Lets keep the economists out of this!

I want to be a general, plan strategy on maps, think up master tactics on the battlefield, charge my household troops into some worthy foes, sack a few cities along the way and carve a little kingdom out of some far flung exotic land.
I do not want to worry about the sewage system causing some health problems to a bunch of stay at home merchants. I have stewards for doing the dirty work like raising taxes and keeping the peasants happy.

So please CA can we have a decent AI for running my kingdom so that I can concentrate on conquering someone elses!

I would really like to automanage, taxes, civil construction, etc and leave me to organise the military construction, troop raising and general conquering.

I have Shogun, Medieval, Rome and Barbarian Invasion and thought them all great and am really looking forward to MTW2. So keep up the good work
:balloon2:

You've got a point, but don't forget you're a sovereing, not "just" a general! ;) CA probably won't damage its own work..

So I have to give up my day job if I want to play M2TW? No fair... :hide:

:idea2: Burn the heretic!

I completely agree with Dragoncrusader. Complex systems for economy, diplomacy, etc. are all well and good, but it IS possible for them to be complex to the point of being hindering and detrimental. And when it comes down to it, the Total War games are about kickin' ass. They should be kept that way.

But when has empire management really been a problem? I know that eventually after your empire has pretty large (15-20+ cities/provinces) it gets a little tedious to handle, but there always was ai to take care of everything. Hell if you want, you can actually play the game by setting all management to ai and doing auto-resolve for every battle.

Why are you bitching about something that's probably not even going to be implemented?

I disagree. I enjoy this part. I think that economy is a critical component of the game. RTW was made far better and far harder by Europa Barbarorum's economic system.

How about a compromise: A very deep and engaging economic system with the option to nerf it with a decent automanage system.

After all, look at how popular and engaging other strategy games with deep economic systems are; the Civilization series being a perfect example.

Unfortunately even the great generals of history had to worry about economics. The Art of War mentions several times that a quick decisive battle is better but only becuase it costs so much to maintain an army.
I do agree that an improved AI for automanaging as well as for AI factions would be good though. I often stop conquering at about 80% of the map as it's just too hard to keep the rest together otherwise.

You are quite right of course. But I am taking the Richard I of England approach by wanting to go off on crusade while leaving someone else to run my kingdom. As someone else mentioned, towards the end of the game running a big empire becomes very time consuming.

Lets be clear here. I am NOT advocating dispensing with the economic system (even I like to run the kingdom from time to time). What I am asking for is an improved AI for running the economy. How often have you left the economy on automanage and then suddenly noticed that one of your cities with a govenor has suddenly turned blue (the city not the govenor). You have to monitor the cities and switch them from cultural/financial to growth and back again to keep the population happy an to get the best tax return. Also spend your money on the army every month and nothing civilian ever seems to get built.

Also have you noticed that on automanage there is a big difference between the balanced/military/financial/cultural settings and growth setting and not between themselves? Switch between them and you can see that one is set to high taxes and the other to low taxes. If you do it yourself and set it to normal taxes then the city is happy but leave it to the automanage and it is either revolting or you get no income. I can understand military/financial/cultural being high taxes and the growth in low taxes but surely the balanced setting should result in normal taxes.

How many guides on the Org do you read that say "turn off the economy automanagement to get the best tax return"

The other thing that I would like changed is that if you set everything to atuomange and put the type as balanced policy, your cities will happily get on with building a whole range of military buildings that you do not want and will never use. I would prefer it if I could leave the civilian building to one side and control the military building myself. After all you have that option with recruitment. All that happens is that I end up with every city in the kingdom with the full range of military buildings and never recruit from them as the recruitment check box is clear. Historically military institutions were always government controlled whereas most civilian institutions just grew up naturally.

Do not get me wrong, CA have done a great job on the economic side and it is great fun to play it but some days I just want to conquor the world in a afternoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragoncrusader

How often have you left the economy on automanage and then suddenly noticed that one of your cities with a govenor has suddenly turned blue (the city not the govenor).

---

This is actually a good thing in most situations, btw...

bugger the economic ai. I want to control every little aspect of my kingdom to pet my micromanaging fetish.

