I find inflation to be more of a problem with the backward nations... it's entirely possible for an Exotic nation to end up in a situation where technology advances are getting farther away, not closer, which seems a little odd.
-
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 reluctantly agree.
I had a -10 inflation event and was able to ramp up my monthly income from 2 ducats to around 35 for a good decade.
Thats a massive difference.
Please have mercy on mediocre players who try to play a ROTW country. My current campaign is Vijayanagar with the EEP 1520 scenario and I only reached infrastructure level 5 around 1740 or so. Two events with -10% and -15% in the early 1700s were the only thing that kept me from reaching +75% inflation, very annoying when trying to get higher but very expensive infra levels.
Now governors have been made les of a tool only useful for high tech majors, I'd like to propose switching governors to infra level 3 and making refineries only available at infra level 5 instead. That would make life easier for non-latin countries, and give the huge benefits of breweries for latin countries later in the game.
Loool 21% inflation "spiralling out of control" ?
With an Aztec game (patch 1.4) I had 217% inflation in 1727. And that was from a game I played _carefully_ with respect to inflation (no bankrupcies etc).
Most of it was gold inflation. I had 80374 coins research towards infra 5, which costed 167234 coins. With a monthly income of 762 coins I was expected to reach infra 5 in 1737 at full research slider.
According to my ledger I already had 9 deflation events.
Another way to battle inflation is to make sure your income grows much faster than your inflation-%
With an Aztec game (patch 1.4) I had 217% inflation in 1727. And that was from a game I played _carefully_ with respect to inflation (no bankrupcies etc).
Most of it was gold inflation. I had 80374 coins research towards infra 5, which costed 167234 coins. With a monthly income of 762 coins I was expected to reach infra 5 in 1737 at full research slider.
According to my ledger I already had 9 deflation events.
Another way to battle inflation is to make sure your income grows much faster than your inflation-%
Now, that would be a really, really nice change... Coupled with a reduction in the size of the exceptional years inflation reduction to a uniform -5%.
It would be great if -10% reduction event meant the same thing for different countries.
Country A with 10% inflation now has 9% inflation.
Country B with 165% inflations now has 149% inflation
Not that this has any bases in history or anything, but simply from a game play point of view. Some how I feel that good random events should be scaled. It would be much easier for a high inflation country to make a 10% leap in inflation than a low inflation country.
This may bring more reason to promote mayors to reduce inflation again. As it is now you can wait for a good event.
Country A with 10% inflation now has 9% inflation.
Country B with 165% inflations now has 149% inflation
Not that this has any bases in history or anything, but simply from a game play point of view. Some how I feel that good random events should be scaled. It would be much easier for a high inflation country to make a 10% leap in inflation than a low inflation country.
This may bring more reason to promote mayors to reduce inflation again. As it is now you can wait for a good event.
Seeing as it was after 31 years yes. That would extrapolate to >300% over the course of the game.
I'm not really bothered with the battle at all, I am bothered with what affect it will have on the AI.
i agree, that idea is far better than the current setup.
i was "that poster" from before, and while i haven't had the experience of hyperinflation, the AI seems to and only because it doesn't know how to handle its economy. by somehow keeping the AI from raking up multiple bankruptcies (sometimes many in one year) inflation could be kept under control.
update on venice, which had 900% when i posted before. i finally annexed them in ~1685, and they had 1250% inflation. Thats 5% inflation every year - five times what you get if you drag your treasury slider all the way to the right.
-Matt
i was "that poster" from before, and while i haven't had the experience of hyperinflation, the AI seems to and only because it doesn't know how to handle its economy. by somehow keeping the AI from raking up multiple bankruptcies (sometimes many in one year) inflation could be kept under control.
update on venice, which had 900% when i posted before. i finally annexed them in ~1685, and they had 1250% inflation. Thats 5% inflation every year - five times what you get if you drag your treasury slider all the way to the right.
-Matt
Sometimes the AI can get into bankruptcy cycles, where they have too many troops and can't afford the maintenance, so they go bankrupt, which increase the maintenance higher and they still can't afford it, and so on. England has a tendency to do this, or at least did in 1.05.
Interesting idea, though implementing it might force a reevaluation of 1) loan inflation (would 1% still be acceptable) and the precise inflation reduction values in the random events.
