Embezzlers all

[Sarkiss]

Im about 550 turns into Pontic campaign and reached the point when money flows and there isn't anything i can do to reduce it other than perhaps keeping 10+ full stack armies in the field. so every other governor is now an 'embezzler' and gets public order penalties, which is quite a problem as most of my settlements have grown into large cities. the embezzler trait doesn't seem to reset even in the generals who were in the filed and campaigning for several turns. so my question is, is that it, should I bin this campaign? how do you deal with this?

i don't wont to be reduced to gamie gimmicks of giving hundreds of thousands away just to get below 100k. keeping 10+ full stacks around is also quite an exotic option, especially considering there is no buildable forts to create army camps/bases. not to mention that this will enable me to steamroll the map (something that quite frankly I could do now with my 3 full stacks, let alone 10), and kill any challenge.

so is that it, game over?

[Roma_Victrix]

If you're that powerful, just steamroll the map, build a huge empire, and then end the campaign. Might as well go all in and see how much territory you can conquer before you call it quits. Who knows? You might even be pleasantly surprised by something along the way.

[Camcolit]

Im about 550 turns into Pontic campaign and reached the point when money flows and there isn't anything i can do to reduce it other than perhaps keeping 10+ full stack armies in the field.

Yeah so you keep 10 full stacks in the field. Or, alternatively or in combination, you fill all your garrisons with elite troops that can be used to put together an army when you need them. It's easy to keep under 50k, much less 100k, even with a huge empire. There is nothing else to spend money on in this game anyway. Buildings are for money, and money is for troops. That's it. If you can keep building stuff there is no reason to have an inflated treasury, all it is is a bigger number on the screen, it does nothing in game terms.

The game is simple and easy, no fault of EB, and you need to roleplay and enjoy the different units and battles. Victoria 2 it is not.

[Sarkiss]

thanks for the responses gents. i guess i'll just call it quits. steamrolling isn't fun and I was the strongest faction in all categories - military and size included - for about half the game's span now.
maybe to mitigate this situation with embezzlers a little, if possible, a reset could be built in (if not already) to move governors around to get rid of the trait? it feels rather disconnected to me that the overall amount in faction's treasury should influence governors in their respective provinces. also, perhaps increasing the trait trigger to 200-250k could be a solution? like mentioned already, making and saving money isn't very difficult in this game as there isn't much to spend it on. so by the mid game you likely are swimming in it.

[Camcolit]

The main problem is there is nothing in the game engine to simulate the actual difficulties with having a large empire in the period - revolts, lack of manpower to cover expanded borders, succession crises (a very big one which is entirely absent), administrative inefficiency and so on. Even with some changes from the EB team, it is still more or less a battle game with a strategic campaign tacked on.

Random roaming bandits quickly become only a minor nuisance and of no real threat whatsoever. Money is no obstacle, as you've noticed. The upkeep for units is way too low, but I doubt the AI would be able to handle mustering and disbanding armies so it will have to stay more or less the way it is. Nor is manpower as when your empire gets to even mid sized manpower and money is basically the same thing, as the AI is never going to cause enough casualties to where replenishment rates become a factor beyond convenience. Because of this you can keep stacks everywhere even when your borders start to sprawl, which wasn't the case in reality. Even very large empires could only muster a couple of large armies at a time to send to where the action was, and decisively losing a battle with one of these armies was a big deal which could set back any invasion plan indefinitely. In the game, once your empire is mid-sized you would laugh at losing a full stack, and this never actually happens anyway.

In this period states were very unstable and the throne or equivalent was usually up for grabs. States would often collapse or be split into warring factions whenever the leader died. Hell civil war became the standard means of succession later in the Roman Empire. In game the states behave much the way modern ones do, with nothing much of consequence happening when there is a change of head honcho and certainly no territorial upheaval. Something like a Crusader Kings system with infighting would be more appropriate but, again, more complex model and probably impossible to pull off in EB.

The effects of tax and admin inefficiency for large empires and in new regions in also very understated. Newly conquered regions start making you money right away. In reality they would be a resource drain for decades plus tie up troops to put down constant uprisings. 'Unrest' doesn't do this justice at all. Park some troops which are more or less an unlimited resource for the reasons already stated, problem solved. Also way too many settlements get rich and rival or surpass the historical centers of power, an issue I have raised elsewhere. Most ancient settlements were not worth a jot, tax and recruitment speaking. Somewhere like Rome or Carthage or Athens in their heyday would be providing 10 times and more what some backwater province would. But in game every settlement in your 20 city empire is large, rich, and throwing thousands of gold at you. This contributes to stack and treasury inflation.

