View Full Version : Administrative penalty - does it ever recover?
The game penalizes - balances in CA parlance - a successful player by reducing income in two ways:
- commodity prices drop even if supply remains constant (or even decreases!) reducing trade income.
- tax rate penalty under "administrative costs".
The first will eventually recover if you stop expanding your territory.
I have not yet seen the administrative penalty inch lower - instead it remains fixed after 10 turns of peace at war (i.e. war with a dozen nations or so, but no conquests). Has anyone recovered their tax rates, or is the administrative penalty fixed with respect to the number of regions you own?
By 1736 GB campaign tax income has not increased much (only up to 17K) despite massive economic improvements on my part. However, I own ~55 regions (all of the Indian theater, except for Baluchistan & Ceylon, and most of the American theater) and suffer from a massive tax penalty of ~22%. I haven't added any ships to a trade port since 1710 or so, as the commodity prices went down to ridiculous levels during my expansion phase.
The beginning phases (up to 1720-25) were better balanced compared to pre-patch. But by this phase, the tax penalty has simply gotten to an absurd level.
Essentially, there is no purpose to building an empire... I could make more money with half the regions - but then I'd need an even larger army to defend my regions, thanks to the reversion to the METW2 "AI will declare war on human neighbor, even if relations are perfect" diplomacy...
al Roumi
05-13-2009, 14:24
The drop in prices due to increased player control of commodity supply is drastic. I can only rationalise it if one imagines that the player becomes able to undercut the market, but due to the fixed/limited availability of goods, this doesn't neccessarily make sense when one gains a near monopoly of supply.
In my current GB campaign, I have captured the entire blob of regions from Louisiana to Newfoundland (-minus the Iroquoi and inuit territories). In doing so, I must now control about 70-80% of the worlds extraction points of Furs, and probably 90% of the market's supply. I also have trade routes to all factions barring the French, Spanish and Mughals; Russia and Sweden are the only other nations who could trade in furs (Indians cannot trade without land routes).
That situation is as near as damn a monopoly over the fur market, under which circumstances there would not be a price war and prices would hence not diminish as a result of market forces. However, as you say anweRU, the price of Furs has crashed to 9...
What on earth is the point in seizing resources if your final returns diminish so far?
I appreciate the improved gameplay derived from the squeeze on resources since patch 3 (v1.2) but the measures taken to limit the accumulation of fantastic wealth may have gone a little far. That said, I am still making 10,000-14,000 profit each turn in 1725.
Perhaps i'd be happier at least with a more realistic, or understandable model of price fluctuation.
The game penalizes - balances in CA parlance - a successful player by reducing income in two ways:
- commodity prices drop even if supply remains constant (or even decreases!) reducing trade income.
- tax rate penalty under "administrative costs".
The first will eventually recover if you stop expanding your territory.
I have not yet seen the administrative penalty inch lower - instead it remains fixed after 10 turns of peace at war (i.e. war with a dozen nations or so, but no conquests). Has anyone recovered their tax rates, or is the administrative penalty fixed with respect to the number of regions you own?
By 1736 GB campaign tax income has not increased much (only up to 17K) despite massive economic improvements on my part. However, I own ~55 regions (all of the Indian theater, except for Baluchistan & Ceylon, and most of the American theater) and suffer from a massive tax penalty of ~22%. I haven't added any ships to a trade port since 1710 or so, as the commodity prices went down to ridiculous levels during my expansion phase.
The beginning phases (up to 1720-25) were better balanced compared to pre-patch. But by this phase, the tax penalty has simply gotten to an absurd level.
Essentially, there is no purpose to building an empire... I could make more money with half the regions - but then I'd need an even larger army to defend my regions, thanks to the reversion to the METW2 "AI will declare war on human neighbor, even if relations are perfect" diplomacy...
Short answer: no, the admin penalty does not recover but grows worse the bigger your empire gets. Someone (alpaca) @ twcenter.net had done a calculation: if you conquer the whole world you'd collect only 20% of the taxes that province owners would collect if each province was independent.
I personally like the new system much better than the old one. The old one was just a no-brainer; by mid-game, the player had millions in the treasury and even war declared on the player by every faction could not harm him... Now, the player needs to think (a bit) to decide upon the course of development, the provinces that need to be protected always and the ones that can be left unattended; + the player needs to develop and PROTECT the trade, resulting in much better game-play in my opinion.
I have to note that it IS STILL POSSIBLE for large empires to grow tax revenues especially once all wealth growth techs are in place + building/port/road developments. Post patch 1.2, it was not uncommon to see my GB empire's tax income to pop up by close to a 1,000 per turn in the late game just from the wealth growth. I did not have 55 provinces though: rather, around 35, but fully developed.
