What else is to be added/ changed in EBII going forward?

[Rad]

An empire being run by a bunch of those would probably be running at a healthy surplus

Yeah it would... if I had them. Only my FL and 2 more FMs are worth a damn, and I have 45 provinces to run

[Wolf Priest]

Categorically not a finished product, there are factions, units, events, multimedia and more missing.

You might feel that way, but to me it feels finished (Except typos, we should not talk about those ). Wherever I looked, I saw nothing lacking. I'm not saying I like everything (Senate can go fu%& itself, I ain't going back, on 6 years journey to get "Imperium", that lasts 4-5 years anyway, if the character can live long enough, and sure as hell I will not be sending a 16 year old boy from Easter Persia to Sparta to make him a "real Greek man"), but it's still more than good enough, and content-complete as we like to call it.

[Mamlaz]

Even with the 100k army, I'm earning 15-30k per turn and I have a very hard time spending all that extra money

Just build large warship navies and keep them in port.

[Rad]

Just build large warship navies and keep them in port.

I do have a lot of ships. More than I need, actually.

[Kaskad]

Personal wish: bringing the script announcing the death of a AI sovereign, "the king (basileus, etc...) of ----- is dead, -----", back. I always thought it was a good add to the immersion and RP

[Jurand of Cracow]

Personal wish: bringing the script announcing the death of a AI sovereign, "the king (basileus, etc...) of ----- is dead, -----", back. I always thought it was a good add to the immersion and RP

I think it's a good idea as it adds to the flavour, and in the 4TPY EBII the number of those infos won't be overwhelming (it is in the 2TPY SSHIP).

Just build large warship navies and keep them in port.

caeterum censeo: the EBII team should do something with this flood of money. the players should not be forced to do such artificial things. Money should be a parameter in the player's decisions.

[QuintusSertorius]

caeterum censeo: the EBII team should do something with this flood of money. the players should not be forced to do such artificial things. Money should be a parameter in the player's decisions.

Such as what? I could easily write a clawback script that removes money over a certain threshold, but I can imagine the whining that would cause. I'm not changing unit costs, because that just about works for the AI and none of the "solutions" to change the cost for the player are worth the effort since they are trait-linked, and thus easily avoided.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Such as what? I could easily write a clawback script that removes money over a certain threshold, but I can imagine the whining that would cause. I'm not changing unit costs, because that just about works for the AI and none of the "solutions" to change the cost for the player are worth the effort since they are trait-linked, and thus easily avoided.

I agree that trait-linked negative solutions (trade, tax, or farming mali) are bad - both because they're easily avoided and because they're negative: the players (me included) don't like negative incentives. In my modding for the SSHIP I try to do the opposite: give big money bonuses in traits and ancillaries so that the player levels-up his generals and then he can reap those good traits (not +5% or +10%, but +30% and more). As a result, it should be rather the set of base parameters that get rid of the flood of money.

if the increase of the upkeep costs of the military is not possible then the revenue side should be tweaked. (the recruitment costs are pretty much irrelevant given the low casualties in the battles: you recruit very rarely). I think it's much ahistorical that any faction can easily "tax" a newly conquered province: provide significant regular income to the "center of power". The conquered provinces would provide initial income (loot after the conquest), some income that is easy to catch (esp. mining), but then it would provide troops, but little money. So I think the initial income of the provinces should be lowered, and then increase over time. Many options are possible to achieve it, I think. For instance, the very low levels of governments should have a significant mali for income - again, not -5%, but -50% for tax/trade income; or -3 farm income, or -3 trade bonus. Or Stasis buildings could produce mali.
At the same time, you can diversify among the factions: those that were able to tax provinces effectively (esp. Romani) they'd get lower mali. Or you can simulate the learning process among the barbarians by adding better gov buildings after the reforms.

I agree that any clawback script wouldn't be liked by the players. It'd also be very artificial, equivalent to the current trait-mali system related to the big budget.

[Lusitanio]

By the way, Jurand can you help me finding out how to add field costs for your armies in the game? I have been trying to find where do the mods that use that mechanic but I can't find anything in their files about that. I think I can implement it easily once I find it, then I could release it as a submod and if it works good who knows if it could be implemented in EBII.

[tentaku]

Many options are possible to achieve it, I think. For instance, the very low levels of governments should have a significant mali for income - again, not -5%, but -50% for tax/trade income; or -3 farm income, or -3 trade bonus. Or Stasis buildings could produce mali.

that sounds interesting. Also I remember corruption is related to distance from capital, wonder if the rate of increase for corruption can be modified

[QuintusSertorius]

that sounds interesting. Also I remember corruption is related to distance from capital, wonder if the rate of increase for corruption can be modified

If we raise the cap any higher, it will be pretty drastic in the way it reduces incomes. Mostly on the AI, who don't know to replace bad governors with good ones.

[tentaku]

If we raise the cap any higher, it will be pretty drastic in the way it reduces incomes. Mostly on the AI, who don't know to replace bad governors with good ones.

poor AI. in the age of AI where computer can beat humans in go, I hope soon there are smart game AIs that no longer need pities from us humans.

[Rad]

poor AI. in the age of AI where computer can beat humans in go, I hope soon there are smart game AIs that no longer need pities from us humans.

A smart AI, in 2019, where everything is connected to the Internet? No thanks.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[QuintusSertorius]

poor AI. in the age of AI where computer can beat humans in go, I hope soon there are smart game AIs that no longer need pities from us humans.

