M2 Test Imperial Orders Thread

**econ21** · 11-29-2006, 02:00

I don't think there's a problem.

On income, you do take the difference in the two corruption numbers, as the first number is extra income from "administration" (governors benefiting their settlements), not waste from corruption.

On the upkeep, I think you have assumed the Emperor and Prince have bodyguards cost 250 florins each, when in fact they cost 388 and 338. The difference is the 226 you are short of.

But I sympathesise - if it is this messy with only 6 settlements and no orders, imagine what it will be like after 6 months.

Calculating how long it took us to play WoS today, I did wonder whether we should be streamlining the WoS model rather than making it yet more complex. However, I would persevere with this because the whole point of a trial is to see if it is workable. And I really don't see any easy half-way house between decentralisation at this level and giving all the money to the reigning player to allocate.

BTW: do you want your character to take Nuremburg as his Duchy? If not, I suggest we treat it as belonging to a Count with an Imperial patron, rather than an Imperial city per se.

**Lucjan** · 11-29-2006, 02:33

I'll request the next chancellor bestow a settlement on me after I'm done. Wouldn't want to abuse my station.

Anyway.. good point on the emperor and prince bodyguards, hadn't taken that into account, but the income thing still gives me a headache. I understand the formula, it just seems backwards.

Total Income + Corruption Income - the Difference between Corruption Income and Corruption Loss. Bit of a goofy formula don't you think?

**econ21** · 11-29-2006, 02:51

Originally Posted by Lucjan

Total Income + Corruption Income - the Difference between Corruption Income and Corruption Loss. Bit of a goofy formula don't you think?

Um, I should go to sleep now so I don't have time to load up M2TW and start digging. But the formula looks fine to me. If you are saying:

Total income + corruption income - corruption income + corruption loss

then it reduces to:

Total icome - corruption loss

which is very intuitive. Contrary to FLYdude, I think settlement income does not include corruption loss (ie corruption). But it does include corruption income (ie administration).

Or maybe I am not understanding the two of you or M2TW accounts. In which case, I apologise - please put it down to sleep deprivation.

PS: FLYdude: any interest in becoming Duke Maximillian of Nuremburg for our trial?

**flyd** · 11-29-2006, 03:08

I'm pretty sure settlement income includes corruption loss. If you look at the settlement details, under income, say for Bologna, you see:

Income:
Admin = 47
Trade = 133
Taxes = 617
Farms = 442

and in the "negative row" you'll see corruption = 83.

The settlement income is reported as being +1156.

You'll find that 47 + 133 + 617 + 442 - 83 = 1156 exactly.

Furthermore. I went and added the incomes of all the settlements while keeping them separated by category. The numbers matched exactly with the financial overview numbers, i.e. adding all the income from farms yielded 1877, as on the financial overview. Corruption and other income (192) is gotten by adding all the "admin" incomes, and corruption loss is gotten by adding all the negative corruptions in the settlements.

**flyd** · 11-29-2006, 03:39

I tried adding the upkeeps together and got a value consistent with the financial overview. The even (and divisible by 3) least significant digit in the total upkeep comes from the bodyguard upkeep for the king and the prince, which is 333, not 250.

I hope this doesn't volunteer me to be the empire's accountant.

**Strappy Horse** · 11-29-2006, 09:19

I have to agree with Flydude here, looking at Bologna, I've found the same. The numbers do add up nicely. Admin is included in the total income, and corruption is substracted from that. Result is the net income that is shown under the city name, and as net income in the city overview.

About the King's Purse, after a quick survey through my save games, I think it has to do with the number of (grand)sons of the royal family.
In 5 save games in follows the pattern of 500 florins per son (own or married) of the king and the heir.

Some examples:
-In our case we have a king and 2 sons, = 3*500 = 1.500
-In my Milanese save Duke Catelano does not have sons, but his brother and heir has 2 sons. 4 male characters in the ruling family account for a King's purse of 2.000 florins, which indeed it is.
-In my French save, King Louis has 1 son and heir, one grandson, the king himself, for a King's purse of 1.500

**Lucjan** · 11-29-2006, 13:59

Ok, I think everybody's got the idea of what happened now.

I was doing this.

3158+4505+192-58=7797
I.E. Ducal Total Income + Imperial Income & Purse + Positive Corruption - (Positive corruption - Negative Corruption)

FlyDude has much simplified this procedure by noting that I overlooked the fact that negative corruption is already deducted from the accounts. So For Bologna, which reads as 1156 income on the screen, should actually read as 1239. and Vienna which reads as 1274, should read as 1325. Making the proper formula...

3158 (Total Ducal Income as Displayed) + 134 (Negative Corruption as shown in the Financial Overview) + 4505 (Imperial Income and Purse) = 7797 (the correct number)

And as for the upkeep, thanks to both econ, flydude and strappy horse for pointing out that I'm a silly fool and neglected to notice the obvious difference in retinue sizes for regular generals as opposed to the prince and emperor, therefore the difference in prince and emperor's upkeep. Off to work on the turn now that everything pans out correctly.