View Full Version : Deficit spending: A great opportunity not taken advantage of by MTW
I think that whenever your faction goes into deficit spending and is carrying any kind of debt, there should be a percentage chance that you lose some units and they break off and create rebel states. These rebel states can be led by other bloodline family members or generals and consist of disgruntled troops that haven't been paid in years.
Obviously, someone is not getting paid for at least a year so you would think that there would be some angry units ready to revolt. These constant civil wars would really add to the difficulty of the game.
I mean, I was in debt by over 150,000 Florins and there was no negative bearing on my faction other than the fact I couldn't build new stuff. I think this is a missed opportunity by the developers to balance out the game against the human player.
Thoughts?
muffinman14
11-02-2002, 09:58
well i think it would be a pain in the a$$ because you go broke so many times in the game and when u own 3/4 of the world and have 50 troops garrisoning every province and losing men with each turn and then u have 50 million rebellions, factions returning etc.
The Yogi
11-02-2002, 17:13
If there's a deficit, that doesn't mean the soldiers aren't being paid but that the Crown is indebted to a bank, trading house or the like.
As an example, the "Catholic Monarchs" Ferdinand and Isabella financed their war on the Emirate of Granada largely by borrowing from Jewish money-lenders. After the war was won, they expulsed the Jews from Spain and confiscated most of their assets. Rather a good deal for the Crowns of Castile and Aragon, I'd say... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote As an example, the "Catholic Monarchs" Ferdinand and Isabella financed their war on the Emirate of Granada largely by borrowing from Jewish money-lenders. After the war was won, they expulsed the Jews from Spain and confiscated most of their assets. Rather a good deal for the Crowns of Castile and Aragon, I'd say...[/QUOTE]
Two points: First, financing that war was no where near as expensive as financing the taking over of Europe and second, confiscating the assets of the Jews in Spain was the final retribution against them for riding in with the muslim invaders centuries before, stealing the lands, property of the Spanish, forcing Islam on them at the point of a sword, and relegating the local population to third-class citizen status.
When the Spanish pushed the Muslims out, the Jews decided to stay behind at their own risk thinking the Christian Kings would have forgiven and forgotten the outrages foisted upon the Christian people who lived in those lands. Big mistake. The Kings of the Iberian penninsula saw confiscating the assets of the Jews as the appropriate measure considering that the Jews stole from the Christian people for so many years with the Muslim Khalifs approval.
If there is a deficit, it means someone is not being paid. And I imagine that those units are not going to stand for not getting paid for very long. And a debt has to be supported by someone and there's a limit to how much debt a nation can support before the lenders say, "No more." That's when the poopy hits the air circulating blades.
When I had a 150,000 Florin debt, that was far too much for any economy to sustain so it would have been appropriate if the game would have given a certain chance to every turn that generals and bloodline relatives would breakoff from my empire or civil war would break out.
This would be a great stabilizing tool to make it harder for the player to win.
The reality is that money had a great effect on the empires of the middle ages that kept them from growing large enough to control much of Europe.
As this map shows: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1300.htm things kept breaking down without anyone powerful enough to dominate.
I hope someone for CA might take note of this and modify the game in the future.
[This message has been edited by Paladin (edited 11-02-2002).]
Kraellin
11-02-2002, 22:06
paladin,
i think maybe you missed the yogi's point. the crown never goes broke, it goes in debt. that means it is getting money from somewhere to pay folks, so the soldiers and whatnot are being paid. the crown simply owes somebody for that money now.
but, you do make a valid point about paying your troops and adding in an option for whether or not you wish to borrow money or not would be a good feature. if one chose not to go in debt then certainly troops would start to disappear, rebel, loyalty would drop throughout the country, and so on.
the thing we dont see, currently, is who you are getting this money from to continue paying your countrymen. that would make a nice addition to the game. one could borrow internally or borrow externally from another faction and all the politics that might involve.
we basically know that CA had a lot of ideas that just couldnt make it into the game; perhaps an expansion pack will add some of these in.
i do like your idea. whenever you start talking money, politics and religious politics suddenly get more volatile, and unpredictable, and that in turn tends to make for interesting game play.
K.
------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif
Kraellin:
Quote paladin,
i think maybe you missed the yogi's point. the crown never goes broke, it goes in debt. that means it is getting money from somewhere to pay folks, so the soldiers and whatnot are being paid. the crown simply owes somebody for that money now.[/QUOTE]
OK, that makes sense.
Quote but, you do make a valid point about paying your troops and adding in an option for whether or not you wish to borrow money or not would be a good feature. if one chose not to go in debt then certainly troops would start to disappear, rebel, loyalty would drop throughout the country, and so on.[/QUOTE]
If you remember the game "Lords of the Middle Ages", that was something that would happen. If you discharged troops, there was a chance they would rebell against you. I support seeing that same feature in MTW. It would really make this game even more difficult.
Quote the thing we dont see, currently, is who you are getting this money from to continue paying your countrymen. that would make a nice addition to the game. one could borrow internally or borrow externally from another faction and all the politics that might involve.[/QUOTE]
That would be fun.
Quote we basically know that CA had a lot of ideas that just couldnt make it into the game; perhaps an expansion pack will add some of these in.[/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed.
Quote i do like your idea. whenever you start talking money, politics and religious politics suddenly get more volatile, and unpredictable, and that in turn tends to make for interesting game play.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I hope there is some consideration for this in the future.
