Gold inflation

[metroncho]

Since 1.06 when gold represents more than 25% of income , it starts to generate inflation. A lot of it. As i understand , it was a very welcomed measure to punish Imperial Spain for her incredible golden wealth. We can agree it´s working nicely about it.
However when it comes to other countries, and other ages, the results are being devastating IMHO. Kingdoms like Austria, or Castille (or the Horde) with a goldmine , are getting spectacular rise of inflation in the GC.
Combined with the tweak of trade (decreased trade efficiency, higher probabilities of failure) these countries have difficulties to ged rid of this gold inflation, unless they decide to go in an annexation spree.
Is there nothing that can be done to solve this?
Thanks.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Yes, Castille (me) has 12 inflation in 1460's. I've tried some annexations but got hit by mine +10 event twice .

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I understand the changes that brought up the inflation ... but the way it is now, it is hurting too much Austria and Castille in the 1419 scenario, both game-balance & history wise.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Would it improve the situation to have the gold mine values lowered?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by vilkouak
Yes, Castille (me) has 12 inflation in 1460's. I've tried some annexations but got hit by mine +10 event twice .

Lol, hit by beneficial event. Gotta love that

 

[artemis667]

Originally posted by Onslaught
Would it improve the situation to have the gold mine values lowered?

That could help... or else you could leave the threshold % of total monthly income where it is, but halve the effect... so if Spain had 25% of it's m. income in gold, it would gain an extra 0.12 inflation per year... 50%, an extra 0.25 inflation per year.
The real problem is that Spain can solve the problem long term by promoting five hundred governors, if it likes. Smaller countries with gold don't have that option.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

i think its fine. gold comes with a price and spain really was ruined due to the inflation.

as for austria, the inflation is a little price to pay for the additional revenue from gold. im happy with it

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by artemis667
That could help... or else you could leave the threshold % of total monthly income where it is, but halve the effect... so if Spain had 25% of it's m. income in gold, it would gain an extra 0.12 inflation per year... 50%, an extra 0.25 inflation per year.
The real problem is that Spain can solve the problem long term by promoting five hundred governors, if it likes. Smaller countries with gold don't have that option.

Yes, in a strange turn of events, Spain with a lot of work can solve the problem. But Grand Campaign countries face a lot of problems to fix it.
I wonder if a return to the old 33 percentage is an option......

 

[JohnMK]

Or a compromise of 29%.

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Or a compromise of 29%.

Yes, that could work at least for Castille. I´m not so sure for Austria till the Burgundian inheritance.

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

I doubt it, I mean without some serious land conquest.

 

[unmerged(10754)]

please they fix this of the inflation, Castilla/Spain seems of the age of Stone arriving at 1510 (Toledo)con 25%, fault of the inflation, and by that Spain time she was one of the pluses outposts, but to ask the Great Captain..

Another case is the one of Austria that arriving at 1430 has 12 of inflation.. by the mine of steinmark a shame..

Excuse my primitive English

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Lol, hit by beneficial event. Gotta love that

You should see my Toledo now . 133 income of gold. I've got that lovely event adding manpower, tax and citizens too.

 

[Mowers]

I am concerned about Gold costs and Mayors.

I am concerned because its an now an awful lot and for many countries its then impossible to manage inflation when you run out of provinces.

I think it ought to be possible to place Mayors repeatedly in the same province but with a small penalty- say of 10%.

Alternatively the system needs to be redone.

But I am concerned as I think its not effectively modelling correctly.

 

[Johan]

I don't think 100 inflation by the mid 1700's is a bad thing, considering how much income players wield in the end game.

 

[Mowers]

I am a supporter of making the game harder through inflation but I am worried that the Mayorial system punishes smaller countries and doesnt effectively simulate what I understand that you are attempting to achieve. There is just a permanent cost increase rather than a degarding economicallly effect.

Instead of mayors I think that inflation ought to be able to be reduced at a cost in cash as well as the cost of temporary RR, production efficency penalties and trade penalties to simulate the rebasing of the currency. For every say 10 points you reduce by you incur another % penalty for some time. Either way it wouldnt be worth driving up inflation as the penalties would outweigh the benefits.

This would be interesting as inflation would go up in wars or due to gold as it did historically but then after the war attempts to reduce inflation would lead to revolts, lessened trade and economic interuption and reduction. Thus we would see Spain gradually over time suffer further and further economic decline but still do well at the begining.

