Is it good to maintain SOME inflation?

[Clarkie]

I tend to have a big inflationary minting binge when I get to infra 5 so I can afford to promote governors in every province. Any excess cash gained from this once governors are everywhere can then be spent on some shiny new colonies. After this, an inflation binge lasting about a year every couple of decades can be used to provide the cash for major investments and will soon be eaten up by governors. This is mainly playing as England or Portugal where colonisation can get tediously slow at times until a critical mass of wealthy colonies is assembled.

 

[HolisticGod]

Melondar,

Most of these guys are nancies.

Inflate to build factories after infra five, to build colonies, TCs, governors and any necessary forts before five, always up to five percent inflation (during a building spree-don't bother trying to keep it there if you have an important tech milestone ahead).

As a rule, inflating to 5 (2, now, depending on the mod) in MP is an absolute must and it's a reasonably good idea to keep stab at 2 and drop it by one with DPs or DOWs when it's at 3, without bothering to reinvest. The reasons are simple:

1. Resources in MP, particularly early, are a lot more important than in SP. Sitting at 0 inflation, unless it's for a good reason, means losing A. The rewards of factories/colonies/merchants/whatever, B. Any deflation events and C. Any incidental deflation from Governors (it's more efficient to inflate in one shot than each month).

2. With stab, there's always some fairly substantial natural investment, depending on the country, period, factories, etc. Of course, it depends on your stabcosts, because 3 gives you a nice cushion, but generally it's worth clicking DPs and such and dropping to two.

3. Stab 3 confers only marginal benefits. Stab 2, on the other hands, provides an extra merchant, so it's the target.

4. There are a ton of positive stab events and deflations are fairly common as well. No, it's not a good idea to bank on these, so no crossing 5 unless there's a good reason or dropping below 2 stab with the expectation of a good event. But it's perfectly fine to develop those two small cushions, so no events go completely to waste.

In SP, if you like to play it to the hilt to see how well you can do or if the game is still difficult for you, all of those rules apply to a lesser degree. In fact, you can go ahead and inflate a lot more and risk lower stab and higher BB in SP. Even thirty or forty percent inflation with a major is nicely recoverable, mainly because the AI invests in tech so badly.

 

[unmerged(49521)]

When trading maps, you don't get locations of unoccupied (=uncolonized) provs. Only way is to discover them is to explore them yourself or sack Portuguese capital so you can steal the maps.

thanks, that would explain it, however, it is a bit strnge - if you trade maps, you trade maps, not maps of colonies only.

anyway, so if I want to get their maps I have to go and get them, right? You say "sack capital" - does this mean looting province or do I need to take control of the fort too? And if I get there - what is the chance of getting maps?

Is this the same if I get some maps in a naval battle?

vin

 

[unmerged(51378)]

thanks, that would explain it, however, it is a bit strnge - if you trade maps, you trade maps, not maps of colonies only.

anyway, so if I want to get their maps I have to go and get them, right? You say "sack capital" - does this mean looting province or do I need to take control of the fort too? And if I get there - what is the chance of getting maps?

Is this the same if I get some maps in a naval battle?

vin

You need to take it, and I believe it's 100% sure that you get 'em.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

thanks, that would explain it, however, it is a bit strnge - if you trade maps, you trade maps, not maps of colonies only.

anyway, so if I want to get their maps I have to go and get them, right? You say "sack capital" - does this mean looting province or do I need to take control of the fort too? And if I get there - what is the chance of getting maps?

Is this the same if I get some maps in a naval battle?

vin

Stolen Rutters does not give information about land provinces, IIRC. These days, it is fairly limited in what it does give you, because you only learn sea zones up to a certain number of zones away from where you won the naval battle.

 

[unmerged(3931)]

Stolen rutters does give information about land provinces. There is no limitation to being near where the naval battle was.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Stolen rutters does give information about land provinces. There is no limitation to being near where the naval battle was.

I'll have to look this up tomorrow (I'm on the computer that doesn't have EU2 on it), but I distinctly recall that the stolen rutters were changed in either 1.08 or maybe 1.07 to show only a limited amount of information, dependent upon one of the various ratings. I'll look at the ReadMe when I get a chance.

