RTW Economic Model discourages queing!

[Locklear]

I agree with Mori Gabriel Syme over the convenience issue, but Ranges hit the nail on the head. The problem isn't really with building construction, but rather with units.

What would fix this is if the second, third, etc unit added to the queue didn't take away a fixed amount of population, but rather the projected population of that (future) turn minus the unit size. This could be recursively calculated for successive unit-turns and would eliminate the problem with unit queuing that Ranges outlined.

There is really an issue of logic here when subtracting resources all at once. Are these troops sitting somewhere for 5 years? They aren't contributing to society, aren't paying taxes, there have to be costs associated with feeding/keeping them. Are they simply confined at home until their billet comes up? "Oh, I'm in the army already, but I haven't started basic because the facilities are being used for the next 4 years." In reality troops in different "stages" of training occupied the same facility.

Similarly with buildings, obviously these are being built in different places, so why can't we build them at once? Perhaps the city construction crews will be overworked, but if that's the case, simply increase the amount of money for successive buildings at once.

So on one hand this system of immediately "putting aside" money and men is nicer in terms of not worrying about things getting built, but on the other it results in problems in population. I'm torn, personally, but I like micromanagement so I tend not to queue things anyway.

[TinCow]

The Queing system is also very useful when you are playing a faction with a negative income. If you don't blow it all right away, it will bleed away slowly. Better to spend it now on a queue of units and then use the army to take more profitable provinces to rectify the situation. This is particularly true for some of the 'unplayable' factions once they are active. Starting the game with 5000 dinarii isn't too useful when you also start with -1000 income.

[Riffler]

There are further problems with the model used - not only queued but also serving soldiers don't pay tax, don't contribute to population growth or (presumably) squalor or trade income (ie they don't buy imported goods). Just what are all those garrison soldiers spending their wages on?

If they're going to go into economic limbo once training is complete, is it all that big a deal if they do it a few turns early?

Queueing several peasant units is a useful way of temporarily reducing unrest due to population pressures.

[Servius]

Queing units should not cost money or population, for logical and gameplay reasons.

On not costing money, I may have one city who's only job is to produce archers. I may have three armies in the field before I have access to archers, so that once I do have access, I need a bunch of archers to fill my three legions. I que up archers so that I don't have to build each archer individually every turn. But if I'm short on money (but will still be able to pay for the in the year they're built) I shouldn't have to pay for a 'planned' recruiting that hasn't occured yet.

On not costing population, it makes logical sense like not costing money until the unit is actually built. But additionally, the suckage it has on my population (and thus my tax revenue) is also bad. Lastly, decreasing the population, even without decreasing the pop growth modifier, will decrease next year's population as the base being modified has shrunk.

It still doesn't make sense to pay for buildings before work on them is even started, but since they take longer to build that military units it's less of a gameplay problem (less micromanagement required for not queing).

[Orvis Tertia]

I like the new queuing system in RTW. /shrug

[RedKnight]

I can't see any particular problem with q'ing buildings Yoink, since there isn't any interest charged etc. if you tie up your money.

But the issue of tieing up units is a very complex one, as the posts here show. It's a way to slow growth if you want, and also slightly increase the taxability (because tieing up folks in peasants, might make there be enough less people to tax at a higher rate). Some issues involved have been discussed in the past here.

[Locklear]

Ah thanks for that link RK.

Wouldn't it make more sense if they were only ghosted out of the population, i.e. they remain part of the settlement for all intents and purposes, just that they've been earmarked for possible training in the future. Perhaps you could have two statistics for population, one the actual population, and the other the manpower available (population-400-queued units).

Leave it to therother to ask my question before I did, and think of a solution. This is a good idea, although probably a little too complex for the wider audience (although most of them probably wouldn't even notice :P)