As to 55 provinces: what's the point? No faction can challenge you in ANY way at that size so you might as well disband all your armies and store your tax revenue in treasury.
The 55 provinces kind of explain why your commodity prices collapsed. You do not have anyone to sell your products to... The export goods in ETW can be considered as excess goods that are not consumed on the local market (and taxed through the wealth tax) and therefore can be sold in the world market. If there is no world market outside your empire: ta-dah... you cannot sell much.
Note that commodity prices are also a function of the province development of your trade partners. The higher developed their trade ports (and, I think, roads), the more they can import. The more they can import, the higher the demand and therefore prices. I've noticed my revenues go up quite a bit if I grant a trade tech to my biggest trade partners.
In my games, I have seen commodity prices plunge at the beginning of the game (as everyone occupies the trade theaters) just to take a rebound later in the game once everyone levels up their ports.
The drop in prices due to increased player control of commodity supply is drastic. I can only rationalise it if one imagines that the player becomes able to undercut the market, but due to the fixed/limited availability of goods, this doesn't neccessarily make sense when one gains a near monopoly of supply.
In my current GB campaign, I have captured the entire blob of regions from Louisiana to Newfoundland (-minus the Iroquoi and inuit territories). In doing so, I must now control about 70-80% of the worlds extraction points of Furs, and probably 90% of the market's supply. I also have trade routes to all factions barring the French, Spanish and Mughals; Russia and Sweden are the only other nations who could trade in furs (Indians cannot trade without land routes).
That situation is as near as damn a monopoly over the fur market, under which circumstances there would not be a price war and prices would hence not diminish as a result of market forces. However, as you say anweRU, the price of Furs has crashed to 9...
What on earth is the point in seizing resources if your final returns diminish so far?
I appreciate the improved gameplay derived from the squeeze on resources since patch 3 (v1.2) but the measures taken to limit the accumulation of fantastic wealth may have gone a little far. That said, I am still making 10,000-14,000 profit each turn in 1725.
Perhaps i'd be happier at least with a more realistic, or understandable model of price fluctuation.
I think, you you said it clearly yourself: you're making 10,000 to 14,000 PROFIT per turn in 1725. That's more than enough in my opinion. Actually, in my GB campaign I was making close to 50K in turn profits around 1765... and I had around 500K in my treasury post patch 1.2... Ok, not millions as before the patch, but 500K is still sufficient to take a player through decades of total war with no trade whatsoever. My 2 cents: the new econ system is fine.
As to price fluctuations: given it's only 1725 and most of your trade partners probably still have only first level harbors you are flooding the market... Folks cannot buy all you're trying to sell therefore the price is dropping. Destroy some of your American trade harbors, destroy some of the fur/sugar production sites and you should see the global price improve. Otherwise, given what you've told, you're actually NOT CONTROLLING the supply, you're just dumping everything you can produce onto the market.
Having said that, I would actually not do what I just propose. Rather grant your trade partners more advanced trade techs and see the prices recover.
As to 55 provinces: what's the point? No faction can challenge you in ANY way at that size so you might as well disband all your armies and store your tax revenue in treasury.
First - the insane AI actually caused me to capture the whole of the Indian continent. I was perfectly content to hold Bangalore & Hindustan, but incessant DoWs by the Mughals and Marathas (and later Mysore & Portugal) resulted in my eliminating them. Having fresh full stack attacks from Mysore every second turn was especially galling...
The 55 provinces kind of explain why your commodity prices collapsed. You do not have anyone to sell your products to...
Second - no, it doesn't. To demonstrate: I didn't trade with the Mughals (ever) & Marathas (for most of the game). My trade partners have remained constant for the last 60 or so turns. In fact, the Austrians have grown larger by expanding into the European holdings of the Ottoman empire. By logic, this should increase their demands - at the cost of my trade with the Ottomans though. Yet trade prices go down even when I capture regions with no trade resources from tribes or nations that I - or anyone else - didn't trade with.
You're looking for a logical explanation in a game that doesn't have much AI logic...
AussieGiant
05-13-2009, 16:49
First - the insane AI actually caused me to capture the whole of the Indian continent. I was perfectly content to hold Bangalore & Hindustan, but incessant DoWs by the Mughals and Marathas (and later Mysore & Portugal) resulted in my eliminating them. Having fresh full stack attacks from Mysore every second turn was especially galling...
Second - no, it doesn't. To demonstrate: I didn't trade with the Mughals (ever) & Marathas (for most of the game). My trade partners have remained constant for the last 60 or so turns. In fact, the Austrians have grown larger by expanding into the European holdings of the Ottoman empire. By logic, this should increase their demands - at the cost of my trade with the Ottomans though. Yet trade prices go down even when I capture regions with no trade resources from tribes or nations that I - or anyone else - didn't trade with.
