Medieval Total War Economy

[tellapan]

Hi

It seems bizzare to me that there are no penalties for running out of florins in mid campaign. The game allows you to build huge armies etc which remain totally content even if you've not paid them for over fifty years.....surely most states that could not pay their armed forces would suffer some sort of mutiny at least. Am I then correct in adopting the boom and bust policy where I spend huge sums on building an army, accepting that this will wipe me out financially, then start to recover as my army suffers inevitable casualties?
Any thoughts

[highlanddave]

paying troops and feeding them was a good object in the game lords of the realm2. when you ran out of either the army withered and died.

in this game like you said there is no penalty for running out of money. generally, early in the game i have one conquest army and the rest of the territories are garrison troops. it ratchets up the general in charge of the one army and keeps costs down. the only downfall of this strategy is the loss or near loss of the one army. so one of the other things i do is place an inn near the front lines for a quicky army to repell an unexpected invasion. i quickly build up the main army again and disband the mercenaries as they are quite expensive.

on internal building program for the provinces i have one to recruit for the army and the rest i build up the farming and mining. with one of them having the inn as described above. the only other infrastructure i build early on is a simple tower for province loyalty and the simple fort to hold on until the main army can resue them in case of an unexpected attack.

the campaigns which i have played and ran out of money usually ended in disaster, but i learned from those early mistakes and now never run out of money.

[Martok]

Welcome to the Org, tellapan.

In MTW, you can be in debt up to a certain amount, but there is a limit. I'm not sure of the exact amount, but I want to say it's around 20,000 florins. I agree we shouldn't be able to go that far into debt, but it's a pretty minor complaint for me. I rarely go bankrupt anymore, but it also somewhat depends on which faction you play as.

[Samurai Waki]

Actually economic wise, it does make some sense, and is perhaps more true to modern economics than medieval ones. Obviously a country that is running up a massive deficit cannot expand, and the King is taking out advanced loans from his people in order to fund his war machine. Now after awhile, his Lords would most likely rebel, but in some games it is necessary to run into a temporary deficit, in order to expand your borders. I like to play the game, Like I'm the King, so if I build a grand armee` and take a province, most of the time I build my Army around several core troops, usually Knights or in my Pike & Musket Game, around Pikemen, the rest I use mercenaries, and I generally don't feel to bad about mercenaries and view them as being expendable because they cost so much. After a province is taken, I Disband most of my Mercs in favour of Cheaper Town Militia.

[econ21]

Yes, it's odd from a historical point of view. From a gameplay point of view, most factions probably should not front load like you suggest. At least in the early period, there's a lot building you need to do to tech up your armies and the more advanced units can be worth the wait.

Plus, you can get into vicious and virtuous circles. Keeping a surplus allows you to invest in very profitable things. Indeed one of those investments is so good it is almost a game breaker. (Don't read the spoiler unless you want MTW to lose most of its challenge.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pan-European sea trade network - one ship in every sea and lots of ports - typically gives you so much money, you can't be beat. Sadly, the AI does not know this or that it should stop you attaining it. WesW's medmod corrected this whacking great design flaw, IIRC.

[Martok]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pan-European sea trade network - one ship in every sea and lots of ports - typically gives you so much money, you can't be beat. Sadly, the AI does not know this or that it should stop you attaining it. WesW's medmod corrected this whacking great design flaw, IIRC.

VikingHorde's XL Mod corrects this somewhat as well, although perhaps not to the extent MedMod does. I still recommend it to anyone playing Medieval, however.

[tellapan]

Thanks everyone for your input. As for maximum deficeit, I recently completed a game (I was offered victory having conquered 60% of the map) wih my ecconomy being 850k in the red and falling. The main reason for this was that I had several very large armies that had been built on the income formed from having fleets in every sea sector and all my waterfront territories having max trading posts. My ecconomy rapidly flew up to 600k florins but then nose dived when my sea lanes were disrupted however in the meantime I had developed my large armies.
This leads on to another interesting point. If my sealanes are being blockaded by enemy ships with the inevitable result to my ecconomy, why is the same not true for the AI. It seems to have no problem raising new field armies inspite of the fact their income must have crashed inline with mine.

Over to the experts

[highlanddave]

one other point on improving your economy is that it is fairly important to assign province titles on deserving subjects. pick ones that have good acumen.

i always pick ones with at least 3 acumen if not 4. sometimes you have to wait awhile, while you build units to find appropriate governors. be patient, they will come eventually. i tend also, everything else being equal to pick piety rating over dread, but this is a personal choice. i am sure dreaded lords also make good governors. i do not like my governors to be burned by the inquistion. i guess that is why i choose piety over dread. there are a few provinces as well that give battle stars to a general. those are the ones that i am more forgiving on acumen and sometimes give them to 3 acumen generals to raise them up to be battle lords.

once you build up your palace you will gain chancelor title. i pick out my best province as far as money produced and give that title to the lord of that province. in that way you can prop up a 4 acumen lord to maybe 7. in the same way, eventually when you build a cathedral you will get a title like archbishop of canterbury. it comes with good acumen additions. i find those titles a little bizarre, as in real life i doubt the king would give such a title to a earl or duke. you can assign the title even to married generals!

i usually leave non-battle lord governors in backwater provinces as they occasionally get killed if you assign their unit to combat. you will end up kicking yourself if you lose a 5 or 6 acumen lord if he accientally gets killed.

