Economic Issues

**dvk901** · May 22, 2007, 01:29 PM

Ok, I opened this discussion in the forum...so I asked for it. But, in retrospect, it has revealed some issues I hadn't forseen.

For one thing, I'm getting the impression that if you play'Huge', VH\H or VH\VH, the economy is different (read more abundant) than it is on H\H or lower and 'Large' settings. This may be why LT configured and recommended that SPQR be played on 'Huge' settings, H\H.

But here's another issue. If I were playing my campaign on 'Huge' settings, I would be crashing left and right, because I've had anywhere from 3 to 6 armies involved on the battlefield in different battles.....the 6 army battle was laggy even on my new 7600Nvidia card. 6-12000 men on the field is a lot, and has been common for a long time in my campaign....play on Huge, and that number will be outrageous!

I would recommend this mod be played on 'Large' settings with no more than H\H settings, because that's where the economy has been optimized. If people play other than that...oh well.

Using a script to remove money would only hurt the player who plays as I do, and couldn't discern the difference between settings, so I don't really like the idea. Repman had a better concept with his 'armies in the field' script...but then a lot of people didn't like that either, and the script just gets bigger and bigger.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · May 22, 2007, 01:38 PM

I would've thought making things more expensive, especially later on (when the money comes in good and proper) would help.

**pseudocaesar** · May 22, 2007, 10:12 PM

perhaps you could do a bat file that runs the money script for players using the higher settings

**Spartan_Shame** · May 23, 2007, 02:42 AM

I play H/H with large unit settings, and I have no problem with money, not too much, not too little, juuust right.

**tone** · May 23, 2007, 05:52 AM

For me one of the joys though is playing on huge. A lot of people like to play this way too so it would be a real shame to lose these people.

**dvk901** · May 23, 2007, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by tone

For me one of the joys though is playing on huge. A lot of people like to play this way too so it would be a real shame to lose these people.

But that's not the issue....how is the economy? I'm beginning to wonder if all this complaining by a few people about abundant money isn't just because of the way they spend and play. I ran some tests last night on 'Huge' settings and VH\VH.....money was no different than on Large for the faction I was 'playing' with the AI.

Also, playing my own campaign as Rome, I am at 224BC, hold 36 regions or so, and have a huge standing army......basically, I'm trying to emulate playing with 35 Legions max......and I don't have that many armies. I take in 40000+ or - a turn and spend it all. Greece, Anatolia Byzantium are just FULL of Macedonian, Free, and Greek armies. So I don't see the economy being too extravagant...I'm going to be involved in a bloodbath once war starts with Macedon.

I don't care if people play on HUGE....I'm just hoping there is no difference in the economy.

**tone** · May 23, 2007, 11:54 AM

I'm not playing that much - trying to work!!!
I'm only on about 270BC and hold all of italy, two towns in Sicily and am about to wipe out Syracuse.

**dvk901** · May 23, 2007, 12:32 PM

Well, I think you are right that the economy may be better on Harder levels. Oh well. I'm liking things pretty much as is...but will do some tinkering with Pergamum and Syracuse.

**cherryfunk** · May 24, 2007, 05:45 PM

One thing you could do to tweak the economy a bit would be to raise unit costs and upkeep. I think you could charge more for the really good units in particular, things like cataphracts and elite city Hoplites, and even ships, elephants onagers and ballistae -- these units would have been enormously expensive.

I would suggest increasing all unit costs by maybe 10% for low-end units, 15% for medium, and 20% for elite. This would be enough to just 'take the edge' off of economic growth.

**dvk901** · May 24, 2007, 07:55 PM

It's far easier to do this with taxable income bonuses than to change every unit. Also, you play '1' turn, which is a whole different ball game. We'll have to pick a middle road, basically, because I feel the economy on Large settings and H\H is just right...though I have tweaked Spain, GCS and Dacia up, and Syracuse and Pergamum down. Huge settings on H\H doesn't seem to matter, but if you play VH\H or VH\VH on Huge settings, the hardcoded bonuses in RTW for the difficulty level must change upwords. There's nothing I can do about that. VH on the strat campaign, I think, is the issue.

