Ideas: Diplomacy + Exapansionism +Upkeep

[DoomKaiser]

EB is great mod and i am sure that eb2 will be even better. I want to make 3 comments for RTW and MTW 2 because i hope that eb2 will improve them. I know that is very difficult ,maybe impossible, but if these could be done the eb2 would be perfect!

1)Diplomacy: The worst part of TW series. Each nation declares war without reason and interests, no real relations, no real alliances, not real influence, not real negotiations,no real policies,never real ceasefire....
Enemy must fear you when you are close and he has no troops and he must negotiate.
Will eb2 change that?

2)Expansionism: In TW we see that an empire is difficult to build and very easy to hold it and expand it more. No real restrictons to expansionism exist. So if you start expanding ,you never stop. Also if you have an equal enemy and you win him in a war and the cease fire, he will only beat you if others attack you (he alone is doomed) (because if you defeated him before-why not again since you are more powrfull?) The war machine of each faction must not depend only to economy. (must have some free(upkeep) units-only few that if killed are replaced by recruit+ when you expand many declare war and more rebellions happen)

3)Upkeep: This propably is difficult to be changed (i just do a proposal) The upkeep should in my opinion be high in remote areas far from wealth cities(allied or yours). So in a town lets say 100 at scandinavia 600! How far from rich towns you are? ++++upkeep. Also in winter all north must have ++ upkeep (not for local barbarians). In Summer south egypt,africa must have ++upkeep. In homeland upkeep must be lower. When you siege +upkeep(so that you dont sit there for 8 turns), if nomad no too much + upkeep in enemy area,...
Finally ships in your ports must have much less upkeep (depending in dock level).
So you cannot do easily campaigns in remote areas and generally you need to plan economically campaigns not just deploy and attack!

[Admetos]

1. IIRC, diplomacy in M2TW is moddable, so yes, it should change for the better.

[aftzengeier]

!!!Attention!!!
My first post here...



Another thing that I'd add to your idea is the raformation of the game's trade. In history and reality most of your money was gained by trading (The money that you get from taxes is also just the achievement of trade!) so it should be more important than it used to be. :yes: Without strong armies you shall be able to upkeep your Reign financially by producing foods and taking taxes. But if you want to expand you'll need more money. Here comes the trade! Through trade you should be able to earn a lot of money and save some for war times. But if you declare war the trade income will be reduced rapidely so your saved money will run away for Army upkeep. The more enemies you're in war with the less you'll gain from trade. Trading partners also should be of greater importance. When you run out of money you are forced to make peace to the enemy's conditions. This could be a realistic and (I hope so) uncomplicated addition to the aimed brain challenge of the game.

I do not think that it's a difficulty to implement. That's an effective and historically accurate way to beware you from beeing flooded by coins when your empire has grown. You really had to think about every military action to make it succes. I do not know why noone came up with this idea before :no: - it's ingenious ;);)


In fact:

More money from trading routes, buildings and stuff.
More money gained by traders.
Higher upkeep, less recruitment costs for troops.




If this idea is just icluded or someone told it before I'm sorry - I cannot play campaigns at my computer so I have limited experience with EB1 and its features. I additionally haven't read much on these forums ;)


Greetings! :2thumbsup:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Unfortunately we are forced to work within the restrictions of the game engine and its hardcoding. Most of the trade dynamics are hardcoded and cannot be altered in huge ways.

[aftzengeier]

Hm I expected that. But I'm quite sure that it is possible to change the amount that is gained by traders when they occupy some goods on the map. I do not know how it works on the taxes but I will ask someone from a modding team that changed the trader income. I hope that there's a possibility to reduce the taxes income. Otherwise I could forget about it. :surrender2:

If it was possible would you like to have it into the mod or don't you like it at all? :sweatdrop: I mean that as a question to everyone who plays EB.






Greetings!

[Puupertti Ruma]

Speaking only from EB1 experience here.

I think trade is totally overrated in EB (or RTW) and espesially seatrade. The huge income boost you get from just one seaport is ridiculously high compared to land trade and taxes. I mean, the tax base of a average example city in EB is about 100 mnai and all land trade routes make something like 100-500 mnai depending on resources. Now, one sea trade route makes 600 mnai per turn. The first type port gives 2 routes. Thats 1200 mnai vs. the average 350 you get from inland trade and taxes combined. Next level port gives 2 sea routes more.

Dear Aftzengeier, from these figures I fail to see how you come to a conclusion that trade is underrated in EB?

Historically state raised it's wealth solely from taxes. In premodern times taxes were dominately not monetary, but actual resources such as foods or precious metals and even crafted items and levy troops. Of course in a computer game we are forced to use money as a generalisation, but still we should also think where the state is getting it's wealth from, in other words where a state raises it's taxes from? I guess every faction in EB has it's own taxing procedures and traditions. Some general assumptions can be made though:

The following work at least for a monarchy and I have to admit are based mostly on my knowledge of premodern european nations. Still much what applied in 14th and 15th century AD actually applies in 3th century BC.

