The RTW II Economy - Research, Tips and Strategies

[Lord of the Isles]

I've found 3 reasons so far to make a province a food producer:

1. Grain resource in one of the towns - settlement building there produces food
2. Coastal regions - for fishing ports
3. Conquered regions with foreign buildings with a food boost

Others have made the first two points but the last one can be useful too. In particular, Barbarian factions (celtic ones at least in my experience so far as Rome & Athens) can build agricultural buildings in the capital city of a province, which Roman & Greek factions can't (there is a food producer in the city center line but just the one). So might be worth while not rebuilding such a slot and making the province a food producer.

Related to that (if a little off topic) are the other advantages from finding useful foreign buildings in a conquered region. When I took Nicomedia in Asia Minor as Athens I found a wonderful Eastern culture building that gave me +20 to public order with no food cost at all. That was enough to make it a perfect troop-producing province since that building alone almost balanced the public order cost of 2 top level military buildings. And to go further off-topic: AI factions seem to have much higher levels of buildings than I can manage in early & middle game. I wonder if they get tech cheats or just starting positions with great buildings? Probably the latter since their military techs don't seem so advanced based on what troops they produce.

Concomitantly, I'm also realizing that the various tech trees may not be quite so independent or even "disconnected" as they first appear. They may not be directly tied to each other, but the buildings/effects they produce are definitely intertwined in developing a functioning empire. On this particular point, we as a community may have been a little prematurely critical of CA.

Good point. And it made me think about the public order <-> food trade-off system as well. Their different characteristics makes balancing them more interesting than I first thought. Food is 'easy' since it is accounted over your whole empire - but 'tough' since the penalties for -ve food are great. Public order is 'easy' since the penalties for reaching -100 aren't so bad (though I like to role-play and avoid this if at all possible) but 'tough' since Public Order must balance in each province.

[Spoonska]

I found that Patch 2 has kinda wrecked my building setup. In a good way I guess; I personally hadn't seen the need to make the changes they did because I thought it should be a difficult decision whether or not you go to that Lv.4 building. I was able to upgrade 1-2 buildings in every province, and I still have about 100 food I'm floating. Time to restructure for a fourth time :P.

[Oleander Ardens]

Level IV cities hit me surprisingly hard, I suppose I should have done my math better. Right now it is cities -> increases wealth + bonus on other buildings wealth but - food - order -> force farms -> sacrficies potteries (agrindustrial Barbarian buildings) -> lowers wealth + lowers order -> desperate for +8 temples -> scrambles for tech for headquarter -> builds up armies -> lowers income greatly. Choose indeed wisely what you want to upgrade, in doubt go against upgrading you cities and buildings to IV. New Suebian proverb: From the terror of the level IV, deliver us o Thor.

Personally I think only your trade ressource town should pretty much always get the nod up to four, as long as you have enought trading partners.

Overall big provinces should get priority for your upgrades, on every level, as the % bonus for buildings works on that level. A 2 region province does harldy justify buildings which mostly boost others, in a 3 region one it depends while in a 4 region province you can stack up big boosts. The more building slots you have the more attractive the bonus buildings become. In a poor region you have to start with things which give you direct benefits in wealth or food.

Obviously upgrading priortiy goes for your provincial capitals as well. Use those level IV capitals only in the bigger provinces, if at all, or for special reasons.

[andrewt]

I upgraded all settlements to level 3 after the patch, since I was carrying a huge food surplus. I still think some buildings need a reduction in their penalties, mostly level 4 buildings and specifically the ones that trade food for public order and vice versa. The bonuses for most minor settlements are not worth it versus the penalties they bring, at least compared to upgrading the provincial capital.

I still prioritize food buildings in 2 and 3 settlement provinces. I still prioritize the food and public order temples over the others.

