~Fix'n the Money Script~

[Danzifuge]

Can anyone direct me to the lines of script i should edit/delete in order to remove the awful weight of debt that the game starts the human player in. This weight is slowly eased over time, but seems to serve no purpose. If i do nothing to help this debt situation, it still just magically disappers after a year or so. What's the point in having this effect in the game anyway? It's like you start the game in anarchy. Conquering cities, just makes the whole process take longer as you get to rule more cities that are losing you -2000/turn initially. And then I have to garrison 3-4 units to keep the city happy while at the same time I'm unable to replace these units (because I'm already -8000 in debt the 2nd or 3rd turn) to take on the onslaught of the uber-rich ai. I hate the idea that I can't build anything for the first year or so, because I just have to wait out this idiotic debt process.

EDIT: after coming to find out there is no line of script for this... i pose a new question: Does anyone have any advice on what buildings/strategies are key to survival in this game?

[LorDBulA]

Can anyone direct me to the lines of script i should edit/delete in order to remove the awful weight of debt that the game starts the human player in.

There is no such thing.

Most factions starts with standing army that your economy cant sustain.
You have 2 choices. Disband most of your troops to much your army size to your economy or use your army to expand to boost up your economy.

Check out Financial scroll. It will tell you how much money you are earning and how much you are spending ( also on military ).

If your spendings are bigger then your earnings then your treasury will get smaller and smaller every turn. After you hit 0 mark your spending will be financed by dept.

This is just how economy works.

[d'Arthez]

There is no faction that starts in debt. You can end up in debt, as a result of not disbanding huge parts of your army. To give an example: Lusotannan have 1.5 stack combined, and only 1 city). It would be vanilla to expect that one city would make enough money to field those stacks. The alternative would be to start without the military in its entirity. I can't see how that is more exciting or even realistic.

Conquered cities don't lose you money. Don't rely on what the game displays to make that judgment. They may cost you more than the garrison (unlikely at the start of the game), but they bring taxes and trade.

Just don't sit on your stacks. Use them or disband them. Unless you are playing with the Seleukids, I can't even possibly see how you would need to use 3 or 4 units to garrison a conquered city.

Easiest way to "solve" your needs for money is simply use the add_money cheat.

[Danzifuge]

a couple of things.

i don't start out in debt, but it doesnt take but one or two turns and i will be. ive tried 3 different factions so far (epirus, macedon, getai) and they all start with -600 to -2000 income for cities. its not until i am in debt, that theses number starts to drop. so what? does the game help you out when you're in debt? and if i get back out of debt (because the game's helping me), i'm assuming the help will stop and i get a chance to build one or two economic buildings and bam i'm back in debt. sounds like fun. all the while, i havent had the money to rebuild my military, so even though i've won three consecutive battles, i get demolished by an enemy who obviously gets more money assistance than me because he still looks pretty healthy. am i getting this right?

so far, everyones been telling me the same thing: disband my army and build up economy or conquer. i'll be honest, i havent tried the first option yet. because the two factions i'm interested in playing, epirus and macedon, are at war with everybody around them. so this just isn't conceivable. how exactly conquest is supposed to help me, i don't understand either, when every city i conquer only nets me a whopping -2000. yippee.

sorry if i repeat myself. sorry if i sound bitchy. but i really was looking forward to this mod but i'm starting to think my only option is to mod a more financially suitable infrastructure so most of the factions don't start out headed for the shitter. and i know next to nothing about modding. too bad rome total realism still isnt updated to 1.5 yet.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Relax: take some advice when you get it.

Here's something: if you are not into naval warfare yet, you might consider disbanding every fleet you have (usually enough for 2k less expenses per turn) ? And cities don't lose you income: the rather retarded RTW way of displaying is that of 'relative' income. I.e.: a city has a size X and therefore is expected to pay one in X minai of all your expenses. So the big cities get to pay for nearly half your empire pretty quick. New cities can be enslaved/exterminated to get some cash flow quickly too...

And another thing: Epeiros starts with Elephants. Nice looking animals and all that, but not really good for your coffers. Avoid building up stuff if you don't want to abandon your army early on: you can only afford one way of expanding at a time. (Therefore making it nearly impossible to keep on steamrollering every single faction on the map as oppossed to Vanilla RTW...)

