Administrative penalty - does it ever recover?

[Slaists]

That sounds good.

My gripe is that being uncapped, it is a bit too much now - an empire with 40 territories shouldn't have less tax income than one with 20 territories.... I liked what it did to the early game, improving the pace (along with the increased resistance). But mid-game, it simply reduces any incentives to build an empire.

hmm... does not sound good at all to me. the admin costs were fine (on VH and H) as they were post 1.2. example: playing France on VH, in 1735 I am raking in 33K in profits per turn with already a few hundred K stashed away in the treasury. i have two full stack armies in the americas; one in India and one in France proper.

so, to me, the econ part is way too easy (on VH) already: absolutely no need to make it even easier.

As to that empire with 40 territories: I do not have 40 territories. But sure enough I am making way more money (on absolute terms) with 30 territories than with 20 or 10.

[AussieGiant]

hmm... does not sound good at all to me. the admin costs were fine (on VH and H) as they were post 1.2. example: playing France on VH, in 1735 I am raking in 33K in profits per turn with already a few hundred K stashed away in the treasury. i have two full stack armies in the americas; one in India and one in France proper.

so, to me, the econ part is way too easy (on VH) already: absolutely no need to make it even easier.

As to that empire with 40 territories: I do not have 40 territories. But sure enough I am making way more money (on absolute terms) with 30 territories than with 20 or 10.

Keep in mind Slaists,

if we were to grade you out on the curve for this game, you'd be in the top percentile of players.

To you, it might seem easy, to others they are struggling just fine.

[Slaists]

Keep in mind Slaists,

if we were to grade you out on the curve for this game, you'd be in the top percentile of players.

To you, it might seem easy, to others they are struggling just fine.

Well, I've been with TW series since the beginning (STW), so that probably does give me better insight into managing my game empire than would be the case with someone who opened a game of this franchise for the first time. However, there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence in the forums that the latest TW games (MTW2 and ETW) can be beaten both on the campaign map and on the tactical map by 6-year old children (who see a TW game for the first time) of the veteran players here...

So, as far as AI is considered, something is amiss unfortunately. The latest patch was a small step in the right direction, if you ask me. I am not objecting to CA toning down medium and easy (especially easy) but I hope they leave H and VH well alone as far as unwinding v 1.2 changes go. If anything, I'd hope they would tweak the diplomatic engine (at least for H and VH) to allow for AI coalition building against the expanding player in the end-game.

All I can really speak of is my playing experience, which is subject to my play style. I personally prioritise my economic development, unless I actually need troops for a specific purpose and i don't have a "problem" with wealth. There are definitley better or worse ways of managing your economy in ETW (i.e. concentrating on industry before farming will result in very slow overall growth), which should be better explained by the tool-tips and advisors.

Fundamentally, I regard this game as an trade empire game where the military side is subject to economic motivations. Perhaps some players see it differently or expect to be able to make money from not much -or even maybe some have yet to adjust to v1.2 (patch 3).

As to the AI, of course it's not easy to program challenging AI, but for whatever reason (prioritisation, time, resources) CA haven't delivered on this and it's a great shame. They are now, post release, playing around with some pretty fundamental balance issues of the game that I am shocked to see in a professionaly released game. [i was perfectly with happy with Mount and Blade's development, put i paid less and never expected more or else]

I guess, I play the same way. I do not build armies unless I really need them + in early to mid-game I try to incorporate lots of 'cheap' troops in my army composition (like North American native musketeers, etc.). I also tend to use my starting fleets + sloops to the max of their potential: the reward money (for captured ships) is quite a boost for an early economy.

Developing the trade is my prime priority in the early game: way higher than any military development; that also means - taking the pirate islands out early and not reasearching any military sciences unless really needed. Hint about the trade: if they ever introduced AI ability to attack ships on anchors in trade theaters, my treasury would take a huge hit... I hope CA does that at some point though.

