'Embezzler' Trait

[kekailoa]

Hey guys,

Long time player and don't post often, but I've come to my wits end with a certain trait I'm experiencing in my Romani campaign. After 400 turns of working on my economy, limiting army size and being extremely frugal with building (not to mention some strategic conquest) I've managed to create at a healthy treasury well above 100,000. However, within 20 turns my entire family has gained the Embezzler trait which is extremely frustrating for the fact it means none of them can be governors anymore, and any client rulers I recruit are the exact same.

I won't deny the historical accuracy of the amount of embezzlement, but I will say that at least for me, it is ruining the gameplay. I cannot have a single governor in a city for more than a few turns without them gaining the trait, no matter how many other moral and strong traits they have. I realize that halfway through the game I can't change the trait (which is a shame as I'm only 15 turns off of the Marian reforms...) but for my next games, I'd rather just not have this trait around as there are enough corrupt traits for governors already (at least for my own style of gameplay).

How can i rewrite the script to remove this trait? Or does anyone have any suggestions as well?

[Rosbjerg]

The problem is that your treasury is above 100k, keep it around 90k and lower you'll see this trait much much less.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Even better <50k to mitigate corruption in all provinces regardless of traits.

[Lusitanio]

Even better <50k to mitigate corruption in all provinces regardless of traits.

I actually prefer <100k, first because there are really few bad effects for having your treasury above 50k and because you may need the extra money in emergencies.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I actually prefer <100k, first because there are really few bad effects for having your treasury above 50k and because you may need the extra money in emergencies.

Glad to hear that. Although my Marian legions are eating up most of the surplus in my current SPQR campaign nearing completion, I'll feel easier with a bit of hoarding in future campaigns

[tentaku]

Wow 100k.... With topic opener's playstyle, I wish his faction leader would've gained a trait called "hoarder"

[Rad]

I really hate that trait line, or at least the way it currently works.
Atm, the way to stay honest is to stay poor. That's not how it works. I know plenty of crooked poor people

[Hellenikon]

IMO the penalties should be random rather than based on a certain amount of cash, because, as can be seen in this thread, people will open the game files and play aroud the limits to avoid the bad traits. I think several factors could affect it: authority of the faction leader (the big one), loyalty of the character and traits like selfish (another big one), and finally number of regions/cash in reserve. I'd make sure to make it random with higher chance depending on factors like these, instead of establishing hard caps, or you get people playing around the cut offs to avoid any penalty.

[Lusitanio]

Well, I added another level for the Embezzler trait and will include it on my submod. Basically it's something to delay the full effects of the trait (it gives like half the effects) but also improves the flavour since your characters have to "climb" the corruption ladder, that is, they don't become sudden masterminds of corruption but slowly start becoming "worse" governors.

Just check the description for the first level which will be named Financially Irregular

The exorbitant wealth of your people has had 'unintended side effects' on your ruling class, starting to cause an increase of selfish and greedy men who seek to enrich themselves with funds that should rightly belong to the state, the people, or greater tribe. Such corrupt behavior is sure to lower the income and public order of a settlement...\n\nThis trait will only begin to appear once your treasury has reached more than 100,000 mnai in total.

[Rad]

IMO the penalties should be random rather than based on a certain amount of cash, because, as can be seen in this thread, people will open the game files and play aroud the limits to avoid the bad traits. I think several factors could affect it: authority of the faction leader (the big one), loyalty of the character and traits like selfish (another big one), and finally number of regions/cash in reserve. I'd make sure to make it random with higher chance depending on factors like these, instead of establishing hard caps, or you get people playing around the cut offs to avoid any penalty.

Good suggestion!

[Roma_Victrix]

IMO the penalties should be random rather than based on a certain amount of cash, because, as can be seen in this thread, people will open the game files and play aroud the limits to avoid the bad traits. I think several factors could affect it: authority of the faction leader (the big one), loyalty of the character and traits like selfish (another big one), and finally number of regions/cash in reserve. I'd make sure to make it random with higher chance depending on factors like these, instead of establishing hard caps, or you get people playing around the cut offs to avoid any penalty.

I back this at least in part, since I think additional corruption should exist for someone with a massive empire and a huge budget with like over 500k. I think the harsh penalties you incur for a measly 100k is a bit extreme, especially since certain provinces need good governors at all times if they are to remain stable without rebelling due to insane public order penalties. For instance, in Liguria and Celtiberia.

[mephiston]

IMO the penalties should be random rather than based on a certain amount of cash, because, as can be seen in this thread, people will open the game files and play aroud the limits to avoid the bad traits. I think several factors could affect it: authority of the faction leader (the big one), loyalty of the character and traits like selfish (another big one), and finally number of regions/cash in reserve. I'd make sure to make it random with higher chance depending on factors like these, instead of establishing hard caps, or you get people playing around the cut offs to avoid any penalty.

I back this at least in part, since I think additional corruption should exist for someone with a massive empire and a huge budget with like over 500k. I think the harsh penalties you incur for a measly 100k is a bit extreme, especially since certain provinces need good governors at all times if they are to remain stable without rebelling due to insane public order penalties. For instance, in Liguria and Celtiberia.