You're looking for a logical explanation in a game that doesn't have much AI logic...
You're not talking about AI logic, but macro and micro ecomomics modelled into the game.
Beware making blanket statements about how that actually works because they have probably had some PhD Econ's dude create the system. It's just a question of understanding it.
And of late, not everyone can understand that topic to therefore understand what's going on.
I'd say Slaists is right on the money (pardon the pun) with the explanation as to what is going on.
First - the insane AI actually caused me to capture the whole of the Indian continent. I was perfectly content to hold Bangalore & Hindustan, but incessant DoWs by the Mughals and Marathas (and later Mysore & Portugal) resulted in my eliminating them. Having fresh full stack attacks from Mysore every second turn was especially galling...
Second - no, it doesn't. To demonstrate: I didn't trade with the Mughals (ever) & Marathas (for most of the game). My trade partners have remained constant for the last 60 or so turns. In fact, the Austrians have grown larger by expanding into the European holdings of the Ottoman empire. By logic, this should increase their demands - at the cost of my trade with the Ottomans though. Yet trade prices go down even when I capture regions with no trade resources from tribes or nations that I - or anyone else - didn't trade with.
You're looking for a logical explanation in a game that doesn't have much AI logic...
To be honest, I have not closely followed what happens to the commodity prices as I conquer each province. Will double check later tonight. But could it be that something "else" is happening as you conquer that 'extra province'? Maybe someone else got a production boost of the respective commodity?
In my games, I've noticed that commodity prices have huge swings, but they seem to recover once the trade techs of AI factions get higher.
Beware making blanket statements about how that actually works because they have probably had some PhD Econ's dude create the system. It's just a question of understanding it.
If they did, that person's PhD is worthless, for several reasons. Two major ones are:
- The supply & demand system is missing one crucial consumer - your own populace. Britain, and most of the rest, did not build empires so they could trade with others. They did so to supply their own demand - for raw resources and to develop markets for their own (home built) goods.
- Your commodities are distributed among all of your trade partners, such that all trade partners get all types of commodities. What is wrong with that? You end up exporting goods to a nation that produces more of that good than you do!
As to price fluctuations: given it's only 1725 and most of your trade partners probably still have only first level harbors you are flooding the market... Folks cannot buy all you're trying to sell therefore the price is dropping. Destroy some of your American trade harbors, destroy some of the fur/sugar production sites and you should see the global price improve. Otherwise, given what you've told, you're actually NOT CONTROLLING the supply, you're just dumping everything you can produce onto the market.
That's a pretty good answer there. Also think of it as a way as crippling other factions. It wasn't my intentions on crashing the fur market as GB but I think of how much I hurt Russia forcing them to sell low decreasing there trade revenues.
I'd say the taxes work nicely just need to tweak overhaul the diplomacy as war is truly an expensive endeavor
If they did, that person's PhD is worthless, for several reasons. Two major ones are:
- The supply & demand system is missing one crucial consumer - your own populace. Britain, and most of the rest, did not build empires so they could trade with others. They did so to supply their own demand - for raw resources and to develop markets for their own (home built) goods.
I thought about that, but with a bit of a stretch of imagination the local demand (and consumption) IS modeled in the game already through the increase in wealth by constructing certain types of buildings. The wealth is the base for estimating the tax income of provinces so, in effect, local trade gets taxed and contributes to taxes.
One can see the goods ready for export as 'surplus' that's left over after the local consumption.
- Your commodities are distributed among all of your trade partners, such that all trade partners get all types of commodities. What is wrong with that? You end up exporting goods to a nation that produces more of that good than you do!
This part bugs me too: someone producing sugar to the extent of being able to export should not be importing it at the same time.
What bugs me more though is that a single pirate ship can blockade an obscure Caribbean island and effectively blockade ALL of the faction's North American trade, while trade routes form other provinces to Europe are obviously open on the campaign map. It does not make any sense.
Also, it seems, home province can have numerous trade ports, but, as long as ONE of them is blockaded ALL of maritime trade ceases. :wall: That PhD truly must be quite useles.
al Roumi
05-13-2009, 17:51
I think, you you said it clearly yourself: you're making 10,000 to 14,000 PROFIT per turn in 1725. That's more than enough in my opinion. Actually, in my GB campaign I was making close to 50K in turn profits around 1765... and I had around 500K in my treasury post patch 1.2... Ok, not millions as before the patch, but 500K is still sufficient to take a player through decades of total war with no trade whatsoever. My 2 cents: the new econ system is fine.