Although, thinking about it, the AI has finance scripts to sort it out. So more corruption would ultimately hit the human player more than the AI.

[Jurand of Cracow]

If we raise the cap any higher, it will be pretty drastic in the way it reduces incomes. Mostly on the AI, who don't know to replace bad governors with good ones.

Other arguments against an increase of corruption:
1. it hurts more the steppe factions as the distances to capital are higher (while the corrupt Greeks wouldn't be so corrupt as they're densely packed together)
2. it hurts more the maritime factions, again for the distances to capital are higher (the landlocked / land-centred factions expand in all directions from the capital, while the maritme only in a few directionst)
3. the problem with flood-of-money starts much earlier (with only a few settlements) so it wouldn't solve the problem unless the increase is really drastic;
4. creation of big empire would become more difficult (ie it would require fine-tunning with the benefits from the buildings and traits).

Having written that, I think that a slight increase in the corruption coefficient wouldn't be bad.

[QuintusSertorius]

Other arguments against an increase of corruption:
1. it hurts more the steppe factions as the distances to capital are higher (while the corrupt Greeks wouldn't be so corrupt as they're densely packed together)
2. it hurts more the maritime factions, again for the distances to capital are higher (the landlocked / land-centred factions expand in all directions from the capital, while the maritme only in a few directionst)
3. the problem with flood-of-money starts much earlier (with only a few settlements) so it wouldn't solve the problem unless the increase is really drastic;
4. creation of big empire would become more difficult (ie it would require fine-tunning with the benefits from the buildings and traits).

Having written that, I think that a slight increase in the corruption coefficient wouldn't be bad.

Everything we're discussing is contained in the descr_settlement_mechanics.xml:

      <factor name="SIF_CORRUPTION">
         <pip_modifier value="1.25"/>
		 <castle_modifier value="0.75"/>
         <pip_min value="0"/>
		 <pip_max value="1200"/>
      </factor>

1. There's already a different multiplier for camps, so this needn't be an issue at all. I can very easily lower the modifer for camps even while raising the cap.
2. Maritime factions are richer anyway, since sea trade is more profitable than land trade.
3. Flood of money is much less serious with a small number of settlement than with a large one. The issue here is having spare hundreds of thousands of mnai at 20+ settlements.
4. It should be more difficult anyway. The larger the empire, the greater the temptation for local functionaries to enrich themselves, thinking no one is watching.

[QuintusSertorius]

You might feel that way, but to me it feels finished (Except typos, we should not talk about those ). Wherever I looked, I saw nothing lacking. I'm not saying I like everything (Senate can go fu%& itself, I ain't going back, on 6 years journey to get "Imperium", that lasts 4-5 years anyway, if the character can live long enough, and sure as hell I will not be sending a 16 year old boy from Easter Persia to Sparta to make him a "real Greek man"), but it's still more than good enough, and content-complete as we like to call it.

I've already got a host of updated, amended and new content for the patch. I've just finished expanding some basic functionality that resets faction relations on faction death to the hording factions, who were left out before. There are many examples of that sort of thing which appear all the time to be fixed, which means it's really not complete.

On a related note, hording factions are getting their own "respawn" feature, so they can't permanently die either. They won't spawn in a settlement, but a new horde will appear at some point after they've "died" and give them another chance.

[Rad]

On a related note, hording factions are getting their own "respawn" feature, so they can't permanently die either. They won't spawn in a settlement, but a new horde will appear at some point after they've "died" and give them another chance.

If this happens 1-2 times, it's a good idea that will spice up the game. If it's constantly recurring, it's tedious and unrealistic.

[Lusitanio]

I've already got a host of updated, amended and new content for the patch. I've just finished expanding some basic functionality that resets faction relations on faction death to the hording factions, who were left out before. There are many examples of that sort of thing which appear all the time to be fixed, which means it's really not complete.

On a related note, hording factions are getting their own "respawn" feature, so they can't permanently die either. They won't spawn in a settlement, but a new horde will appear at some point after they've "died" and give them another chance.

So let's say that playing as Carthage, I destroy the Numidian faction. Will my regions be safe from a sudden attack or will I be warned that the numidians are assembling their armies to recover their lands?

[Jurand of Cracow]

1. There's already a different multiplier for camps, so this needn't be an issue at all. I can very easily lower the modifer for camps even while raising the cap.
2. Maritime factions are richer anyway, since sea trade is more profitable than land trade.
3. Flood of money is much less serious with a small number of settlement than with a large one. The issue here is having spare hundreds of thousands of mnai at 20+ settlements.
4. It should be more difficult anyway. The larger the empire, the greater the temptation for local functionaries to enrich themselves, thinking no one is watching.

Ok, you've convinced me and I agree on your views on 1, 2, 4. Given the presence of the money script for the AI, this would argue in favour of rising corruption coefficient.

However, on 3 I have a different opinion. IMO, the flood-of-money problems arises already with a few (3-6) settlements. It's not the issue of having spare hundreds of thousands of minai, the crux of the problem is: money doesn't constitute a constraint for the player. In my experierience playing Hayasdan in 2.2b, Pergamon in 2.3 and Pritanoi in 2.35, I could build everything that was needed (or even possible), I could recruit all the troops worthy it (ie not recruiting slingers or skirmishers that are in large supply), I could field a few fuu-stack armies - and yet money would still bulge in my coffers. And all this without investing much in the buildings and without waiting - you can expand very fast.
I think this experience is shared by other people, at least by those expressing themselves in this thread.