post patch econ/cost system: it's fine!

[Slaists]

Since the patch I have seen many posts ranting that post-game-play patch has rendered the game unplayable due to unreasonable costs, etc.

Post-patch, I started a game as Britain on H campaign difficulty. As of now it's 1740, I have 100K+ in my treasury (all provinces developed to the max of my tech ability), I have +17K profit per turn and I have 2.5 stacks in the Americas (not counting garrisons here and there in the provinces with colleges) and the original armies in Britain; I have 2 military fleets (one in the Carribean: has defeated the French and the pirates many times; one near the channel: has defeated the French a few times); I trade all over the place; and... I have 16 provinces, so hardly anyone can blame me for blitzing.

As a matter of fact, at one point, I thought I had lost the 13 provinces to the combined force of Iroquois, Cherokee and the French (only 2 out of original provinces were standing). But I managed a reversal in that department, retaking all lost provinces and granding them back to my protectorate (I wanted to finish the mission rather than just grab the land). So, as of 1740, the 13 provinces are back as they were and I am one province away from completing the mission (for the 13 provinces to join me).

It all took some thought and management (for example, protecting the trade routes of my trade partners; or letting the enemies tear apart the 13 colonies, while I was dealing with more urgent matters at hand [the pirates and the Huron]): yes. But isn't that kind of challenge what we want from the game? + it's 1740 and there's is still plenty of 'things to do' and Britain is only the 4th/5th faction in the prestige ratings...

So, my 2 cents: CA has done a great job improving the gameplay (it's way more engaging and rewarding than before) and I like the new cost/economy system. The complaints are just that: b-ocks!... Pardon my French! This kind of praise I think I have never before directed towards CA, only towards the modders...

--

UPDATE: it's 1754, I have completed the 13 colony mission, and I am 'raking in' about 35,000 of PROFITS every turn. I still have my 2.5 stack armies, but one of the stacks is raiding the North African coast now, while the other one is pondering attacking the plains indians just out of nothing to do syndrome. Cherokees have agreed to be protected by me, so have Iroquois (both are at war with each other though... so it'll be fun watching them sorting things out). Mm, yes, after the "13 colonies" joined me, my province count jumped up to 26. Still not sure, it could be labeled as 'rushing'.

I have a fear though that taking those last 7 provinces (GB needs 35 provinces in total, but that total includes Gibraltar and Egypt: both easy grabs from Spain and Ottomans, doable just before the finish-line) in India will be way too easy making the end-game a bit of a boring chore that it used to be before the patch. So, all in all, if you ask me: the game is still too easy on the H campaign setting.

[Miracle]

You played as GB which is still one of the easiest (if not the easiest) faction to play post-patch.

How about playing as one of the harder factions (Ottomans, Poland, etc.)?

You can't say the econ system is just fine and dandy when you've only played one game with an easy faction. It's just not a representative sample.

[knoddy]

im in the middle of a poland vh/vh game and im fine so can i comment on how its good?

yes i was a bit shocked at the turn around in income when i loaded my game, but it was easy to control and reverse it, now im back to earning bout 10k a turn. and i didnt get rid of ANY of my large armies, i mostly got rid of useless garrisons and stopped throwing cash at the ai for different things (trade access, techs etc)


for me the funniest thing is, people complained and complained when the game came out that the AI was too idle and not aggressive and that it was too easy to blitz the AI and all that. so the devs listened and change the game to suit the audience now that its challenging everyone wants it back the way it was lol


Cheers Knoddy

[A Very Super Market]

I started a new one as Prussia, and one as the UP. However, I am too much of a wuss, so I played H/M, and the economy was manageable without flipping out on me.

[joe4iz]

I would say if anything it is easier now to get rid of the competition.. By 1720, I had done away with the Huron and the Pirates. The pirates being the harder of the two. I am not making the amount of money that you are as GB because I keep having war declared on me and have had the good fortune of taking territories. Mind you they aren't all declaring war on me but on the 13 colonies. At 1730, I have finished off the Iriquois and France...France still holds Alsace and have taken Savoy. I think they are out of money though as none of their American possesion had any troops in them. Have not had time to attack the Cherrokee but I expect to do so shortly.

