[SUBMOD] Official DEI Realism v1.6 (Updated Aug 4th)

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

I don't. I wasn't online yesterday evening. I'll post them once I can my hands on em.

[Basilius]

Last night there was a bug on steam that deleted mods for many users, and Realism was one of them. Scipio updated the mods so they would reappear on the launcher. I know this because I was one of the people effected.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I don't. I wasn't online yesterday evening. I'll post them once I can my hands on em.

Thanks buddy

Last night there was a bug on steam that deleted mods for many users, and Realism was one of them. Scipio updated the mods so they would reappear on the launcher. I know this because I was one of the people effected.

Good to know

[Maetharin]

Aside from game balance, what´s the historical rationale behind recruitment costs to be so extraordinarily high when compared to upkeep?

[Epanastatis]

Aside from game balance, what´s the historical rationale behind recruitment costs to be so extraordinarily high when compared to upkeep?

Well think about it, upon recruitment you have the time and funds associated with training and arming recruits, and then a further cost of transporting them to the rest of the force and assimilating them into it.

Once they're trained, though, you only have ongoing cost of feeding them and keeping supplies stocked.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

Once they're trained, though, you only have ongoing cost of feeding them and keeping supplies stocked.

...and paying their wages which consume, most of the time, the bulk of your income.

[Epanastatis]

...and paying their wages which consume, most of the time, the bulk of your income.

Right but these are costs that are also present during the recruitment process. It's natural that recruitment would cost substantially more than upkeep.

I think I've found a mod conflict - this was preventing Cyanide's Easy Diplomacy mod from working. Seems they are not compatible.

[ScipioTheGreat]

...and paying their wages which consume, most of the time, the bulk of your income.

Aside from game balance, what´s the historical rationale behind recruitment costs to be so extraordinarily high when compared to upkeep?

When looking at the financial budgeting side of ancient military funding, basically the entire system is composed of reoccurring salary and logistical costs that were filled periodically by the state. Obviously, this wasn’t the case all the time, as it’s dependent on situations, the time period, whether they were voluntarily recruited, and how civilized/professional the army was. But generally speaking, “recruitment” costs weren’t really a thing, and sometimes the soldiers themselves were required to foot the bill for a majority of their necessities and upfront costs like equipment. So in simple terms, the recruitment costs for the game aren’t really historically accurate to start.

However, if you analyze the economic impact of military recruitment, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In antiquity, efficiency and organization weren’t a vocal point when considering a civilization’s economy, because the technology and capabilities weren’t there yet. Just as an example, the average American is around 75x more productive than a Roman citizen was then, and many of the fellow Americans I know sit on their ass all day watching Reality TV shows. Thus, the reliance on sheer manpower was insanely high, and almost entirely responsible for always important gdp at the end of the day. Every soldier was a man that wasn’t in a field or filling a production role, and that overall economic expense a state really pays when drawing from its manpower pool. Plus, the taxes and necessary services to fund a military would take a huge portion of surplus per capita production (aka surplus to the substinence needs of producers.) Additionay, you also have to consider the taxes and efforts citizens were required to provide to the military, using up their substantial share of disposable surplus as well. As a result, this is part of my reasoning behind the high recruitment pricing, as I hope to replicate initial cost of turning able-body men into professional soldiers and ultimately state-wide expense, instead of originally becoming a driving force behind one’s economy and a crucial part of it.

[Maetharin]

What costs actually come up when recruiting in a 4tpy setting like in DeI?
Administrative costs of assessing current manpower, assembling these men, initial bonus pay if applicable, 3 months worth of pay and feeding them?

What do we need to think about when considering upkeep costs?
3 months worth of pay and feeding and the ongoing loss in tax revenue of these men being kept from their own business, be that commercial or farming in nature?

Are there any other things I´ve forgotten?

If we apply this to a Roman setting, since we can deduct te 3 months of pay and food as a constant x, we need to consider the cost of assembling the men and loss of tax revenue.
Tax for the average Roman farmer was paid mainly in form of the vectigal, or the lease of ager publicus, thus was a fixed amount dependant on the amount of land someone occupied on this land.

Since the actual soldier in the field would usually be one of the sons of the actual farmer, tax revenue wouldn´t actually suffer unless the farmer had to be drafted as well and his land became unoccupied as a result.
But this would usually be exploited by rich landowners, who´d lease the land to become absentee landlords of latifundia, so tax actually wouldn´t decrease.

I know all of this would be difficult to actually implement, but I´d be happy to discuss how to do it or if it even were possible.