Aristocracy is usually not taxed at all in the usual sense. They contribute in the public cause by serving as a cavalryman or public official or in other non-material ways. So while they are important for the state, they actually generate no income. Even worse, the rulers must appease the aristocracy by giving them lands and salaries.

Merchants are the ones that hold the most of the states money, I have to admit that. The problem for the ruler/state is the ways he/it gets to have his share of the wealth the merchants are shifting about. Sales and income taxes are quite modern devices and they don't most certainly apply in 3th century BC. Mostly ruler collected road tolls, port tolls, city entering tolls, marketplace tolls, bridge tolls and all other kinds of tolls he could imagine and get away with without the merchants getting pissed of. So in a sense the money the ruler gets is not in correlation with how much money is moving around, but how much merchants are moving around. This is so of course only in a sense.

I am under the assumption that something the like of 90% of the population of Europe in EB timeframe would be working the land, maybe even more. This would include farmers, both landowning and independents plus their slaves, and other groups such as hunters and the like. From these the farmers are by far the easiest to tax, as they are in a sense chained to their land. The taxation of farmers is usually direct. A tax collectors goes to a farm, declares how much taxes the house must pay, and takes that portion of the years harvest from the poor farmer. This is directly proportional to the wealth of the farmer and to the current need of the ruler, ie. how much wars are going on. These two reasons, directness of the taxation and the huge portion the farmers make of the population of a state, mean that, even though farmers do not generate monetary taxes, they generate the most of states wealth.

[DoomKaiser]

The trade is an aspect wich could be impoved. However the basics of trade are ok in mtw2. I mean the diplomacy is complete wrong. If you declare war on someone you loose money in mtw2 but not too many. If something should be improved in trade is about the different materials: If you have too much iron and not wheat (so you are considered to trade them) and declare war with the trader much income should be lost. In contast if you are sufficient no need to worry.

Generally i consider more important the other 3. As i said armies must not depend only to economy (this happens today).

[aftzengeier]

Oh I think you misunderstood me my Finish brother :yes:
I just think that you get to much money if you are in war. When there is war there is less trade especially at the borders and as you said by your own much money comes from tolls. It was just an idea about making the game more challenging on the economic side.

I think you've seen the caravans disappear from the roads when an enemy army is on your ground. I think this should cause more income problems then now. That's more realistic I think then just pushing the income down. I mean it has to be possible to avoid this money problems by acting with cleverness :dizzy2:

So the main things I want the game to offer are financial problems that though can be avoided with cleverness :holmes: It does not have to be the trade thing.
I think that the economic part in TW is restricted on recruiting to much troops or not ;) This should be changedif possible!



Greetings :beam:

[Jimmy-Canada]

The last poster has a piont, but needs to expand his idea in specific ways such as what clever things should you aviod?

[General Appo]

Ummm... it´s been over 10 months since his post. A lot has changed, and a lot has been revealed. And the poster in question has pretty much been gone for quite a while.

Generally, reviving very old threads without adding something meaningful to the discussion is frowned upon, and refered to as necroposting.

[Jimmy-Canada]

I'll keep that in mind Appo.

It seems you are quite active on here.... but your not part of the EB team are you? will they not have you or are you just not part of the team for some other reason?

Jimmy

[General Appo]

??

No I am not a part of the EB team. I have never been so, and it appears likely I never will be. Not saying that they dislike me (not saying that they don´t either) but firstly I´ve never really contributed to EB in any way what so ever, and doubt I will ever be able to do so. Furthermore, I do have a certain tendency to sometimes indulge in what we forum users call spam. Unneccessary posts not dealing with a current topic.
I also have a tendency to sometimes talk to other posters like they are slightly mentally retarded 10 year olds.

But you know, maybe I should be on the EB team. I could be like, a Lictor or maybe an Urban Praetor. Yeah, that would be cool.

I´m waiting for that PM Foot.

[Hax]

I guess you'd fit best to distract everyone else while the mod is being beta-tested and released, while Appo is making sticky topics like "Essay: On Unicorns", etc.

[General Appo]

Indeed, in fact I´d make sure no one would notice EBII release for at least 2 weeks. I´m just that good.

Foot´s internet or something must have collapsed, because I havn´t recieved that PM yet.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Indeed, in fact I´d make sure no one would notice EBII release for at least 2 weeks. I´m just that good.

Foot´s internet or something must have collapsed, because I havn´t recieved that PM yet.

I think Foot is hurting for a nice vacation away from the EB forums right now, he seems more on edge and sarcastic then usual.