If you're going to make the inflation an exponential scale, it would be best to do so both ways. Also, count the base of no inflation as 100% when determining the reduction. For example, a country with 50% inflation that takes a 10% drop would be down to 35%. A country with 100% inflation that gets a 5% increase would go up to 110%.
Oh, and scripted events too, assuming the same function name is preserved for this new implementation.
You'd also want to consider the meaning of adding 10% inflation to a 0% inflation Spain. That's still 0.0% inflation . . . so it might want to be something like 10% added the old way, or 10% added the new way, depending on the current inflation level etc.
Well I have revised the idea because it does not work with the low numbers. So I worked out some real numbers based on the impact on final costs. So
Country A has 20%inf
Country B has 200%inf
for Country A > 1000d of Army costs 1200d
for Country B > 1000d of Army costs 3000d
If an -10% inflation event comes along, I think
Country A should now pay 1080d
Country B should now pay 2700d
Which means the new inflation rates should be:
Country A would have 8% (effective reduction of 12%)
Country B would have 170% (effective reduction of 30%)
So for a 10% event change you would have
Actual change in Inflation = 10% + (current Inflation*10%)
In real numbers the final inflation (relative to 1419) would be
Country A = 0.2 - 0.1 - 0.2*0.1 = 8%
Country B = 2 - 0.1 - 2.0*0.1 = 170%
I think it is reasonable to work from effect on final costs, But others may not agree. My assumption is that a 10% increase or decrease is really in reference to todays real costs as opposed to 1419 costs.
INF = Cinf + infCH + Cinf*infCH
INF = Calculated Inflation
Cinf = Current Inflation
infCh = Inflation Change (can be plus or minus)
edit: (made formulas more generic)
edit:
If this was applied to every bit of inflation in the game (not just events) it would actually become real inflation numbers that are obviously exponential. You would have to represent them as an average yearly inflation rate or a Price Index which is really what the current system is. 1%inflation for 400 years makes everything cost 53 times more.
I would use the above method only for scaling events, and mayors but not the sources of income. Although I will let others argue that point.
Country A has 20%inf
Country B has 200%inf
for Country A > 1000d of Army costs 1200d
for Country B > 1000d of Army costs 3000d
If an -10% inflation event comes along, I think
Country A should now pay 1080d
Country B should now pay 2700d
Which means the new inflation rates should be:
Country A would have 8% (effective reduction of 12%)
Country B would have 170% (effective reduction of 30%)
So for a 10% event change you would have
Actual change in Inflation = 10% + (current Inflation*10%)
In real numbers the final inflation (relative to 1419) would be
Country A = 0.2 - 0.1 - 0.2*0.1 = 8%
Country B = 2 - 0.1 - 2.0*0.1 = 170%
I think it is reasonable to work from effect on final costs, But others may not agree. My assumption is that a 10% increase or decrease is really in reference to todays real costs as opposed to 1419 costs.
INF = Cinf + infCH + Cinf*infCH
INF = Calculated Inflation
Cinf = Current Inflation
infCh = Inflation Change (can be plus or minus)
edit: (made formulas more generic)
edit:
If this was applied to every bit of inflation in the game (not just events) it would actually become real inflation numbers that are obviously exponential. You would have to represent them as an average yearly inflation rate or a Price Index which is really what the current system is. 1%inflation for 400 years makes everything cost 53 times more.
I would use the above method only for scaling events, and mayors but not the sources of income. Although I will let others argue that point.
Last edited:
This would essentially mean that mayors would have an effect of
-3% when a country has a current 200% inflation rate.
-3% when a country has a current 200% inflation rate.
My last comment: I promise.
For those who would like real inflation numbers, and argue that inflation effects income as well, I would propose the following.
Call it a Price Index or something to start.
And use a decay on it of x.x% per month. This represents your income catching up with your empires costs. So after taking big loans and getting large inflation, you would suffer for a while, but after time it would settle down to 0%, representing your income catching up to your rising costs.
For those who would like real inflation numbers, and argue that inflation effects income as well, I would propose the following.
Call it a Price Index or something to start.
And use a decay on it of x.x% per month. This represents your income catching up with your empires costs. So after taking big loans and getting large inflation, you would suffer for a while, but after time it would settle down to 0%, representing your income catching up to your rising costs.