[mcantu]

danzifuge,

as a point of reference, i'm currently in a Getai campaign in EB 1.x and it took me about 30 years to get out of debt at the beginning. At one point I was -40000. I am currently 40 years in and am +43000...

[woad&fangs]

As has been said, you have two options.

1. disband army and turtle until you can afford an army.

2. take your starting armies and attack the nearest settlement or two then disband army down to garrison levels.

I always chose option number 1 when I started playing EB because I was a hardcore turtler. That got boring very quickly but then I chose to play with the epeirotes. They were obviously geared for 1 thing and 1 thing only. To march around Greece and Italy slaughtering everything in their path. I escaped debt pretty quickly by following three easy steps.

1. take your army from Taras and invade Arpi. Destroy everything in those two cities, disband your army in italy, and wait for the Romans to conquer them.

2. Disband your navy. It's expensive and rather useless now that you've abandoned the italian front.

3. Take Phyrros and his elephants to the nearest Makedonian city and attack it that same turn. The Makedonian royal tombs in Pella give you a lot of money if you want to destroy those. You can now disband your ellies or if your like me you can set them near the enemy and learn the hard way that most EB units have javelins.

That was my first "succesful" campaign with EB.

[Danzifuge]

@tellos
i really didnt want to enslave/exterminate my enemies (just the ones on the battlefield), but i guess i have to. i figured that option would reduce public order even more than usual and require me to station more troops and build up more public order buildings, reducing my income further.
@woad.
isn't that kind of a drastic strategy for epirus? i really thought i could hang on to the cities i have, instead of selling off all buildings and abandoning italy. if i do use this strategy, can i manage to maintain a campagin in macedon and build up my infrastructure at the same time? probably not, but just curious. this game's economic buildings cost a heck of a lot and do very little (in the beginning, at least). i'll try your strategy and let you know, as it is better than facing the romans early on. i was feeling pretty good having kicked the macedonians up and down the coast and then the romans totally kicked my ass in taras with their heavy infantry and heavy cavalry loaded armies.

[LorDBulA]

when every city i conquer only nets me a whopping -2000. yippee.

RTW has very strange way to calculate city income.
Its mathematicly valid but also totaly usless at the same time.

Best advice is to ignore it.
If you want to see how much city is earning for you, you have to go Settlements Details scroll.
A bit of pain in the ass. Fortunetly for M2TW CA droped this insane idea.

Press F key to check out kingdom financial scroll. This is where you can see how much all your cities are earning for you and how much and for what you are spending it.

i really didnt want to enslave/exterminate my enemies (just the ones on the battlefield), but i guess i have to. i figured that option would reduce public order even more than usual and require me to station more troops and build up more public order buildings, reducing my income further.

It will reduce your income from the city but not as bad as you could suspect ( in RTW city with twice the population doesnt earn you twice the money from taxes ) but it will increase order in city.
It will also bring quite a lot of cash. It is a valid strategy against big cities. Especially with this insane city growth rates that we cant remedy. City will bounce back pretty quick.

[Danzifuge]

@Lord

yeah i'm starting to notice some funny math in this game. recently i lost a siege to the romans. they had me outnumbered 3:2 and i had no real counter to their heavy infantry and heavy cavalry. anyway the final results of my loss were:

rome 999, kills 638, left 763
epirus 650, kills 426, left 7

999 - 426 = ?763?
650 - 638 = ?7?

think that one over.

another odd math statistic occured in an end of turn report. it said my profit was about +2000 when i clearly noticed i had lost about 4000.

@Woad

tried your strategy somewhat... i took pella and demetrias, defeated two of their armies, but macedon refused to sign peace. attacked their fleet, killed a few men and then they were more receptive. i almost didn't go to the peace table cuz i saw they had amassed a huge army in corinth (20 or so units) and i was kind of hoping to see my almost equal size army in demetrias duke it out with them, but undoubtedly it would have been truely a pyrrhic victory if i won. how they managed to recruit these kind of forces continues to bother me. i've played easy and medium campaigns and both times they pull it off.

