RTW Economic Model discourages queing!

[yoink15]

Hey fellas,

Has anyone noticed that the economic model in RTW vastly DISCOURAGES the concept of queing up construction and units? Queing up buildings and paying for them the moment you que them is basically the same as giving the construction workers an interest free loan for however many turns it takes for the que to be completed.

Allow me to explain:
Let's say I want to build a temple and a barracks in one of my cities. Okay, let's say the temple costs 500 and takes 2 turns to build, and the barracks costs 1200 and takes 3 turns to build.

Okay, if I decide to build the temple, I am instantly charged 500 dinari and it becomes the first thing to be built. Now if I que up the barracks, I am ALSO instantly charged 1200 dinari, but I have to WAIT 2 turns before any work begins on the barracks (because the temple hasn't been built yet.) So, essentially, I am paying 1200 dinari for a barracks that will take *5* turns to be built, not 3. Why am I forced to give the barracks construction workers an interest free loan for 2 turns while they wait for the temple construction workers to finish the job? It becomes a REAL problem late in the game, when things at the Imperial Palace level of construction cost 9000 dinari or more and take 6 turns to be built! Hell, you could have 30,000 dinari tied up in items waiting to be built in a que. I hate having to pay for things that are sitting in the que waiting to be built! It would be better to spend that money on things you need RIGHT NOW, like troops, or construction in other cities.

Basically, this system discourages you from using the que system...which is fine for a small empire, but not using the que system with a large empire is impossible! To be most cost effective, you would have to have only one thing being built in each of your cities at a time..and across a big empire, that's a LOT of micromanaging!

There are two ways to fix this.
1) Make it like the way MTW had it...queing things was free, and you only paid for things the moment construction started. If you didn't have enough money to build everything you wanted across all your cities at the end of your turn, you got a message saying "Sorry, you ran out of money".

OR

2) You pay for things instantly when you que them, but they become cheaper and cheaper as you go further back into the que. That would reflect the discount you get for giving these greedy construction workers their money LONG before they actually start building anything. That would be economically "just".

I hate giving away free loans. :veryangry2:

[Magraev]

I actually (ab)use this feature. When you get too rich (above 50.000) your governors start developing bad vices. You can easily "spend" 30.000 (or more in a large empire) on queing buildings you're not really planning on building, thus taking you below the 50.000 mark.

If you need the cash later on simply remove the buildings from the que before building begins.

It's like you're putting the money in a bank to prevent your governors from getting lazy and decadent. :dizzy2:

[Zild]

This sounds fair to me... As I understand it, the idea is that you can't build things whilst the governor is out of town unless they were already queued (not sure if they kept this in or not...) - so it seems only fair that if the governor is going away, he would have to give the money out before leaving :)

[yoink15]

Zild:
What? Um, are you playing on the setting where you can't build things unless the gov. is in town?
I'm talking about ACTUALLY having direct control over the build process...not this stupid AI build management stuff.

[sapi]

You should use auto for settlements that you have no use for....

[Nestor II]

I actually prefer the new system. As it was mentioned in another thread, in MTW you got announcements that your x production didn't start because you didn't have enough money at the end of the turn.

Let's see: You were besieged and in urgent need of a unit. The computer decided it would be better to train some militias you have queued at the other end of the map. Wasn't much fun IMO.

Anyway, everyone has his own style and his own preferences... The new system suits me better...

[Dark_Magician]

Has anyone noticed that the economic model in RTW vastly DISCOURAGES the concept of queing up construction and units? Queing up buildings and paying for them the moment you que them is basically the same as giving the construction workers an interest free loan for however many turns it takes for the que to be completed.



I must confess I missed the longer part of the explanation, but frankly, don't think there's a problem. Alternative cost theory says that you should compare your ways of profit maximization and choose what gives you most profit on given investment. Since, I suppose you don't earn anything by investing money on your account - there's no intrest, market etc you can as well put them into building queue.

I mean the point could be that you lose because if there's a market for loan (stocks etc) you could invest your money beween the turns and get intress. There's no market, no intress. You do not grant loans to construction companies. There's no such thing as "loan"

[Ranges]

Actually the true disadvantage lies in queing units...

