We are drowning in money. Please make it stop.

[Ixal]

Every expansion and patch introduced more ways to make money. And now we get a "super trade good" (Paradox words) to make even more.

But we do not need it. Starting at mid game people are drowning in money as trade and manufactories give so much income and there is nothing to spend it on. By now gold is the least important ressource in the game (or maybe 2nd after manpower ad you can buy it with otherwise worthless gold)

Please Paradox, stop adding new ways to make money and instead rework the economy to make money valuable again.

 

[magni.]

A good solution would be to reduce the production efficiency that u get from tech to compensate vor the power creep

In the lategame it should be about 20% lower

 

[Bodi]

Can we get more disasters too? I barely ever get them.

 

[Stanleykubrick]

Totally agree on reducing the production effieciency or at least rationalising it. I posted a comment on the development diary, but will post here again in hopes it gets more attention.

The production efficiency increases are too much at the moment, but also do not make sense overall.

You increase your production efficiency with admin technologies like:

- Improved Drainage
- Land Clearance
- Rotherham Plough
- Four Field Rotation
-----------------------------------
- Metallurgy
- Improved Production

All these give a flat 5% to production efficiency across ALL trade goods. This makes sense for the last 2, but for the rest it absolutelly makes no sense for othe rtrade goods(that also tend to be quite expensive). For example why having a better Plough gives you a better production in : Silk, Chinaware, Copper / Iron, Fish, Glass etc.

What I suggest is to keep these, but apply the incresed production to certain goods only. For example have grain and cotton get the benefits from all 6 techs (it makes sense) but Glass will only get benefit from the last 2.

Of course beyond that strong arguments can be made on the current trade good pricing. This is something that needs to get adressed soon as every patch brings new provinces->more goods produced (manufacturies give a flat increase in the goods produced per province)-> more money.

 

[brantodb01]

I think investments would be the best idea, the canals were a good start but something maybe cheaper and more frequent would be good, like being able to improve the roads in a province to make troops move faster and the higher level roads have a greater maintenance.

 

[DominusNovus]

I think investments would be the best idea, the canals were a good start but something maybe cheaper and more frequent would be good, like being able to improve the roads in a province to make troops move faster and the higher level roads have a greater maintenance.

A few possibilities:
- An infrastructure state edict that costs much higher than other edicts, but gives increasingly better bonuses as the game progresses (either marked by age or by tech level). Depending on how good these bonuses are, could make the government buildings more useful.
- A budget slider for overall infrastructure in your country, again that provides better bonuses as you advance.
- Projects, like the Canal du Midi, that are basically smaller scale versions of the current canal projects. You can’t do anything crazy like transport your fleet through these, but they provide plenty of other benefits.

The biggest problems with these suggestions is that it would be absurd for these not to have any economic benefits, from a flavor perspective. So, while they could be good places to eat up cash, they’re going to turn a profit, most likely. Exacerbating the problem. So, ultimately, we need more ways to burn up cash.
- Perhaps a mid-later game merc rework?
- More ways to turn your cash into other values, like prestige, legitimacy, or MP (yes, most of these can be turned back into cash, so it needs to be balanced so that its not profitable from that perspective)
- More ways to use your cash to hurt other nations. Oh! What if you could fund your spies? Yes, have an ‘espionage’ budget slider. This would strengthen your spy network construction, and could grow increasingly powerful as the game goes on.

 

[iquabakaner]

Wars need to be much more costly as it was in reality. Maintaining a large standing army should be expensive, and more so when at war.

 

[Badesumofu]

Introducing something that allows us to make more money after 1700 does seem odd.

Maybe other things are changing as well to make money more scarce.

 

[Twoflower]

The root of the problem is, perhaps, the fact that EU4 misrepresents standing armies so badly, in that everybody has them from the start. If standing armies were a thing that only develops during the game and that are actually really hard to afford, they would be a perfect money sink. However, such a fundamental change - which would probably require the introduction of feudal levies - is unlikely to be introduced at this stage of development of EU4.
The problem that there is so much money in the game that the economical side of the game becomes almost irrelevant after a certain point remains though. Which is bad, because it makes all strategic choices related to economics (the trade idea group, religions - like the newly introduced anglicanism - which grant mostly economic benefits...) underpowered.

 

[durbal]

The new events and new 'content' being thrown into EU4 are the worst they've ever been -- influenza and local militias events, Crimean Khanate, etc. At least half the new events are total no-brainers. A good amount of them don't even make mathematical sense. There's one event that decreases manpower but gives professionalism but you can slacken and just get it all back.