meanwhile in italy, while i was just beginning to siege demetrias, i saw an opening in arpi (only one roman unit stationed there and i monitored a small army of theirs move just out of range). i siege arpi and that army moves back in record breaking time. i guess i miscalculated his move range. anyway i defeat the romans with a small force of my own and demolish every building i can in arpi. on second thought, i probably should have exterminated them as well. too late, i already abandoned arpi and moved back to taras. just as i get there, a sizeable roman army gets to taras in record breaking time again and begins the siege. my army in demetrias won't make it, so i destroy all buildings and wait for the inevitable. the above figures show the result.

with my peace treaty with macedon, i'm headed to rome (if i can make it) and destroying everything in my path. i don't care. i'm -20,000 in debt and i just want to massacre as many romans civilians as i can. i really hate those romans. i'd be more in debt and without a few reinforcements if it hadn't been for the macedonian royal tombs in pella. who knew a pile of dirt was worth so much? i guess they had a lot of jewelry.

[Atilius]

anyway the final results of my loss were:

rome 999, kills 638, left 763
epirus 650, kills 426, left 7

999 - 426 = ?763?
650 - 638 = ?7?

think that one over.

In the report, left = men at start - "kills" + men healed. Maybe the word "casualties" should have been used in place of "kills". It's a little more clear from the detailed statistics scroll.

[bovi]

Also, friendly fire kills aren't counted.

[Danzifuge]

In the report, left = men at start - "kills" + men healed. Maybe the word "casualties" should have been used in place of "kills". It's a little more clear from the detailed statistics scroll.

wow. about a 100 heals. thats impressive, i guess. are heals just like some random battle statistic they added? like how many men fell, but ended up walking (or being carried away) based on if you had or how close you were to a crushing victory. i imagine if you had a crushing victory you would have a higher rate of heals and inversely the enemy would have fewer, right?

[bovi]

The formula for recovery isn't widely researched, I think. It appears cheap troops have a higher probability of recovering, and bringing a doctor or similar has a profound effect. Also I believe the AI generals get a bonus.

[mcantu]

the 'hardy and 'very hardy' attributes play into it. Also, casualties from missile weapons seem to recover at a higher rate

[Danzifuge]

the 'hardy and 'very hardy' attributes play into it. Also, casualties from missile weapons seem to recover at a higher rate

yeah i guess removing an arrow is easier than removing a sword lodged in your chest

[d'Arthez]

But slings were immensely powerful. You may well survive the hit with a sling that takes you down, but that does not mean necessarily mean you would be able to fight another day.

[Danzifuge]

i finally figure out how to play this mod. and now the only problem is its a total bore. i get to use my starting army to conquer two or three cities and then i have to scuttle it and sit around waiting to get out of debt so i can build up a decent infrastructure to support another army. meanwhile if anybody should attack me i'm totally screwed. i don't understand why armies are so expensive in this game that you can't maintain a standing army just to defend yourself. either that or the infrastructure is much too lacking. oh well. i guess i'm left hitting the end turn button another 30 times.

does anyone know why i cant sell a map to save my gramma? i heard that was supposed to be an easy way to get quick cash.

[bovi]

Perhaps you should start with disbanding some of your most expensive troops, before taking the settlements. You'll be a lot less in debt then, and can get quicker into the black again.

[Disciple of Tacitus]

If you were going to use the ol' "sell 'em my maps" scam, go ahead and use the "add_money" cheat. It would solve your problem.
I sense that your greater dissatisfaction is with your starting financial position then anything else. Everybody plays this game to have fun. Go ahead and use the cheat, you will find that as you play the game more, it will draw you in with it's complexities. The EB mod is as realistic as can be done - although the EB team is always striving for the next level.
By your second or third campaign, you will chuckle at the thought of the "add_money" cheat. But for now, use it and have fun - but remember the golden mean - nothing in excess, my friend.

[Danzifuge]

i thought maybe i could deal with this economic situation. waiting out the debt and starting to build up the economy. i'm left with tiny garrisons in my cities. my generals are all becoming raging alcoholics.

and then it happens... my economy plummets. suddenly i'm back in the negative again!!! why??? the only thing i'd recently did was build allied free regions in the towns i conquered. i'm talking a -600 plummet that continues to plummet an extra 100 per turn. i destroy the allied free regions. no change. wtf??? i'm really gettin sick of this game and i don't want to cheat to be able to play it and have fun

[Strategos Alexandros]

The client rulers' bodyguards have an upkeep cost and cannot be got rid of until they die.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Apart from the fact that the Client Rulers themselves get a wage too...

