When you go broke

[Polemists]

So didn't see this anywhere.

I'm curious what happens when you go broke. I've managed to go in debt at some point (usually in early game) in every total war game with the noteable exception of shogun (which I found hard to lose money in). MTW, Rome, and MTW2 I went in debt.

I wonder since you now have professional armies more then peasants, knights and legionares what will occur. If they will disband, maybe you'll have a uprising, maybe you'll have to ask the nobles for a loan.

Any thoughts? :2thumbsup:

[Fisherking]

If we are really luck maybe it will be a mutiny or revolt!

It isn’t like Total War not to kick you when you are down!:whip:

[pdoyle007]

From books I have read the soldiers in this time were often behind in terms of their pay due to lack of cash and problems moving it to the front line etc.

However it would be interesting to have it similar to deserters on a crusade when a few men per unit disappear. Would give you a reason to act quickly rather than let the problem develop.

[Polemists]

I would mind seeing other countries coming to you for a loan, similiar to lousiana purchase sale to fund Napolean in early 1800's.

I think that's a bit to much to hope for, but small groups desenting would also be good. :2thumbsup:

[CBR]

Yeah desertion and perhaps a morale penalty until they get paid would be a nice thing.

The 18th century was an era of massive borrowing and piling up large debts. But I guess anything that resembles real life economy is too much to expect.


CBR

[Lusitani]

When i go broke i go and pillage someone's city....on EB anyway :juggle2:
Reducing superfluous army units also helps....more trade etc...

V.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I hope that one they CA will introduce the way soldiers desert like they did in Lords of the Realm II. If you couldn't pay your soldiers, first you would get a warning, then your mercenaries would desert en mass, and last but not least your regular army would slowly melt away. The mechanics are there in M2TW; the desertion during crusades and the effect that a disease has on units.

[fenir]

How the heck do you go broke??

On another issue, man i can see where we can put alot of new provinces. But there will probably be a system whereby we will have to edit the secondary towns i would say.


Still interesting.


How the heck do you go broke??


Sincerely

fenir

[Mailman653]

How the heck do you go broke??


I've gone broke before, usually happens when my neighbors try to squash me and I'm down to one province, trying to survive to the next turn to build up a cheap unit to try to defend whats left of my empire. :no:

[Marten]

The 18th century was an era of massive borrowing and piling up large debts.

CBR

Just like nowadays. :shame: Or as my instructor in the army always said: You are the first guy who is complaining about a faulty parachute. :laugh4:

So Marlborough told his men: Stop complaining about your money! We will pay you after the battle ... the cheaper art of Warfare. :idea2:

I always missed the Fuggers in MTW2, maybe this time we will have the chance to loan some money? Or it is a question of game design?
Cause if you're able to loan money the coherence between 2 different classes of populace, their pretensions and the different taxes for
each class of populace makes no sense. And I don't have a clue about the trade theatres. Maybe they will be a fountain of wealth, handled in the right way?

[CBR]

And I don't have a clue about the trade theatres. Maybe they will be a fountain of wealth, handled in the right way?
Yes well Total War has always put a premium on building up trade ports/routes and that was your main income, so I guess trade and colonies will have same effect in ETW. Of course it was not that important in real life. But increasing your level of taxes, excises and agricultural output is not as sexy for a mainstream game compared to expanding your colonies ~:)


CBR

[gollum]

In the recent PCG review its even mentioned that colonising in other continents its part of victory objectives, so you cant bypass it - the whole idea of the game is built around the perception of the period as a colonisation race.

!it burnsus!

[CBR]

In the recent gamespy review its even mentioned that colonising in other continents its part of victory objectives, so you cant bypass it - the whole idea of the game is built around the perception of the period as a colonisation race.

!it burnsus!
Yeah some factions will have such objectives but I doubt all factions will have that.


CBR

[gollum]

Yes - like say the Russians, Prussians, Austrains or Knights of Malta perhaps.

