Florinomics: The Point of No return

[Kelvar_Mongol]

I was in a hazy nap the other day. and was thinking about the economic system in MTW.
Its a dynamic, well developed, closed economic system.
Doing a little system anaylsis in my head, I realized that it is somewhat flawed:

Observe:
In the entire map:
Yearly:
Total Income = farm + trade. (I = F + T)
Expense = Support + build (E = S + B)

Assume the system reach equalibrium when total income (I) = total expense (E)

So where is the equilibrium point?

I played alot of factions, English, Italian, Egyption, Byzatium, German, Almohead etc... all ran into a little bit of money trouble during middle of the game. where u are one of 3-4 remaining factions.usually dominating over a region, Western Europe. Mediterrianing, Asia minor+middleeast+balkans. and have a income of usually 20k a year and a expense of 1k less than that, and build up a nice reserve of 20k-80k.
But soon after that, as u or comp try to expand...the income sag below expense (deficit) and soon you are looking at a shrinking reserve of florine.
This is with all farm maxed out and all high acument with fleet dominating sea!
So after a brief 10 years reserve dwindle to negative. and you are dead in the water.
So why?
Balance of budget with in ENTIRE system:
I = E or Farm + trade = Support + build,
At first Farm and trade both increase. expecially trade. support and build cost increase too but Support cost is small at first and build cost is a one time expense.
so you are running positive account balance.
And as smaller faction got taken over, the efficiency of the garrisoning and building increased and saw a lowering of over all support cost effeciency

But as empire expand, farms reached all 80%
but the number of foreign provinces to trade is at best held steady and decreasing.
But at sametime the burgeoning empire bought about rebellions and silly stuff like resurfacing of Factions. so Large garrisons is needed again.
System is in a precarious balance.

tipped over by war.
But now if you find yourself in a war with another major faction. No trade even you got sealanes.

So F < S and so the system is head towards recession. At this point you have reached the point of no return in Florinomics, the system collapses, with each nation trying to reduce expense but unwilling to demilitrize borders. and hoping that the solution is to conquer land.
Bad choice, because it will further dampen the trade capacity of the system and damage farm income as well! basically the whole system collapese due to crunch in income and increase in expense. i.e. no &#036;&#036; and you are F**ked

So What to do.
Solution 1) when you reach thatmid game equilibrium, do not linger and make sure that you plan and have the resources to conqer all land in the next 20 turns before the money ran out.


2) A patch will do
specifically, allow normal trade with own provinces. that will boast income only on late stages and allow for a positive balance.


Sincerely,
Thank you all for reading my well thought out rant.



[This message has been edited by Kelvar_Mongol (edited 09-07-2002).]

[Bullethead]

Yeah, I've kinda come to the same conclusions. But maybe there's already a way around this in the form of unconventional warfare. I don't know--I hardly ever get this far and never in the condition I'd like to be, so lack experience in this area.

But it IS possible to destabilize an ally's province into revolt, and then move in and acquire it w/out starting a war. Is it possible to do that and similar things on a wide enough scale to get through this part of the game w/out reaching the point of no return?

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[solypsist]

[edit] Nevermind. I just has a few turns where my "brilliant" strategy re this thread was proven to worth naught.
on you go.


[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 09-08-2002).]

[Kelvar_Mongol]

Pump out spies and Bishops like mad u mean?
Yea, I tried a experiment on easy in early playing germans, trying to incite a revolt in portugual... I had 8 bishops, 2 inquistors and 4 spies stacked in portugal.
that's 800+300+400=1500 florins alone yeah the loyalty diped. from 90% muslim to 70% catholics in 8 years.
also assasinated the governor. no effect.
never dipped below enough to cause a revolt. almoheads just keep moving in more pesants

now if 8 bishop+4spies+2inquis did not cause a revolt in 80% christan PORTUGUAL, where revolt is a national passtime, I would have serious trouble cause revolts in other provinces.

Yep played egyptions again, took balkans, asian minor middle east, N africa, and Spain plus the crimean basin and good chuncks of Eastern Europe. all nice farms with big gold mines. Now I am with war with damn france and now even with out a single french ship in medi I am in 15k debt, ....ahhhhh

What would u gonna try Solypsist?



