Piles of $ and nothing to spend it on?

[unmerged(163)]

I'm curious about people's opinions on the tech system, specifically spending adm/dip/mil points to advance, and the zero-summing of tech vs infrastructure?

I can completely understand the game-mechanic value of these points acting as a limiter on tech advancement speed, but this sort of tradeoff doesn't really seem to make much real-life sense (to me, anyway)?

My specific example: I'm Bohemia in 1650 with an essentially-stable state at +2, colonizing as fast as my 3 colonists will let me, and nothing to spend my $4000+ on (I'm pretty much the "Prussia" of this world, geographically). Unfortunately, I daren't upgrade any but the largest-benefit infrastructure; I have the cash but by doing so I'm spending critical adm/dip points that then gimps my tech advance compared to my neighbors. (I'm already behind all my neighbors by a tech or two except Poland.) It seems backwards - adding things like markets, mints, etc should (if anything) snowballtech advance, not handicap it?

So I have GOBS of money, but daren't upgrade my roads?

(Note, I haven't updated to 1.5 yet, maybe there's a change in there that makes a difference?)

Maybe I'm missing something, or other people have different experiences? I had a comparable experience with Venetia as well - I sort of hit this wall where - short of me picking a fight - nobody was attacking me, I had PILES of money, ample standing army, but even with great advisers I was faced with the "improve my state's function OR tech advance" Hobson's choice?

 

[aphrochine]

+3 Advisors is a no brainer if your swimming in cash. This will help a little bit on keeping up in tech. The problem with Manufactory spam is, it results in even more cash and so if you think having too much money is a problem....you're only amplifying your problem long term.

 

[delpiero1234]

Don't build buildings. They are not worth the monarch points they cost.

 

[Tub]

[video=youtube;gUhRKVIjJtw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw&feature=kp[/video]

I think is appropriate.

 

[Yxklyx]

With 1.5 you can subsidize other countries even outside of war - so pick a close ally or vassal and send him a significant portion of your monthly income and work as a team.

 

[FrosT37]

+3 Advisors is a no brainer if your swimming in cash. This will help a little bit on keeping up in tech. The problem with Manufactory spam is, it results in even more cash and so if you think having too much money is a problem....you're only amplifying your problem long term.

Agreed with the +3 advisors.

"Excess cash" can be also used on a lot of mercenary units, even going above your army limit.

 

[delpiero1234]

With 1.5 you can subsidize other countries even outside of war - so pick a close ally or vassal and send him a significant portion of your monthly income and work as a team.

So tha the ally then betrays you with the money you invested in them.

 

[deafhobbit]

Alright, I'll make the case for buildings

Generally speaking, buildings are better than buying tech ahead of time, with the big exception being MIL tech that unlocks new units, and occasionally ADM tech that unlocks new idea groups if you've saved up points to dump into the new idea. Obviously, a large nation conquering everything in sight is better off spending ADM on cores, DIP on conquest, and MIL on tech, ideas, and suppression. However mid sized European powers, or countries conquering primarily through vassals can really benefit. Also, i rarely find anything more than +1 stability to be worth it, I'd rather invest those points in buildings that will pay off in the long term than a stab boost than can go away any time.

Temples should be spammed, base tax does so many good things. None of the other govt buildings are great, though if a rival goes Espionage a Spy Agency in your capital can help a lot.

Army buildings area a great bang for your buck, building up to a Barracks gives you +100 manpower per year, so +1000 to your max, and that's before any manpower bonuses you have. I rarely invest in Regimental Camps unless i have excess money and nowhere else to spend the MP, and never go for tier 5 or 6.

Naval buildings aren't that great, especially since the force limit bonuses were halved and shipyard spamming was nerfed. Still, if i have excess DP I'd rather build them than buy tech ahead of time or culture convert.

Production buildings are great, but require you to commit. None individually are that powerful, but together the extra income they generate is insane. Increased production increases your manpower and trade income, and the +6 base tax from Stock Exchanges increases everything from force limits to diplo vassalization chance. They also greatly benefit from the presence of manufactories. However, you really need to build them all they way to get the payoff, so if you're expanding a lot without vassals or taking a lot of admin ideas they might not be worth it.

Trade buildings are powerful in the right situation, but not worth building en mass. The increase in goods produced isn't that great, and if you own a whole trade node the power bonuses aren't that useful. Still, there are situations where they are useful - GB benefits from building them in Scotland to help control the North Sea for example.

Forts are nice, they increase your supply limits, and give you greater flexibility in defending your territory. You can fall back from an initial assault, let the enemy detach sieges, and pick them apart. Rarely a priority, unless you desperately need the supply limits to reduce attrition, but always nice.