It would also mean that countries wouldnt become unplayable anymore, they would just go through a period of turmoil and economic stagnation.

But I dont know how easy or risky that would be implement, but I cant see it being that hard. Remove mayors and everytime you click on the mayor house in your capital there is a reduction inflation providing you can meet the criteria. The AI could be told to keep its inflation at a certain level. I would be happy to form a special test group.

I would suggest _at a guess_, but Peter E may be so kind as to provide a maths check suitability test when he reads this,

For every 10% inflation reduction

200 D cost
-20% production efficency
-20% in trade and infrastructure investments.
-2 stability.

(you wouldnt be able to reduce inflation at -2 stability or less though)

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Mowers
I am a supporter of making the game harder through inflation but I am worried that the Mayorial system punishes smaller countries and doesnt effectively simulate what I understand that you are attempting to achieve. There is just a permanent cost increase rather than a degarding economicallly effect.

Instead of mayors I think that inflation ought to be able to be reduced at a cost in cash as well as the cost of temporary RR, production efficency penalties and trade penalties to simulate the rebasing of the currency. For every say 10 points you reduce by you incur another % penalty for some time. Either way it wouldnt be worth driving up inflation as the penalties would outweigh the benefits.

This would be interesting as inflation would go up in wars or due to gold as it did historically but then after the war attempts to reduce inflation would lead to revolts, lessened trade and economic interuption and reduction. Thus we would see Spain gradually over time suffer further and further economic decline but still do well at the begining.

It would also mean that countries wouldnt become unplayable anymore, they would just go through a period of turmoil and economic stagnation.

But I dont know how easy or risky that would be implement, but I cant see it being that hard. Remove mayors and everytime you click on the mayor house in your capital there is a reduction inflation providing you can meet the criteria. The AI could be told to keep its inflation at a certain level. I would be happy to form a special test group.

I would suggest _at a guess_, but Peter E may be so kind as to provide a maths check suitability test when he reads this,

For every 10% inflation reduction

200 D cost
-20% production efficency
-20% in trade and infrastructure investments.
-2 stability.

(you wouldnt be able to reduce inflation at -2 stability or less though)

That does bring up teh problem again of teh difference between countries that have to live of monthly income as opposed to ones that can live of yearly income. For exampel if u are France u can go many years without ever getting an extra inflation point and have lots of money. On the otehr hand wit ha trade based power as Holland u need to incur inflation on a regular basis by minting coins to have at least soem money to work with. So the nations which depend most on their prod and trade efficiency would get hit exactly in these areas with this system.

 

[Hive]

Originally posted by BiB
That does bring up teh problem again of teh difference between countries that have to live of monthly income as opposed to ones that can live of yearly income. For exampel if u are France u can go many years without ever getting an extra inflation point and have lots of money. On the otehr hand wit ha trade based power as Holland u need to incur inflation on a regular basis by minting coins to have at least soem money to work with. So the nations which depend most on their prod and trade efficiency would get hit exactly in these areas with this system.

Good point. This could do more damage than it removes.

 

[Timur Lang]

I think that the gold inflation should be caused only by the gold of America, and the gold of Europe should not cause inflation (in Europe) since the same one it should only be considered that it is the necessary monetary base of Europe, this is, the necessary money for all the transactions in the continent.

Otherwise, countries with whiteman = 0 should not have inflation to prevent that countries like Aztec (that they didn't consider to the gold a good of value or of change) accumulate very high inflation.

 

[SJG]

I don't think you should get 1% inflation reduction for placing mayors. I think you should get an ongoing benefit from them, say an inflation reduction of
0.2*(provinces_owned/provinces_with_mayors)%

Thus, if you had only one province you would only have to place one to be able to reduce inflation gradually, but the nations with many provinces would have to place more, which seems realistic.
You'd feel the pinch from having to have a relatively low to-treasury slider to gain any benefit, but no-one said it should be easy.

This would remove the advantage large empires have. It is counter-intuitive that sprawling empires would much more easily be able to control inflation.

I can't see any fix for the problem of countries with large yearly incomes being less effected. It seems the only way would be to get rid of yearly incomes and put it all in the monthly incomes. Why do we have yearly incomes anyway? Surely it must accumulate over the year rather than spring into existence on the 1st of January.

You could, of course, add inflation for yearly incomes, but it seems to me that would be extremely messy.