One of the reasons Rome (albiet one of very few reasons) has the upper hand on medieval is the economy is harder to manage. It adds depth to the game and stops you from just going all 'Total War' on the game. Adding depth to the game may seems detrimental to those that just like to kill stuff but it does make the game better, more complex and easier to appreciate after five hours of gameplay. However that said, if people wish to just go around war-mongering I think CA should include better AI economic management.

Or Costum Battles...

I am entirely against dumbing down the economics for the blood thirsty masses, it adds so much to the game, if you want to kill people, by all means, play MP if the AI isn't challenging enough.

Personally, I think feasible economics make the game far more interesting than it would otherwise be. Generals have always had to deal with logistics and things like keeping their troops paid and their companies up to strength; the strategic map stuff deals with all of this, and provides an interesting context for my glorious victories.

A perfect and masterful victory is great, but it is all the more sweet when it saves the capital from siege, or seizes a strategic pass or bridge, or gives me the port I need for my hordes to spread out across the seas to conquer new lands.

If people [b]just[/b[ want to fight battles, then they can with the current TW games. If, instead, they want "arcade strategy" or "strategy lite" then they can toggle the strategic difficulty way down, while cranking the battle difficulty way up (this seems to help the AI aggressive factions too, if RTW:BI is anything to go by, which means more mighty battles!).

CA could always make a new, even less "realistic", strategic system (maybe have an "arcade strategy" option, like they have an "arcade battle" option?), but to remove strategic concerns totally from the game would rob of it of a huge part of its appeal, and its charm - at least as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

bugger the economic ai. I want to control every little aspect of my kingdom to pet my micromanaging fetish.

---

YES!

While I understand the desire to keep things streamlined, and AI-moderated, I REALLY like having an option to "take the hood off" and look at how things are working (and tinker with them...).

Megalomaniacs unite! :2thumbsup:

I prefer not to bother too much with the financial bs. I wouldn't mind trusting the AI to do it if it didn't suck. I hated how everytime I left a city up to the AI they started churning out a bunch of temples like the end times were near.

Sorry, Dragoncrusader, I don't agree. I like to take care of the economy of my country. The real sovereign should rule not only his army but also his lands. By the way Richard I (the Lionheart) has a lot of problems because of his reluctance to rule the economy of his kingdom. The French king Philip II August didn't miss his chance...war... and that led to the death of Richard :no: .And not all governors were as good as Richard's.

Sorry, totally disagree! I want a MUCH more complex economy to play with. The current economic system is grotesquely silly and one-dimensional.

Unit production and maintenance should be MUCH more closely tied to the underlying economy, and warfare should have a MUCH more significant negative impact on a province's economy.

By the same token, I agree that the entire economic system should have the option of being either greatly simplified or else partially or totally turned over to the AI so that those poor benighted philistines who only want to battle endlessly (yawn!) can have their druthers too.

Edit......

The economic apsect IMO keeps the game refreshing. Too many repetitive and pointless battles results in eventual boredom and / or burnout. This is why you may find yourself playing another game 2 / 3 months (or even less) down the line...

If you want to get the most out of the game, even if you don't have the faintest clue (or even care) about economics, you will at some stage have to learn how to use it to your advantage.

Leaving the economy in the hands of the AI is suicide IMO. The AI doesn't know (or care) what you want it to do, it simply follows pre-designed guidelines created by the developers (CA). If it starts building random buildings and wasting your money on unimportant areas, then this should set the alarm bells ringing for you. If you look at it from a different perspective, the AI-controlled economy forces you to take a hands-on approach of your own economy.

The AI-controlled economical aspect is designed for people who don't have any interest in this area. So, they won't be worrying if their settlements aren't generating any income, or if a rebellion is just around the corner, because they are so enveloped with the continual battle element. If you are concerned that the AI is managing your settlements inefficiently, you may have to consider sitting down and reading the manual to discover how to get the best out of your economy to fund your conquests.

It's a bit tricky to find the middle ground between AI economy and micromanagement. If the AI is too good then there would be no reason to do it yourself which some people would like but not all.
IMO it's better to have the AI be able to handle the economy but a player should always be able to do it better and get more out of it. That way those who don't want to manage the economuy aren't forced to but those who do will reap the rewards.

Well I would love a better economy system in MTW2.
RTW had a good system and was made even better in EB.
And if CA would improve on that then that part will be satisfied for me:2thumbsup:

Total War really does not need a more advanced economy, I would be all open for a better AI handling of domestic policies (taxing, building, etc) while I handle the military aspect, and if CA manage to improve diplomacy I might even look forward to handle that aspect as well. For as it is right now, the only good thing you can do with diplomats is getting trade agreements, and even that is boring as hell, moving those little things around all the time.

