So, which way do we want it?
Seems to me that the real question is which way do we really want the game to be.
On one hand, the use of govenors to reduce inflation is very abstract, and represents putting competent officials in charge of certain parts of the economy. This way, you are acting very much like the "grey eminence", and are just telling your faithful minions to fix the economy for you. You are not worrying yourself over the trifling details of production versus gold. This is why inflation magically drops by a point right when you promote a govenor, as opposed to a decline over time (which would be more realistic).
The other side of the coin could see a very complex system, where you, as the "grey eminence", try and adjust the economy yourself. This would be alot more micromanegment, but would have the benefit of more realism. For example, you could set up a system where the player could increase or decrease the rate of production from gold provinces, so as to prevent massive inflation. The player would, early in the game, try and restrain production of gold, and as the production of goods and trade increases, then making the provinces produce more gold up to their maximum capacity. This would be more complicated, be more time consuming (adding yet another set of sliders to play with!), but would give the player direct control over the effort to fight inflation, instead of just appointing those govenors.
I do not know which way I would want it myself. On one hand, the sudden promotion of 5 govenors in one month drops the inflation of the entire empire by 5 points, which is unrealistic. On the other hand, I may not be in the mood to micro-manage the production of gold and its relation to trade and goods production in the economy. (Though, the AI would probably be very good at that.)
Does someone else know which way we should go?