Broadly, I agree with you Slaists. I find v1.2 much more fun -mostly due to the changes that have cascaded through from the changes to economy. I'm not however too fond of a system that doesn't operate in a way that is rational or bounded by realism.
Your point regarding my (lack of) control of goods is a good one, but if the appetite or size of the market is such a vital issue (as it could be), it would be much more accessible and user-friendly for such things to be explained in the game (a tool tip explanation would do). Especially as this game is as much about the economics of empire as the conquest required to enable it.
Broadly, I agree with you Slaists. I find v1.2 much more fun -mostly due to the changes that have cascaded through from the changes to economy. I'm not however too fond of a system that doesn't operate in a way that is rational or bounded by realism.
Your point regarding my (lack of) control of goods is a good one, but if the appetite or size of the market is such a vital issue (as it could be), it would be much more accessible and user-friendly for such things to be explained in the game (a tool tip explanation would do). Especially as this game is as much about the economics of empire as the conquest required to enable it.
I agree about the documentation (lack of it). This must be the worst documented TW game released so far.
As to economics: that part is very 'dumbed' down in all of TW games, ETW not being an exception. If you want an engaging economics game, try either Civiliasation IV or Europa Universalis In Nomine version. About the latter: beware it's quite tedious (way more than any of the TW games) actually whereas the former lacks any historical context and neither of them have real time battles.
I enjoyed the original Civilization game immensely when I was an undergraduate. Actually, I enjoyed all of Sid Meier's games. I purchased my first computer so I could play Pirates!...
I think I will switch to playing Civ IV after giving E:TW patch 1.3 a try, whenever CA releases it.
Some folks on twcenter supposedly have confirmed that town upgrades (including your own) boost demand for commodities and the price on the world market. Someone destroyed all of his own town upgrades and the price of the commodities tanked as a result.
AussieGiant
05-13-2009, 18:56
I know plenty of situations where countries even now, import good they already have.
Sugar in Australia for example.
I'd love to see CA make comment on how the economic model work in more detail.
I know plenty of situations where countries even now, import good they already have.
Sugar in Australia for example.
I'd love to see CA make comment on how the economic model work in more detail.
But does Australia also EXPORT sugar at the same time?
Also, Australia is a huge country. I could see how it would make sense to import (by sea) sugar to North Western territories rather than land-transport it from the East. Maybe that's the reasoning (if any was applicable) also in the game's terms.
AussieGiant
05-13-2009, 19:36
But does Australia also EXPORT sugar at the same time?
Also, Australia is a huge country. I could see how it would make sense to import (by sea) sugar to North Western territories rather than land-transport it from the East. Maybe that's the reasoning (if any was applicable) also in the game's terms.
That's the irony. We are one of the main cane sugar exporters in the whole world. The Queensland interior is basically a big sugar cane plantation. :beam:
So yes...we sell and buy the same thing.
Crazy stuff hey. Seems a little like the AI. :egypt:
Babblearossa
05-13-2009, 19:45
Where is this "tax rate penalty under administrative costs." I keep reading it mentioned but can't seem to locate it.
Where is this "tax rate penalty under administrative costs." I keep reading it mentioned but can't seem to locate it.
Open the tab that summarizes your province. Hover the mouse over the tax rate and you'll see it broken down into components (such as bonuses from governors', buildings and negative effect of admin.). The admin. cost (negative tax rate %) will go up as you get more provinces.
For example, with 7 provinces your effective tax rate might be 30% across 7 provinces; as soon as you conquer your 8th province the effective tax rate will go down to 29.5% across all 8 provinces. The numbers are just imaginary examples. The real rate collected will vary depending on the government buildings, various bonuses, etc.
That's the irony. We are one of the main cane sugar exporters in the whole world. The Queensland interior is basically a big sugar cane plantation. :beam:
So yes...we sell and buy the same thing.
Crazy stuff hey. Seems a little like the AI. :egypt:
Well, could the transportation be the key? Meaning: the sugar gets imported to provinces that have bad land connection to Queensland.
If not: dunno, must be a special Aussie way of running sugar trade. Hey, maybe you guys are repackaging that imported sugar and exporting it with more appealing image :juggle2:
It might well be that there is some demographic segment in your society preferring a certain type of IMPORTED sugar; just some coolness factor you know. :egypt:
Well, I found this article: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/X0513E/x0513e04.htm. It suggests Australian sugar imports are practically nil due to stiff price competition from the local refiners. So, it seems: 1) sugar imports satisfy an insignificant part of Australian sugar consumption; 2) given the low import volume relative to local sugar, I would assume the imports are geared towards some demographic segment's demand and/or demand of some hard to access geographic area.