[Martok]

i usually leave non-battle lord governors in backwater provinces as they occasionally get killed if you assign their unit to combat. you will end up kicking yourself if you lose a 5 or 6 acumen lord if he accientally gets killed.

This strategem often backfires, however, as governors that do nothing but sit on their behinds tend to develop unfavorable traits (Lazy, Hedonist, Corrupt, etc.). This is especially true for when you have a lot of provinces under your control. Once your empire reaches a certain size, the number of corrupt governors tends to skyrocket.

To counter this effect, I've discovered one of the best solutions is simply keep your governors moving. You don't even necessarily have to send them into combat; just rotate them through your provinces every couple years or so. You don't have to reassign titles or anything, just take the Governor's personal unit and move it to another province. It's not foolproof, but it does seem to cut down on the number of bad governors.

[tellapan]

If I move my governors around on a regular basis, does this not have a negative impact on their building attributes?

[Fulliautomatix]

If I move my governors around on a regular basis, does this not have a negative impact on their building attributes?

By "negative impact on their building attributes", are you asking whether they will develop vices related to building? I don't recall any vices for building in MTX. However, fortunately your general can be anywhere while working towards earning the building virtue however. Even if your governor of Sweden is vactioning in Egypt for example, for so long as you continue to build in Sweden, your general will eventually get the Builder/Great Builder virtue.

[Martok]

By "negative impact on their building attributes", are you asking whether they will develop vices related to building? I don't recall any vices for building in MTX. However, fortunately your general can be anywhere while working towards earning the building virtue however. Even if your governor of Sweden is vactioning in Egypt for example, for so long as you continue to build in Sweden, your general will eventually get the Builder/Great Builder virtue.

Correct. A governor's current location has no impact on the Builder/Steward traits they receive.

[tellapan]

In the game I'm currently playing, I'm the Spanish and the year is 1230. My main opponent are the Holy Roman Empire who currently occupy the bulk of Europe, have the luxury of having the largest army and the largest income. My army although not as powerful as the HRE is pretty impressive, my economy (41,000 Florins) supported by significant trade income is struggling to support my army and is starting to go into decline where I lose approx 1000 florins per year. My only way forward would be to attack the HRE to take some provinces off them to support my economy however if I do this my economy will nose dive as between us we hold Europe and North Africa is held by minor factions so consequently the HRE forms my only major trading partner. This situation would not improve with conquests as trade within your empire yields little income compared to neutrals or allies of which there are very few. To win the game I must destroy the HRE. I cannot sit and wait for their assault as my economy is slowly eroding due to the cost of maintaining large armies, however when I do assault it'll result in an immediate economic crash which will plunge me into the red and prevent me from recruiting new troops. The time scale necessary to take such a land mass would be considerable which would mean that a return to a profitable economy before the end of the game is unlikely. Also the HRE occupy such a large land mass I will of course have to leave garrisons in the lands I take from them which will weaken further my field armies even more. So in short the problem is

Economy about to go into terminal melt down
Limited field armies
Large opponent with huge land mass and massive armies

I welcome any thoughtful insights

[Martok]

Without knowing more specifics of your situation (what lands do you possess? which factions are still in the game? etc.), my advice would be the following:

If you're paying massive upkeep on big armies, then use them! Don't let your men just sit around--make them earn their pay. And if you don't want to wreck your trade income with the HRE, then go conquer the other factions that are still alive. Just because the Germans own the bulk of Europe, it hardly makes them invincible. Besides, if you own the Iberian peninsula, the Spanish are in a good position to do just about anything they feel like doing.

Seriously, though: If your armies are that much of a drain on your economy, then you should either be doing something with them (like conqering more land) or you should disband some of your units. I'm not suggesting you abandon your defenses or anything, but you very likely don't need as many men to protect your borders as you think you do. Have faith in yourself, tellapan!

[Matador]

Economy about to go into terminal melt down
Limited field armies
Large opponent with huge land mass and massive armies

I welcome any thoughtful insights

I agree with Martok, use your armies. However I would like to add a tip (which you may already be doing). In your provinces that are not bordering another country only garrision enough troops to keep the province loyalty up. That way the mojority of the troops you have are for invasion forces, which earn their wages. Good luck.