Let's say, for example that you have a small city (2000 population) with 10% growth and you que (sp) 10 peasants, (120 population each, 1200 population total).

Now, those 10 peasants are substracted from population straight away, so effectively you now have a 800 population city, with 10 units in que.

Now.. 800 population gives you a 80 man growth each turn.. While a 1880 population would give you a growth of 188.

Over ten turns, that means that at the start of turn 11, when all units have been built
(calculating...)

a pop of 3083 if you built a new unit every turn
and a pop of 2074 if you queud all units at once..

Of course, this queuing might prove VERY handy if you decided you wanted to keep population (and hence squalor) down.. :)

[Akka]

Wow...
Honestly, it's splitting hair just for the fun of complaining...

It's clearer like that. You can consider that it is "planning", and that your governor freeze a certain amount of money so it's available when construction start.

But, really, making a thread for such nitpicking complaint about the change of value of money over three turn... :rolleyes:

[mandrake]

I don't think it's nitpicking at all. Anyone who's played it knows that it does indeed discourage queing up(in fact in most cases it forces you NOT to) and therefore raises significantly the level of micromanagement in a large empire. I don't know about you guys but when it comes to MM every little thing that can be done to reduce it helps. Especially if you don't have 3 hours a day to spend playing the game, and have to click on every little build icon at the beginning of every turn.

[Akka]

Yes, it's splitting hair. It's simply the funds being allocated in prevision for the next two years. I see nothing absurd here.

And I much prefer to know where I am with my money RIGHT NOW, that suddendly discover the next year that no, I can't build that and that. Which is much more annoying than to have one building less to queue in one city, in order to be able to build some units right now.

This method is simpler, clearer, and nicer.
Additionnally, except in the very beginning, money is not really a problem. So to have 30 000 denarii tied up... So what, there is 400 000 waiting in the treasury !

[Lord Ovaat]

The only time I ever que a building ahead of time is when I figure it to be vital--and I might forget that it is. Happens sometimes. But I usually micro-manage everything, simply because the AI is so bad at it. Decide what you need to build, then ask Victoria what she thinks. Now, try to keep from laughing. One great advantage of this game over MTW is the construction completion list. I no longer have to write down all the finished projects because the screen is locked. I can check the scroll, go to that province, que what I want at the time, then go to another province. Building starts immediately, and I usually have something going on in most provinces. No need to que; the construction report reminds me when it's time to start another project. Besides, a lot can change over a few turns, greatly affecting what you really need.

[Quillan]

The only problem I have with it is the queued units have the members removed from the tax roll immediately, rather than when they start training that unit. I understand and approve of the money part of it, for both mentioned reasons. I too use it as sort of a "bank" to keep the excess treasury down, and it would really suck to have a building or unit you absolutely needed NOT get built because you didn't have the money and the computer made a random determination which would be worked on and which would not. It isn't exactly realistic, but as mentioned, you can easily rationalize it as the city governor setting aside the money to pay for the project in advance.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

I queue buildings & units all the time in RTW. & I prefer to have the money removed when I put the building in the queue. All of the Total War games checked provinces' building & unit production in the same order every turn; if you ran out of money before all your provinces were checked, the later provinces didn't get anything--the same provinces were slighted every time. For the HRE, Austria was alway last & I had to work at it to get anything built there. Many times in MTW I had to go back through all my provinces & empty the queues so that something could be built in a province that was one of the last be checked. Then I had to go through again & requeue all the things I wanted for the next turn. How does that encourage queueing?

To me, RTW's system is an improvement.

[Locklear]

I agree with Mori Gabriel Syme over the convenience issue, but Ranges hit the nail on the head. The problem isn't really with building construction, but rather with units.

What would fix this is if the second, third, etc unit added to the queue didn't take away a fixed amount of population, but rather the projected population of that (future) turn minus the unit size. This could be recursively calculated for successive unit-turns and would eliminate the problem with unit queuing that Ranges outlined.