------------------
"War is Peace." - Newspeak

[solypsist]

my original idea was to use rebels to hold territories rather than hold them myself, keeping my empire manageable and turning a profit and then buying the rebels off or defeating them within a short span before my money runs out. But the bad news is dead factions will spawn from rebel-held provinces, which pretty much makes the details of my plan pointless.

[Bullethead]

Since this thread started, I've been rereading Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. This book has a fair amount of info on the economics of medieval warfare. From this, I've decided there really SHOULD be a "point of no return". In fact, it should probably happen earlier in the game than it does .

Basically, the medieval economy had a host of inherent weaknesses that prevented rulers from harnessing what power it possessed to their war efforts. This is one of the main reasons the 100 Years' War lasted so long. Neither side could bring enough money to bear to sustain operations long enough to achieve decisive strategic results, regardless of local tactical success. In fact, often a single campaign would bankrupt a faction. Then perforce there'd be a pause or truce for a few years while they painfully amassed another, and equally insufficient, pile of money for another try.

Some of the factors contributing to this situation were as follows:

1. Totally insufficient internal communications. Without anything resembling a good road net, trains, or 18-wheelers, the only way to move stuff in bulk was by riverboat or ship. And these means were only available in certain areas, so for the most part, a surplus or potential export in Province A had to be sold or consumed in Province A. This limited opportunities for taxation and amassing supplies. And thus, the disparity in income produced by MTW's inland trading posts and sea lanes seems justified.

2. Partly as a result of #1, but mostly because the nation-state hadn't yet evolved, rulers didn't have much personal economic power. They lands they held directly only supplied enough income to support their courts in peacetime. All the other lands' income likewise supported the local, rather autonomous, nobility.

3. As a result of #2, taxes to support major war efforts were rather extraordinary and temporary things, often requiring consent of the nobility. Because of #1, it took considerable time to gather in whatever money this produced. And because the Church held a lot of land and was tax-exempt, the amount of money produced by war taxes wasn't nearly what the land could provide.

4. Taxes on sea-borne trade produced a fair amount of income. This was even true when the trade was between ports under the same ruler. However, as already noted, this wasn't available everywhere so the total income produced this was was never sufficient to support war. Still, it would help if MTW allowed internal sea trade to produce income.

5. Because of the lack of money obtainable from the ruler's lands, major operations required borrowing from banks. When rulers defaulted, which they often did, whole banking chains collapsed. Because these banks also financed whatever trade and industry there was, that often collapsed as well.

6. Because of all this, most often armies went to war long before their pay could be amassed. To get them going, they were promised loot in lieu of cash. To get the loot needed to keep the army from deserting, the army had to seek areas where it could pillage undisturbed. This resulted in a strong stimulus to avoid enemy strength and with it the chance of achieving a decisive battle.

------------------
-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria

[Kelvar_Mongol]

good idea, Solypsis, no geisha in Medieval Europe I guess.

I still think internal trade should be allowed. Now EU is a single economy, that means only trade with United States not Germany With France???
Trade benefits not even with local. Saxony still needs Flander's wool while Flanders still wants Saxony's corn!!!

Yes, Medieval Europe is a pile of horse manure compare to the other powers of the time. Musilm sultans and Chinese. Muslim dominated trade of near and far east and could field an professional army and a navy bigger than France England "German" Kings put together.
While Chinese were fighting with the mongols with total armies size up to half a mill in 1000s and keep them their!

Economy first!
Example. Prussia did not become a major european power until The fredericks build a professional crack army. but to keep the Rule strong they reformed trade and farming and become enlightment rulers to allow those changes to take root. to Feed the army to sort of speak.

any ways, good point.. so I guess stall mate or a all out blitz at beginning huh?

[kaleun76]

So, what this means is that this game simulates the situation in Europe in the middle ages, even more perfectly than previously thought!. Maybe nobody can totally dominate the continent, because at the time, and with the local economic infrastructure, IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE!.
Now that's a real challenge

------------------
All warfare is based on deception
Sun Tzu

[Dionysus9]

It just doesn't make any sense to me that by conquering new territory you would be sabotaging your own trade routes.

The Romans created a trade-empire based on conquest. Granted the Roman Empire was pre-medieval europe, but the idea is the same:
Import goods from distant lands and tax them. Tax your own merchants, tax the foreign merchants, and tax the consumers at the market = make money.