[Marcus Caelius]

For me, my greatest ever victory in MTW (Hard, England, GA) was completed with me 1,000,000 florins in debt! Classic way, really, I'd failed to adequately protect the sea-lanes and overbuilt my armies. A catastrophic naval war left me massively in debt with my huge army stuck in Jerusalem and no way to rebuild a new fleet. I was a long way from winning at that point, and several factions were ahead of me points wise. With never building a single new unit, I had to eliminate with my one huge army every other contending faction and give their provinces to the mongol horde. For the final turn (yes it was 1451 or whatever) I had to bring my remaining ship to the eastern med to convoy my remaining few soldiers to Cyprus to eliminate the Polish King and Sons in a final battle.

[satchef1]

I welcome any thoughtful insights

If the HRE dont own Asia-Minor then go for that. It will give your economy a nice boost and give you a second direction to attack the HRE and North Africa. Its also easy to defend, Constantinople and Khazar are the only land routes in and a few ships will defend against sea attacks.
If all the nations in asia minor have large amounts of ships defending against sea attacks then build LOADS of assasins and send them at the weakest nation (the one with the least heirs). Killing the royal family will hopefully make the provences go rebel, giving you a gate in to Asia-Minor

[sbroadbent]

If all the nations in asia minor have large amounts of ships defending against sea attacks then build LOADS of assasins and send them at the weakest nation (the one with the least heirs). Killing the royal family will hopefully make the provences go rebel, giving you a gate in to Asia-Minor

Another option to the assassins idea is if you have some reaosnably high level spies, you can send them to a couple of provinces causing the loyalty to drop. If they can't reinforce the province with enough troops once they have tried lowering taxes, it may go rebel. Both methods may fail if you have to deal with border forts, but the assassins have an additional problem in the sense that you'll lose lots of them, unless you have some really high valor assassins.

If you can sneak a few into the HRE's weak provinces, it might be just enough to cause some rebellions. At the very least, the HRE will have to lower taxes, meaning you're cutting into their income, as well as pulling troops away from the front lines. In addition, if the spies stick around long enough, they can let you know if the HRE plans to attack (and where).

For lots of good information on agents, check out the Medieval: Total Subterfuge guide in my sig (or the thread in the Entrance Hall).

[tellapan]

I know this is a slight deviation from my original question but can anyone tell me what the significance of being asked what we want to do with the captives from rebel territories, release them, execute ring leaders or release them....does it have any impact on your general?

[Ludens]

I know this is a slight deviation from my original question but can anyone tell me what the significance of being asked what we want to do with the captives from rebel territories, release them, execute ring leaders or release them....does it have any impact on your general?

Yes, it gives them different V&V's. Releasing them all will give your general the "mercifull" line of virtues, which decrease dread but increase hapiness. Executing/enslaving them all will lead to the "harsh justice" line of virtues, increasing dread but decreasing hapiness. Executing ring leaders won't do anything. IIRC this only worked when the neutrals had actually rebelled agaisnt you, though.

[ShadesWolf]

Define 'in debt.'

During the hundred years war, Edward III

Even the royal jewelswere pawned for ready money, the assets of foreign merchants were seized, and everyone maintaining any sign of wealth was invited to loan the king money. With further loans being raised from Italian bankers. These Italian bankers & traders were already established in London, with offices in what is still called lombard street

- P76 'The hundred years war' by Robin Neillands.

In 1337 England annual income was estimated to be £80,000.
By Feb 1340, England had debts of £300,000.

So even in 'real life' countrys could become in debt during periods of long wars. I seem to recall reading somewhere, in another book, that a lot of Italian bankers went bump , due to lending edward this money as he could never pay them back.

[Brother Mark]

It is quite silly just how in debt you can become - especially when you consider the relative costings of things. I doubt any King could afford to spend a decade in control of his Kingdom owing (whoever his backers are) the cost of 80 new cathedrals or enough to sustain 50,000 professional soldiers (and presumably their dependants).

They should've coped with this by greatly increasing the likelyhood of a civil war in this eventuality, since some tremendous royal debt would have had a terrible impact on the lesser nobility of a nation.

[caravel]

Correct. A governor's current location has no impact on the Builder/Steward traits they receive.

On a similar note, I've noticed that my governors gain v&vs after a battle where they were not the general. I've had a 4 star general go into battle with a 0 star governor under him. That governor gained scant mercy for executing prisoners, not the general. Have you noticed this as well or am I getting confused?

[Martok]

On a similar note, I've noticed that my governors gain v&vs after a battle where they were not the general. I've had a 4 star general go into battle with a 0 star governor under him. That governor gained scant mercy for executing prisoners, not the general. Have you noticed this as well or am I getting confused?

If your general and governor attacked from two different provinces, that could explain it (the phenomenon has been reported before). Otherwise, however, there's no way your governor should be getting the trait instead of your 4-star general. It's either gotta be a fluke/bug, or you're seeing things--for your sake, I rather hope it's the former.