Open the region info tab, put the mouse pointer over the tax rate, and wait a few seconds. It will show the tax rate breakdown: upper class, lower class, government building bonus, and finally, administrative costs (the negative tax modifier).
Edit: Simultaneous post...
Monsieur Alphonse
05-13-2009, 21:51
According to the daily update they are reducing the administrative costs:
Over the last few days I've been playing the game and tweaking economics values. In essence, I've slightly reduced the administration cost and made the economic game a little bit easier on "normal" and "easy" difficulty levels. Also, I've tweaked the AI's economic bonuses so that they will have a more money to spend on an army.
Also, I've tweaked the effects of technology: Some technologies were reducing the upkeep cost of units a little bit too much.
Additionally the diplomatic effect of the faction leader's qualities has increased a little bit.
They are reducing the admin costs but also tweaking the upkeep reducing techs. I hope that this shift the balance a little to the early game. In the beginning you can have slightly more units. In the end game it doesn't matter.
That sounds good.
My gripe is that being uncapped, it is a bit too much now - an empire with 40 territories shouldn't have less tax income than one with 20 territories.... I liked what it did to the early game, improving the pace (along with the increased resistance). But mid-game, it simply reduces any incentives to build an empire.
FactionHeir
05-14-2009, 00:11
Oh great, more AI cheating. I would have thought that this time around they'd work on making a better AI rather than buff up the AI like mad as per previous titles.
I would like the AI to build better, and set its tax priorities straight. Except for a few very rich one-region nations, like Mysore, the AI seems to run out of steam very fast.
Instead of building more armies, as the update says it will, the AI should use its new "bonus" to improve its economy...
PraetorFigus
05-14-2009, 02:45
my :2cents:,
we should consider how trade was looked at in the time frame,
not looking back from the present, so I recommend to check out Mercantilism (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html) and Monopoly (http://www.answers.com/topic/monopoly-1).
The factions operated under Mercantilism until Adam Smith and David Hume changed things, so that's a while for ETW.
And it was quite common for monopolistic practices to be used even with republics. So some situations were natural monopolies and/or oligopolies (where different firms (or in this case factions control goods)).
Basically the main feature of this is that the factions are less responsive or not responsive to the people, building up for themselves, the government, and often inefficiently or illogically.
For me so far, I'm fine with how taxes and trade are represented except for having the unified trade routes. I personally prefer how port to port was done in older TW games, but again that's just my opinion.
That sounds good.
My gripe is that being uncapped, it is a bit too much now - an empire with 40 territories shouldn't have less tax income than one with 20 territories.... I liked what it did to the early game, improving the pace (along with the increased resistance). But mid-game, it simply reduces any incentives to build an empire.
hmm... does not sound good at all to me. the admin costs were fine (on VH and H) as they were post 1.2. example: playing France on VH, in 1735 I am raking in 33K in profits per turn with already a few hundred K stashed away in the treasury. i have two full stack armies in the americas; one in India and one in France proper.
so, to me, the econ part is way too easy (on VH) already: absolutely no need to make it even easier.
As to that empire with 40 territories: I do not have 40 territories. But sure enough I am making way more money (on absolute terms) with 30 territories than with 20 or 10.
AussieGiant
05-14-2009, 07:55
hmm... does not sound good at all to me. the admin costs were fine (on VH and H) as they were post 1.2. example: playing France on VH, in 1735 I am raking in 33K in profits per turn with already a few hundred K stashed away in the treasury. i have two full stack armies in the americas; one in India and one in France proper.
so, to me, the econ part is way too easy (on VH) already: absolutely no need to make it even easier.
As to that empire with 40 territories: I do not have 40 territories. But sure enough I am making way more money (on absolute terms) with 30 territories than with 20 or 10.
Keep in mind Slaists,
if we were to grade you out on the curve for this game, you'd be in the top percentile of players.
To you, it might seem easy, to others they are struggling just fine. :egypt:
al Roumi
05-14-2009, 08:41
Oh great, more AI cheating. I would have thought that this time around they'd work on making a better AI rather than buff up the AI like mad as per previous titles.
-sigh- if only.
Daveybaby
05-14-2009, 10:14
Oh great, more AI cheating. I would have thought that this time around they'd work on making a better AI rather than buff up the AI like mad as per previous titles.
Yeah, come on CA, all you have to do is just program an AI with human level intelligence - how hard can it be? Bloody lazy slackers.
:wink:
FactionHeir
05-14-2009, 10:18
On the campaign map it shouldn't be difficult at all - the choices there are quite limited actually economically. Battlemap probably more. Doesn't mean that the AI should get advantage after advantage on the campaign map to compensate for its imbecility.
al Roumi
05-14-2009, 11:36
It's just slightly annoying that giving numerical advantages to the AI seems to be how a lot of game difficulty is managed.