Now if you actually OWN the distant land, how does that diminish your ability to tax the goods? Seems to me that it would increase the ability to tax goods...

oh well, I guess not everything can make sense.

[pdoan8]

Quote Originally posted by Kelvar_Mongol:
now if 8 bishop+4spies+2inquis did not cause a revolt in 80% christan PORTUGUAL, where revolt is a national passtime, I would have serious trouble cause revolts in other provinces.[/QUOTE]

Should have spent the money on 15 spies. Should get a revolt in the next year.

I thought that my provinces will trade with each other (neighbour provinces) if they produce different resource type. If there are goods being trade, there should be tax income.

[Mount Suribachi]

Thanks Bullethead for the info on the difficulty of maintaining a large army/empire in the middle ages. Yes, the game DOES give you income from land trade, but it is nothing like the trade by sea - just like real life lucrative trade routes.

As for the in-game problems - it does NOT need a patch!! The game was DESIGNED that way to stop the unstoppable inertia that games like STW and Civ generate, where once you've got half the map the game is unlosable due to economies of size. I am all for it. I am playing as Italy and anticipating this happening I am using my vast trade income to build up my farmland/mines in anticipation of the loss of trade income. I am also trying to not take over every factions coastal provinces unless I have to, leaving me places where I can trade.
The loss of trade income is designed to make the mid/late game harder, rather than the boring inevatibility it so often was in STW etc

------------------
We speak of deep night, deep autumn; when I think back to the year 1943 I feel like saying "deep war"
Ilya Ehrenburg

[DarknScaly]

exactly - play so that you keep factions alive and trading with small numbers of coastal provinces... then whack the big boys.

this leaves you with only small factions to conquer at your leisure and with trade income still coming.

Remember that youc an still trade with rebels, so in the detruction of factions dont necessarily conquer rebel provinces on the coast that ahve ports..until you need to do so to win.

[+DOC+]

Quote Originally posted by Mount Suribachi:
As for the in-game problems - it does NOT need a patch!! The game was DESIGNED that way to stop the unstoppable inertia that games like STW and Civ generate, where once you've got half the map the game is unlosable due to economies of size. I am all for it. I am playing as Italy and anticipating this happening I am using my vast trade income to build up my farmland/mines in anticipation of the loss of trade income. I am also trying to not take over every factions coastal provinces unless I have to, leaving me places where I can trade.
The loss of trade income is designed to make the mid/late game harder, rather than the boring inevatibility it so often was in STW etc

[/QUOTE]

Exactly, well said Mount Suribachi!

Forward planning is key to MTW, remember this game is not STW and therefore don't try and play it like STW.

[Cheetah]

Quote Originally posted by Mount Suribachi:

As for the in-game problems - it does NOT need a patch!! The game was DESIGNED that way to stop the unstoppable inertia that games like STW and Civ generate, where once you've got half the map the game is unlosable due to economies of size. I am all for it. I am playing as Italy and anticipating this happening I am using my vast trade income to build up my farmland/mines in anticipation of the loss of trade income. I am also trying to not take over every factions coastal provinces unless I have to, leaving me places where I can trade.
The loss of trade income is designed to make the mid/late game harder, rather than the boring inevatibility it so often was in STW etc
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you that probably this trade loss was designed to make the late game more challenging. However, this is an unrealistic solution and that is why folks don't like it. IMO this challenge can be achieved by more realistic means. For example, by the introduction of population thinking and guerilla warfare.


[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 09-10-2002).]

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya tried His hand at spies yesterday. Vanya played as the Italians.

Being a papist lackey king... I figured being excommunicated would be a 'bad' thing. So, I sent 10 spies down into Naples to try to get a revolt there to overthrow the Sicilians, who'd taken it from the Byzantines. What followed... well... was kinda funny...

Not much happened until I could get a critical mass of spies in there. The Sicilians had a large stack sitting pretty there. So, the number of spies needed was large. Then, once that critical mass hit (around 6-7), I noticed the loyalty dropping steadily each year. It started from 200, and was losing about 10-20 points a year. I sent in more spies. Silly mobsters never bothered to put up any border forts, so it served them right.

Next thing I know, their loyalty is ZERO! Rebellions poped up EVERY YEAR! And the rebel stacks sometimes numbered TWO! And they were always FULL! (Full of peasants and crap, but full nonetheless.)

