I can't wait until this game comes out! I know we haven't seen a tech dev diary yet, but please don't use the cumbersome system from CK2. I wouldn't mind seeing Vicky 2's tech system implemented or something altogether new, but not CK2.
Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 4: Your Economy is about to change
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- 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.
EU3's economic system always struck me as pointlessly convoluted for little reason. One thing some people tend to forget or not realize is that complexity does not always beget depth. Some players just automatically decry a loss in complexity, but it's not always a bad thing, and it doesn't always remove depth from the game. As long as there are still plenty of interesting and meaningful choices on what to do with your resources, I'm all for simplifying the economy, because in EU3, the economic system's complexity didn't really create any real amount of depth. Just lots of tedious calculations the player had to make in their head upon every expenditure. There will be plenty of ways to create depth even with this "simplified" system.
As an economist, I half agree with the gold issue and I'll try to explain. Please someone correct me if I'm mistaken.
More gold usually means you are richer, but a large excess of gold could significantly increase demand for goods without a similar enough supply growth, boosting the price level (inflation) on the long term due to the supply x demand relation. But in the short term, yes, you are richer. On the other hand, another thing that generates inflation is using less gold for new coins, that is, minting. This expands the money supply or monetary base (in this case it is the same, since there is no different currencies, only "gold" coins) again without a similar enough goods supply growth, which also creates inflation. This usually happens when a country spends more than it collects: on expansions, wars, etc.
I'd sugest modeling inflation considering its relation to government surplus, as was the case of EUIII, but then again I understand this is hard to model (and for the AI to control) and maybe not a fun gameplay feature for most players.
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sold on technology being divorced from economy. I thought it made sense in EU3. Of course more will be revealed, but to me wealthy should mean being able to pour more money into innovation and research.
I guess I don't understand how the EU3 tech model made sense, really. Were rulers in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era actually spending most of their budget on research? As far as I know, no - scientific progress wasn't really controlled by the government at all.
Interesting idea. We don't know that this isn't the case--just that it's not controlled on the economy screen. If countries get CK2-style laws, I wouldn't be surprised to see one sort of law that increases tax revenue.
It seems that you are not familiar how banks work.
Usually penalty for early loan reimbursement occur within the fixed number of years, say if you have 5 years of loan and if you repay in three, you won't get the penalty. It depends purely on the bank.
However, in my topic I was not talking about penalties, but about the amount of interest which should be paid.
If your loan is 100 gold for 5 years and you are supposed to pay 25 gold as interest, it makes the whole sum equal 125, right. Now imagine you paid loan early, let's say in 3 years - you still think you gonna pay 125? From my experience with banks, in every loan contract, there is a clause which says that interest calculated monthly on the remaining body of the loan, therefore the faster you repay -the less interest you are supposed to pay...
To add to this:
One often overlooked aspect is that a simpler system leads to being able to program a better AI. That in itself is a huge boon. The Galactic Civilization games are suposed to have a great AI because of this for example.
I think that minting should be a way of creating money from nothing with high inflation.
Looking good lads! Can't wait to see the next DD.
My only comment is that I really hope we get to set how much money we're paying other countries for war subsidies. I hated the system in Vic2 where you either payed the nation's entire budget or you didn't give them anything at all.
My only comment is that I really hope we get to set how much money we're paying other countries for war subsidies. I hated the system in Vic2 where you either payed the nation's entire budget or you didn't give them anything at all.
The EU3 tech model was more an implementation model than a discovery model : hence why nation size, non cores etc, negatively impacted on research costs. You invested so that your whole nation would benefit from the new technology, not paying mad scientist to come up with potato-powered flying barbecues.
I know, but I was expecting more from such important aspect of this game
I don't know what you have noticed then, the changes seem to be substantial.
Admittedly still controllable, Paradox learned its lesson from HOI3 to make sure to keep the core that works fine, and build from there.
The announced changes so far make it a different game from EU3 already, and it in my opinion is not one that could be achieved by simply applying a patch.
I'll just pop in here and give my two cents.
I really like the new changes. The seperation of technology and stability from the budget is a big plus because it was a bit unrealistic. Though stability could be somewhat tied to economic terms like bribing popular social figures etc to calm the populace or something else.
On the budget changes I strongly believe it's for the best. I dont think any depth is lost from the change, only things get more rational. I believe that the devs have already found ways to spent accumulated money by making wars(-> army maintenance) really expensive or some other things. I think that we have to wait for future DDs to completely grasp the way the new economic model works out.
I really like the new changes. The seperation of technology and stability from the budget is a big plus because it was a bit unrealistic. Though stability could be somewhat tied to economic terms like bribing popular social figures etc to calm the populace or something else.
On the budget changes I strongly believe it's for the best. I dont think any depth is lost from the change, only things get more rational. I believe that the devs have already found ways to spent accumulated money by making wars(-> army maintenance) really expensive or some other things. I think that we have to wait for future DDs to completely grasp the way the new economic model works out.
Well, I like the changes, mostly. Especially that the tech sliders are gone.
However, I have one worry: Stability. Keeping it high is so important to the game, that I worry that the new model might be too slow to raise it.
However, I have one worry: Stability. Keeping it high is so important to the game, that I worry that the new model might be too slow to raise it.
That seems to influence more people.
There is a core of an idea in there, but in my opinion it is not EU and should not shape that game.