Could go on but you get the idea. You could improve some of this but it would be quite a bit of work and not everyone would be pleased.

[jdofo]

I guess the hope depends somehow in what the outstanding and promising M2TW Engine Overhaul Project can bring in many of these Vanilla engine limitations, and how EBII team could deepen and implement their dream features (within some limits, yet; perhaps using some of the labels new functionality??).

Indeed, the M2TW "Choose your heir" limit, unexplainable cut feature from RTW, is already overcome, and Erken has done a great job implementing it for his next Stratēgikόs submod version.

[Camcolit]

Looks useful but it's just trying to provide more options right? Would still depend on the EB team coming up with a coherent plan and having the will to implement it. And no criticism of the team at all but they seem to be focused on the battle and unit side of things rather than the campaign, which is understandable because resources are limited and the battles are the meat of every Total War game. It's not a strategic simulation really, but I am in favor of any efforts to try force some sense onto it in this regard.

[Domaje]

The effects of tax and admin inefficiency for large empires and in new regions in also very understated. Newly conquered regions start making you money right away. In reality they would be a resource drain for decades plus tie up troops to put down constant uprisings. 'Unrest' doesn't do this justice at all. Park some troops which are more or less an unlimited resource for the reasons already stated, problem solved. Also way too many settlements get rich and rival or surpass the historical centers of power, an issue I have raised elsewhere. Most ancient settlements were not worth a jot, tax and recruitment speaking. Somewhere like Rome or Carthage or Athens in their heyday would be providing 10 times and more what some backwater province would. But in game every settlement in your 20 city empire is large, rich, and throwing thousands of gold at you. This contributes to stack and treasury inflation.

In the next version of EBII, the maximum limit of losses from corruption will be higher. Added to the new script that spawns rebel armies, which means you'll have to have decent garrisons in every settlement, remote regions will be less profitable than it is now.
Otherwise, I agree with what you said.

[Sarkiss]

I guess the hope depends somehow in what the outstanding and promising M2TW Engine Overhaul Project can bring in many of these Vanilla engine limitations, and how EBII team could deepen and implement their dream features (within some limits, yet; perhaps using some of the labels new functionality??).

Indeed, the M2TW "Choose your heir" limit, unexplainable cut feature from RTW, is already overcome, and Erken has done a great job implementing it for his next Stratēgikόs submod version.

this is a good news, thanks for sharing. it is a bit of a hassle to keep the rule father to son at the moment. at some point i had to get rid of the unwanted heir in a rather cheesy way. my dynasty is dying out though, i tried to keep the family rule and succeeded for 4 generations but now my king's sons have no children at all. the elder one is a conquering hero, is in his 40s and even though he got married quite late he has been married for about 6 years now. still no kids. his wife is 30. his younger brother is an imbecile and hasn't got any kids either (which is a good thing perhaps lol).

[Camcolit]

In the next version of EBII, the maximum limit of losses from corruption will be higher.

Glad to hear it, that's a start.

[Roma_Victrix]

Glad to hear it, that's a start.

No, that should be the end of it. I couldn't disagree more strongly with most of your analysis above, especially if you play the game on campaign hard mode or very hard mode. Anyone can steamroll other factions but conquering is not the same as governing and holding settlements. Am I the only one here in this conversation to build an empire bigger than 50 provinces? Some provinces are already scripted to just rebel no matter what you try to do, with levels of unrest that guarantee repeated cycles of rebellion even with large garrisons and your best governors that could be used elsewhere if it weren't for this constant need to babysit malcontents.

Like, literally, more than half the things you said are just wrong. LOL. At least when your empire reaches a size where you need troops and funds to defend a gigantic land border with multiple factions or empires of similar size, or simply taming the mosh pit that is the naval wars of the Mediterranean.

Seriously, it's easy to keep your treasury low when you're facing multiple invasions and crises at once. The AI also usually builds up rival empires of similar size once you start building your own superpower containing anything between 40 to 60 provinces. Starting a sudden war with any of these equally large powers is a recipe for economic woes. That aspect of the game is actually already challenging enough. If you're looking for a bigger challenge, simply keep a small amount of allies and maintain wars with rival factions of equal or comparable size.

[Camcolit]

No, that should be the end of it. I couldn't disagree more strongly with most of your analysis above, especially if you play the game on campaign hard mode or very hard mode.

I play on hard/hard.

Anyone can steamroll other factions but conquering is not the same as governing and holding settlements. Am I the only one here in this conversation to build an empire bigger than 50 provinces?

