Economy too harsch (Corruption)

**xTumasx** · June 22, 2018, 08:34 PM

So I get the economical part of this mod.

Urban area = Taxes/Industry
Rural area = Farms/Culture

Right now the Liguria region gives me 20-25k depending on the season (which is my richest region)
Previously my richest region was Italy and it made me 35k, right now Italy gives me less than 15k due to corruption.

I went from 50k+ to now -30k in about 10 turns due to corruption, even having civil courts (-corruption) buildings and half the civic research tree (BEFORE HAVING LEGIONS).

The nerf to agriculture was stupid. and fix the corruption value please.

**stevehoos** · June 22, 2018, 08:39 PM

I don't understand how some of you are having such a hard time? I owned 6 regions with Pergamon in my last campaign, I had to quit because of bugs.

**xTumasx** · June 22, 2018, 08:52 PM

It's the Imperium mechanic.

Your empire bigger = more corruption.

Lesser empire = more bugs I guess

**swissdragon** · June 23, 2018, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by stevehoos

I don't understand how some of you are having such a hard time? I owned 6 regions with Pergamon in my last campaign, I had to quit because of bugs.

Well, I've both experiences: Bancrupt in 3 turns or money without end. I mean this alone tells me that the economy system is unreliable, unbalanced and overcomplicated and its not transparent enough. Thats why even TW veterans get alot of problems playing this mod. And its no fun to fight with the economy this way, its like playing Russian Roulette. I've never ever seen in any TW game so many "famine", "rebellions", "attritions" and "civil wars" messages as in this mod. Its to much, really. As you I couldn't finish any campaign yet, because of CTD's.

For myself this problem started with Rome 2 and its "new provincial economy" system, with very limited numbers of building spots, destroying free choices in city building at once. I hate this system all the way, also the way CA implemented "provinces". The maps anyway have way to few villages and cities around since Rome 2. This all feels so artificial to me and I feel just like a damn unpaid bureaucrat. Thats not how I define fun and thats the main reason I still see old Rome 1 (with all its huge problems) with the old RS3 mod as the "No1".

I just hope that this all gets fixed and balanced, so that we get back our choice and freedom in building our cities as we want in this game. If someone can do this than its this talented and engaged AE modding team.

**Fraxinicus** · June 23, 2018, 12:56 PM

This is why balancing the game around not having a large surplus is a bad idea. If you don't build 100% exactly right, you can end up bankrupt, even if you've seemingly done everything right. And restarting campaigns because you didn't know the exact, perfect, unintuitive build order (if it even exists) is not fun.

It's going to be hard to balance corruption as long as we have huge fixed maintenance costs. By design the mod has all income from buildings only being marginally better than the maintenance cost of those buildings (IIRC the best return is on workshops, that have ~40% more income than maintenance). But that means that a small hit to global income can push us into the red, because our costs are always so close to our revenue.

It'd be better if maintenance on income buildings was simply done away with, and we were just given the income differential. Maintenance for most other buildings should also be reduced. Realistically, during this period the state had a very small impact on the economy except for the taxes that it took out of it. The state did not concern itself with the affairs of every single business in the empire. Maintenance costs should only exist on buildings which represent things that the government did spend on (such as sanitation, garrisons, military recruitment, administrative offices).

**Zom** · June 24, 2018, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Fraxinicus

It's going to be hard to balance corruption as long as we have huge fixed maintenance costs. By design the mod has all income from buildings only being marginally better than the maintenance cost of those buildings (IIRC the best return is on workshops, that have ~40% more income than maintenance). But that means that a small hit to global income can push us into the red, because our costs are always so close to our revenue.

I think you do make a good point. When you figure in the maintenance costs of improvements that do not generate income, you see that maintenance costs exceed tax income in every province. Trade is what keeps your state in the black... before you figure in military expenses.

I wonder what will happen as your state expands? Fewer trading partners seems inevitable. What happens when you reach the tipping point where trade no longer keeps you in the black?

**Petellius** · June 23, 2018, 02:52 PM

Corruption problem is a bug, we're looking into it. Apologies for that.

**Sheridan** · June 23, 2018, 04:49 PM

As Petellius said, it does appear bugged.

Regardless, I'm inclined to agree with Fraxinicus. A generalized building upkeep puts some restrictions to the economical balance. For instance, I would like to expand on the concept of autonomy by introducing income penalties on early tier settlements, which gradually become more integrated and thus provide more towards the central authority. A problem appears with upkeep then; you are essentially paying the semi-autonomous state, as opposed to merely losing some income. The 'solution' until now has been to reduce maintenance too, which I feel unnecessarily complicates things, takes more UI space and generally feels conceptually confusing. Why pay for an autonomous state at all?

It's worth noting that the building system in ancient empires is extensive, and reworking it in this manner by removing maintenance except for designated state buildings would be an equally extensive process. But I'm prepared to do it.

**Zom** · June 23, 2018, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Sheridan

It's worth noting that the building system in ancient empires is extensive, and reworking it in this manner by removing maintenance except for designated state buildings would be an equally extensive process. But I'm prepared to do it.

I don't know. In the newest Rome game I was playing, I was able to maintain a stable, steady growth. I do not see a problem of building maintenance. Earlier versions were too heavy on the side of income. This one seems pretty balanced, except for the continuous cascading consumption I encountered. Absent that, a slow build seems to be working just fine for me.

IMO you should hold off on making a drastic change at this point... at least regarding playing as Rome. I have no opinion about playing any other faction.

EDIT: I think maybe that is a good idea.

**BBDwarf** · June 24, 2018, 04:17 AM

I actually love the complication and the road that AE offers. Having first to leave regions to a certain autonomy before integrating them slowly into the empire makes absolut sense. There are some bugs, but honestly: In the update before 18th of June I was starting to get the hang of things.

**Zom** · June 24, 2018, 06:45 PM

I am convinced.

I have three small stacks to guard areas where I think attacks can come. I have two full stacks that cooperate in offensive operations, and one half stack fleet for combined operations.

When the tax slider at midpoint does not support the state in times of relative peace and prosperity, something is out of balance. If it is not the imbalance between maintenance costs and taxes, I have no idea.