So you're easily -1k /turn by using a client ruler. If your client ruler is good, though; he can easily make you more than 1k a turn as well, so you need to think of it as a (very) long term investment.

[d'Arthez]

"I promise to conquer the world for you. Of course I demand you do it for two pieces of bread and a mug of water."

Sounds like a realistic deal. Or go ahead and install a practical god mode by giving your unique factional units uber statistics. That way you don't even have to spend money on recruitment or upkeep.

Do whatever you like, but if you want a bit of realism you just need to accept that people did not fight for two pieces of bread and a mug of water.

By the sounds of it EB is simply not the mod for you. Can happen, but then you are perhaps better of with a different mod.

[Danzifuge]

Apart from the fact that the Client Rulers themselves get a wage too...

So you're easily -1k /turn by using a client ruler. If your client ruler is good, though; he can easily make you more than 1k a turn as well, so you need to think of it as a (very) long term investment.

are client rulers automatic once you install any type of government in a non-homeland province? or do they just apply to the allied free region? i wish there was a true EB manual so i knew what the hell i was gettin into, instead of reading off two or three sentences about a building and then having to guess if its worth it.

also, these were small towns i installed the government in (1000). perhaps do you think i should wait a bit? i appreciate any help you can give me.

[Danzifuge]

go ahead and install a practical god mode by giving your unique factional units uber statistics. That way you don't even have to spend money on recruitment or upkeep.

that wouldnt even be fun.

By the sounds of it EB is simply not the mod for you. Can happen, but then you are perhaps better of with a different mod.

i love everything about EB besides the steep economical curve you're up against. thats why i'm on posting. to get some advice on how to play better and how to understand the mechanics of the game better. although it may just sound like i'm bitching, its more than that. i swears

[d'Arthez]

are client rulers automatic once you install any type of government in a non-homeland province? or do they just apply to the allied free region?

No, it is only for Govt type 4 (allied region). If you build gov type 2 or 3 you will not get a client ruler.

i wish there was a true EB manual so i knew what the hell i was gettin into, instead of reading off two or three sentences about a building and then having to guess if its worth it.

The problem is that EB is so complex a complete manual on game-play matters and issues would cover hundreds if not thousands of pages.

also, these were small towns i installed the government in (1000). perhaps do you think i should wait a bit? i appreciate any help you can give me.

Things to consider:
a) the town has a large population, preferably with a lot of trade enhancing buildings. That way the CR can pay for himself (trade, admin etc). However govt4 restricts you from building the larger market places amongst others. Cities like Rome, Alexandreia and Seleukeia are often so teched up that govt 4 could be profitable there, if it is not a Homeland province.
b) a military need. Is the town strategically located? Could you use it as a rallying point so you could amass a lot of troops there, to defend your position and then expand from there?
c) role playing

Are the locals a spectacular addition to your recruitment roster? Use the recruitment viewer to find out about this.

If you are playing a small faction you should not build govt4's at all as they cost you a lot of money. By the time you control 20-30 provinces you could have a few, but that depends on city infrastructure as well.

In principle the basic rule of thumb is, that if there is no pressing military need, stick to the highest government you can build.

[Tellos Athenaios]

i love everything about EB besides the steep economical curve you're up against. thats why i'm on posting. to get some advice on how to play better and how to understand the mechanics of the game better. although it may just sound like i'm bitching, its more than that. i swears

The Steep Economical Curve is only something that appears to really be *there* for:
a) New players playing other factions than 2 or 3 very rich by default (Rome, Carthage, Ptolemaioi) ones.
b) Nomads.

All the other factions are more or less economically and/or militarily weak at the beginning but a somewhat 'seasoned' player gets them on the right track within a matter of seasons. (Usually within a few years; but especially the Nomads or Casse can prove a though (early) game.)

So if it is just that part of the game which is a bit too much to cope with for now, my advise would be to pick Romani, Qartadastim, or Ptolemaioi as your game of choice:
-A relatively isolated position with a powerful realm -- something truly rare in the EB world.
-Begining with a rock-stable economy especially if you raise taxes where you can.
-Beginning with a large recruitment base - and enough people to throw into battle; especially if you take care to plan your campaigns beforehand and don't rely on the local people to defend their own city of years after years. Take care not to overtax the population in such cities either.
-A powerful roster; and good access to local auxillia.
-No enemies you need to be overly worried about. Nothing you can't handle at the start.