Have you ever played Galactic civilisations (1 or 2)? The AI on that makes full (ok, greater) use of the range of options that the Human player can. ETW's AI is still playing draughts with a chess set.
Daveybaby
05-14-2009, 12:34
On the campaign map it shouldn't be difficult at all - the choices there are quite limited actually economically.
But is it really that easy? The economic game can be really tight in ETW - lots of human players are having a really hard time making ends meet if you believe some of the threads around here. I mean, yeah some people seem to be rolling in money according to several posts i've seen, but a lot of people are having trouble.
I've definitely found it quite tricky to balance my spending between military expansion and provinvce development in ETW. Also bear in mind that it doesnt take much in the way of naval blockades to completely bankrupt you.
Unless you manage to program an AI as capable of analyzing the game as a human player (and that's a human player that knows the game pretty well) then youre going to have to give the AI a bit of help, especially on the harder difficulty settings.
Note that i'm not saying the AI in ETW doesnt need work, it's just that i've seen quite a few comments along the lines of 'CA should just make a good AI' as if it's just a simple programming task. It's not simple, it's monumentally difficult.
FactionHeir
05-14-2009, 12:38
The Campaign Map AI does just fine in managing its economics. What I'm complaining about is CA buffing it up so that it can field more stacks than the human player can. Sure, its makes the game more "challenging" in terms of you having to fight more enemy units, but at the same time that can be quite tedious - I mean you are permanently at a disadvantage against the AI no matter what and it can keep churning out troops while you can't. This also means that you can completely blockade them and they can still merrily build troops and buildings and not care. It removes a key strategic element from the game.
The current advantage of their recruitment and construction finishing as soon as the AI faction presses End Turn is bad enough already. (Note that for the human player, the above finishes at the start of the human player's next turn, not at the time of pressing End Turn)
al Roumi
05-14-2009, 13:26
But is it really that easy? The economic game can be really tight in ETW - lots of human players are having a really hard time making ends meet if you believe some of the threads around here. I mean, yeah some people seem to be rolling in money according to several posts i've seen, but a lot of people are having trouble.
I've definitely found it quite tricky to balance my spending between military expansion and provinvce development in ETW. Also bear in mind that it doesnt take much in the way of naval blockades to completely bankrupt you.
Unless you manage to program an AI as capable of analyzing the game as a human player (and that's a human player that knows the game pretty well) then youre going to have to give the AI a bit of help, especially on the harder difficulty settings.
Note that i'm not saying the AI in ETW doesnt need work, it's just that i've seen quite a few comments along the lines of 'CA should just make a good AI' as if it's just a simple programming task. It's not simple, it's monumentally difficult.
All I can really speak of is my playing experience, which is subject to my play style. I personally prioritise my economic development, unless I actually need troops for a specific purpose and i don't have a "problem" with wealth. There are definitley better or worse ways of managing your economy in ETW (i.e. concentrating on industry before farming will result in very slow overall growth), which should be better explained by the tool-tips and advisors.
Fundamentally, I regard this game as an trade empire game where the military side is subject to economic motivations. Perhaps some players see it differently or expect to be able to make money from not much -or even maybe some have yet to adjust to v1.2 (patch 3).
As to the AI, of course it's not easy to program challenging AI, but for whatever reason (prioritisation, time, resources) CA haven't delivered on this and it's a great shame. They are now, post release, playing around with some pretty fundamental balance issues of the game that I am shocked to see in a professionaly released game. [i was perfectly with happy with Mount and Blade's development, put i paid less and never expected more or else]
Anyway, playing with fudge factors and AI advantages on Normal and Easy modes just doesn't look like they mastered the AI to begin with.
Keep in mind Slaists,
if we were to grade you out on the curve for this game, you'd be in the top percentile of players.
To you, it might seem easy, to others they are struggling just fine. :egypt:
Well, I've been with TW series since the beginning (STW), so that probably does give me better insight into managing my game empire than would be the case with someone who opened a game of this franchise for the first time. However, there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence in the forums that the latest TW games (MTW2 and ETW) can be beaten both on the campaign map and on the tactical map by 6-year old children (who see a TW game for the first time) of the veteran players here...
So, as far as AI is considered, something is amiss unfortunately. The latest patch was a small step in the right direction, if you ask me. I am not objecting to CA toning down medium and easy (especially easy) but I hope they leave H and VH well alone as far as unwinding v 1.2 changes go. If anything, I'd hope they would tweak the diplomatic engine (at least for H and VH) to allow for AI coalition building against the expanding player in the end-game.
