Need more loans

[amah]

I remember back in eu3 taking a loan needed some serious consideration .

These days a country can get a loan while bankrupt .

Did you spend 1000 ducats that belong to someone else? here is a loan for your effort ,have some more

Did that war went wrong and you need some mercenaries to accomplish ,nothing? here is a loan ,kill a few thousand

Did you annex your vassal that was -1000 ducats in debt? who cares ?your base dev grew so i can lend you some more

Did you anger your merchant class ,or have no merchant class at all? apparently money grows on trees .here is a loan

Banking just started in 1400's , several kings were in debt to the merchant republics like genoa of venice .This is why Italy had such "power" , because money does not grow on trees .i feel the game does a very bad job emulating economy

getting money to fund a war should come from someone .All the money in reality came from someone . byzantines asked the church to smelt all their gold to fund the war effort take back jerusalem . The medicii crowned 3 popes with their money . The spanish crown issued the alhambra decree ,asking jews to leave silver and gold behind . Jacobean era england was in such a debt that James was selling royal lands .

in the game there is only one burger interaction asking for money .I think all loans should come through estate interactions or foreign aid. You can ask your burgers ,you can ask your nobles you can ask your bishops or you can ask you allies .You cannot keep asking for 25 loans .noone in reality would give money to you for the 26th

 

[durbal]

I trust 'Bank' for all my banking needs. 'Bank' offers many excellent rates and benefits.

 

[makaramus]

I really doubt this "bank" if making any profit I mean giving 20 loan to a country just about to fall down?

 

[Foefaller]

I think some of that has to do with fun vs. realistic. Having to find someone willing to offer you money in a middle of a war is not necessarily fun. Nor is suddenly finding yourself the personal pet of another country because it turns out they were the "Bank" In question, ala Mexico in the mid 19th century.

Still, it might be worth expanding the economic side of things in a DLC. This is the era when modern economic ideas like capitalism and fiat currency started showing up, and even in some cases tested. I mean, who doesn't want the opportunity to have their entire economy collapse due to rampart fractional reserve banking or see thousands of ducats disappear overnight because that trade investment was their country's South Sea Company?

 

[Hootieleece]

I think that a Maximum Number of loans at one time should be implemented like in EU3. Yes it is not realistic but neither is the current mechanic of almost infinite loans.......I've never had the "bank" tell me no in EUIV!

Also Bankruptcy should be a last resort and not a cheesy exploitable feature. It should have dire consequences.

By making loans less obtainable and Bankruptcy a true problem. You might solve the Merc Spam Problem if AI could be taught to handle it...............

 

[makaramus]

banks loved to give loans when they know that country is not gonna disappear

as example:ENGLAND TOOK TONS OF LOANS! It was when their name still england and today they still paying those loans XD(wich means huge because they had so much colonies over world just to make profit wich still wasnt enought)

do you know why bank gave that much loan? because england was so much secured country to disappear making them good target to profit.

only big countries should allowed to take loan if you ask me but it will demand huge payments in return (I mean why should bank decide to give lots of loan to a country just about to die?)

 

[atwix]

you can loann up enough ducats DURING a bankruptcy, at -3 stab and -100 prestige, to pay off 100 warscore in ducats to anyone that thinks you are tasty snack.

and go bankrupt during the bankruptcy, and put all neighbours on truce by rinse repeating.

enough said....

yeah, it might need a rework.

 

[rauyran]

Perhaps you could get a loan from your ally by spending favours.

 

[Kissya]

Countries didnt really make loans to another country. It's not Venice or Florence itself who did the Loans, it was Families. Like the Medici for example.
Do not see the Loan mecanic as a modern bank, see it as a conglomerate of Families and Organisaitons willing to agree to such Loans. Whatever your current state is, there is always gonna be someone or something willing to loan you money, they know a country will pay back one way or another (except when they didn't)

 

[durbal]

Countries didnt really make loans to another country. It's not Venice or Florence itself who did the Loans, it was Families. Like the Medici for example.
Do not see the Loan mecanic as a modern bank, see it as a conglomerate of Families and Organisaitons willing to agree to such Loans. Whatever your current state is, there is always gonna be someone or something willing to loan you money, they know a country will pay back one way or another (except when they didn't)

The idea of states loaning money, building buildings, etc. is just an EU abstraction anyway in which the state is able to control assets owned by the populace as well as the state itself.

