No Graduation in Difficulty!

[Fisherking]

I may be wrong, but the impression I have is that all the beta testers just love to play Prussia on VH and attack everything in site.

Hence the name “Prussian Mafia”.

Not everyone enjoys fighting every AI faction on the first turn. It is no longer about being able to build an empire based on trade to finance armies. Income has to be based on taxes and only what can be supported can be built. It is to costly to have troops. It is barely possible to up grand your economy and hardly worth the investment. Navies are too expensive to bother with.

Only the Central European factions or perhaps the Indian factions are viable. Far flung regions are not worth holding. It only increases the number of potential enemies.

If you cannot build an economy that will support your armies and navies what is the point?

In my current campaign I can not afforded to build a one stack army and a fleet to take the Pirates on…I certainly cannot take on the Cherokee, French, and defend the sea lanes!

[Tillan]

Continueing a UK game was fun. Before the patch I had 10k coming in per tern, with about 26 terretories.
After the patch I was losing about 6k a turn. I was planning on blitzing the remaining terretories needed to win, I had armies, and a good size navy, and more money then i knew what to do with. 2 years after (5 turns), ive taken only one terretory that i was forced into taking to defend my holding addequetly, been forced to scupper most of my navy, leaving only a few ships in europe and the americas, and had to disband an army stack.

I also had to try and get peace with a couple of nations who started to raid my trade routes. Great fun ^_^

[Dayve]

I don't think it's as bad as some are making out. It's a little screwy i know, but not all that bad. With my GB campaign i have trade rights with a lot of people, Austria, Savoy, UP, Prussia, Sweden, Maratha, and so on and so forth. In the America theatre i've taken the two pirate islands and one from France and built trade ports in them, giving me a lot of sugar to export. I have also managed to hold on to moose factory, despite constant attacks from barbarians.

Now, i haven't invested anything in my economy at all except a farm upgrade because population was having trouble growing, so it's all gone on naval and military technology. These regions were bringing me a nice profit until the crap hit the fan a few years ago and i ended up with enemies on all sides and had to start recruiting.

I had close to a full stack in moose factory, and my navy altogether was 3 4th rates in Europe and 3 in America. I took 2/3 of that army from moose factory and began to march toward 13 colonies to help them out, and built a fort to defend moose. I raised another half stack from one of my island holdings in America to ship out to 13 colonies to help out in the north, because they're getting spanked from all sides.

I also went to war with France and had to expand my navy in Europe from 3 to 8 ships. I was going to do the same in America but by the time i had done everything else my income was hanging by a thread at 200 a turn.

So... what's wrong with this? Nothing, actually. It should be very expensive to increase fleet size by 160% and army size by 50%, whilst at the same time losing trade due to chain reactions of war declarations all around you.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

[Graphic]

They inflated the building costs too? That sucks. I wouldn't know personally, I was busy spending all my money on reinforcing my one army as it was constantly fighting.

None of this would be an issue if there wasn't the bug Fisherking mentioned. This should be hot-fix level priority, I think. CA please hear us!

[Fisherking]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

EXACTELY!

There should not be JUST ONE APPROCH to the game.

This is what frustrates me so much. They seem to be catering to the gang that just attacks. And if they can afford an army then the game is too easy.

There is no point in investing in the economy. There is no point in reducing taxes to grow population or wealth. There isn’t any real point in building trade vessels.

It has taken away the wealth of depth from the game. Now it is just a war game. You may as well give us all the armies up front and take everything else out.

If armies were not unaffordable enough the two 6% increases as you tech up have a serious effect.

The game may have seemed too easy for those who do nothing but war but it has ruined it for those who wish to build something more lasting.

The game is not supposed to cater to the VH/VH Grognoids! But that is what they always seem to turn into.

War and the military should place a strain on the economy. The trouble now is that you have no economy substantial enough to defend your self, much less fueling an expansionist policy, unless you base the military on taxes and conquering new near by regions.

Taking a mainland European Region may net you several thousand, while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

[Slaists]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

So, it went up from 3000 (I think that's what it was) to 4000. Is it that big of a deal? In the pre-patch game game there was a point in mid-game from which my tax revenue started shooting up almost exponentially (without me taking any extra provinces); so, in no time, my treasury had huge surplus, which in its due order rendered the game non-enjoyable.

I like the new cost system; maybe (just maybe) the new tax modifier is a bit overdone. As it stands now, one can give up a fully developed province and that results in an aggregate tax revenue INCREASE because the global tax rate goes up.

However, that increase in total tax revenue is balanced out by loss in trade revenue so the total revenue still goes down. I tested this on an American colony: so, not sure how the effects would balance out for a European province.

Trade is much more important now. Trade and keeping the trade routes clean, including the trade routes to your trade partners... Playing as England, one actually needs a foothold in Meditarranean (like Malta with almost no income) to have a place to harbor/repair ships damaged while cleaning trade routes. And, you know what? It makes sense...

EXACTELY!

... while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... Tax increase from taking Winward islands used to cover one unit of line infantry at best and taking a European province (France for example) used to net WAY MORE than any province in the colonial theaters also before the patch. The fact is though, that the tax from Winward islands is actually just a small portion of the total income increase. At least in my campaign, they generate way more in trade income than from tax. As long as I keep my trade routes clean (including helping out my trade partners blocked by their enemies).

[al Roumi]

I would agree with Slaists. After reading the change list and noticing the large cut in income the patch caused to my (then current) GB campaign, I started a new UP campaign (as opposed to a central european state's) -precisely because i thought the earnings from trade would be less affected by the changes and hence even more important.

As far as I am concerned, the economic changes of patch 3 have only accentuated the already apparent trend that tax revenue doesn't fund much untill you industrialise (or have rich farms). Historically, the 1700's were all about colonial land grabbing for new/more resources, on which trading empires where built. Only in the 1800's did industry really kick off and states acquire wealth from anything other than farming or trade in commodities.

So, in ETW i'm happy that you shouldn't be able to be rich in a land-locked central european state with no overseas colonies untill you research the techs and can industrialise.

[JAG]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

[andrewt]

So, it went up from 3000 (I think that's what it was) to 4000. Is it that big of a deal? In the pre-patch game game there was a point in mid-game from which my tax revenue started shooting up almost exponentially (without me taking any extra provinces); so, in no time, my treasury had huge surplus, which in its due order rendered the game non-enjoyable.

Do the math. Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

[anweRU]

Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

In my pre-patch Swedish campaign, I built every single building (including very poor ones) to its maximum level. Based on my (then) 120K tax vs 80K trade income by 1745, with only ~35 regions, I would say it was worth it. People forget about the +xx to town wealth income modifier.

Now, how will it affect my post-patch start-from-scratch campaigns? I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

[Graphic]

If you cannot build an economy that will support your armies and navies what is the point?

In my current campaign I can not afforded to build a one stack army and a fleet to take the Pirates on…I certainly cannot take on the Cherokee, French, and defend the sea lanes!

Exactly. They could have tweaked it so it's good, but as it is, I had to disband almost all of my starting units (navies included) and completely abandon one of my territories (Moose Factory) to support one army. You should be able to support one army at the beginning of the game without having to declare a national state of emergency

You can't even get indiaman into trade lanes barely, they keep getting raped by pirates, and your military vessels are so expensive to replace that you can't even fight back. I'm afraid to do anything with my navy besides raid the trade route off the U.S. east coast.