I guess some of it the factions are acting suicidal .

Instead of taking out the Cherrokee, I destroyed the Barbary Pirates and sold their provinces to three different factions. That should start some nice wars. So yes, by 1750, I expect to control all of NA. I was not able to do that prior to the patch. France has taken sometime to digest. I guess I should have sold it instead of garrisoning and building the economy there (there was none).

[xsvfan]

The only problem I have is I have to delete my dutch campaign (104 turns). Im on all 4/4 difficulty. I was going to make ~7,000 gold this turn, but after this patch I stand to lose almost 55,000. Too bad I have to restart because of this change.
One strange bug, I was pirating in the english coast on the same trade route (to sweden, etc) and when I combine my naval units I lose 70,000 gold

[Slaists]

You played as GB which is still one of the easiest (if not the easiest) faction to play post-patch.

How about playing as one of the harder factions (Ottomans, Poland, etc.)?

You can't say the econ system is just fine and dandy when you've only played one game with an easy faction. It's just not a representative sample.

Don't ya worry. I have a VH Ottoman campaign going on in parallel and I'm savoring every turn of it. Believe me, it's going just fine finance wise too... I actually started the GB campaign just to test out the changes to sea battles. I did not seem to get enough of those as Ottomans.

[Dayve]

I guess i'm just doing something wrong then because i was bankrupt and economically defeated by 1713, then i played as Spain and despite disbanding every other army, having only 3 galleons in Europe theater and a main army that consisted of 3 line inf units and a general, i was bankrupt.

[Slaists]

I guess i'm just doing something wrong then because i was bankrupt and economically defeated by 1713, then i played as Spain and despite disbanding every other army, having only 3 galleons in Europe theater and a main army that consisted of 3 line inf units and a general, i was bankrupt.

Hmm. How to you play the economic side of your empire? I alwasy try to have positive income predicted for the next turn and build up a 'cushion' of cash for the cases when my trade gets blockaded. Once I have battleworthy fleets in critical points I go bolder (leaving less of a cash cushion in treasury).

And yes, as Brits I did not raise too many armies. In the Americas I only had one full stack with colonial line, some horse and arty + another stack, which was half hessians, half local musketmen (cheap upkeep) + the local cavalry & arty. I never seemed to need more. As a matter of fact, the stack of colonial linemen is now conquering North Africa.

Trade management seemed the key. By 1755 I have about 40,000 in trade income and only about 20,000 in tax income each turn... One thing: check the trade partners sheet. If some of them are 'grayed out' (blockaded) and there is no way your fleets can lift their blockade: cancel the trade agreement and assign it to some other faction. Even if no other is available, canceling out blockaded partners, appears to improve the overall trade income. I guess, the goods get reassigned through the other trade partners.

[Turbosatan]

Loving the patch.

Ottomans, VH/H (what? I want the enemy to rout eventually), s'about 1721-ish, I'm currently making 8K pa; don't have much of a fleet -- which will have to be amended, 'cos Venice has just declared war, the first nation to do so who are able to inflict trade damage on me -- & one of my (two main) armies has just lost something like 80% of its men squashing the military threat of the Poles.

Haven't got much of a warchest, but the game's challenging & fun.

PS: the melee-heavy battle AI thing. I know by now that a lot of ETW problems have only happened to other people (including one delightful tyke who labelled me "a screaming fanboy" for piping up that my game had only crashed twice), but I haven't seen this, either.

When I fought Poland's line infantry: they lined up & shot.

When I fought Dagestan's line infantry: they lined up & shot.

Don't get it, sorry... Although the Persians mobbed me, which I thought was okay, as they had about three firearms in their entire army.

[Fisherking]

Spain was hard before the patch.

It may have been the most difficult economically of any faction I had played.

I have not tried it post patch but I know the increased costs could be crippling. Prepatch I had to put every cent into the economy to get it built up. With a more aggressive AI and questionable benefits to building most improvements I am sure it is more than challenging.