 

[Tavior]

Perhaps you could get a loan from your ally by spending favours.

There are a few way you can exploit this. Bad idea to start with.

Answer an AI call to war and win the war. Then spam loan from your AI allies from trust. Break the alliance and have those loan nullified and you hold the ducat over them literally and figuratively.

I have seen few case where OPM with 1500 ducat and with high trust growth if you can completely lock them from growth anywhere except tall (development). You can get lot of ducat in loan if this were implemented.

Instead if the AI is not planning to go to war anytime soon they should have some ducat put aside and you can ask for a loan. It shouldn't be based on AI personality like currently which is stupid RNG being RNG. However I am 100% definitely against system where you spend trust for loan.

It is already hard enough for small tag to get trust. There shouldn't be more way to spend trust.

 

[rauyran]

There are a few way you can exploit this. Bad idea to start with.

Yep good points.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

If you actually need more and more loans, because you can't pay back the ones you have... then you're spiraling into inflation and crushing amounts of interest. I had a real successful game as Great/Golden Horde recently - conquered everything back for the Mongol Empire & then some, but there was one problem, my economy was s***. I had about 12-15 loans, and couldn't pay them back. The only way to make money, was to go to war... but that meant paying for the army... so it was a zero sum game. There was no escape from the debt.

I kept inflation under control w/ MP, but the amount of money I was always losing from paying interest was really horrible. Of course the bankers were more than happy to do business w/ me. They made a killing. I made a killing out on the steppes, but they were the real winners of the game, making a killing in cash. They laughed all the way to the bank, I cried all the way back to my nomadic tent-palace-thing.

So yeah, they're happy to take your money. Actually, I still have that save. Maybe I should just do what Genghis did, invade China, loot & raze everything. My economy sucked so bad, though. I don't even want to look at that empire, ever again.

 

[Zohtun]

If you actually need more and more loans, because you can't pay back the ones you have... then you're spiraling into inflation and crushing amounts of interest. I had a real successful game as Great/Golden Horde recently - conquered everything back for the Mongol Empire & then some, but there was one problem, my economy was s***. I had about 12-15 loans, and couldn't pay them back. The only way to make money, was to go to war... but that meant paying for the army... so it was a zero sum game. There was no escape from the debt.

I kept inflation under control w/ MP, but the amount of money I was always losing from paying interest was really horrible. Of course the bankers were more than happy to do business w/ me. They made a killing. I made a killing out on the steppes, but they were the real winners of the game, making a killing in cash. They laughed all the way to the bank, I cried all the way back to my nomadic tent-palace-thing.

So yeah, they're happy to take your money. Actually, I still have that save. Maybe I should just do what Genghis did, invade China, loot & raze everything. My economy sucked so bad, though. I don't even want to look at that empire, ever again.

Declare Bankrupt and make all the loansharks cry.

 

[Palatinus Germanicus]

Declare Bankrupt and make all the loansharks cry.

I wish. Unfortunately I was surrounded by enemies from the Baltic, to China. No way I could get enough truces. My key ally (that never actually fought WITH me in a war), the Ottomans, suddenly turned against me thanks to the rival mechanics. They're pretty powerful down there, and though I could beat them, there's no way I could beat everyone else as well, within the necessary time frame. I'd go bankrupt and get taken apart by everyone from Catholic Holy Orders, to Siberian clan councils.

The real problem was lack of development. I deliberately avoided razing anything in the Tatar culture group. Even made sure no one else razed them, before I could annex them. I made states, but it didn't matter... there just wasn't enough people/development to make the empire flourish. I think the key is to target a couple of high-development cultures, make states, accept them, and their development will carry your economy.

I just didn't do that for 'role playing purposes'. I guess it all worked out as it should've, really.

Also those tribal estates, needing more and more land as you expand, and smacking 50 autonomy everywhere... that really kills.