[Kurisu]

So... trade commodities

Are the current prices actually displayed anywhere in the UI? You can see what you're making from each type of resource per trade partner via tooltip, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of either current value per unit or how many units you're actually trading (either in total or per faction). You'd need at least one of these to do the math... but the UI really needs to be offering a lot more here in order for players to properly manage minor settlement upgrades and trade agreements. In it's current state, the whole affair is a puzzle without enough pieces.

Here are the base values from the db table:



Glassware is indeed most valuable and textiles also look potentially interesting with the higher demand modifier. As in past games and as the table suggests, these values should fluctuate with supply and demand. In my current game, I've not seen any evidence of that yet, however I'm only at 30 turns or so. Referencing the table, I do see that all commodities are earning me even multiples of base prices (e.g. I'm trading olive oil to Sparta, Bithynia and Sardes for 24, 40 and 64 respectively... so that's 128 coin which accounts for 16 units sold @8). Keeping my eye out for fluctuations in price as well as what happens when supply thins out across too many trade agreements (since they're unlimited).

We also have the commodity_unit_names table which implies that these items are intended to be listed somewhere by quantity. There are some extras, however this table does appear to be intended for Rome specifically as you have good matches for the present resource list (amphora, logs, slabs etc)...



The only place I can see quantities of trade goods is in the minor settlement info panel, but that doesn't use these descriptors (says only 40 wine, 80 marble etc). One would assume that we're missing part of the UI, which makes this aspect of the game a wee bit frustrating . Unless I've missed some cleverly concealed tooltip?

edit: I suppose it's possible that prices don't actually fluctuate with supply as they do in some more recent TW titles. That would certainly de-emphasize the need for a UI element dedicated to commodity values.

edit: I see glassware now trading at 29 denari (+3 from the base). That's a good indication that the system isn't static.

[ReluctantSamurai]

What does baseline-price-per-unit and price-elasticity-of-demand actually mean? Baseline suggests that there can be a modifier applied to the base price? and if so, what determines the value of that modifier? And does the demand column mean that if a potential trading partner already has that trade good, they might be less inclined to trade?

In R1 I remember the trade table listing imports vs. exports with their corresponding values, but I never really understood how those values were calculated except that goods were traded with neutral factions whether you had a trade agreement or not, but those values went up drastically when a formal trade agreement was actually garnered.

Another factor in R1 that affected trade were roads. IIRC, you got only baseline values (land trade) for no roads and simple dirt roads. There was a 100% increase in values for a paved road, and another 50% increase for highways. All values for city of origin.

Land export/import did not have any apparent separator (one lump sum), but sea trade had separate values for import & export (with the import value always being 20% of the exporters income).

Trade buildings also applied a modifier to trade values; as buildings were upgraded, there was a corresponding %increase in trade values.

I also remember distance and population level being a factor. Any indication that it has an effect here? (ie. closer meant higher trade values, more population also meant higher values)

[Kurisu]

What does baseline-price-per-unit and price-elasticity-of-demand actually mean? Baseline suggests that there can be a modifier applied to the base price? and if so, what determines the value of that modifier? And does the demand column mean that if a potential trading partner already has that trade good, they might be less inclined to trade?

In R1 I remember the trade table listing imports vs. exports with their corresponding values, but I never really understood how those values were calculated except that goods were traded with neutral factions whether you had a trade agreement or not, but those values went up drastically when a formal trade agreement was actually garnered.

Another factor in R1 that affected trade were roads. IIRC, you got only baseline values (land trade) for no roads and simple dirt roads. There was a 100% increase in values for a paved road, and another 50% increase for highways. All values for city of origin.

Land export/import did not have any apparent separator (one lump sum), but sea trade had separate values for import & export (with the import value always being 20% of the exporters income).

Trade buildings also applied a modifier to trade values; as buildings were upgraded, there was a corresponding %increase in trade values.

I also remember distance and population level being a factor. Any indication that it has an effect here? (ie. closer meant higher trade values, more population also meant higher values)

From observation thus far, the base price (from the table) always factors evenly into the total earned per export in any trade deal. I'm wondering if anyone has seen that change over time.