So, the Sicilians spend about a decade putting down revolts left and right. I started to get concerned that the only thing I was accomplishing was making their generals legendary.

But, then it came... finally the rebels beat the Sicilians back into their castle! Not only that, I got MORE rebellions happenning on Sicily itself, so that they could not reinforce Naples proper. 10 more years saw the stupid Sicilians sitting in their castles taunting the rebel peasantry. GAH! Still no victory!

Then, the Sicilians invade from Malta and free Naples. But, the NEXT revolt happens to be a loyalist Byzantine one! ROFLMAO So, the Byzantines beat the Sicilians and expell them after 3 revolts. Then the rebels resurface and the Byzantines run into the grubby fort. And they just watch themselves die.

Now, Naples is free for me to take at last! 30 years later! (At least it FEELS like 30 years... maybe it was just 20 or so... dunno...) And Sicily is on the verge of collapse... if only those 29 peasants with a Wal-Mart in their fort would just find it in their heart to die like the pigs that they are. Oops... I mean, my gracious allies, the Sicilians, have gone through such tragedy...

GAH!

[Cheetah]

Shiro, into PAF with it! thx

[Paladin]

I didn't know that you couldn't sea trade with your own provinces. Glad someone mentioned this because I wouldn't have known otherwise. Seems like a stupid rule. Anyone know why this is the case?

[Arkatreides]

To slow you down ...

[Vanya]

GAH!

The next chaper: Trickle-down Florinomics

GAH!

[Wolfgrin]

I've posted several times grousing about the economics of the game, so I'm really glad someone like Kelvar summed it up so nicely. While MTW's economic model may be realistic in simulating a medieval economy, it is unrealistic for a map domination game. I play GA mode and have never been able to keep a positive balance by end game. Being penalized economically for having lots of territory makes no sense. There must be a better way to present a challenge. Unlike Bullethead, I find sitting on my hands unable to build anything makes for a boring end game.

Vanya, you crack me up. Peasants with a Wal Mart in the castle. HA!

[Paladin]

They could have used other techniques to slow me down other than ruining the logic of the game, don't you think?

As the Byzantines, more rebellions based on family squabbles would be appropriate. Or heretical rebellions.

[Cheetah]

Listed in the TC

[murk]

I have noted that as well and really feel that internal trade using ports should be allowed although perhaps not as profitable as trade with other factions. To compensate I attempt to breed and manage revolts in selected provinces as a means of managing a deficit.
Perhaps this is a bug though - if more than one occurs in the same year I do not see profit from more than one. Anyone have any experiences in this area?

[gaZOO]

I think you should be able to trade with rebels too as long as they have the right facilities e.g. port, trading post

[ravenking]

You can trade with rebels. Read above, someone mentioned it before. This is why it is a good idea to not kill rebels in port provinces, they keep your cash flow moving a bit.

------------------
"You there, knight!" "Yes, sir?" "We just lost that battle. Why did you order your men to charge that unit of enemy sergeants?" "Uh, I was impetuous, sir" "'IMPETUOUS!? Impetuous!? Men! Kill him, I want his head!"

[ToranagaSama]

I think "Trade" (and consequently game Economis in general) is the equivalent of the "Strat Map" in Shogun. A good idea that has yet to be fully developed, but was implemented in the game nonetheless.

It would seem CA is attempting a difficult juggling act that I don't believe they foresaw at the design of Shogun.

Focus! Where does CA put its focus. In the original STW, the focus was the battles; with the Strat Map given short shrift.

In STW:MI, they fine turned the battles, with some re-balancing and added units.

With MTW, focus was put to fleshing out the Strat Map, with improved diplomacy and added economic elements.

STW:Add-On, s/b about fine-tuning and fleshing out Economics and Diplomacy.

TW3 SHOULD be an effort to VASTLY improve the relation between war, economics and diplomacy; and to add some level of C-MP play.

TW4?? Among wother things, a "New" TW 'Campaign' Engine(s) with a FULLY implemented C-MP.

TW4:Add-On, NEW battle Engine, etc.

Result of all the above? We're all divored, lost our jobs, hospitalized for sleep deprivation, and exist by panhandling simply to keep our computers updated and our broadband connections running!