[Dayve]

I restarted as Spain, did a great many things differently. First of all, i sold southern Italy to the Italian states for 5,000. I sold Flanders to UP for 5,000, and Lombardy to Genoa for 5,000, but i kept Sardinia. I replaced ministers to get the most i could get from tax. I took the artillery from the two islands in America and sent it to Florida to prepare for the inevitable wars that happen there, and began building up an army there too.

I went down the military tree for now. My other options are a 5% increase in cash from weavers... why waste time researching something that'll give me an extra 3 gold per turn?

I made all ports in Spain trade ports, because you really don't need to recruit anything for your navies except galleons. I'm at 1703 now, income was 4,000 a turn, but having to build up an army and navy has brought that down to under 1,000 a turn. The bulk of my land army is in Florida, and in Spain there are 5 line infantry units, a general and a provincial cavalry, and Morocco just declared war on me, but i'm not worried, their army seems to be small so i have some time yet to build up mine.

Louisiana declared war also, they attacked florida but it's fortified so they couldn't get in and lost 900 men out of an army of 1,200. I may go on the offensive against them soon and grab some land.

Treasury sits at 3,000 right now, navy is puny, land army is decent. Overall situation in 1703 doing the best i can to get the most out of my faction... pretty terrible to be honest. One defeat at sea or on land and it's all over for me.

[Eusebius86]

Just started a new game as Austria E/N. Don't laugh at me, I normally play H/H, but wanted to examine the complaints about the "over-agressive" ai to see if it was true on Easy...

Well, even with industustry tech upgrades, and getting buildings that effect wealth, and getting a few trade agreements, and cranking out a few trade ships, I'm only bringing in 5k gold (or whatever its called) a turn. The economic strutcure seems to favor those who blitz, rather than those who build up their industry and trade. I can't afford to build the trade ships I want to every turn, because I'm at war with Poland and Prussia, which means I'm having to use my full income to crank out line infantry every turn. It's very difficult. 1712 and I'm doing good just to keep my own cities and prevent Prussia from expanding beyond their own borders. I have about 2 full stack armies right now, with a couple decent size garrisons in a few strategic cities.

[Slaists]

Just started a new game as Austria E/N. Don't laugh at me, I normally play H/H, but wanted to examine the complaints about the "over-agressive" ai to see if it was true on Easy...

Well, even with industustry tech upgrades, and getting buildings that effect wealth, and getting a few trade agreements, and cranking out a few trade ships, I'm only bringing in 5k gold (or whatever its called) a turn. The economic strutcure seems to favor those who blitz, rather than those who build up their industry and trade. I can't afford to build the trade ships I want to every turn, because I'm at war with Poland and Prussia, which means I'm having to use my full income to crank out line infantry every turn. It's very difficult. 1712 and I'm doing good just to keep my own cities and prevent Prussia from expanding beyond their own borders. I have about 2 full stack armies right now, with a couple decent size garrisons in a few strategic cities.

well, that's how it went for my Brits as well. i was ablet to generate only about 5-7 K gold per turn well into 1720-ies. it did go up very fast from there on.

and, no, the game does not favor blitzers now. the more provinces one has the lower is the tax %: this can be countered by wealth increasing techs and building developments, but those do not become available until quite late in the game. if one blitzes and conquers undeveloped/undevelopable provinces fast, one runs the risk of going into bankruptcy because tax income shrinks...

[seireikhaan]

well, that's how it went for my Brits as well. i was ablet to generate only about 5-7 K gold per turn well into 1720-ies. it did go up very fast from there on.

and, no, the game does not favor blitzers now. the more provinces one has the lower is the tax %: this can be countered by wealth increasing techs and building developments, but those do not become available until quite late in the game. if one blitzes and conquers undeveloped/undevelopable provinces fast, one runs the risk of going into bankruptcy because tax income shrinks...

