Lets keep the economists out of this!

**cannon_fodder** · 02-15-2006, 01:46

I completely agree with Dragoncrusader. Complex systems for economy, diplomacy, etc. are all well and good, but it IS possible for them to be complex to the point of being hindering and detrimental. And when it comes down to it, the Total War games are about kickin' ass. They should be kept that way.

**Sethik** · 02-15-2006, 02:24

But when has empire management really been a problem? I know that eventually after your empire has pretty large (15-20+ cities/provinces) it gets a little tedious to handle, but there always was ai to take care of everything. Hell if you want, you can actually play the game by setting all management to ai and doing auto-resolve for every battle.

Why are you bitching about something that's probably not even going to be implemented?

**Divinus Arma** · 02-15-2006, 02:44

I disagree. I enjoy this part. I think that economy is a critical component of the game. RTW was made far better and far harder by Europa Barbarorum's economic system.

How about a compromise: A very deep and engaging economic system with the option to nerf it with a decent automanage system.

After all, look at how popular and engaging other strategy games with deep economic systems are; the Civilization series being a perfect example.

**screwtype** · 02-16-2006, 16:49

Edit......

**Seasoned Alcoholic** · 02-16-2006, 17:38

The economic apsect IMO keeps the game refreshing. Too many repetitive and pointless battles results in eventual boredom and / or burnout. This is why you may find yourself playing another game 2 / 3 months (or even less) down the line...

If you want to get the most out of the game, even if you don't have the faintest clue (or even care) about economics, you will at some stage have to learn how to use it to your advantage.

Leaving the economy in the hands of the AI is suicide IMO. The AI doesn't know (or care) what you want it to do, it simply follows pre-designed guidelines created by the developers (CA). If it starts building random buildings and wasting your money on unimportant areas, then this should set the alarm bells ringing for you. If you look at it from a different perspective, the AI-controlled economy forces you to take a hands-on approach of your own economy.

The AI-controlled economical aspect is designed for people who don't have any interest in this area. So, they won't be worrying if their settlements aren't generating any income, or if a rebellion is just around the corner, because they are so enveloped with the continual battle element. If you are concerned that the AI is managing your settlements inefficiently, you may have to consider sitting down and reading the manual to discover how to get the best out of your economy to fund your conquests.

**HighLord z0b** · 02-17-2006, 00:20

It's a bit tricky to find the middle ground between AI economy and micromanagement. If the AI is too good then there would be no reason to do it yourself which some people would like but not all.
IMO it's better to have the AI be able to handle the economy but a player should always be able to do it better and get more out of it. That way those who don't want to manage the economuy aren't forced to but those who do will reap the rewards.

**TB666** · 02-17-2006, 00:27

Well I would love a better economy system in MTW2.
RTW had a good system and was made even better in EB.
And if CA would improve on that then that part will be satisfied for me

**HighLord z0b** · 02-15-2006, 02:47

Unfortunately even the great generals of history had to worry about economics. The Art of War mentions several times that a quick decisive battle is better but only becuase it costs so much to maintain an army.
I do agree that an improved AI for automanaging as well as for AI factions would be good though. I often stop conquering at about 80% of the map as it's just too hard to keep the rest together otherwise.

**Dragoncrusader** · 02-15-2006, 09:00

You are quite right of course. But I am taking the Richard I of England approach by wanting to go off on crusade while leaving someone else to run my kingdom. As someone else mentioned, towards the end of the game running a big empire becomes very time consuming.

Lets be clear here. I am NOT advocating dispensing with the economic system (even I like to run the kingdom from time to time). What I am asking for is an improved AI for running the economy. How often have you left the economy on automanage and then suddenly noticed that one of your cities with a govenor has suddenly turned blue (the city not the govenor). You have to monitor the cities and switch them from cultural/financial to growth and back again to keep the population happy an to get the best tax return. Also spend your money on the army every month and nothing civilian ever seems to get built.

Also have you noticed that on automanage there is a big difference between the balanced/military/financial/cultural settings and growth setting and not between themselves? Switch between them and you can see that one is set to high taxes and the other to low taxes. If you do it yourself and set it to normal taxes then the city is happy but leave it to the automanage and it is either revolting or you get no income. I can understand military/financial/cultural being high taxes and the growth in low taxes but surely the balanced setting should result in normal taxes.

How many guides on the Org do you read that say "turn off the economy automanagement to get the best tax return"

The other thing that I would like changed is that if you set everything to atuomange and put the type as balanced policy, your cities will happily get on with building a whole range of military buildings that you do not want and will never use. I would prefer it if I could leave the civilian building to one side and control the military building myself. After all you have that option with recruitment. All that happens is that I end up with every city in the kingdom with the full range of military buildings and never recruit from them as the recruitment check box is clear. Historically military institutions were always government controlled whereas most civilian institutions just grew up naturally.

Do not get me wrong, CA have done a great job on the economic side and it is great fun to play it but some days I just want to conquor the world in a afternoon.

**hrvojej** · 02-15-2006, 23:51

Originally Posted by Dragoncrusader

How often have you left the economy on automanage and then suddenly noticed that one of your cities with a govenor has suddenly turned blue (the city not the govenor).

This is actually a good thing in most situations, btw...

**Samurai Waki** · 02-16-2006, 02:20

bugger the economic ai. I want to control every little aspect of my kingdom to pet my micromanaging fetish.

**Aetius the Last Roman** · 02-16-2006, 08:54

One of the reasons Rome (albiet one of very few reasons) has the upper hand on medieval is the economy is harder to manage. It adds depth to the game and stops you from just going all 'Total War' on the game. Adding depth to the game may seems detrimental to those that just like to kill stuff but it does make the game better, more complex and easier to appreciate after five hours of gameplay. However that said, if people wish to just go around war-mongering I think CA should include better AI economic management.

**Trithemius** · 02-16-2006, 10:32

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

bugger the economic ai. I want to control every little aspect of my kingdom to pet my micromanaging fetish.

YES!

While I understand the desire to keep things streamlined, and AI-moderated, I REALLY like having an option to "take the hood off" and look at how things are working (and tinker with them...).

Megalomaniacs unite!