I think that the inclusion of "merchants" as a special charter on the cmapaign map is an indication of a more complex economic system.

Let us hope...

Maybe they could do a reversal of RTW automanage feature. If you want your settlement to be automanaged you have to move a family member there.
He would be your vassel and auto-manage the settlement. If he has low loyalty towards you he could become independent like in BI. I think that by having vassels CA could make this game more historically realistic. I'd also want a more complex economy but people should be able to choose if they want to manage it or not.

I know that the focus of the TW games are mostly on battles but the games could be so much more if you actually had to pay attention to your economy.

The AI economy in RTW and BI is a big joke.:wall: They can support huge numbers of troops for free. The AIs tall stacks of troops are fun to battle with through the first few campaigns but after a while it becomes riddiculous and boring. It would be much more fun if the damage I do to the AIs economy(blockades/sabatoge/raids) had an effect the number of troop stacks it can support.

I prefer to micromanage, so I don't really want the economic side dumbed down or made automatic. I also don't want CA to take it to the extreme like MOO3 did (that was a bit too much). It would be nice if they could improve the navigation of the city management screens, to make it easier to see what all your cities are doing, instead of having to page through them one at a time. This has always been one of my complaints with the campaign map GUI. If you are an anal-retentive micromanager (like me), it takes too long to check on your cities, which decreases the number of turns you can play in one sitting.

It will certainly be more complex, not less:

Quote:

---

In Medieval 2, players will have the option to develop each of their settlements as either a castle or city. They both have particular benefits, with castles placing greater emphasis on military expansion, while cities will have a much greater benefit to your faction's economy. This will call for a good deal more strategic thought when it comes to expanding your empire across the map--the number and location of your cities and castles will be vital. Build too many cities, and you may have to rely on mercenaries to bolster your forces. Opt for too many castles, and you may not have the funds in the coffers to maintain your war effort. It becomes a fine balance.

---

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ml?sid=6144512

This new article os very telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

This new article is very telling.

---

Uh, no it's not. The interview doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, aside from two things:

1.) The number of turns the game will have--except that it didn't make any sense, unless 1 turn now equals 2 years (which I don't believe).

2.) Vague assurances that the diplomacy and AI are going to be improved. I'm glad Smith at least mentions this, but I still dare not be too hopeful in that regard.

Aside from that, though, Smith didn't really say anything that hasn't already been covered in other articles. In fact, most of the information yesterday can be found in the game's initial announcement on the various gaming websites. The only feature he really gave any additional information on at all was the graphics, and that worries me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Yngvar

Total War really does not need a more advanced economy

---

Oh yes it does!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Yngvar

I would be all open for a better AI handling of domestic policies (taxing, building, etc) while I handle the military aspect, and if CA manage to improve diplomacy I might even look forward to handle that aspect as well. For as it is right now, the only good thing you can do with diplomats is getting trade agreements, and even that is boring as hell, moving those little things around all the time.

---

Yeah, diplomacy sucks in RTW, and it is really, really stupid that diplomats (and other strategic units) can only move one province per turn - not to mention the ridiculous way they get blocked in their movement by other strategic units or armies on the map!

Strategic units IMO should be able to move ANY distance on the map in a single turn. They shouldn't be blocked by other units, and they shouldn't need shipping to cross water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

It will certainly be more complex, not less

---

When I think about it, I don't know why they persist with the "province" system at all. Provinces made sense when the campaign map was Risk style but what point is there when you have a detailed RTW like map?

I think with the new map style, maybe it would be an idea to drop the province system altogether and just have a free flowing map with all kinds of different topography on it. Then you would simply choose good locations to build your cities and castles, for example you might build your cities near a good natural harbour, or in a place where the soil is fertile, or a location that would advantageous for trade.

There's a heck of a lot of things they could do to make the map more interesting and give the campaign more depth, but they seem frightened to take the plunge and get away from the elementary economic system inherited from earlier games.

And BTW, a more complex economic model does NOT necessarily mean more micromanagement, excessive micromanagement is usually caused by bad design. In RTW, for example, one of the things that made the economy a pain to manage was the badly designed interface.