[GyJIeBeP]

lift the content of the units is much higher. The player can contain full stacks of elite right Now playing hard sub mod DEI.Can 1.5. the stack and not the elite.

[TheLonelyEmperor]

So I decided to do a short test campaign as Sparta and I have a question regarding the economy.
It seems to me that most of the features for Realism are working just fine however the costs/upkeep of armies/navies seems incredibly low compared to the massive income I receive. Sparta itself earns 7386 in taxes while I also receive income in the "Other" category that is around 8900. While a full stack army with mostly great units sits around barely 3200 upkeep. To me this seems insanely easy (Dare I say op D: ) however I was curious to know if this "Other" income is only temporary to help Spartan players get started? I know Dardo made that adjustment for Alternative Economy so perhaps it is in this version of it too.

I've played for about 20 turns so far though and my money is just overflowing well into the 200k region and all I've done is take Athens. With a full army and navy I'm still drowning in income which doesn't really seem right to me.

Basically I'm wondering if this is how it is supposed to be or is my install having some conflicts going on?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

So I decided to do a short test campaign as Sparta and I have a question regarding the economy.
It seems to me that most of the features for Realism are working just fine however the costs/upkeep of armies/navies seems incredibly low compared to the massive income I receive. Sparta itself earns 7386 in taxes while I also receive income in the "Other" category that is around 8900. While a full stack army with mostly great units sits around barely 3200 upkeep. To me this seems insanely easy (Dare I say op D: ) however I was curious to know if this "Other" income is only temporary to help Spartan players get started? I know Dardo made that adjustment for Alternative Economy so perhaps it is in this version of it too.

I've played for about 20 turns so far though and my money is just overflowing well into the 200k region and all I've done is take Athens. With a full army and navy I'm still drowning in income which doesn't really seem right to me.

Basically I'm wondering if this is how it is supposed to be or is my install having some conflicts going on?

It's pretty much the same for every faction. It's a design choice AFAIK based on Alternative econmy as stated in the Opening post. With Rome and Carthage I'm usually sittinng on 300K-500K. Scipio and DMW could give you more info though

[TheLonelyEmperor]

It's pretty much the same for every faction. It's a design choice AFAIK based on Alternative econmy as stated in the Opening post. With Rome and Carthage I'm usually sittinng on 300K-500K. Scipio and DMW could give you more info though

Okay thanks mate, just weird for me to get used to since I've been using the base Alternative Economy for a while now. Will have to see how the things change going forward. Thanks for the reply!

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Okay thanks mate, just weird for me to get used to since I've been using the base Alternative Economy for a while now. Will have to see how the things change going forward. Thanks for the reply!

No problem. Is the base AE much different though ? I haven't played it extensively to be honest.

[TheLonelyEmperor]

No problem. Is the base AE much different though ? I haven't played it extensively to be honest.

In my current Rome campaign using AE a full stack navy costs 13k to maintain. Each army cost about the same or more depending on siege equipment and what not. Income is vastly reduced unless you really fine tune your economy. With 2 full stack armies and 1 navy and holding Carthage (And its whole province), all of Italy and Sicily I was making about 13k a turn. Then I needed another legion which sapped my income down way further. So I would say its vastly different hence why I wasn't sure if Realism was working properly for me. Also worth noting I'm playing that campaign and testing Realism on Normal campaign difficulty.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

@TheLonelyEmperor

Thank you for the feedback. I think Realism hopes to do something similar, but probably the applied bonuses are a bit higher atm hence the somehow extreme income especially with bigger factions etc

[ScipioTheGreat]

DMW brought to my attention some of the weird income and cost inconsistencies it seems some might be encountering on here. Though I can't find anything relating to mod lists or detailed reports, I'm assuming you guys have mod conflicts because in no way should one be having such a care-free experience with finances nor collecting that much funds to begin with. Larger factions are actually more often than not much more difficult than smaller ones due to the sheer size of development and costs associated with them.

[TheLonelyEmperor]

Good to know Scip I'll see what I can find with conflicts, I assume its probably left overs from previous mods I had installed.

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Im going to test a campaign with a larger faction and see how the campaign goes over time. Ive been running with 3 different barbarian campaigns, all of which are at least 35 turns in, and the economy stays dynamic. Keep ya posted.

[Maximus030]

I’m currently in a Rome campaign on turn 117 and it is perfectly balanced. I don’t use any other mods.
For example the smithy lvl 4 costs around 112.000 so I guess most of you are having mod conflicts.