[Danzifuge]

No, it is only for Govt type 4 (allied region). If you build gov type 2 or 3 you will not get a client ruler.


The problem is that EB is so complex a complete manual on game-play matters and issues would cover hundreds if not thousands of pages.


Things to consider:
a) the town has a large population, preferably with a lot of trade enhancing buildings. That way the CR can pay for himself (trade, admin etc). However govt4 restricts you from building the larger market places amongst others. Cities like Rome, Alexandreia and Seleukeia are often so teched up that govt 4 could be profitable there, if it is not a Homeland province.
b) a military need. Is the town strategically located? Could you use it as a rallying point so you could amass a lot of troops there, to defend your position and then expand from there?
c) role playing

Are the locals a spectacular addition to your recruitment roster? Use the recruitment viewer to find out about this.

If you are playing a small faction you should not build govt4's at all as they cost you a lot of money. By the time you control 20-30 provinces you could have a few, but that depends on city infrastructure as well.

In principle the basic rule of thumb is, that if there is no pressing military need, stick to the highest government you can build.

so lvl 1 is higher than a lvl 4 government? i wish the govt lvl was mentioned in the description so i knew the difference. this again is why a comprehensive manual is needed, even if its abridged. the thing that threw me off the most was the two choices of govt i had at the time (playing as the getai, i know not a beginners choice) was the allied region and another one that seemed to favor military. the allied region suggested an increase in trade so i figured it was the better option. then my economy hit the shitter the following turn. why is it though, when i destroyed that govt, that nothing changed? and what do you mean by roleplaying?

[Danzifuge]

The Steep Economical Curve is only something that appears to really be *there* for:
a) New players playing other factions than 2 or 3 very rich by default (Rome, Carthage, Ptolemaioi) ones.
b) Nomads.

All the other factions are more or less economically and/or militarily weak at the beginning but a somewhat 'seasoned' player gets them on the right track within a matter of seasons. (Usually within a few years; but especially the Nomads or Casse can prove a though (early) game.)

So if it is just that part of the game which is a bit too much to cope with for now, my advise would be to pick Romani, Qartadastim, or Ptolemaioi as your game of choice:
-A relatively isolated position with a powerful realm -- something truly rare in the EB world.
-Begining with a rock-stable economy especially if you raise taxes where you can.
-Beginning with a large recruitment base - and enough people to throw into battle; especially if you take care to plan your campaigns beforehand and don't rely on the local people to defend their own city of years after years. Take care not to overtax the population in such cities either.
-A powerful roster; and good access to local auxillia.
-No enemies you need to be overly worried about. Nothing you can't handle at the start.

i actually preferred to play a small faction. as it seems like less micromanagement with fewer cities to deal with and a smaller area to defend. but i guess i'll give carthage a try. god knows i could cross the alps and whip the romans up and down italy if i could just get ahold of my economy. custom battles are gettin much to easy, so i really need a empire building diversion. its actually gettin so boring, i hand pick enemy units that are best suited to counter my army for any kind of a challenge, whatsoever. i've graduated from medium to hard, but i really don't like the idea that the ai needs bonuses to compensate for its lack of adaptability and general stupidity on the battlefield.

just the other day, i faced the greeks and romans as carthage. with the odds even, 2500 men in each army (romans and greeks approximately 1250 a piece), i drove them from the battlefield inflicting 2400 kills versus there 600 combined kills. this with my forces split in two. i ended up using a sort of split reverse crescent with the enemy to my left and right and three infantry up ahead in the middle that were able to swing in either direction and hit their flanks. meanwhile i distracted their cavalry into a separate skirmishes far off on either side. it was a bit costly to my cavalry (and theirs) but it insured my rear was safe and led to absolute domination. when they tried to rout (back the way they came) i just swung my line around further to envelope them more but not enough to completely encircle them. they ran off a bit back to my line, but i guess they can't retreat this way so they headed right back into the snake pit. around this time, my cavalry had finished up and were on their way back to head em off. both enemy generals were killed.

this forum really needs a place for people to post their battle replays. i've had some awesome ones i'd love to post.