Printable View
it seems that on every campaign i start, i end up losing at least half of my annual income to "corruption and other". i have a lustonnian campaign right now where i only make about 200 gold a turn, but lose 7000 to corruption and other. Anyone know how to prevent or deal with this?? it's ruining me every campaign. i play on medium/medium difficulty.
That's a ridiculous amount of corruption. How many provinces do you control? I'm assuming your empire is quite massive.
Placing your capital in the center of your empire will help with corruption.
Governors with good law traits, and buildings which give law bonuses will also reduce corruption.
Aside from that, getting rid of corrupt governors is always a step in the right direction. Send them watchtower building or brigand hunting and replace them with a more trustworthy substitute.
It's important to note that some family members who would be corrupt, horrible governors are fantastic generals....make sure your aware of all of your family member's strengths and weaknesses.
There is nothing else that I know of that reduces corruption.
I do not know if a cities garrison gives a law bonus, but I don't think so. They only give a happiness bonus AFAIK. (someone confirm this please)
Hope that helps
Bootsiuv
Law bonuses, law bonuses, law bonuses...
RTW 1.5/1.6 was supposed to include law bonuses for academy buildings but it was left out. Most mods have added this in since CA intended for it to be there but EB hasn't
I think they're might be a mini-mod available in the forums....regardless, it would be easy to edit, I'm just not sure what file it is. Probably export_descr_buildings or something (does that file even exist)?
Acadamies do indirectly affect corruption though....they teach your governors traits which can give law bonuses...
But you are not protectorate of someone or paying large summs in tribute to several factions? Because to accumulate 7,000 mne with corruption you need a hughe empire with a capital on the every edge of the map and no, or very poor, govoners in most of the towns. But even then your budget will be at several 100,000 mne per turn (you can only lose to corruption what you have collected in taxes before). If you end up with just 200 plus everytime you must also field a much over-powered (i.e. over-expensive) army and/or have elite units sitting idle in every hinterland village.Quote:
Originally Posted by quackingduck
So, I would suspect your problem is more diplomacy or army upkeep than corruption.
well thank you for the replies first of all. and my empire isn't that big on my lustonian campaign, i own spain, about half of france, and about half of britan.
my capital was on the edge, i left my capital as the place it starts at.
my army is a bit over large because im waiting for rebel ships to leave me alone so i can transport a second army to britan. but i am not a protectorate, and all i ever do for diplomicy is pay ppl 100 gold for 20 turns just to keep my allies loyal.
i'll be sure to double check my govenors traits, but lots of times the towns don't have govenors. and ill build every law building i can afford.
my income to expenses ratio is about 42000:41500, but $7000 worth of expences is corruption and other.
i also do use the cheapest units avalible to keep towns loyal, althogh i do like to train elite units for my armies.
Switching your capital to a region in france will probably greatly alleviate that, although it still seems ridicullously high for only having 42 grand in income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quackingduck
Ah well, now I see clearer: without govenors you also have a not to low problem with unrest, is that right? And you have taxes on low and build all law and happiness building first? So, may be your economy is underdeveloped, or at least you are not making the money you should with your empire. Nevertheless, 7,000 in corruption is way to much.
After moving your capital, you should also place governors in all cities, if possible. Even a corrupt governor with much influence is better than none. The governor will reduce unrest, what will allow you to raise taxes. Let him have his share, and take the rest. I think that even a corrupt governor creates less corruption than none at all.
you can also add this bonus in very easily yourself...that's what i've doneQuote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
so my generals with the "selfish" trait should go back to govenering the automanaged cities?
An excellent way to determine the answers to questions like these is to use the 'settlement details' scroll in the lower left hand corner of your building/recruiting browser.
With the menu open, walk your governor into the city, you should be able to see the change he creates in corruption, unrest, income, etc., etc., etc.
Now, just to be sure, walk him out of your city, and see how things change again.
This will give you a good idea of whether or not he's worthy of running the settlement. :2thumbsup:
Definitly. I don't think that "selfish" is a bad trait for a govenor at all, for example when it comes to raise taxes to "very high".Quote:
Originally Posted by quackingduck
I am just playing a Roman campaign in which, due to heavy roleplaying, the govenors are not selected by their ability but by their influence and the influence of their relatives. And even though, with very few exceptions, the towns are doing much better if there is any govenor present - even a weak - than none. Also take a look at the ancilleries of your characters: they add tax income, trade, reduce unrest etcpp.