 

[daedalus]

Some inflation is always good, as long as the money is invested and not wasted. After I get governors I have to have some inflation, to keep them busy

 

[DSYoungEsq]

I'll have to look this up tomorrow (I'm on the computer that doesn't have EU2 on it), but I distinctly recall that the stolen rutters were changed in either 1.08 or maybe 1.07 to show only a limited amount of information, dependent upon one of the various ratings. I'll look at the ReadMe when I get a chance.

According to the ReadMe for version 1.06:

- Stolen rutters has been corrected: now you gain the knowledge of up to ADM + 5 see or coastal provinces adjacent to those you already know, and the message box is shown only if at least one new province is known.


Someone should test this to see if it is accurate.

 

[Stonewall]

According to the ReadMe for version 1.06:

- Stolen rutters has been corrected: now you gain the knowledge of up to ADM + 5 see or coastal provinces adjacent to those you already know, and the message box is shown only if at least one new province is known.


Someone should test this to see if it is accurate.

It is accurate. The only provinces you gain knowledge of are ones that are adjacent to already known territory. Not sure if it was accurate for 1.06, but it certainly is for 1.08 and 1.09.

 

[unmerged(7996)]

Melondar,

Most of these guys are nancies.

Actually I'm an Alex ...but...HG makes some good points Melondar. If you're playing MP or SP aggressive you will need to deal with more inflation.

 

[unmerged(23437)]

Hehe. Pop your head back in for a few minutes to see what's going on and the same old debates are going round. Last time I was in and we had this discussion, the focus was on Manufactories. I doubt anything's changed.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135441&page=1&pp=25
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112491
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=167910&page=1&pp=25

Two side notes: looking back over the old discussions, it's sad to see the names which have had lines put through them since I was last here.

And a plague upon the loss of the search function! It's all well and good saying "use Google", but it isn't half as good as the old search function (and yes, I know it slows the servers down something rotten, so I don't really want it back -- it's just occasionally...)

 

[lordofthemark]

In my current game as France (1.08, 1492, VH) i was up to 12% infl around 1560 or so, the highest of any major power in the game. Within the next 15 years I got an excellent year event, a corruption event, and then a SECOND excellent year event. So inflation is now just over 3%. So while it may not be good to rely on events, sometimes things can work out just right

 

[unmerged(15337)]

Better to be lucky than good.

In 1.09 the exceptional year events only decrease inflation by 2%. So you would have been stuck with a bit more inflation. However, 10% or so inflation isn't terrible, especially for a major power such as France.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Better to be lucky than good.

In 1.09 the exceptional year events only decrease inflation by 2%. So you would have been stuck with a bit more inflation. However, 10% or so inflation isn't terrible, especially for a major power such as France.

Actually, major powers are the least likely to suffer from inflation needs. If you are inflating as France, it's because you are pushing too hard. however, 10% inflation isn't serious from ANY point of view, not in the mid-1500's.

 

[Raen]

What goes around, comes around. I remember arguing about this on the EU I forums, when there WAS no EU II.

The fact is that you may actually be effectively LOSING money if you keep your inflation at 0%. Don't forget that, although inflation does make you pay extra for things, you are also gaining money by minting it (doh!). In some cases, you will be earning more money by minting it than the extra amount of money you have to pay for inflated prices, so you come out ahead.

Inflation should always be kept at moderate levels and reduced as much as possible when researching, but there is no need to keep it at a constant 0%, IMO.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

What goes around, comes around. I remember arguing about this on the EU I forums, when there WAS no EU II.

The fact is that you may actually be effectively LOSING money if you keep your inflation at 0%. Don't forget that, although inflation does make you pay extra for things, you are also gaining money by minting it (doh!). In some cases, you will be earning more money by minting it than the extra amount of money you have to pay for inflated prices, so you come out ahead.

Inflation should always be kept at moderate levels and reduced as much as possible when researching, but there is no need to keep it at a constant 0%, IMO.

This statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Inflation affects the "cost" of all things, research included. "Minting" only offers you the ability to purchase things that can be bought with money from the Treasury. You do not "earn" money by "minting," you simply convert from research to non-research purchasing power. For example, manufactories.

