We are drowning in money. Please make it stop.

[Lumpy]

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.

My idea would be to tie troop maintenance to your level of army professionalism. High army professionalism represents your military to actually be a standing army, and thus maintenance would be much higher. In turn, with low army professionalism and thus lower maintenance, your ingame armies could represent only the means to actually field an irregular force the size of your actual ingame army. Apart from that, I'd like to see army maintenance raised across the board. Prolonged warfare should almost always force you to take up loans at some point, as it was in reality. This would also indirectly tackle the absurd power creep and blobbing that occurs even for medium powers.

Given the sheer amount of excess gold one has access to from the midgame onward, this would of course only be part of the solution. More mechanics to cut the ridiculous inflation are needed.

 

[Brynjar]

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).

Lumber is kinda alrady in the game as a trade good, but it's called naval supplies. There are plenty (most?) of provinces in the game producing naval supplies which were producing and exporting lumber as their most important trade goods. High quality lumber were in high demand due to ship building.

 

[HRErceg]

Or maybe make a corruption/missionary/colonist ledger which cost would grow exponentialy (you would probably never be able to afford and move it to max) and the power of your troops by double

 

[Mingmung]

Making barely a few ducats a month in the first decades is also problematic, in my opinion.

The other side of the spectrum. I think early to midgame is expensive as a small nation: corruption, first buildings, army-maintenance, embracing institutions and loans you have to repay. This coupled with the pressure on monarch points from expanding and teching accordingly.

I also think that a well-developed economy should be rewarded by the game. People are mostly suggesting punishments for growing big. While I agree that challenges are needed later on in most games, I don't think they should be that arbitrary (there was a better game-term for it, hard-'something', I forgot). Mechanics like coalitions and greater succesion wars could be looked upon, or hell, satisfying non-conquest wars.

 

[Telenil]

Personal trivia about army maintenance: at the beginning of my first game (of EU4) I wondered why anyone would use those super expensive mercenaries. Then, in the late game, I realized they didn't use manpower, and promptly converted all my infantry into mercs. A little while later, I was going to war all the time and didn't bother to decrease maintenance in between. I was still swimming in gold with a trade empire consisting of 60% of Canada and 60% of Guinea.

 

[durbal]

Lumber is kinda alrady in the game as a trade good, but it's called naval supplies. There are plenty (most?) of provinces in the game producing naval supplies which were producing and exporting lumber as their most important trade goods. High quality lumber were in high demand due to ship building.

That's not what naval supplies is supposed to represent, which is why tropical wood (the preferred wood of choice for wooden ships) is its own trade good.

And I was referring to lumber for things like barns, houses, and other generic uses -- as a commodity like livestock that shouldn't be a trade good at all despite it common importance.

 

[Ixal]

Personal trivia about army maintenance: at the beginning of my first game (of EU4) I wondered why anyone would use those super expensive mercenaries. Then, in the late game, I realized they didn't use manpower, and promptly converted all my infantry into mercs. A little while later, I was going to war all the time and didn't bother to decrease maintenance in between. I was still swimming in gold with a trade empire consisting of 60% of Canada and 60% of Guinea.

Its kinda backward to how it went in history.
In EU4 you start out with standing armies and switch over to mercenaries as time progresses.

 

[Brynjar]

That's not what naval supplies is supposed to represent, which is why tropical wood (the preferred wood of choice for wooden ships) is its own trade good.

And I was referring to lumber for things like barns, houses, and other generic uses -- as a commodity like livestock that shouldn't be a trade good at all despite it common importance.

Why is naval supplies produced in provinces which had lumber for ship building as their main trade goods then? All the Norwegian provinces (possibly with Vestlandet as an exception) producing naval supplies in the game was relying on timber trade, and was afaik never producing anything else which could justify them producing naval supplies. I strongly suspect the same is the case for the naval supplies provinces in the Baltics as well. Timber was an important trade goods, and the Dutch wouldn't be anywere close to what they were in the time era if it wasn't.

As a side note, large parts of Amsterdam is/was built on foundations of imported timber during the game's time era, so to a limited degree it was also traded internationally for other things than ship building.

 

[Troopperi]

That's not what naval supplies is supposed to represent, which is why tropical wood (the preferred wood of choice for wooden ships) is its own trade good.

And I was referring to lumber for things like barns, houses, and other generic uses -- as a commodity like livestock that shouldn't be a trade good at all despite it common importance.

Actually the tooltip for the trade good tells that it covers everything required for ship construction, including wood. Though wood is also available in a ton of places without naval supplies so it might seem a bit silly.

 

[Rikissa]

I wish I had as much money as people in this thread

 

[Monphat]

As I see it, the problem is that a nation's income rises meteorically while expenditure rises gradually.