It favors blitzers because you now have pretty much no choice- someone near you will declare war, and leave you little choice but to exterminate them. As Sweden, I couldn't get a decently developed economy going until I had wiped out the Danes and taken Moscow. Particularly strange are the minor factions- they seem much, much more reluctant to accept peace. As an example, it took me 4 different wars with Russia before I wiped them out- because the Russians had the sense to know a good peace deal when I offered it. The Danes and Courland wouldn't accept peace, ever. Central Europe seems to have the same problem.

Yes, a player is punished for having lots and lots of provinces- the same seems to be true for only having a couple. I could only achieve a strong, suitable peace as Sweden until I had taken out essentially three factions- Courland, Denmark, and Russia(though I took much longer to wipe them out, I left them basically neutered on the Steppes for a while). I call that a blitz.

[Liberator]

The econ/cost system: it's a mess!

The pre patch problem was that you don't have to worry about finance any more once your empire has grown to a certain size. So the best answer would have been to include something like deminishing returns, meaning that every additional factory/farm/tradespot/whatever gives you a little less income than the previous one. Would be quite realistic, anyway

Of course, at the beginning you are always short of cash. But now income is even worse right from the beginning, while the AI is more aggessive.
I'm currently playing Prussia VH/H around 1710. I grabbed Silesia, Saxony and West Prussia, am allied with GB and have trade agreements with Hannover, Bavaria, Gb and the Marathas, so far so good.
But I can hardly pay my troops, I spend more money on replacing units lost in battles against Westfalia and Courland than on anything else. Austria has just grapped Istanbul - I'm not at war with them but they let me look like a beggar.

[andrewt]

for me the funniest thing is, people complained and complained when the game came out that the AI was too idle and not aggressive and that it was too easy to blitz the AI and all that. so the devs listened and change the game to suit the audience now that its challenging everyone wants it back the way it was lol


Cheers Knoddy

Do you have any proof that the same people who complained that the AI was too idle are now complaining that it is too aggressive? It has to be the same people, not different people with different opinions.

[andrewt]

It favors blitzers because you now have pretty much no choice- someone near you will declare war, and leave you little choice but to exterminate them. As Sweden, I couldn't get a decently developed economy going until I had wiped out the Danes and taken Moscow. Particularly strange are the minor factions- they seem much, much more reluctant to accept peace. As an example, it took me 4 different wars with Russia before I wiped them out- because the Russians had the sense to know a good peace deal when I offered it. The Danes and Courland wouldn't accept peace, ever. Central Europe seems to have the same problem.

Yes, a player is punished for having lots and lots of provinces- the same seems to be true for only having a couple. I could only achieve a strong, suitable peace as Sweden until I had taken out essentially three factions- Courland, Denmark, and Russia(though I took much longer to wipe them out, I left them basically neutered on the Steppes for a while). I call that a blitz.

It's always that way with CA games. I'm almost convinced it's hard coded that you have to have a certain amount of factions at war with you, depending on the size of your empire. So you're always at war with a certain amount of factions, and if you eliminate any of them, a new one declares war on you. The only way to have "peace", it seems, is to blitz all of the nations at war with you and leave them each with 1 crippled province. Make sure not to make actual peace with them, because that triggers another nation to declare war on you a few turns later.

[anweRU]

I'm playing a new GB campaign from scratch. With about 1 hour per day, I've only made it to turn 8 so far. My income is currently 7k/turn, thanks to the IM spam + trade spot rush. IIRC, this is about where I was at this stage in my pre-patch GB games.

Here are the differences:
- I haven't been able to recruit as many troops as I would have by this stage.
- I have captured only three regions, all three of which are currently tax exempt (Flanders & Hispaniola on turn 2, Trinidad & Tobago on turn 6). Hence, they don't contribute to my income, and are costing me money for the short term.
- I'll give my opinion about the AI elsewhere. However, I would say I can't blitz anymore. By this stage in my previous game, I had captured more regions. Now, I'm constrained both economically & by the increased resistance (13 vs 8) to actually go on a conquest spree.