Price elasticity of demand would imply that prices do change (and affect demand), so I'm not certain. Demand does vary, but seems lower primarily where similar goods are produced by both parties. Have to play deeper into a campaign. I'd be grateful if anyone who has could report whether they see export values (per resource) deviating from an even multiple of the original base price. That would shed some light on how the mechanic works this time around.

As far as roads, they upgrade automatically with settlement size. I doubt that there's any direct relationship since upgrading the settlement already increases the quantity of whatever resource the territory produces. The only trade modifiers I've seen so far are those given by character traits. Those apply to tarrifs and don't directly affect commodity prices. No idea about distance, but economic power is a consideration in trade deals and would be indirectly tied to population. Again, I don't think that has any effect on resource prices though.

[nearchos]

Why is so difficult to get trade agreements with every one, even is its attitude is very friendly?
No one wants to trade, no one wants to have an alliance, no one wants nothing exept from defencive alliances in exchange to huge amounts of money....

I believe a trade agreement is good for both parties, so why a one province or two province faction doesnt want to trade with a super power??

[Bramborough]

Why is so difficult to get trade agreements with every one, even is its attitude is very friendly?
No one wants to trade, no one wants to have an alliance, no one wants nothing exept from defencive alliances in exchange to huge amounts of money....

I believe a trade agreement is good for both parties, so why a one province or two province faction doesnt want to trade with a super power??

How many turns into the campaign are you?

Early on, I had same experience; it was pulling teeth to get a trade agreement out of anyone. After a while, however, as my empire size grew a bit, it got a lot easier.

[Oleander Ardens]

How many turns into the campaign are you?

Early on, I had same experience; it was pulling teeth to get a trade agreement out of anyone. After a while, however, as my empire size grew a bit, it got a lot easier.

Indeed. It seems that you need to get a a couple of trade ressources to look attractive in the eye of potential partners. In my Macedon campaign in which I've learned a great deal about the RTW II economy I started to get lots of offers after 4 ressources but I could easily conclude some deals a bit earlier with 2-3 after I upgraded the wine and olive oil cities of Epirus and Larissa. A similar thing happened in my Suebi one. So it should be a combination of quantity and diversity as a trade partner does only import so much of a single ressource. It is likely that exportable ressources of potential trade partners also help a bit but so far I did not verify it. The amount of imports per faction should depend on the number of provinces, with each province bringing less and less import capability.

[ReluctantSamurai]

It occurred to me that the discussion has been focused on how the player handles the economy and research, and so it should. But....

....in reading through a lot of campaign descriptions it seem apparent the the AI hasn't a clue for doing either very well. Factions rise then fall because they run out of food or get crushed by squalor. While this may mimic reality in some small sense (the ebb and rise of empires), it doesn't really present the player with that one faction that's going to be able to kick your ass (for Shogun 1 it was the Hojo Horde; for MTW the Golden Horde; for RTW it was the Romans if you were playing a non-Roman faction, and Egypt for just about everyone else; etc).

So how would you simplify development to where the AI could conceivably handle it, and yet keep it interesting for a player? or would you just have a script for an AI faction to follow?

[Quillan]

I don't really know about programming, and nothing about AI, but I suspect you'd need a script of sorts. Before deciding what to build, make sure the new construction won't put you into negative food or public order. If it's below a certain threshold, built a new or increase an old source, then upgrade the other building.

[nearchos]

Indeed. It seems that you need to get a a couple of trade ressources to look attractive in the eye of potential partners. In my Macedon campaign in which I've learned a great deal about the RTW II economy I started to get lots of offers after 4 ressources but I could easily conclude some deals a bit earlier with 2-3 after I upgraded the wine and olive oil cities of Epirus and Larissa. A similar thing happened in my Suebi one. So it should be a combination of quantity and diversity as a trade partner does only import so much of a single ressource. It is likely that exportable ressources of potential trade partners also help a bit but so far I did not verify it. The amount of imports per faction should depend on the number of provinces, with each province bringing less and less import capability.