Regarding the economy: depending on which tag you play and how well you start off, but for most nations around 1550 the economy just exponentially takes off and every province has a manufactory and workshop. Things like dyes and silk used to be prized, but now there's paper and gems and stuff everywhere. Livestock -- largely the old grain provinces -- are worth more than sugar. AND SINCE WHEN WAS LIVESTOCK A TRADE GOOD AT ALL? What, are we shipping Frisian cows from India in the 16th century or something!?!?

 

[gronak]

Wars need to be much more costly as it was in reality. Maintaining a large standing army should be expensive, and more so when at war.

War is often extremely profitable, thanks to war taxes. Assuming you're not losing, that is.

 

[Rocketskates]

The new events and new 'content' being thrown into EU4 are the worst they've ever been -- influenza and local militias events, Crimean Khanate, etc. At least half the new events are total no-brainers. A good amount of them don't even make mathematical sense. There's one event that decreases manpower but gives professionalism but you can slacken and just get it all back.

Regarding the economy: depending on which tag you play and how well you start off, but for most nations around 1550 the economy just exponentially takes off and every province has a manufactory and workshop. Things like dyes and silk used to be prized, but now there's paper and gems and stuff everywhere. Livestock -- largely the old grain provinces -- are worth more than sugar. AND SINCE WHEN WAS LIVESTOCK A TRADE GOOD AT ALL? What, are we shipping Frisian cows from India in the 16th century or something!?!?

livestock was quite a thing, used for labour and food
armies relied on livestock for feeding, Wien was getting its beef from the occupied hungarian plains for example.

 

[HRErceg]

War is often extremely profitable, thanks to war taxes. Assuming you're not losing, that is.

Those would need to be specific, a ruler couldn't force his people to pay more taxes just because he wants a throne of another country, cause if he did that would cause massive rebellions

 

[Rocketskates]

Those would need to be specific, a ruler couldn't force his people to pay more taxes just because he wants a throne of another country, cause if he did that would cause massive rebellions

yes they could, corvinus was doing exactly that

 

[Philthy]

I think the point raised here about standing armies is pretty valid. You should be able to have a small force of soldiers, but then maybe you should be able to recruit conscripts relatively quickly, or hire militia. Militia are stationary armies that can be conscripted in times of war. Conscripts take time or drilling (or being near highly drilled high army professionalism troops) to reach troop status, but when they are there they are much more effective and much more expensive, similar in cost to normal standing armies.

 

[Tibi088]

IMO the best would be the histroical solution as states having a lot more money as time goes is historical as well: the army. Army maintenance should cost a lot more as time goes forward to simulate that even though your income has risen considerably you have to spend it on the army or become week.

 

[durbal]

livestock was quite a thing, used for labour and food
armies relied on livestock for feeding, Wien was getting its beef from the occupied hungarian plains for example.

I understand that livestock existed. I completely disagree with its status as a 'trade good' along the lines of textiles, ore, etc. however. That'd be like adding lumber as a trade good (no, not tropical wood).

 

[SolSys]

I understand that livestock existed. I completely disagree with its status as a 'trade good' along the lines of textiles, ore, etc. however. That'd be like adding lumber as a trade good (no, not tropical wood).

But.. it is not a "trade good" in the sense that you make it be.
It was stated that it is [as well as grain -- and something else?] are given to provinces which did not have any special/significant good exports.

 

[karimjebari]

In a mod I'm working on, "The Strategy of Conflict", I've addressed this problem by increasing the maintenance modifier for land units by 5% for every mil tech and increasing the cost penalty from inflation.

 

[Martynios]

Yes, there is too much money.
No, economic investments as an investment only stall the problem.

What this game really needs is a better simulation of the cost of war. Currently, a player only takes loans when fighting a very difficult war or when going for something like a world conquest. In reality, even rich nations took loans frequently and even occasionally bankrupted due to the cost of maintaining their armies.

One thing to help solve this problem would be increased army maintenance depending on its distance from the capital/nearest border/nearest fort. This would also improve the "total war" behaviour that nations exhibit in the game, i.e. that they never send only a small army to fight in a war which results in things like tens of thousands of Ottoman troops fighting in France in the 15th century.

The root of the problem is, perhaps, the fact that EU4 misrepresents standing armies so badly, in that everybody has them from the start. If standing armies were a thing that only develops during the game and that are actually really hard to afford, they would be a perfect money sink. However, such a fundamental change - which would probably require the introduction of feudal levies - is unlikely to be introduced at this stage of development of EU4.

I'm currently working on a suggestion that incorporates standing armies in a non-radical and realistic way. If people are interested I can post the link here when I'm done.