There is really an issue of logic here when subtracting resources all at once. Are these troops sitting somewhere for 5 years? They aren't contributing to society, aren't paying taxes, there have to be costs associated with feeding/keeping them. Are they simply confined at home until their billet comes up? "Oh, I'm in the army already, but I haven't started basic because the facilities are being used for the next 4 years." In reality troops in different "stages" of training occupied the same facility.

Similarly with buildings, obviously these are being built in different places, so why can't we build them at once? Perhaps the city construction crews will be overworked, but if that's the case, simply increase the amount of money for successive buildings at once.

So on one hand this system of immediately "putting aside" money and men is nicer in terms of not worrying about things getting built, but on the other it results in problems in population. I'm torn, personally, but I like micromanagement so I tend not to queue things anyway.

[TinCow]

The Queing system is also very useful when you are playing a faction with a negative income. If you don't blow it all right away, it will bleed away slowly. Better to spend it now on a queue of units and then use the army to take more profitable provinces to rectify the situation. This is particularly true for some of the 'unplayable' factions once they are active. Starting the game with 5000 dinarii isn't too useful when you also start with -1000 income.

[Riffler]

There are further problems with the model used - not only queued but also serving soldiers don't pay tax, don't contribute to population growth or (presumably) squalor or trade income (ie they don't buy imported goods). Just what are all those garrison soldiers spending their wages on?

If they're going to go into economic limbo once training is complete, is it all that big a deal if they do it a few turns early?

Queueing several peasant units is a useful way of temporarily reducing unrest due to population pressures.

[Servius]

Queing units should not cost money or population, for logical and gameplay reasons.

On not costing money, I may have one city who's only job is to produce archers. I may have three armies in the field before I have access to archers, so that once I do have access, I need a bunch of archers to fill my three legions. I que up archers so that I don't have to build each archer individually every turn. But if I'm short on money (but will still be able to pay for the in the year they're built) I shouldn't have to pay for a 'planned' recruiting that hasn't occured yet.

On not costing population, it makes logical sense like not costing money until the unit is actually built. But additionally, the suckage it has on my population (and thus my tax revenue) is also bad. Lastly, decreasing the population, even without decreasing the pop growth modifier, will decrease next year's population as the base being modified has shrunk.

It still doesn't make sense to pay for buildings before work on them is even started, but since they take longer to build that military units it's less of a gameplay problem (less micromanagement required for not queing).

[Orvis Tertia]

I like the new queuing system in RTW. /shrug

[RedKnight]

I can't see any particular problem with q'ing buildings Yoink, since there isn't any interest charged etc. if you tie up your money.

But the issue of tieing up units is a very complex one, as the posts here show. It's a way to slow growth if you want, and also slightly increase the taxability (because tieing up folks in peasants, might make there be enough less people to tax at a higher rate). Some issues involved have been discussed in the past here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38160).

~:cheers:

[Locklear]

Ah thanks for that link RK.


Wouldn't it make more sense if they were only ghosted out of the population, i.e. they remain part of the settlement for all intents and purposes, just that they've been earmarked for possible training in the future. Perhaps you could have two statistics for population, one the actual population, and the other the manpower available (population-400-queued units).

Leave it to therother to ask my question before I did, and think of a solution. This is a good idea, although probably a little too complex for the wider audience (although most of them probably wouldn't even notice :P)

[ToranagaSama]

I actually prefer the new system. As it was mentioned in another thread, in MTW you got announcements that your x production didn't start because you didn't have enough money at the end of the turn.

Let's see: You were besieged and in urgent need of a unit. The computer decided it would be better to train some militias you have queued at the other end of the map. Wasn't much fun IMO.

Anyway, everyone has his own style and his own preferences... The new system suits me better...

I'm with you Nestor.

Playing the HARDCORE way, a player never has enough money, so every turn is a matter of financial choices. Queing up in the way the original poster examples is just not an option.

You guys got toooooo much money!!! Too bad it isn't real. ~D

[RedKnight]

While that's a sophisticated way to handle it, Locklear and therother, I think that what we're seeing is that CA slapped a very simple change on RTW (vs MTW) to stop people from running out unexpectedly. This is a game with a thousand things for the CA crew to work on - they can't do everything great. So they did something very simple which addressed the short-term problem, but created long-term problems of its own. In this light, the idea of having two statistics for population seems beyond the level of sophistication that CA has been willing to spend on this particular area (out of the thousand that they're trying to address).