**Deus ret.** · May 25, 2007, 05:58 AM

I like the idea of notching unit upkeep up a tad. I agree that this would be an enormously tedious task so if there are other ways it would be equally good....although I'm not that sure about taxable income being the way. Factions relying heavily on trade would be comparatively unharmed (think of Greece), while others (especially inland factions) would suffer more.

I played on large with m/m (not the greatest stratego

) as Greece so far and, although it seemed too much in the beginning, money's just right, especially giving the huge stacks I have to maintain in order to secure my area.
Now while the situation is quite balanced economy-wise, increasing unit upkeep (also for free people) would turn the mid- to end-game into less of a slug fest with endless hordes of stacks wandering around everywhere.

**cherryfunk** · May 25, 2007, 08:40 AM

dvk, one less tedious option would be to just increase the upkeep for elite units, artillery, and ships. I think they're a bit too cheap now as it is, how about boosting them by 20% across the board?

**dvk901** · May 25, 2007, 09:40 AM

Well, just for the heck of it, let me explain how this works, and why some ideas about the economy are wrong:

In previous versions of this mod, I tried to use 'trade bonuses' to control how much money factions made. Factions with many regions to start got lower ones, and medium sized factions got medium sized ones, and very small factions got big ones.

The problem with this (and the reason for the rampant money in V1 and Patch8) is exactly what you pointed out, Deus ret. "Factions relying heavily on trade would be comparatively unharmed (think of Greece), while others (especially inland factions) would suffer more." Because trade is based on where you are on the map, what resources are in those regions, and what regions you GAIN, a faction with a higher trade bonus to start with would make ungodly amounts of money as they expanded. I finally realized that 'TRADE' is a 'static resource', spread across the map, based on other resources, hard-coded by the game, etc.....and gave up messing with it.

Taxable income, on the otherhand, is a totally different issue. This is the bonus you get based on the regions where it is ALLOWED to be applied. It's an income based on trade income, but can be severely limited because I can dictate that this income may only be allowed in this area or that, this region, and not that one. Thus, all factions now have a taxable bonus income based on the regions they started with, and the 'capitol' hidden resource. So no matter how much they expand, or what regions they take, this income NEVER applies to anything other than their home regions or capitols.

Of course, taking a region with good resources and trade income will boost income, but only marginally, because that income is never taxed. Instead, the 'capitol' resource emulates a 'regional headquarters' where all taxes in a large region you hold are collected, or a major city that would reasonably be an economic center and tax collection 'hub', so to speak.

Also, with this method, I could give tiny factions like Syracuse, Armenia, Pergamum, etc. a larger taxable income bonus to compensate for their lack of regions or resources....thus 'evening things out' a bit, so they have a chance to survive and win. This all turned out to be a much better and more managable way to control the economy.

But what I am not seeing, gentlemen, is reasons for why you suggest things like raising unit costs or upkeep. Why? What problem is being caused by their current cost and upkeep? What, in your campaigns, causes you to see a need for this?

You have to understand that we are at a point now where radical 'across the board' economic changes to all units, that would affect all factions, is undesireable. I'm well aware that Syracuse and Pergamum need economic 'tweaking', but find that Rome, Gaul, Germans, Carthage, Macedon are just right as they are. Massive across the board changes doesn't help anything in this case, it just changes everyone and leaves the disparity as it is.

What I'm seeking is faction by faction reporting. "Iberia's income sucks and they have no chance....or......"I can't even play as Dacia because they can hardly build anything".....or....."when I've played Syracuse I have so much money I can buy everything and then some".

For example, Deus Ret., your report on GCS is exactly what I need. You 'thought' it was too much, but then realized you needed it to survive. Given what I've seen in Greece, what is needed there is for the 'Free People Greeks' to have a much higher unit upkeep cost so they can't just build 25 armies and have them all standing there intimidating everyone from attacking them. Their unit cost is now very cheap...in fact, most of their 'units of type' cost nearly the same thing. This has encouraged them to build fantastically diversified armies that are a real bear to fight....BUT, too many. So I will increase their unit upkeep costs on Greek units so they will be discouraged from building so many. Also, I'm thinking I may split their ships from the others and radically increase those upkeep costs as well...this to discourage them from having 50 ships sitting around doing nothing.

**Deus ret.** · May 25, 2007, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by dvk901

But what I am not seeing, gentlemen, is reasons for why you suggest things like raising unit costs or upkeep. Why? What problem is being caused by their current cost and upkeep? What, in your campaigns, causes you to see a need for this?