'Governing and holding' settlements? You mean parking some troops and a governor there and building stuff with unlimited money? I build large empires all the time and never have any issue. I must admit I rarely get up to over 50 provinces simply because I get bored with having stacks everywhere and no challenge, which I imagine is most people's experience, but I get up to 35 or so regularly. Are you saying that if I'd just take 15 cities more I would see the great late-game challenge and depth of the EB campaign? The only 'challenge' that will be left is having city unrest for being continents from the capital. That is artificial and not interesting for most people. If you find it interesting, great, but it isn't a model of why large empires are hard to maintain. You still have unlimited money, and unlimited stacks.

Like, literally, more than half the things you said are just wrong. LOL.

Like, literally, what exactly? (lol)

Seriously, it's easy to keep your treasury low when you're facing multiple invasions and crises at once. The AI also usually builds up rival empires of similar size once you start building your own superpower containing anything between 40 to 60 provinces. Starting a sudden war with any of these equally large powers is a recipe for economic woes.

'Economic woes', in Total War? The 'economy' is your cities make money and you spend it on troops. You have far more money than troops you'll ever need and are able to keep superfluous forces in the field at all times and thus the campaign becomes boring, which was the point of the OP. If by some miracle a rival AI empire was able to annihilate, let's say, 7 full stacks, would that be a cause for concern? No! Because now your upkeep is drastically reduced and all that income you had ploughed into endless unnecessary stacks to avoid having your treasury inflate to ludicrous sums now flows again and you can replace all of them in a few turns and be back to square one. This is hypothetical of course, since the AI cannot destroy one stack.

Honestly I am not sure what game you are playing.

[nvm]

The negative traits aren't such a big deal at that point, so might as well embrace it. It can still be worth to keep governors for public order.

[Roma_Victrix]

'Governing and holding' settlements? You mean parking some troops and a governor there and building stuff with unlimited money? I build large empires all the time and never have any issue. I must admit I rarely get up to over 50 provinces simply because I get bored with having stacks everywhere and no challenge, which I imagine is most people's experience, but I get up to 35 or so regularly. Are you saying that if I'd just take 15 cities more I would see the great late-game challenge and depth of the EB campaign?

See, this is exactly why you think the game is easy, you've never actually built a real empire where you have to stretch your resources and make real sacrifices due to the sheer distances armies have to march to meet invaders or put down rebels. It's not a magic number, but having anything larger than 50 provinces changes the mechanics of the game, especially if your empire is stretched out geographically across the whole of the Mediterranean. It actually does make it more costly to defend your empire if you're fighting several factions at once on top of the usual suspects like Bagiennorum, Akko, Taras, Edessa, Sekeiza, and other cities constantly trying to rebel, throwing a monkey-wrench into your plans at least once every 40-50 turns.

Also, an empire that's only 35 provinces usually doesn't feel the worst effects of distance from your capital city. I laughed at how simplistic your argument is here because you've clearly never conquered a settlement that was extremely distant from your capital while belonging to a different culture that has to be gradually assimilated with one of your handful of decent governors.

I've played this game since 2015 and have played several campaigns over 800 turns, just finished a 1000-turn campaign as Koinon Hellenon. Without fail, the AI reacts to your own growth by building massive rival empires that gobble up other factions while you're busy building your own empire in a different corner of the map. Go ahead and look at the Screenshots thread for those examples of my campaigns throughout the years. Just because you barely have enough money for infrastructure and maintaining a few stacks of armies means diddly squat if you're fighting two or three factions at once, especially if one of those factions is as large as your empire. That instantly wrecks your economy.

[Camcolit]

See, this is exactly why you think the game is easy, you've never actually built a real empire where you have to stretch your resources and make real sacrifices

Lol, no true Scotsman. I'm starting to lose interest now. A 'real empire' is > 50 provinces while anything else isn't? Most historical empires never reached anywhere near that size. You can of course set the bar anywhere you like to where arbitrary 'unrest' maluses make cities rebel constantly and you can have the 'strategy' of shuffling ancillaries around among governors to control it and reach your goal of conquering the whole map. This doesn't make it fun or balanced or historical or 'hard' in any way except tedious.

Also, an empire that's only 35 provinces usually doesn't feel the worst effects of distance from your capital city. I laughed at how simplistic your argument is here because you've clearly never conquered a settlement that was extremely distant from your capital while belonging to a different culture that has to be gradually assimilated with one of your handful of decent governors.