I propose instead a somewhat simpler solution - to let folks queue all they want, but not have it affect the pocketbook or population until the turn it "hits" - but, have a simple warning system when hitting the End Turn button that says whether too many denarii or population have been used that turn. In the case of population it's easy to point to the city in question; in the case of money, one can't point to any one place - but one can point out that it's overextended.

And of course if they have the routine set up to test whether you're over the denarii limit, they could easily implement something that says whether you're over at any given moment. Which would mean, you could play with your queues and watch some little meter (instead of having to End Turn and cross your fingers, a bunch of times in a row).

Just some thoughts. In truth we don't know all the complexities CA is up against or has thought through, including how much time the CA crew has to spend on the many challenges of such a multi-faceted game. :dizzy2:

~:cheers:

[therother]

Don't get me wrong, RedKnight, I much prefer the new system to the old one. I have no problem paying for buildings in advance, as there is no financial penalty for doing so, and it helps you budget. Plus the new system is much more flexible (*).

My problem was with the population side of things, where you do get 'interest' on your men. So there is a penalty/advantage (depending on you POV) for queuing units.

(*) I especially like that you can now put construction on hold whilst you build something else. So if you're on the 4th turn of a 5-turn building, and the new Government building becomes available, you can just move the current construction down the list and then come back to it later with no penalty. You can also stop construction completely and get some of your money back.

[RedKnight]

Thanking you kindly for your reply, therother -

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that no one had a problem with population being unexpectedly used up in MTW, just money -

And here we are saying we don't have a problem with money being unexpectedly overextended, just population, laugh.

Anyway,

Perhaps the difference in what I propose is that it's not only simple, but also more "real world" - money or men don't get used, until the time they are needed. In real life, a quartermaster would say "we want to train 4 cavalry as fast as we can", but they wouldn't lock the riders up in a room for 4 turns until they got around to them. And, complications such as exponential implications etc. are avoided.

But there are a number of ways it could be implemented.

Oi, I almost feel like I'm chasing my tail on this one, laugh... in truth, they can work it any number of ways, but I'd like it to be simple and straightforward. A simple warning system as of the current turn would take care of a whole lot of alternate ramifications.

Back to the game ~:cheers:

[TheDuck]

Thanking you kindly for your reply, therother -

Interestingly, it just occurred to me that no one had a problem with population being unexpectedly used up in MTW, just money -

And here we are saying we don't have a problem with money being unexpectedly overextended, just population, laugh.

Anyway,

Perhaps the difference in what I propose is that it's not only simple, but also more "real world" - money or men don't get used, until the time they are needed. In real life, a quartermaster would say "we want to train 4 cavalry as fast as we can", but they wouldn't lock the riders up in a room for 4 turns until they got around to them. And, complications such as exponential implications etc. are avoided.

But there are a number of ways it could be implemented.

Oi, I almost feel like I'm chasing my tail on this one, laugh... in truth, they can work it any number of ways, but I'd like it to be simple and straightforward. A simple warning system as of the current turn would take care of a whole lot of alternate ramifications.

Back to the game ~:cheers:

Just FYI.. there is no 'loss on investment' in RTW. That requires a fluctuating cost environment, which RTW does not have. All investment is about choices.. do I spend here, there, where? In the real world net future value has real meaning, because the costs are always changing, and there is generally a minimum standard percentage rate you can make on your money.. so if an investment can't beat that rate, it sucks. You ain't 'losing money' with the current RTW system. You are just choosing how to spend it.

On the issue of 'more micro vs. less', I could argue on both sides (just as others have). It all depends on playing style. I personally prefer RTW style over MTW. I agree with some of the posters above. It drove me nuts in MTW that I didn't know if some buildings would start or not in MTW. In RTW either I have the cash or I don't (this actually matches real life.. in MTW you had a credit card.. in RTW its cash transactions only, baby!).