 

[jii]

Maybe it would be more appropriate if the AI also exploited loans. If you take a bunch of debt to build an army to beat your neighbors, they also take a bunch of debt to build an army to beat you. Instead of just building to FL, getting wiped, taking loan, and repeat.

Additionally AI does not seem to understand the impact forts have on its budget...

I personally think it would be quite funny if your neighbor started the game by going 300 ducats in debt to build an army twice his forcelimit just to crush you.

 

[Quaade]

I really doubt this "bank" if making any profit I mean giving 20 loan to a country just about to fall down?

The iron bank will always have it´s due ;-)

 

[IrishGirl]

I agree with the OP. I find it a bit ridiculous how many loans a player can take (and yes, I understand I'm under no obligation to take the loans) and how easy they are to get. I also understand that these loans are a mechanic that allows players to start as an OPM and grow to a mighty Rothschild empire. It still feels a little ridiculous.

Granted, borrowing money was an intrinsic part of this era. The Spanish monarch Philip II declared bankruptcy, I believe, four times during the 16th century. Bankruptcy, as a remdy, was written into the United States Constitution. In the east, one of the Khan's enforced the death penalty against those who delcared too many bankruptcies. Bankruptcy was a very real part of life - a result of loans and mercenary creditors whose collection tactics were so brutal that bankrupcies were seen as a "humane" response.

I once suggested in a MP game that the number of loans should be tied to a country's total development. That idea was quickly criticized as limiting; players wanted to start as an OPM or even Holland and borrow money to grow. "Rich countries don't need loans," one player said. When I pointed out that many developed countries borrowed to the sky to fight wars, he then argued "necessary game mechanic." While I understand his point that games should be fun, this still seems a bit silly to me.

Regardless of why the mechanic was included in the game (my personal thought is game companies are afraid to let players "lose" games), I wish the entire process would get some attention. Perhaps focusing the creditor's remedies would be a way to discourage loans ... making the player lose development or even provinces would be one way to "punish" abusers of bankruptcies and loans.

 

[Zohtun]

I agree with the OP. I find it a bit ridiculous how many loans a player can take (and yes, I understand I'm under no obligation to take the loans) and how easy they are to get. I also understand that these loans are a mechanic that allows players to start as an OPM and grow to a mighty Rothschild empire. It still feels a little ridiculous.

Granted, borrowing money was an intrinsic part of this era. The Spanish monarch Philip II declared bankruptcy, I believe, four times during the 16th century. Bankruptcy, as a remdy, was written into the United States Constitution. In the east, one of the Khan's enforced the death penalty against those who delcared too many bankruptcies. Bankruptcy was a very real part of life - a result of loans and mercenary creditors whose collection tactics were so brutal that bankrupcies were seen as a "humane" response.

I once suggested in a MP game that the number of loans should be tied to a country's total development. That idea was quickly criticized as limiting; players wanted to start as an OPM or even Holland and borrow money to grow. "Rich countries don't need loans," one player said. When I pointed out that many developed countries borrowed to the sky to fight wars, he then argued "necessary game mechanic." While I understand his point that games should be fun, this still seems a bit silly to me.

Regardless of why the mechanic was included in the game (my personal thought is game companies are afraid to let players "lose" games), I wish the entire process would get some attention. Perhaps focusing the creditor's remedies would be a way to discourage loans ... making the player lose development or even provinces would be one way to "punish" abusers of bankruptcies and loans.

One way which the game could easily add (and I'm going to get hate for this, but here goes) would be to add unrest for it. (As well as the current "removes recent uprising" flag)

Hey put down the torches and pitchforks, let me finish.

Bankruptcy would mean a LOT of suffering for the common folk. Extra taxes levied and in the cases of guilds and moneylenders in the nation there'd be this sudden total loss of property.

I think we're all smart enough to know what happens when people with the means and motive to start an angry mob gathers together.

 

[babuchas1]

At least you should lose some prestige every time you can't pay a loan and renew it. Now it's just a bit of inflation... How can a country that never pays back a loan have 100 prestige?