Im in 60 BC and i own every trade resource, allmost all my cities are upgrated, i have 10 trade agreements, some of them since early game.
I have achieved the objectives for an economic victory, but since turn 120 if im not wrong the most of my trade parteners broke the aggrements with me and since then i bleed for a trade pact in axchange for a lot of money.
I think there is something there that needs to be fixed.
Best example are the client states, i have client states that do not want nothing, it is a client state for gods sake, you own it, at least a trade aggrement with them sould be de facto.
And an other example, the one province faction of egypt, a client state of Macedon for a very long time and very friendly, +204, didnt want to trade even with the ofer of 240.000 dinarii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So i think CA must see it, i believe thats basics.

[andrewt]

I don't really know about programming, and nothing about AI, but I suspect you'd need a script of sorts. Before deciding what to build, make sure the new construction won't put you into negative food or public order. If it's below a certain threshold, built a new or increase an old source, then upgrade the other building.

Problem is that almost all sources of food and public order have a penalty to the other once you upgrade to level 3 and 4. The AI doesn't seem to know how to upgrade one without killing the other. I suspect that's the problem.

[Bramborough]

It occurred to me that the discussion has been focused on how the player handles the economy and research, and so it should. But....

....in reading through a lot of campaign descriptions it seem apparent the the AI hasn't a clue for doing either very well. Factions rise then fall because they run out of food or get crushed by squalor. While this may mimic reality in some small sense (the ebb and rise of empires), it doesn't really present the player with that one faction that's going to be able to kick your ass (for Shogun 1 it was the Hojo Horde; for MTW the Golden Horde; for RTW it was the Romans if you were playing a non-Roman faction, and Egypt for just about everyone else; etc).

So how would you simplify development to where the AI could conceivably handle it, and yet keep it interesting for a player? or would you just have a script for an AI faction to follow?

This is pretty simplistic, but one approach might be to just limit its development. Say, AI cannot build past Level III in in provincial capital slots, and cannot build minor settlements past level II. Moreover, limit AI factions to only one or two military buildilngs overall, and no more than one temple per settlement. With something like this, the AI economy would still be quite suboptimal, but could probably maintain some reasonable level of public order and support some decent-sized army stacks. When I take over enemy settlements, I usually find that the AI has way overbuilt in temples or military buildings, and/or has built a Level IV town & temples without remotely enough food to support.

[ReluctantSamurai]

This is pretty simplistic

Agreed. I was simply fishing for comments on how to balance the players handling of development (which will always be more sophisticated and long-term) and the AI's. Certainly any factions development should favor units in which it has the advantage, or that makes countering by the player more difficult, and certainly some attention has to be paid to the AI being able to keep its head above water in terms of cash flow and loyalty.

[Quillan]

Im in 60 BC and i own every trade resource, allmost all my cities are upgrated, i have 10 trade agreements, some of them since early game.
I have achieved the objectives for an economic victory, but since turn 120 if im not wrong the most of my trade parteners broke the aggrements with me and since then i bleed for a trade pact in axchange for a lot of money.
I think there is something there that needs to be fixed.
Best example are the client states, i have client states that do not want nothing, it is a client state for gods sake, you own it, at least a trade aggrement with them sould be de facto.
And an other example, the one province faction of egypt, a client state of Macedon for a very long time and very friendly, +204, didnt want to trade even with the ofer of 240.000 dinarii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So i think CA must see it, i believe thats basics.

Two questions: first, what is the campaign difficulty level? Second, what is your diplomatic reputation? I'm at "steadfast", mainly because I don't attack anyone with whom I have an active treaty, and I always side with an ally. I've currently got 18 trade partners, down from 22 only because one of those attacked an ally and thus had to die and the others were eliminated in the course of their ongoing wars. There are two factions currently who don't want to trade with me (Caledones and Armenia), and both have horrible reputations (one is devious, the other treacherous). Perhaps one of those is the cause.