IMHO it would be mainly to prevent an all too excessive end-game slug-fest. In the beginning, everything's okay, fighting the occasional full stack (or two) just helps in keeping the game interesting. But from what I've seen just by playing to 230BC, this number expands exorbitantly as factions grow, conquer territory, absorb other factions etc. in one word: as they're getting BIG. And wealthy. This enables them (or myself, for the record) to churn out stacks at an alarming rate, especially with the 0-turn script. Of course, this is an end-game phenomenon of most mods, but there still is a difference in having to fight about one full stack per turn or three+. This would have been the case had I invaded Italy where the Romans had gone completely nuts military-wise. Even half their number would have been rather alarming. Similarly, I suppose the Macs would have crammed Greece with stacks had I not subverted them.

Maybe that's just me but I don't feel that great when the meat-grinding starts over again and again turn after turn, reducing game pace to a snail-like level due to so many battles. I don't know how frequent this opinion is but that's the only reason I'd change the unit upkeep. .... I probably should do it myself and report back about the results.....

**cherryfunk** · May 25, 2007, 10:00 AM

But what I am not seeing, gentlemen, is reasons for why you suggest things like raising unit costs or upkeep. Why? What problem is being caused by their current cost and upkeep?

Realism. Look at the cost for a low-end militia unit, and the cost for a fleet. Now, think about what it would take to recruit each in reality, and what the upkeep would be in reality. Fleets are hugely expensive to build and to maintain, while militia are dirt cheap by comparison. In my opinion, right now RS doesn't depict the proper costs for really high-end units vs. the low end units.

**dvk901** · May 25, 2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by cherryfunk

Realism. Look at the cost for a low-end militia unit, and the cost for a fleet. Now, think about what it would take to recruit each in reality, and what the upkeep would be in reality. Fleets are hugely expensive to build and to maintain, while militia are dirt cheap by comparison. In my opinion, right now RS doesn't depict the proper costs for really high-end units vs. the low end units.

I agree that the ships are too cheap, and I will deal with that. But we've discussed the issue of unit costs before....the RTW game engine doesn't know what you mean by "Realism". It's realism is based on some algorithym or formula based on 'unit attack + unit defense + unit cost', and if it sees it can 'fill the bill' with a lower end unit, given the enemy it is facing (bear in mind the game AI builds units based upon the threat it detects and the composition of those armies)...then it will build the lower end unit because it's cheaper. And most likely never the elite unit. Right now, the unit costs in RS are based on very close to RTW vanilla and SPQR (which is also close to vanilla), and maintains the cost relationship they set in place. It is the 'relationship' of the cost of one unit to another that is important, not how much they cost.

I could raise all costs 20%, and that probably wouldn't change the relationship, but raising the costs or upkeep of ONLY elite units changes the 'relationship'.

I know this is irritating as 'the Player'.....because as the human factor in the game, we see a different reality than the game does. But I tried in the past to mimic reality in this mod, and what happened? The AI always produced lower end crappy units and everyone complained.

But I will change the ships, because I definitely agree that a fleet would cost much more than it does now, and quite frankly I don't care about the relationship where ships are concerned. The AI builds and wastes too many of them now.

Also, I am open to someone going thru EDU and 'equalizing\balancing' unit upkeep costs....without upsetting the relationship I've mentioned. Doing quick checks, I know some of them are screwy and need fixing. I'm just too buried in replacing the Senate with the Boii right now and have to focus on this....because it's a major internal change to the game I don't want to screw up.

**Squid** · May 25, 2007, 10:30 AM

For the senate it should just be an easy find romans_senate replace with boii, right?!?!?

**dvk901** · May 25, 2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by SquidSK

For the senate it should just be an easy find romans_senate replace with boii, right?!?!?

Very funny.

Deus ret.:
Hmmm...a good point. That's the issue I've described with the Free People.
Perhaps a better 'maintanence fee' would help reduce that.

**cherryfunk** · May 25, 2007, 11:58 AM

So why not increase all upkeep costs by a certain amount, say 20% or so, and see if it reduces the number of stacks later in the game? The overall balance would remain, but hopefully factions would have to cut down on the size of their armies.