Anyway, playing with fudge factors and AI advantages on Normal and Easy modes just doesn't look like they mastered the AI to begin with.

Sigh. I could not agree more...

The Campaign Map AI does just fine in managing its economics. What I'm complaining about is CA buffing it up so that it can field more stacks than the human player can. Sure, its makes the game more "challenging" in terms of you having to fight more enemy units, but at the same time that can be quite tedious - I mean you are permanently at a disadvantage against the AI no matter what and it can keep churning out troops while you can't. This also means that you can completely blockade them and they can still merrily build troops and buildings and not care. It removes a key strategic element from the game.

The current advantage of their recruitment and construction finishing as soon as the AI faction presses End Turn is bad enough already. (Note that for the human player, the above finishes at the start of the human player's next turn, not at the time of pressing End Turn)

Hmm... That (the bolded part) I have a problem agreeing with. So many times, when I take over an AI province I find 2-3 fisheries and no trade ports (at the point when there are no more villages to grow)... no trade ports even in provinces with high industrial output. On the same token, I've seen AI take a huge economic hit by allowing enemy fleets to happily sit inside destroyed trade harbors when all it would take would be a peasant unit (which, by the way, is readily standing by) sent in to clear the port.

It seems that the campaign AI is utterly unable to make simple rational decisions about developing and maintaining economy. But this is not new to ETW, all the previous titles were plagued by the same problem and, unfortunately, the only way CA knew how to 'help the AI out' was to give it huge cash bonuses on harder campaign difficulties, which, of course, throws campaign map strategic/tactical gameplay out of the window. Example: blockading AI's trade ports on H and VH campaign map difficulties used to be a waste of time in RTW and MTW2. Hope, the CA does not opt for the same route in ETW also.

[anweRU]

IMHO, the AI is doing a lousy way of managing its economy. The AI is a heavy taxer, and as such its provinces do not begin growing well into the 1730-40s, after it has researched a number of farming & enlightenment tech. By that time any competent human player has a huge economical advantage. The AI also gives priority to fisheries, not trade ports, limiting itself. Sure, fisheries make sense for increasing the population, but are a poor choice over the long term.

20 vs 40, don't forget that most of the NA provinces are not developed at all, and it takes a lot of time for them to reach their potential (into the 1740s-50s). Even then, they are Very Poor towns, and don't start to improve until later. So grabing several strategic provinces in India and/or Europe will actually make you more tax money with few provinces.

Also, note that I'm not happy with the tax penalty, not the overall income. I am making close to 25K/turn on H, with most trade ports (except for two in East Indies) occupied by GB...

I would also lose my trade spots if the AI attacked my undefended trade fleets.

[FactionHeir]

AI might be a heavy taxer, but it seems to research techs in half the time the human player does anyway. IMO the AI is cheating enough as is and there is no need to push it even further over the top.

Things like attacking trade spots can certainly be coded and they should be focussing on that, not boosting the AI and ignoring its glaring problems.

[Slaists]

Ok, somebody asked for screenshots since he found the numbers I mentioned to be unbelievable. Here is an example from my Russian campaign on VH settings. In 1767 Russia's profits are in the range of 50K per turn with 22 provinces held and 3 professional armies (as the one depicted in the screenshot) + 2 fleets (one in the Baltic, one in the Mediterranean).

The second screenshot shows the trade page. As one can observe, the commodity prices (tusks and spices in particular) have not collapsed.

PS. I apologize for the quality of the screenshots. They got downsized quite a bit as I was uploading them here.

[anweRU]

I'm surprised at the tusks & spices. As GB, I'm in 1742 by now, and prices are at 20 for tusks and 19 for spices. I have two ships each in the tusk spots....

With 5 nearly-full stacks (14 to 18 units), and two 3/4 naval stacks, I am making 40K per turn profit. It is a decent income. I have sepoys running amok in northern Europe (gifting captured provinces to protectorates or allies, also improved trade), and native units from the Americas will join them in another 6-7 turns...