Quote Originally posted by Paladin:
Two points: First, financing that war was no where near as expensive as financing the taking over of Europe and second, confiscating the assets of the Jews in Spain was the final retribution against them for riding in with the muslim invaders centuries before, stealing the lands, property of the Spanish, forcing Islam on them at the point of a sword, and relegating the local population to third-class citizen status.
When the Spanish pushed the Muslims out, the Jews decided to stay behind at their own risk thinking the Christian Kings would have forgiven and forgotten the outrages foisted upon the Christian people who lived in those lands. Big mistake. The Kings of the Iberian penninsula saw confiscating the assets of the Jews as the appropriate measure considering that the Jews stole from the Christian people for so many years with the Muslim Khalifs approval.
If there is a deficit, it means someone is not being paid. And I imagine that those units are not going to stand for not getting paid for very long. And a debt has to be supported by someone and there's a limit to how much debt a nation can support before the lenders say, "No more." That's when the poopy hits the air circulating blades.
When I had a 150,000 Florin debt, that was far too much for any economy to sustain so it would have been appropriate if the game would have given a certain chance to every turn that generals and bloodline relatives would breakoff from my empire or civil war would break out.
This would be a great stabilizing tool to make it harder for the player to win.
The reality is that money had a great effect on the empires of the middle ages that kept them from growing large enough to control much of Europe.
As this map shows: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1300.htm things kept breaking down without anyone powerful enough to dominate.
I hope someone for CA might take note of this and modify the game in the future.
[This message has been edited by Paladin (edited 11-02-2002).][/QUOTE]
Two points: First, no one had Islam forced on them at the point of a sword, muslims, christians and jews lived in relative peace in muslim spain.
Second: If the muslims stole spain then every nation started out as a thief, it was a war that the moors won, they conquered, not stole, the land.
Dawood:
Quote Two points: First, no one had Islam forced on them at the point of a sword, muslims, christians and jews lived in relative peace in muslim spain.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's real cute. Wrong, but cute. I don't know if you noticed but there was a long drawn out war between Islam and Christianity in the Iberian penninsula. It ended in 1492 with the final explusion of the Muslims from Granada.
Here's a little background on the Jewish aspect of this issue from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
First, about the Muslim invasion:
The Arabs spread rapidly through Andalusia, soon reaching Toledo, the Gothic capital, while the Jews, who were numerous in the cities, facilitated their entrance.
Second, about why the Christians finally rose up against them:
Oppressed by vexatious laws, and abhorred by the people, whom they ruined with their usury, perverted, and scandalized with their sacrileges, they were finally expelled from Spain by the Catholic Sovereigns, who regarded them as dangerous to the religious unity and the security of the country on account of the relations which they maintained with the Moors.
Finally, about the persecution of Christians by the Muslims:
The first caliphs treated the Mozarabic Christians with comparative leniency; Abderraman II, however, initiated a policy of persecution, and his son Mohammed I continued it.
Yes, churches were destroyed, and priests and nuns slaughtered. Is that what you call, "relative peace"? I don't.
Quote Second: If the muslims stole spain then every nation started out as a thief, it was a war that the moors won, they conquered, not stole, the land.[/QUOTE]
That was appropriate hyperbole on my part.
Quote Originally posted by Paladin:
Here's a little background on the Jewish aspect of this issue from the Catholic Encyclopedia:[/QUOTE]
Ah well, yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Such an obviously unbiased source http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
In fact, Islam during the Middle-Age was infinitely less oppressive and much more tolerant than catholics.
Hakonarson
11-04-2002, 07:09
Islam in the middle ages was as varied in its approach to other religons as Catholicism was - there weer brutal savage wars betwen moslem factions - of which the Sunni and Shi-ite hotility persists to this day.
Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others were alternately tolerated, encouraged and butchered depending upon what suited the ruler at the time.
there WEER vast areas of "Catholicism" which were relatively tolerant too - South France for example, until het Albigensian Crusades, Poland, Hungary, even England at time.
Norman (Catholic) Sicily for hundreds of years had a policy of insisting that its Moslems stayed Moslem - as they were considered more reliable troops against the Papacy than its Christian subjects - 60,000 moslem Siciliians were setteld in Sth Italy at one stage.
To apply gross generalisations acoss hundreds of eyars and thousands of miles is arrant nonsense.
Hakonarson
11-04-2002, 07:11
Oh and teh early stages of the HYW the English borrowed 10's of thousands of punds from al over - Jews, Italians, English - anyone they could get it from.
Everyone who loaned the money went bankrupt!!
Yeah, the Catholic Encyclopedia is definitely a biased source. I don't trust anything the Catholic Church says nowadays.
People back then were mostly illiterate and didn't have a good grasp of finance. Jews realized the principles of banking long before Catholics did. Anything with interest was considered usury for the most part. Even loans with negative REAL interest was probably even considered as usury by most. Fact is, nominal interest has to be greater than rate of inflation before any REAL interest accrues. These things existed back in the Middle Ages, people haven't discovered the principles yet though.
I'd say that the Spanish monarchs borrowed the money with the intent on defaulting on their loans and kicking the Jews out so they don't have to pay back their debt.
Most rulers just borrow money then threaten the merchants they borrowed money from to cancel their debt. Either that or they raise taxes so high to compensate. Debt restructuring at the point of a sword isn't really something that would add anything to the game. The concept of bonds and treasury notes and bills are fairly modern.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.