The point to what most of us have been saying is that you should "mint" to purchase that which you need and which will be "worth" in inflationary cost. But you don't "gain" anything by "minting."

 

[Raen]

This statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Inflation affects the "cost" of all things, research included. "Minting" only offers you the ability to purchase things that can be bought with money from the Treasury. You do not "earn" money by "minting," you simply convert from research to non-research purchasing power. For example, manufactories.

The point to what most of us have been saying is that you should "mint" to purchase that which you need and which will be "worth" in inflationary cost. But you don't "gain" anything by "minting."

The statement makes a lot of sense and it's a bit more complicated than you're representing.

If all you were doing was converting from money going into research to money going into the treasury, then there would be no inflation...you would simply have less progress on your research bars but more money in your treasury and people would understand that, I think. Yes, when you mint money you divert it from research, but the problem is the bugaboo of inflation and people getting worried about having to spend "extra" for things that they DO purchase from the treasury.

My point was that the extra they spend for these things may be less than the amount of money they have gained by minting it.

 

[artemis667]

I think the reason why you're crazy to steadfastly maintain a 'always-zero-inflation' policy is simply put that there are many uses that money in ducats can be put to that research income simply can't.

These uses primarily include economic growth (refineries and goods factories, merchants), monetary governors and tax collectors), empire stabilising (chief justices and missionaries), and army enhancements (shipyards, weapons and naval factories, c.c.s). Almost all of these will provide some small supplementary benefit to income, as well.

Not to mention building armies and navies to conduct warfare for profit or power projection. And then there's colonial expansion, and the opportunities for wealth this provides (especially in MP where direct military expansion is often harder).

Research should not be neglected, certainly. But if you are too frugal with making and spending your ducats, you will forego too many opportunities and end up with a relatively mediocre performance.

Some countries, like France, are blessed with a huge tax base and you can get plenty of income without minting. But I feel these countries are the minority.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

The statement makes a lot of sense and it's a bit more complicated than you're representing.

If all you were doing was converting from money going into research to money going into the treasury, then there would be no inflation...you would simply have less progress on your research bars but more money in your treasury and people would understand that, I think. Yes, when you mint money you divert it from research, but the problem is the bugaboo of inflation and people getting worried about having to spend "extra" for things that they DO purchase from the treasury.

My point was that the extra they spend for these things may be less than the amount of money they have gained by minting it.

A bit clearer, but still wrong.

Let's take a concrete example. It's mid-game, and England is pulling in an Annual Income totalling 1000d (monthly plus yearly). I have a choice this year: I can divert my monthly income for one year to the Treasury (which will give me an added 800d, let's say), but the "cost" will be that I will have my inflation score increased by 1%.

What, then, is my cost? My cost is calculated twofold:

1. My increased cost for every thing upon which I spend income for the rest of the game (or at least as much of the game as it takes until I have enough occurrences of deflationary events that the 1% is reduced), and

2. My lost research, which I will never gain back.

The former is relatively easy to calculate: At my current income it will cost me 10d per year (1% of 1000d). In short, to gain the same amount of everything I am going to spend money on, I have to increase my income by 10d to stay at the same level. Assume, then, 50 years to the next deflationary event, that will mean I end up having to spend an extra 500d over that time. And you can't just say, "I will use my governors to reduce the inflation in four years," because the point is they could have been reducing inflation anyway (unless you were already at 0%), so you would have to compare what you do to what you would have done had you not minted.

The latter is very difficult to calculate, because its effects are cumulative during the game. Don't spend that 800d on research this year? You are that much behind in research for the rest of the game. Suppose that research was to be spent on Infrastructure 6; you are now 1 year behind on obtaining goods manufactories. Spending it on LT 18? Best watch out; that's one more year your enemies have to be there ahead of you and whip your butt with a CRT advantage. And the worst part is, you can never, ever get it back.

But, at the heart of the matter is the simple fact that sending that money (800d) to the Treasury isn't adding it in any way to ANYTHING. It is simply a shift of the money from one expenditure to another. I short, if you are doing it to pay for, say, troops during a war, the real calculation is as follows:

1% inflation + Loss of one year's research = Staying alive and not losing a province or two to my enemies in this war.


This may be a very necessary equation to accept. But you have not "gained" anything.