All I can really speak of is my playing experience, which is subject to my play style. I personally prioritise my economic development, unless I actually need troops for a specific purpose and i don't have a "problem" with wealth. There are definitley better or worse ways of managing your economy in ETW (i.e. concentrating on industry before farming will result in very slow overall growth), which should be better explained by the tool-tips and advisors.
Fundamentally, I regard this game as an trade empire game where the military side is subject to economic motivations. Perhaps some players see it differently or expect to be able to make money from not much -or even maybe some have yet to adjust to v1.2 (patch 3).
As to the AI, of course it's not easy to program challenging AI, but for whatever reason (prioritisation, time, resources) CA haven't delivered on this and it's a great shame. They are now, post release, playing around with some pretty fundamental balance issues of the game that I am shocked to see in a professionaly released game. [i was perfectly with happy with Mount and Blade's development, put i paid less and never expected more or else]
I guess, I play the same way. I do not build armies unless I really need them + in early to mid-game I try to incorporate lots of 'cheap' troops in my army composition (like North American native musketeers, etc.). I also tend to use my starting fleets + sloops to the max of their potential: the reward money (for captured ships) is quite a boost for an early economy.
Developing the trade is my prime priority in the early game: way higher than any military development; that also means - taking the pirate islands out early and not reasearching any military sciences unless really needed. Hint about the trade: if they ever introduced AI ability to attack ships on anchors in trade theaters, my treasury would take a huge hit... I hope CA does that at some point though.
Anyway, playing with fudge factors and AI advantages on Normal and Easy modes just doesn't look like they mastered the AI to begin with.
Sigh. I could not agree more...
The Campaign Map AI does just fine in managing its economics. What I'm complaining about is CA buffing it up so that it can field more stacks than the human player can. Sure, its makes the game more "challenging" in terms of you having to fight more enemy units, but at the same time that can be quite tedious - I mean you are permanently at a disadvantage against the AI no matter what and it can keep churning out troops while you can't. This also means that you can completely blockade them and they can still merrily build troops and buildings and not care. It removes a key strategic element from the game.
The current advantage of their recruitment and construction finishing as soon as the AI faction presses End Turn is bad enough already. (Note that for the human player, the above finishes at the start of the human player's next turn, not at the time of pressing End Turn)
Hmm... That (the bolded part) I have a problem agreeing with. So many times, when I take over an AI province I find 2-3 fisheries and no trade ports (at the point when there are no more villages to grow)... no trade ports even in provinces with high industrial output. On the same token, I've seen AI take a huge economic hit by allowing enemy fleets to happily sit inside destroyed trade harbors when all it would take would be a peasant unit (which, by the way, is readily standing by) sent in to clear the port.
It seems that the campaign AI is utterly unable to make simple rational decisions about developing and maintaining economy. But this is not new to ETW, all the previous titles were plagued by the same problem and, unfortunately, the only way CA knew how to 'help the AI out' was to give it huge cash bonuses on harder campaign difficulties, which, of course, throws campaign map strategic/tactical gameplay out of the window. Example: blockading AI's trade ports on H and VH campaign map difficulties used to be a waste of time in RTW and MTW2. Hope, the CA does not opt for the same route in ETW also.
IMHO, the AI is doing a lousy way of managing its economy. The AI is a heavy taxer, and as such its provinces do not begin growing well into the 1730-40s, after it has researched a number of farming & enlightenment tech. By that time any competent human player has a huge economical advantage. The AI also gives priority to fisheries, not trade ports, limiting itself. Sure, fisheries make sense for increasing the population, but are a poor choice over the long term.
20 vs 40, don't forget that most of the NA provinces are not developed at all, and it takes a lot of time for them to reach their potential (into the 1740s-50s). Even then, they are Very Poor towns, and don't start to improve until later. So grabing several strategic provinces in India and/or Europe will actually make you more tax money with few provinces.
Also, note that I'm not happy with the tax penalty, not the overall income. I am making close to 25K/turn on H, with most trade ports (except for two in East Indies) occupied by GB...
I would also lose my trade spots if the AI attacked my undefended trade fleets.
FactionHeir
05-14-2009, 15:22
AI might be a heavy taxer, but it seems to research techs in half the time the human player does anyway. IMO the AI is cheating enough as is and there is no need to push it even further over the top.
Things like attacking trade spots can certainly be coded and they should be focussing on that, not boosting the AI and ignoring its glaring problems.
Ok, somebody asked for screenshots since he found the numbers I mentioned to be unbelievable. Here is an example from my Russian campaign on VH settings. In 1767 Russia's profits are in the range of 50K per turn with 22 provinces held and 3 professional armies (as the one depicted in the screenshot) + 2 fleets (one in the Baltic, one in the Mediterranean).