[Myth]

While playing on Legendary with patch 3 on, I noticed the AI supporting around 2.5 stacks in total troop numbers with a high mix of strong infantry in there. It builds units that are favoured in AR so if you want to AR your way to victory you typically have to bring an extra fullstack to even the odds. By leading however, you can make minced meat out of them.

Patch 3 reduced the killing speed of most infantry, which means that battles are 10-20 minutes long. However the AI doesn't have the luxury of my very experienced elite troops which have north of 75 morale. They basically never break unless they are up against something like 6 units of Royal Spartans (because those guys never break but also don't die and have haed their killing chance improved as per patch 3).

So while Ar technically shows you a Phyrric victory or even a Clear Defeat, especially in siege assaults, you can turn the tides around because when you clump up your elites and focus in your cav/damage dealing infantry in simple (yet effective) flanking maneuvers or taking out the masses of ranged units, you can win.

Funny thing - you can't afford to sit and ignore slingers and javelin troops. Not like in Rome 1 when at some point the armour values became so high that they virtually did nothing. Pretorians still die to slings if left unattended. Hence at least 3 units of cav per fullstack are mandatory.

Province development for the AI seems to have improved somewhat, though I still see bad choices like temples in minor settlements or 4 city centre buildings in Athens.

[andrewt]

I build temples in minor settlements all the time. There's really nothing else to build there. I build 1 farm and 1 temple to offset the public order. I'm playing Carthage and one of the temples has food as well.

[Bramborough]

I build temples in minor settlements all the time. There's really nothing else to build there. I build 1 farm and 1 temple to offset the public order. I'm playing Carthage and one of the temples has food as well.

Yep, that's what I was doing as well. Over time, however, this developed provinces with large public-order surpluses, but food-deficient. I've shifted to a philosophy of building food in both minor-settlement slots (i.e., 1 farm and 1 cattle). The temple and circus in provincial capital usually keeps public order still comfortably in the green.

This is, however, from Rome perspective. With different building types and attributes, might work out quite differently for Carthage (or any other playable faction).

[Myth]

And it is radically different with the Avernii who can build farms everywhere and they get their cav units from them...

[AntiDamascus]

I too will sometimes build both farm types on Roman minor settlements and use my provincial capitol as a means to keep order up. They have the room for extra buildings and they usually come with a public order bonus.

[andrewt]

Yep, that's what I was doing as well. Over time, however, this developed provinces with large public-order surpluses, but food-deficient. I've shifted to a philosophy of building food in both minor-settlement slots (i.e., 1 farm and 1 cattle). The temple and circus in provincial capital usually keeps public order still comfortably in the green.

This is, however, from Rome perspective. With different building types and attributes, might work out quite differently for Carthage (or any other playable faction).

I looked at Rome's farms and food city-center building. They are terrible and I would certainly avoid building them past level 2, if possible. Carthage's farm and food city-center building are worth it, being 3 and 4 food higher at level 4 compared to Rome's. The livestock one still sucks, though.

[Kurisu]

Does anyone have a sensible explanation for what "wealth" actually represents in this game?

The concept is intuitive in Shogun2, Empire etc. ...where wealth is a regional value representing taxable income, property or commodities that grows or diminishes over time. Each turn, you apply taxation to that figure and derive income. Although there may be modifiers applied to tax % or to wealth, the essence of the mechanic is easily understood.

In the Rome2 economic system, however, wealth has an alternative relationship to tax. Here, tax is simply another modifier (along with slavery and corruption) to a sum of cash that you can earn in it's entirety (every turn) or even exceed by taxing at high levels. So really, the wealth figure is more like the normalized income for a region... i.e. with all other factors being 0, income will equal wealth. That would also imply that when you improve a region by adding or upgrading buildings, the related increases to "wealth" can be thought of as direct potential income.