I might retry a Dutch or Swedish campaign to see how they compare. My pre-patch UP campaign, as my GB campaign, was a blitz. I had too much money on my hands, so I built armies and captured regions. My pre-patch Swedish campaign was more sedate - I tried a more peaceful approach, fighting wars only with those nations whose territories I needed for the victory conditions.

[Eusebius86]

well, that's how it went for my Brits as well. i was ablet to generate only about 5-7 K gold per turn well into 1720-ies. it did go up very fast from there on.

and, no, the game does not favor blitzers now. the more provinces one has the lower is the tax %: this can be countered by wealth increasing techs and building developments, but those do not become available until quite late in the game. if one blitzes and conquers undeveloped/undevelopable provinces fast, one runs the risk of going into bankruptcy because tax income shrinks...

Um, the mechanics DO favor blitzing. The ai refuses to make peace for more than 2 turns, which means that you are forced to exterminate your enemies. I reduced Prussia to one territory, and still they would not keep peace. Besides, what would you rather do as Austria, take over East Prussia and rake in 2400 gold a turn, or try to develop trade fleets and pray that no one with a navy blockades you?

Central Europe doesn't have too many undeveloped towns/cities, so blitzing is a favored strategy... I prefer to turtle, but the AI just doesn't know when to call it quits.

[Slaists]

Central Europe doesn't have too many undeveloped towns/cities, so blitzing is a favored strategy... I prefer to turtle, but the AI just doesn't know when to call it quits.

True about Central Europe: and I do not think, any of the Central European powers are meant to be trading powerhouses; I don't think, those factions are meant to be 'turtled' either: just too many enemies around.

As to the AI: true,it does not know when to call quits unless... you turn them into your protectorate ;)

[MikeV]

It's always that way with CA games. I'm almost convinced it's hard coded that you have to have a certain amount of factions at war with you ... Make sure not to make actual peace with them, because that triggers another nation to declare war on you a few turns later.

I've noticed that, as well. Whether it's hard-coded or scripted, after 1 or 2 turns of "peace," some AI-controlled minor will decide it's their turn to commit suicide.

Since there is no working Diplomacy system to speak of, this behavior seems to be it. "What You See Is All You Get."

[Marquis of Roland]

Post patch Prussia Campaign on VH. Compared to pre-patch Prussia, I make considerably less but overall I am happy with the economic changes. I've been turtling in Central Europe, and sent out 2 fleets of IM to West Africa. Your budget is a lot more restricted than before, but definitely manageable for my campaign. For 100 turns I just made do turtling with my two 12-16 unit stacks, and took only Saxony and Silesia. I was simultaneously at war with Poland, Courland, Austria, and Bavaria. I'm glad it wasn't like it was before, where I made so much profit, money and production was actually no longer a game factor.

Haven't tried Spain yet. So it's pretty bad eh?

[JeromeBaker]

The first couple of turns on my Sweden VH/H campgain I was dismayed at the harder economy, but once I got a few more turns under my belt I actually love the changes. I cannot afford the same type of army after patch as I could before patch or as many total. Now I have to really take advantage of terrain, tactics, formations, and manage my battles closely because I cant afford to take huge losses. I also now have more milita and pike in my fighting forces, which makes me utilize the line infantry and other higher end troops to their fullest since I dont have a stack full of just the best available. So far so good, I am doing fine in my campaign and I am loving it. Being able to buy a lot of troops of high quality got boring fast. I am sure there are TW vets who still find it too easy, but for me it is pretty good right now. I also like that the patch made bridges matter again and you can play a multiple stack battle again without people surrounding you at the start. Pre patch I didnt have to pay all that much attention to my ministers, trade partners, and trade zones because I already had more than enough money comming in, now I pay more attention. Of course, I have not finished a campgain since the new patch so I am not sure how the end game will be, but the start and middle get two thumbs up after the latest patch.

[Karash]

I think your game is broken...like all mid-to-late games. The AI just loses the script and becomes too passive, allowing a player to start raking in the money. Even on H or VH.

[AussieGiant]

I certainly think they are on the right track economically with the direction CA have gone. If they can tweak the AI behaviour a little more then we are in a lot better shape.