The second screenshot shows the trade page. As one can observe, the commodity prices (tusks and spices in particular) have not collapsed.
PS. I apologize for the quality of the screenshots. They got downsized quite a bit as I was uploading them here.
I'm surprised at the tusks & spices. As GB, I'm in 1742 by now, and prices are at 20 for tusks and 19 for spices. I have two ships each in the tusk spots....
With 5 nearly-full stacks (14 to 18 units), and two 3/4 naval stacks, I am making 40K per turn profit. It is a decent income. I have sepoys running amok in northern Europe (gifting captured provinces to protectorates or allies, also improved trade), and native units from the Americas will join them in another 6-7 turns...
I'm surprised at the tusks & spices. As GB, I'm in 1742 by now, and prices are at 20 for tusks and 19 for spices. I have two ships each in the tusk spots....
With 5 nearly-full stacks (14 to 18 units), and two 3/4 naval stacks, I am making 40K per turn profit. It is a decent income. I have sepoys running amok in northern Europe (gifting captured provinces to protectorates or allies, also improved trade), and native units from the Americas will join them in another 6-7 turns...
With GB it's quite easy to get cash flow up and flowing very early in the game (even on VH and post 1.02). That's why I posted a Russian screenshot: it's a bit harder to get income up with them: but it's still not impossible as some would suggest.
As to commodity prices: there seem to be two factors at play:
1) supply
2) demand
On the supply side: I do not own ALL or even most of the trading nodes: just a few that being Russia I have managed to wrestle away from my Dutch and pirate enemies. As I was doing that "wrestling" part I discovered that the AI usually has only one or two trade ships sitting on anchors, while the rest of the huge stack is war ships (usually weak war ships), which suggests that if you leave most nodes to the AI, it is unable to bump the supply up anyway... I imagine, as GB you probably own most trade nodes and are exploiting them with brutal efficiency, which translates in overblown supply...
On the demand side: the town development matters. My russian empire has all towns and cities developed to the max. Someone tested it a while ago: destroying the town developments in your own country makes the commodity prices fall.
Actually, I am not over-exploiting the trade nodes. I put two ships per node in the initial phases, but stopped adding any ships after 1710, when I saw how poor the commodity prices were. As it is, they barely went up 2-3 gp in 60 turns, with no further ships being added, and no plantations being upgraded.... I only upgraded one sugar plantation so far.
The difference could be in the difficulty setting. I'm on H, your post is on VH. VH prices recovered faster pre-patch as well.
Actually, I am not over-exploiting the trade nodes. I put two ships per node in the initial phases, but stopped adding any ships after 1710, when I saw how poor the commodity prices were. As it is, they barely went up 2-3 gp in 60 turns, with no further ships being added, and no plantations being upgraded.... I only upgraded one sugar plantation so far.
The difference could be in the difficulty setting. I'm on H, your post is on VH. VH prices recovered faster pre-patch as well.
Hmm, that's interesting. I never thought of that. However, my last campaign before the Russian one was on H (as Spanish) and I did not see a problem with commodity prices there either. I was gifting enlightenment techs left and right to my trade partners though.
MrWhipple
05-20-2009, 03:52
That's the irony. We are one of the main cane sugar exporters in the whole world. The Queensland interior is basically a big sugar cane plantation. :beam:
So yes...we sell and buy the same thing.
Crazy stuff hey. Seems a little like the AI. :egypt:
We have the same thing in California with Rice. We are one of the worlds largest exporters of rice in the Sacramento valley, yet we import vast quantities of rice from Thailand and Japan. They like our short grained Cal-Rose (sticky) rice and we like their long grained jasmine rice.
sassbarman
05-20-2009, 06:14
sorry a little off topic but has anyone else experienced a situation where all of your north american trade supply is being cutoff even though none of your ports are being blockaded. :furious3:
No but from what I've heard being at war with denmark (or whoever owns Iceland) can do that.....Fisherking has more info on this.
Daveybaby
05-20-2009, 11:17
sorry a little off topic but has anyone else experienced a situation where all of your north american trade supply is being cutoff even though none of your ports are being blockaded. :furious3:
Yes, i'm experiencing that exact thing in my current game. There was even a message (or was it a tooltip?) somewhere telling me that the trade routes from that region were blockaded (or was it raided?). Checked all of my ports and all of my trade routes and none of them are being blockaded OR raided anywhere that i can see.
No but from what I've heard being at war with denmark (or whoever owns Iceland) can do that
Not at war with anyone in that neck of the woods either.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.