Is this a correct interpretation, or am I missing something? How do you rationalize taxing wealth that would already seem to be in your pocket? Moreover, why would wealth be counted as income in the first place?

[Spoonska]

Here's a minor tip I've kinda picked up on the past few nights of play.


Mid to late game throw your taxes on the lowest possible setting. At the lowest setting the public order penalty is only " -1 ". Depending on how fast you expand by around turn #100 you should have enough income that a low setting will still net you around 10k + a turn.

[mbrasher1]

Does anyone have a sensible explanation for what "wealth" actually represents in this game?

... So really, the wealth figure is more like the normalized income for a region...

No, that seems about right to me.

[mbrasher1]

I looked at Rome's farms and food city-center building. They are terrible and I would certainly avoid building them past level 2, if possible. Carthage's farm and food city-center building are worth it, being 3 and 4 food higher at level 4 compared to Rome's. The livestock one still sucks, though.

I agree that livestock is not worth it (unless you are using livestock to occupy a building slot that will later be built into something that you don't yet have the tech for, and you just don't want the slums).

But the higher level farm buildings are actually OK. L2 farms give 6 food for no squalor. L3 give 10 for 4 squalor, L4 give 18 for 10 squalor (and most cultures I am familiar with give a 2 food bonus per far for the bread and games edict). Since you will develop techs and capture wonders that improve po, you will have some excess po to work with. By building L4 farms, you can have 60 food coming from a single province. Do the math, and assume you will build some po enhancing temples/city center buildings. It is possible to have three.

The higher level fisheries are kinda crappy. L1 gives you 6 food. L2 gives 8 with 4 squalor; L3 gives 12 food with 10 squalor. Needless to say, I'd rather have the farm giving me 18 or 20. I rarely build fisheries, and usually replace captured ones unless I am near the floor of 20 food needed to keep my provinces growing as fast as possible.

Remember that excess food is wasted; excess po is wasted. Excess cash can be accumulated.

If you have a province designed as a food center, the food is what is important, not the wealth.

[Quillan]

L3 give 10 for 4 squalor, L4 give 18 for 10 squalor (and most cultures I am familiar with give a 2 food bonus per far for the bread and games edict).

Roman farms give 9 for 4 and 15 for 10 at the 3rd and 4th levels. When I took Aegypt in my campaign and found L4 farms there I just left them, because they were superior to what I could build and weren't upgradable beyond that point.

I still built level 4 farms in other places; I needed the food surplus. However, by that point I was carefully balancing public order against squalor across my empire.

[Bramborough]

I agree that livestock is not as good as farm. Given one slot, I always prioritize the farm first. Minor settlements have two non-port slots, however, and building options are limited. I build very few military buildings outside my one designated army-production province. Sometimes (but not often) I'll build a temple in a minor settlement, depending on the makeup of the province whole. With a farm in Slot #1, and no city-center, industrial, or plumbing options available, that leaves livestock for Slot #2 in most cases. This isn't necessarily all-bad...livestock doesn't produce as much food, but compensates by producing significantly higher income.

EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about the livestock ranches in minor settlements. With regard to the yellow cattle-market line in provincial capital, yeah, that thing is terrible, I can't see ever building it. Tried it once or twice in first campaign, will never build one again, unless some future patch re-balance changes its characteristics or something.

[mbrasher1]

I can see how to make a province making 4000/turn by focusing on cultural buildings and commerce, but I haven't seen the benefit of an industrial focused income province. There simply are too few industrial buildings, and having the bonus-giving buildings does not make sense when the base industrial income is so low. The ag bonus buildings rarely give much extra income (usually because base ag wealth is fairly low) and I don't build the farms for the cash but for the food.

Can anyone give advice on the slave trader city center buildings?