I didn't pay good money for this game so I would then have to imagine parts of it!!!!
Let's make a push for gold being the most important trade good in EU3
- Thread starter Chronicler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I didn't pay good money for this game so I would then have to imagine parts of it!!!!
Could be an event with a MTTH, that would make sense imo and add another element of realism.
I wouldn't be surprised if that idea/theory would be dropped anytime soon. With average annual inflation of 1 or 2%, the inflation-wave was hardly a wave at all. Destructive, yes. Because of price-systems that couldn't adjust as easily. But just 'making things more expensive'? That's a bit hard for me too believe. It's not like gold was suddenly in abundance by 1600 in Spain or so. (If you were to measure the impact of the vast debts of the Spanish throne, now that would have been something. Or economic decline due to the fall of main economic sectors. But just a few tons of gold?)
Game-wise gold should indeed be valuable. Not by the late-game of course, but definitly early- and mid-game. Do we actually know of major conquests/wars/... fought just for control over goldmines?
You also have to imagine how it makes sense for Muscowy to become HRE, but in all serioussness: There are many things which had to be abstracted for the game to have any semblance of performance, for example during a War you also have to imagine how your troops are being suplied etc.
It was not just the inflation that killed the Spanish economy. They also focused so heavily on the extraction of gold from the New World that their domestic economy suffered. While countries like England and France invested in what qualified as industry, for that time period, Spain continued to invest in its gold extraction. So, when the dust settled, although the French and English economies were certainly in a downturn, they at least had something to work with, whereas Spain did not.
I also think it strange that gold is very valuable in 1399 but almost worthless in 1821. It does not scale over time. Did the Europeans avoid conquering provinces with gold during their colonial wars? Because I do in the game 
And that accentuates the utter uselessness of gold. You can't do any of those thing with it. It even, ironically, makes for crappy coinage.
You can't really make gold worth more, its worth itself. I don't think we have fiat money in EU3. What you're really saying is that you wish your gold mines had a higher annual output, and I'm sure everyone and every government that has ever owned a gold mine probably wished for the same thing. I think the problem is that a province can only have a single industry. Maybe gold/silver mining provinces should be relatively tiny enclaves within another bigger province so if the province is large like Toledo, it can have its gold mining operations yet still have some other industry.
Make an event that has a chance to occur in gold-producing provinces, raising the base tax by 1, while giving a small amount of inflation.
Fiscal policy among the big states in the early modern period was pretty shockingly bad - France defaulted something like 10 or 15 times from the mid-1550s through the 1600s, and Spain operated similarly, largely because they had limited ways of raising taxes. The fact that EU3 players can actually manage their economy is, in a way, quite unrealistic. I'd agree with the above poster that, in cases like this, one must make the game functional before one tries for historical accuracy.
No, since Muscowy can become HRE ingame, I don't have to imagine anything. >_>
Though most gold mines are in colonial lands? So this would be as useful as a turd....on a plane....or something..
In addition, one could argue that in a barter economy, the amount of money equals almost by definition the amount of goods. As such, it may not be too great an idea to consider gold as the only 'money' in game, or to connect the mining of gold to inflation and economc downfall in the frst place.
For those of you who wish to do so, maybe you can create a gold-income-modifier equal to the inflation you have? That way, if you really wish to play historical (and achieve something like 1 or 2% of inflation per year for over 100 years
) your inflationary policies can be offset somewhat by your gold-income.If you really want a more historical approach to the game, I guess you should basically remove censustaxes almost completely, and have the effects of buildings changed into cheaper debt (or just temporary access to debt, preferrably with skyhigh interest-rates). Minting should be close to impossible, and the game should last no longer than 40 or 50 years (to reflect life-expectancy and long-term-planning of your average ruler or noblemen). I guess in a set-up like that, even multiplayer games would result in mass-endebting yourself, raising armies and a general steal-thy-neighbour-attitude. Long-term games would see countries wrecked badly because of 'suboptimal' fiscal policies. I also guess that's slightly more realistic than creating excessive tax-incomes, or planning investments (including colonization) that will by definition pay for themselves in two centuries. (Honestly, what kind of person would invest nowadays in something that definitly pays off by 2100?)
As it is now, the player simply has no incentive to ruin his country. It would be a nice feature for EU4.
Last edited:
You should also have to take into account the need to keep your aristocracy sweet because they are for the most part the group which comprise your best friends and relatives. Furthermore, you should give much more than you can afford to religious institutions, both due to social expectations and because you genuinely believe it to be in your own long-term best interests.
Census taxes can stay (if you're England at least), but have to be regranted each year, and every regrant increases both revolt risk and the chance that you'll have to concede yet more privileges or incur greater expense. However, census taxes should at best only be sufficient to cover the interest repayments on the loans you took to pay for very expensive and equally inconclusive warfare. Normal operating expenses should come partially from your own estates, but also from taking out further loans.
As to the issue with gold, I agree with the point made about productivity. The average gold mine is going to be much smaller than the equivalent operations for the other trade goods, so it all balances out.
On this I concurr above everything else. Nowadays (and I guess all time) politics have always had "good" reasons (winning the next elections or congraciating with the people) to lead its countries to bankruptcy.
Only someone who is still around then to reap its payoff.
And in EU3 terms "The Player" is he only entity who hatches plans that can span a century, as he is the only one still in charge when they come to fruitition. And one of the main reason why player-controlled countries fare so much better that the others.