Selflessness and Loyalty already play a role in the triggers, as well as the presence of other traits (Stoic, Austere, Upright). Chances aren't that high (10% for the first trigger) but they increase with the amount of stockpiled money. To be honest, I might put slightly more stringent conditions, as I think these triggers aren't optimally designed, but don't expect major changes. Liguria and Celtiberia are on the brink of revolt by design, so only good governors are to be put in charge of those regions if you don't want to deal with angry rebels.
Is really 100k that measly?

[Lusitanio]

Is really 100k that measly?

Depends on the campaigns, with Carthage you reach 100k easily on the first 30 turns, with the Seleucids I only reached it after turn 240. With the Romans it's also easy to reach that number.

[Roma_Victrix]

Depends on the campaigns, with Carthage you reach 100k easily on the first 30 turns, with the Seleucids I only reached it after turn 240. With the Romans it's also easy to reach that number.

Exactly, and I always play campaigns well after turn 600, as I always make it a goal to reach the early 1st century BC at the least, around turn 700. For me that's a bare minimum and I would never play a shorter campaign than that. For the Romans it's a must if you even want the Marian reforms and to enjoy them for any period of time. My Romani campaign was literally 1000 turns even. With Western Greek factions, I have played on average about 800 turns each, give or take 50 turns here or there.

[Septentrionalis]

being extremely frugal with building (not to mention some strategic conquest) I've managed to create at a healthy treasury well above 100,000.

I really hate that trait line, or at least the way it currently works.
Atm, the way to stay honest is to stay poor. That's not how it works. I know plenty of crooked poor people

I think we are missing the big picture and what the trait represents. It is not your money and you are not an honest businessman making money out of his investment. You represent the government. It is your taxpayers' money, and they are expecting public services and development for it.

Being frugal means money meant for developing infrastructure and defense just disappearing somewhere like in some second-rate dictatorship.

a measly 100k is a bit extreme

In my Roman campaign in which I try to develop as much as possible and bulldoze as little as possible, 100k is about what my entire empire has under the line after four turns (one year). I often start a turn with about 25-32k after unavoidable expenses, and usually all the building, repairing and retraining eats that money up before I can even consider truly expanding my military for conquest.

It is hard to imagine a real-life situation in which a country without oil could ice and hoard a full year's budget without causing great unrest among those dependent on the spending in one way or the other. Not building anything at least means massive unemployment to those who are supposed to do it and to anyone who support them (tool makerss, working clothes manufacturers, meal providers, architects, etc.).

I feel that it is natural to spend all income unless some great undertaking, such as massive port infrastructure work for 36k, takes saving money on a short term. That is what the present system allows for without penalty. Or am I looking at this wrong?

[Beckitz]

Well, if you were going to tweak the game's income and finance system to be more historical, what I think is that it should be made to revolve around your FL. (In almost every instance except for, ironically, maybe Rome and the Koinion Hellenon, two factions which had proto-professional institutional structures, whereas in all other societies depicted in the game the kingdom was a personal possession of the FL). Except for in Rome and Hellas, the state revenue would never be in an independent treasury belonging to the government itself rather than the King. Your sources of faction revenue should be dynastic lands, plunder, and taxes extorted from your subjects. Think for a second about the fact that building aristocratic estates in your provinces increases your income. This is totally overlooked but its a big mistake. The growth of elaborate landed aristocracies in a region would absolutely crowd out you, the governing faction, as an extorter of money and taxes. Instead it would be interesting to see this simple device, the 'Embezzler' tree, expanded and used as the basis in all factions for a group of trait trees incorporating multiple sides of the antique governor's relationship to government money-making, and then make these traits the centerpiece for the player's effort to try and manage up-or-down fluctuations in their income. Even in Rome, you had many countervailing forces working to keep revenue from ever reaching your treasury. Your fellow nobiles and the magistrates were, frankly, very likely to pocket parts of the money they were responsible to collect from any province or city they might happen to govern. You could get lucky sometimes and have truly good boys at your disposal for running the realm. But more commonly, getting a better percent of the revenue out of your taxable subjects carried a political cost. In fact, I would say that for the Roman Republic, it was a cost that was far too high! The Roman political culture absolutely expected these kickbacks as part of the appeal to govern.

However I do understand that the gripe here is specifically that income will more often than not creep over 50 and 100k, just through being the human player entering into middle and later game stages, which handicaps the player's capacity to take steps preventative of corruption, like they might in real life. But the best approach would be, in my opinion, expand the trait system to make Embezzler just one of a number of traits (like Humanitarian/Absentee/Embezzler or something, each of these has two apposite values) and create possibilities for governors who, albeit they may fall into the antique trap of pocketing everything they get their hands on, nevertheless find ways to form a good relationship with their subjects and keep PO at a reasonable level.

[Septentrionalis]

100k is about what my entire empire has under the line after four turns (one year). I often start a turn with about 25-32k after unavoidable expenses,

income will more often than not creep over 50 and 100k,

Now that Beckitz talks about those sums as small ones too, I realize that my style of play, keeping taxes down to avoid unhappiness and the negative traits that it brings, is of course not normal. Trying to run a happy ship, money has always been a problem but corrupt and morally rotten family governors hardly ever. I guess it is choice in between two evils.