Actually I play in the east mostly where the distances between settlements is more significant so a 35 province empire including the Iranian plateau and bits of India would I guess be roughly equivalent in size to a 50 province empire in the Mediterranean. Also I have been to 50 provinces and more before, and there is no difference besides the above mentioned tedium.

That instantly wrecks your economy.

To repeat, there is no 'economy' in this game, you have cities that generate money, buildings that make them generate more money, and troops that cost money. That is all. So how would anything 'wreck' your 'economy'. You lose troops it benefits your 'economy' i.e. you now have more income to replace them.

I've played this game since 2015

Congratulations?

[Sarkiss]

I've played this game since 2015 and have played several campaigns over 800 turns, just finished a 1000-turn campaign as Koinon Hellenon. Without fail, the AI reacts to your own growth by building massive rival empires that gobble up other factions while you're busy building your own empire in a different corner of the map. Go ahead and look at the Screenshots thread for those examples of my campaigns throughout the years. Just because you barely have enough money for infrastructure and maintaining a few stacks of armies means diddly squat if you're fighting two or three factions at once, especially if one of those factions is as large as your empire. That instantly wrecks your economy.

to be fair, to each his own. i don't see how your economy is wrecked by these events though. looking at your own shots of late Roman campaign, it is evident that whatever troubles there are they aren't of monetary kind and your treasury is overflowing with over a million in it. and if you have that much stashed away, you can always simply send a single general into a troublesome areas and hire all of the mercenaries there raising an entire army in a blink of an eye (unless you get unlucky and AI snatched them, which happens but very rarely).

The negative traits aren't such a big deal at that point, so might as well embrace it. It can still be worth to keep governors for public order.

perhaps, but i discovered a more effective long term solution to public order issue that doesn't involve keeping these corrupt rats in my cities: let the cities rebel, reconquer and enslave all.
i played for several more turns out of interest and literally all my governors, king included (!) turned embezzlers. why would king steal from his own pot in an absolute monarchy? that's puzzling. can he be exempt? he would then be the only governor in the empire, the rest can rot in the fields or go suicidal rebel hunting. would at least clean out the family tree and allow the direct branch of the dynasty to strengthen.

[Satapatiš]

Blow them monies on the Royal Fleets and them barely useful elephants. Might as well start collecting lithoboloi. Best argument for dealing with rebellions.

-"Eleutheria! We will fight in the shade!"
-"Lol. NOPE. Light up the missiles, men."


I wish there were more expensive vanity projects like rebuilding the Colossus of Rhodes.

[Shoebopp]

Blow them monies on the Royal Fleets and them barely useful elephants. Might as well start collecting lithoboloi. Best argument for dealing with rebellions.

-"Eleutheria! We will fight in the shade!"
-"Lol. NOPE. Light up the missiles, men."

Warcrime.

I wish there were more expensive vanity projects like rebuilding the Colossus of Rhodes.

You actually can - the scripted Earthquake at Rhodes on turn 186 causes 20,000 mnai of damage. Problem is by turn 186 you're probably generating 50,000+ mnai per turn anyways...

[Shoebopp]

@

Satapatiš nevermind, I completely misinterpreted your comment

[Sarkiss]

Blow them monies on the Royal Fleets and them barely useful elephants. Might as well start collecting lithoboloi. Best argument for dealing with rebellions.

-"Eleutheria! We will fight in the shade!"
-"Lol. NOPE. Light up the missiles, men."


I wish there were more expensive vanity projects like rebuilding the Colossus of Rhodes.

yep, this would be good, military harbour of cartahge etc. DLV has this 'unique buildings' feature where you can build Hagia Sophia as Byzantines for example. its costs a tonne.

my garrisons have since mid-game been made of regulars and mercenaries only - several units each. levy units have all been long dismissed (unless silver chevrons and above). im starting to recruit elephants now as well. an artillery piece per army would be ok i guess, but then it'd look too close to roman legions for my liking.

but it was a fantastic campaign so far, especially early and mid- game.

The negative traits aren't such a big deal at that point, so might as well embrace it. It can still be worth to keep governors for public order.

after a bit of experimentation, most of the settlements are actually benefiting from removing embeszzlers in terms of public order. the exception are huge cities it seems and there the situation is almost unchanged with or without a governor. unless he has a tone of positive traits that counter the embezzlers' negatives that is. but i so far removed all of them from their posts and public situation on the whole has markedly improved. i did not monitor money situation as i am not very concerned with income atm.

btw, there seems to be a bug where respawned Hayastan loses its bodyguard cataphracts. their bodyguards are now made of heavy Iranian cav instead. anyone else noticed this?