During the course of the game more and more ways of obtaining gold come into play: nations construct builidings, establish trade, raise development etc. while costs remain the same: advisors, army, fleet etc. At some point income exceeds expenses so much that a nation accumulates enough money to basically reform its economy by constructing a lot of premium buildings and trade fleets. This gives them even more money and they leap even further and build manufacturies. By 1650 money is not a problem at all.

Probably the best way to solve the problem is to make expenses as dynamic as income. A lot of mechanics may help: estates and advisors wanting more of a share from the budget, professionalism drastically increasing the cost of army and so on. At the same time it is probably a good idea to also slightly lower the amount of generated money overall to make it look more realistic.

 

[master_kong]

Maybe adding a penalty to low manpower so making mercenaries more valuable could help.

 

[davej]

I dunno.


You miss money when you're an expanding minor in precarious places.

 

[Canute VII]

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.

Of neccessity. Otherwise I'm tempted to think they consumed too much akvavit during the cold season up there at PDX Dev studios.

 

[cwg9]

There is already a neglected mechanic in the game that could be used to address this issue. Inflate all the prices through actual inflation.

Have a standard inflation curve with various factors that result in some countries inflating their prices faster or slower than the mean over time, creating interesting gameplay choices (quick cash now, or lower prices in the future, etc.). Perhaps also link it to tech level so backwards countries aren't having to deal with overly high price increases too soon. Have countries tend to revert to tech adjusted mean over the long term, all else being equal, so a country that gets into an inflation spiral isn't permanently crippled.

Get rid of the ability to spend monarch points to easily reduce inflation to zero, but rather re-purpose that button so it dramatically slows down the growth rate of inflation for 5 years so players and the AI have a tool to manage high inflation scenarios. Tie it to other systems, e.g. long expensive wars push up inflation/prices, creating a risk/reward tradeoff.

It would be a bit tricky to design and balance a proper inflation system, and teach the AI how to deal with it, but the actual mechanic is already right there in the game, begging to be used. Right now every country just ends up with around zero inflation most of the time thanks to a master of mint or the investment of a few monarch points, which is completely uninteresting and unrealistic.

 

[randomgamer71]

I think a good money sink would be if Development would cost not just monarch points, but money, too.

Maybe lower the monarch point cost (and maybe making it constant (i.e not increase with the level of development)) and add a ducat cost that increase non-linearly with the development.

It would make sense because development represent things like laying roads, draining swamps, building infrastructures, etc. all things that do cost money.

(maybe add an option to choose between money and manpower?)

Also going to war would slow development because they are expensive, an interesting side effects, you'd have to make a choice going to war and conquest new development, also with this system even AI nations would have less money, you could go to war and ask for some thousand ducats in peace.

 

[rinehime]

That's not what naval supplies is supposed to represent, which is why tropical wood (the preferred wood of choice for wooden ships) is its own trade good.

What!? Didn't know all those famous Scandinavian seafarers were importing tropical wood for their boats. Same with the shipbuilding industry in Colonial Canada and New England - the colonies launched over 1000 vessels in the 17th century, mostly from local wood. A lot of the northern evergreen species (pines,cedars, etc) have always been preferred because they're fast-growing, long, and straight i.e. good for masts and planks. Softwoods are good because they readily absorb pitch for waterproofing. Oak and other hardwoods were used for keels, hulls and decking.

Outside of the tropics, tropical wood only recently (last century or two) became a "preferred" wood for ships. Even now, they're generally only used for key parts because they're expensive. Generally, however, throughout history the best wood for boat building is whatever's around...

Back on-topic - Yeah, they're probably too much money now. Cash was decently balanced (for the AI at least) before they taught the AI what Return on Investment means. They probably need to rebalance it now that they've improved the AI. There's no hope, however, of balance for a player....

 

[Celdur]

The perfect money sink would be development of provinces, you invest money into provinces and increase their development level... just like in real life and should of course cost more the more you develop. Its very weird that in 400 years of game time world development is basically the same as it was in 1444.

We should also be able to destroy development of provinces if the devastation is high enough and also destroy and loot buildings, to compensate there could be reduced costs to recover a province to its previous development and building level but it would be something more to sink money into aswell.

There could also be cool additions like in the 1700's between european nations a "gentleman's agreement" of not devastating each other provinces could be enacted, one of the reasons Frederick the Great managed to hold out afterall, was because Berlin was not destroyed during any of its occupations.

 

[Brynjar]

I don't think a huge economy overhaul is needed. What is needed in my opinion is rebalancing manufactories (the buildings), trade companies (they are just too good, disabling military buildings in them could be a start), and perhaps changing the institution bonus from goods produced to something else, or just nerf it. The +10% goods produced is huge, as it also increases trade value generated. It dwarves most of the other institution embracement bonuses.

 

[Gheryon]

i would add a chance a builiding get destroyed/damaged during a siege, so you could loss its effect until you repair/rebuild