it's definitely not related to the issue of expensive generals: this is an issue / feature of the WotN itself.

Case for no governors at home - ok, I accept. The RF submod doesn't change it.

You said the mod were too easy to play on the economical side after playing RF, and i said vanilla is harder then - i don't know why you continue to state you didn't write that.

- You critizised the mod, saying it was too easy wishing it would be harder. I read what you wrote.

- You come of as a besserwisser first writing something then saying you did not.. Kinda annoying to me. I just gave you an answer - going forward i won't give you any because you seem to have issues with the answers given.

**Jurand of Cracow** · January 30, 2018, 03:41 AM

I'm sorry that it annoyed you. My other comments were in a different thread and relevant to a different discussion (on the Franks in RF, not on the income and the impact of the generals' bodyguards on them).
And I'm unaware I have criticized the mod - on the contrary - I think I'm pretty positive on the mod.
This is my last-but-one entry, as I have a long comment prepared which is rather positive, I think.

**Juzu90** · January 30, 2018, 04:19 PM

This mod has also one difference to other ones it is that there are very few settlements that can give you huge lump of money each turn.Many settlements have poor base trade income and other income is also low. Location is a big thing and not every settlement can work as a big trade hub.Governors are useful when you have a settlement that produces a lot of money already.That gives bit it more historical accuracy.And you can´t have huge stacks of rampaging armies everywhere at the same time it was uncommon during that era.