[RedKnight]

It's arguable as to whether there is a loss, but there is definitely an impact on population, when you queue a lot of units. Not sure what you mean by "a fluctuating cost environment". Whether populations are good or bad, and locking them up in queues, is fairly involved. Short-term choices affecting long-term outcomes is a definition of 'investment', and it happens when you queue up units in RTW.

For buildings, correct, there is no impact except that the money is no longer available.

Thanks for chipping in! We're working this all out. Brew? Coffee? Tea? ~:cheers:

[Silver Rusher]

Actually the true disadvantage lies in queing units...

Let's say, for example that you have a small city (2000 population) with 10% growth and you que (sp) 10 peasants, (120 population each, 1200 population total).

Now, those 10 peasants are substracted from population straight away, so effectively you now have a 800 population city, with 10 units in que.

Now.. 800 population gives you a 80 man growth each turn.. While a 1880 population would give you a growth of 188.

Over ten turns, that means that at the start of turn 11, when all units have been built
(calculating...)

a pop of 3083 if you built a new unit every turn
and a pop of 2074 if you queud all units at once..

Of course, this queuing might prove VERY handy if you decided you wanted to keep population (and hence squalor) down.. :)
I agree here, but otherwise... what is the problem? You queue (that is the right spelling by the way, not que) buildings up so they don't have to be micromanaged, but at the end of the day (or should I say, at the end of construction) it makes NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever, except that the funds you spent on queuing one thing stopped you from building something else, but that doesn't matter because a) if you are that poor then you aren't good enough at the game to actually complain about it, and b) you can just cancel the queuing anyway.

Simple. As Akka said, it's like splitting hairs for the sake of complaining.

[King Yngvar]

I can't understand all the complaints about this game, nearly everything is perfect. All that is not, you can fix in the text files. For example, my only complaints about the entire game is that Germanians have Latin names and lack swordsmen. That I can fix in the text files. The economic system of this game is perfect, I am glad they made it so and it is a great improvement from MTW.

[ToranagaSama]

...a) if you are that poor then you aren't good enough at the game to actually complain about it, and...

Hmmm....

I see it in the opposite view, if you've so much money that the queue is a problem, then you're not necessarily good, you're just exploiting the weaknesses in the game. That's the way it was with MTW, no different in RTW.

RTW is far from perfect so, you Gotta have rules.

[TheDuck]

It's arguable as to whether there is a loss, but there is definitely an impact on population, when you queue a lot of units. Not sure what you mean by "a fluctuating cost environment". Whether populations are good or bad, and locking them up in queues, is fairly involved. Short-term choices affecting long-term outcomes is a definition of 'investment', and it happens when you queue up units in RTW.

For buildings, correct, there is no impact except that the money is no longer available.

Thanks for chipping in! We're working this all out. Brew? Coffee? Tea? ~:cheers:

I'm sorry red, but it isn't arguable. Its a basic principle of economics and finance. The reason folks talk in terms of 'losing money' in real life is that all money has the potential for growth due to proper investment. This is cause by two things:

o Businesses tend to grow and create more internal value.
o Inflationary pressures cause the relative value of currencies to goods change (i.e. the same amount of money spent 10 years from now will get you either more or less in terms of real goods.. normally you get less over time because inflation is the norm).

So taking one dollar/pound/mark/etc. today and putting it in an interest bearing or equity increasing investment gets you a return on that money at some future time (you either get interest payments over time, or the entire value increases and you can sell it for more than the entire inflation percentage of your currency over the same time period). The idea of 'losing money' by putting up a whole bunch of it on a non interest bearing expenditure today is based on the idea that you could put it somewhere else and get a return on it over the same period of time. So picking investments is about picking the highest return over time for the most risk you are willing to take (since more return generally equals more risk).

This simply does not exist in Total war. The value of a dinari on turn one is the same as on turn 300. The only difference in the cost of units/buildings is which governor you have and whether he gets a reduced cost for building units or buildings. I would argue that if you use your governors wisely, you should be queing EVERYWHERE, simply because you can get more for your money that way (not that I actually do that mind you, just that it is a wise thing to do if you want to micro to that extreme level).

You simply can't lose or gain money over time in RTW. The only thing you can do with money is spend it on buildings and units.