Relative to economics it would be good to offer penalties for disbanding or make the AI use the disbanding function too - disbanding is too big of an economic advantage for the player that can always avoid going bankrupt - when the AI cannot.

!it burnsus!

[Sir Beane]

Yeah some factions will have such objectives but I doubt all factions will have that.


CBR

According to several interviews/previews different factions get different objectives. Britain would be expected to colonise, a continental power like Austria probably will not be. :2thumbsup: I hope that is how it works.

[Fisherking]

Back to desertion for a moment.

Who else remembers your army slowly melting away in MTW when you would go broke?

It seemed to me very similar to how Monsieur Alphonse described it…and that was 3 games ago.

[scipiosgoblin]

Yes well Total War has always put a premium on building up trade ports/routes and that was your main income, so I guess trade and colonies will have same effect in ETW. Of course it was not that important in real life. But increasing your level of taxes, excises and agricultural output is not as sexy for a mainstream game compared to expanding your colonies ~:)


CBR


Trade with the Americas and Asia was not all that important in real life??? I believe you are mistaken there. Trade was what allowed the Italian city states to flourish during the MTW period and Amsterdam and London flourish during the 16 - 1700s. If this were not the case, the British East India Company would not have been able to support it's own army and navy seperate from the crown nor would the various kingdoms bothered with creating massive navies to protect their trade.


SG

[CBR]

Trade with the Americas and Asia was not all that important in real life??? I believe you are mistaken there. Trade was what allowed the Italian city states to flourish during the MTW period and Amsterdam and London flourish during the 16 - 1700s. If this were not the case, the British East India Company would not have been able to support it's own army and navy seperate from the crown nor would the various kingdoms bothered with creating massive navies to protect their trade.
Of course trade played a role, it is just that it is a bit more complex than just the generic term "trade". Both the English and Dutch East India companies became very powerful but was just that, companies. Great profits from monopolies and domestic political influence certainly made them influential. But the fact is that the major powers of the 18th century got most of its revenue from stuff that had little to do with colonies.

The Italian city states that grew rich in the MTW era did it by more than just some abstract large trade port that gave them more trade routes. It was industry that meant they had something to export that made them rich.

And yes countries built navies and fought wars over trade. But that was really more caused by the mercantilist idea the the amount of trade was fixed. The staggering direct cost from wars and indirect costs from protectionism as nations argued and struggled over trading rights or puny colonies was just not worth it.


CBR

[fenir]

Trade was massive.

Though out history, it has been trade, and in particular, overseas trade that has created so much wealth.

England become immensely wealthy, just with the wool trade. And late with all sorts of trade. the nation that could brin new world goods to the european market had the power to charge any price.

Tabacco.
Timber.
Furs.
nutmeg.
pepper.
Sugar.

All these things where hugely profitiable.

In 1700, and english merchant ship carrying spices from india to England. Would make 3 times the profit on it's money.

So a ship worth about 5000 pounds sterling. And a crew for 2 years at about 400 pound sterling. Would pay for it's self 3 times over.

Because there return after selling their cargo, was almost 21,000 pounds sterling.

Now ROyal Taxes on POrt duties, people employeed on the ports. Tax on the goods them selves.
Taxs on merchants in resale. Taxes on transporting good inland.

HUGE.

The old equation for the Royal Navy.
Trade employes and gives new sailors. Trade pays for the Royal Navy, the Royal Navy guards trade.

For almost 250 years. The royal navy was paid for from trade alone.
A navy that was twice as big as it's next two rivals.

I hope this gives you some idea of the importance of trade.


Hell, whole wars where because of trade.

NEVER, underestimate the power that trade brings.


Sincerely

fenir

[CBR]

For almost 250 years. The royal navy was paid for from trade alone.
A navy that was twice as big as it's next two rivals.

I don't really think one can just isolate costs for the navy only. Britain needed its army as well as subsidies for allies on the Continent.