And manufactories are amazing. As i said above, increasing goods produced increases manpower, so they benefit you both militarily end economically. They're particularly powerful if you control trade in the area, as then you effectively profit from them twice. In an ottomans game, i spammed manufactories all the way out to India, and the trade income helped me stay wildly over force limits for the second half of the game.

 

[Beagá]

Uses for monies:

1- +3 advisors
2- All the light ships you can afford (remember, Trade Powah it´s not only about geting more Money, but denying it to others)
3- Rebels for lulz
4- Top tier buildings (MP are limited, monies not as much and the top tier buildings are VERY Good)
5- Mercenaries to spare Manpower

Spreading buildings on the other hand is indeed a stupid use of monies + MP. Better use 60 MP to build the whole Constable line than 60MP building temples.

 

[Bovara]

Large ammounts has saved my bacon on occassion in ironamn games. For example about 1670 in game was conqueroring India as GB, had two thirds of my army there and half my navy. France declared war. I did not have enough to stop them and there allies. I gave them 5k gold for a 50% warscore concession and they accepted it. I had 20k at the time. It solved a probalem, literally bought me five years to solve my other wars. So that can be an example of how money in large reserves can help.

I do agree with the OP's point that stimulating trade, increses the exchange of ideas which is what leads to developments in tech, either by learning from others or having surplus money to invest in research.

These will probably be things we see in the future of the game where money,trade and tech are more interlinked, but I think Paradox have tried not to melt people's machine with an ever more hungry number crunching engine.

 

[balmung60]

You say you're colonizing, right?

Here's how to burn cash like crazy: Build three more colonial protection stacks and recall your colonists. Now start three new colonies. If you're still making money, make another stack, recall a colonist, and make another colony. Colonial costs increase exponentially once you have more colonies than colonists, so having twice as many colonies as colonists is extremely expensive.

 

[delpiero1234]

You say you're colonizing, right?

Here's how to burn cash like crazy: Build three more colonial protection stacks and recall your colonists. Now start three new colonies. If you're still making money, make another stack, recall a colonist, and make another colony. Colonial costs increase exponentially once you have more colonies than colonists, so having twice as many colonies as colonists is extremely expensive.

Colony cost is not related at all to the amount of colonists you have.
The more colonies the more expensive they get. The amount of colonists don't influence this.

 

[roman566]

Give it to a medium AI nation, DOW them and watch as they use that money to create HUGE merc army that they will send against you.
Seriously, the 'I'm flowing in cash' issue has been here since start, PD has done nothing to fix this. They LOVE Monarch Points and won't do anything to make them less needed.

 

[balmung60]

Colony cost is not related at all to the amount of colonists you have.
The more colonies the more expensive they get. The amount of colonists don't influence this.

In my experience, the cost increase per additional colony is always greater when I go above my number of colonists, no matter how many colonists I have, though it is possible that my perception has been skewed by generally already being bigger (and thus not really noticing the expenses having as many colonies as colonists) when I go over with more colonists.

Either way, sustaining 6 to 8 colonies will do a number on anyone's bottom line.

 

[pgroves]

In 1.5 - subsidising nations that you wish to support?

 

[selectah]

Colony cost is not related at all to the amount of colonists you have.
The more colonies the more expensive they get. The amount of colonists don't influence this.

Partly true - colonies only get more expensive if you have more colonies than colonists. So 3 colonies with 1 colonist is more expensive than 3/3.

 

[Mauer]

In my experience, the cost increase per additional colony is always greater when I go above my number of colonists, no matter how many colonists I have, though it is possible that my perception has been skewed by generally already being bigger (and thus not really noticing the expenses having as many colonies as colonists) when I go over with more colonists.

Either way, sustaining 6 to 8 colonies will do a number on anyone's bottom line.

You can keep the same number of colonies as colonists you have for the base price, above it the costs for each colony increase exponentially.

around 2.5 ducats per colony, 1 more colony than colonists will double the cost of that colony, another more and the cost of that single extra colony will increase fourfold (or threefold I can't remember).

 

[pgroves]

In my experience, the cost increase per additional colony is always greater when I go above my number of colonists, no matter how many colonists I have, though it is possible that my perception has been skewed by generally already being bigger (and thus not really noticing the expenses having as many colonies as colonists) when I go over with more colonists.

Either way, sustaining 6 to 8 colonies will do a number on anyone's bottom line.

If you go over your number of colonist, first one over the limit gives a +100% cost, the next + 400% I think, and so on - it's rarely worth going more than +2 over your number of colonists unless your dripping with gold

There's more information here on colonist maintenance cost: http://www.eu4wiki.com/Colonization#Colonists

 

[balmung60]

That's basically what I was saying I thought it was.

 

[pgroves]

That's basically what I was saying I thought it was.

Indeed, I was writing my post before your post appeared, wasn't try to disagree with you!