And going by the numbers from the period 1702-1783 (covering the 4 major wars) Britain went from a debt of 16 million Pounds to 245 million Pounds.

Total revenue from customs (and thats from a graph so a bit rough) were about say 150 million.

Total military spending just in the 4 wars was 312 million. Then one can add around 290 million from peacetime military spending (well not completely peacetime of course) so a total of about 600 million.

Overall 75-85% of state revenues were used to pay for military expenses or debt and for debt alone it peaked at 65% of revenues at the end of the American Revolutionary War.

The overall tax rate also nearly doubled during this period. So the state was squeezing more and more money out of the people and yet the debts still went up and that was in an era where the interest rates dropped around 50% ! So uhm no I don't really think fighting over fishery rights at Newfoundland or some disease ridden West Indies island really meant huge national profits for the 18th century powers.

Britain could consider itself lucky that France never could push more than about half the tax rate out of its own population, plus bad financial policies that ended in financial and political ruin.

If colonies were that important then one would also expect losing the American colonies, with all the nice monopolies, to have meant a heavy blow for Britain. But somehow that did not happen.

Hm this has been off topic enough I think. I could of course mention something about British tariffs on French wine and the rise of the British beer industry or the differences in French and British tax gathering or in agricultural output...or maybe not.


CBR

[Polemists]

I guess this goes back to the idea of being able to set taxes on different population groups (nobles/Commoners) and areas (colonies or provinces) rather then invidiual cities in ETW.

I'm hoping your finances work alot more like a empire this time around.

Then again this will be the first total war game that militia are a fanastic defender unit, solely because they have ranged weapons now :laugh4:

So hopefully I won't go broke.

This is the era when loaning and banks become big though, as mentioned in spains right up. I'm hoping ships will be large investments of time and wealth and not just instant build, which CA stated they are not this time around but we will see.

[gollum]

Originally posted by CBR
I don't really think one can just isolate costs for the navy only. Britain needed its army as well as subsidies for allies on the Continent.

And going by the numbers from the period 1702-1783 (covering the 4 major wars) Britain went from a debt of 16 million Pounds to 245 million Pounds.

Total revenue from customs (and thats from a graph so a bit rough) were about say 150 million.

Total military spending just in the 4 wars was 312 million. Then one can add around 290 million from peacetime military spending (well not completely peacetime of course) so a total of about 600 million.

Overall 75-85% of state revenues were used to pay for military expenses or debt and for debt alone it peaked at 65% of revenues at the end of the American Revolutionary War.

The overall tax rate also nearly doubled during this period. So the state was squeezing more and more money out of the people and yet the debts still went up and that was in an era where the interest rates dropped around 50% ! So uhm no I don't really think fighting over fishery rights at Newfoundland or some disease ridden West Indies island really meant huge national profits for the 18th century powers.

Britain could consider itself lucky that France never could push more than about half the tax rate out of its own population, plus bad financial policies that ended in financial and political ruin.

If colonies were that important then one would also expect losing the American colonies, with all the nice monopolies, to have meant a heavy blow for Britain. But somehow that did not happen.

Hm this has been off topic enough I think. I could of course mention something about British tariffs on French wine and the rise of the British beer industry or the differences in French and British tax gathering or in agricultural output...or maybe not.


CBR

Interesting post - are you a historian Mr CBR?

!it burnsus!

[CBR]

I guess this goes back to the idea of being able to set taxes on different population groups (nobles/Commoners) and areas (colonies or provinces) rather then invidiual cities in ETW.
Yes there are some potentially interesting game play elements in that.


Interesting post - are you a historian Mr CBR?
Sadly one year at the university does not produce such an esteemed title, heh.

I just read books and articles and sometimes even manage to draw my own, quite possible flawed, conclusions from it all.


CBR

[gollum]

Originally posted by CBR
Sadly one year at the university does not produce such an esteemed title, heh.


The one who is good at shooting does not hit the center of the target

:bow:

!it burnsus!