We are drowning in money. Please make it stop.

[jdavis86]

Part of the issue is tied to wide vs tall imo.

There isn't enough of a price paid in wide expansion. The current economic mechanics make sense when imagining various "tall" great powers. Or say the great powers of an historic 17th century. They should all have access to valuable goods, be able to field powerful forces, and be competitive economically.

Expanding wide is too multiplicative. Even with autonomy, the player quickly benefits from the economic power of the added regions.

Maybe the current iteration is better in MP, where you have slower expansion and more competitive and tall nations.

PS I think ducat development tied investments would be a great addition.

 

[peleliu]

I agree that the game is awash in too much money. The reality during the EU4 period was that national governments were almost always cash starved. And cash starved because of the expense of wars which, in turn, fueled unrest and more wars. I would argue that issue of Ship Money played some role in England during the 1600s. Would the French monarchy have collapsed in 1789 if the finances were in order? While national governments struggled to pay the bills there was money and financial growth in abundance during this era, but it was largely in the hands of one or more of the three estates (merchants, clerics, and nobles). Loans to the national government were (and still are) the lifeblood of nations. If we want the flow of money a bit more accurately modeled in EU4 then hard cash should be much harder to come by and loans more frequent and dearer.

 

[durbal]

If they charged for all territories using the existing states upkeep mechanic it'd mean far away, wrong culture, wrong religion provinces would actually be a net economic drain. They could literally use the same code.

 

[Vampiresbane]

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.

So much this. There's a reason why the American Revolutionary War caused both France and Britain very large financial issues on a global scale. For France, it toppled its Monarchy and led to the French Revolution and eventually Napoleon rising to power. For Britain, because of the loss of American cotton plantations, put more pressure on their holdings in India to grow cotton. Which, when that didn't pan out well and because of the pressure by their trade deficit with China from Tea, Britain was motivated to then start the Opium Wars with China.

The financial cost of the American Revolution in just those two ways to those two large and influential countries caused, not just national changes within France and Britain, but GLOBAL changes. If eu4 finances were at work in reality during that 1776 war, it could be argued the French Revolution and the Opium Wars may never have happened.

 

[Vulkandrache]

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

Before we do anything like this the interface needs to support it.
As in some way to manage your buildings in a global scale without having to go and check each individual province each time it gets sieged down.

We just recently got the macro builder for buildings, which is something of an improvement. You could call it an adequate solution for the symptoms.

 

[Brynjar]

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

I could support buildings having a chance of being damaged/destroyed when conquered, but during siege just sounds like it's too easy to exploit. Especially in multiplayer (personally I don't really care about multiplayer though).

 

[ecrurudesby]

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.

Agreed. Also increase national unrest substantially when not paying regiments.

 

[Mutagen_Prime]

Wouldn't mind a few more sliders to dump gold into tbh. Off the top of my head:

Patronage (requires Renaissance)
Slider bonus: +X legitimacy per month, +X prestige per month, increased frequency of positive unique patronage-related events.

State Research (requires Enlightenment)
Slider bonus: +X mana per month, increased frequency of positive advisor-related events.

Infrastructure (requires Feudalism)
Slider bonus: +X army movement speed within provinces, -X army attrition in owned provinces, increased frequency of development-boosting events.

All would counter-act an equivalent -X default variable change at game start to prevent snowballing.

 

[DanubianCossak]

The entire economy needs to be overhauled, right now, early on, its too hard, but in sense that you can focus on working with that, build up your economy the right way, and simply explode 50 years after manufactories come in. Usually 50-100 years after that i get bored and quit

No good idea as to how to do it tho

 

[Rikissa]

There isn't enough of a price paid in wide expansion.

People mostly have a very different definition of what "wide" or "blobbing" means, if you blob at a WC pace before 1600 you will pay a price for it and it's by no means easy if you start as a minor

Ryukyu with Exploration, Administrative, Religious, Humanist, Influence will have to beat most enemies through good micro since you lack any military ideas

And you'll likely pay half of your income to decrease corruption, if you think there is too much money before 1600/1650 you probably just don't know how to spend it, other players are drowning in loans and have to engineer bankruptcies

The matter of the fact is, that a tall Prussia with military ideas (or any other nation for that fact) will beat the Ottoblob. Most wide countries can't before the very late game.

 

[Xetfield]

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

The best idea from this thread, IMO. Realistic, simple to implement and will help to the situation. Of course, it can't be the only solution, though.

 

[Stenen Jan]

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.
.

Yes, this kind of dynamic land maintenance is something that's sorely needed. If it's not possible in the current engine then it should be a must-have for EU5 to make it a more immersive experience.

For example, I often see France an England shipping 40k men or more over to the colonies on a whim in the early 1600s when in reality maintaining an army 3000 miles across the sea in that time period would have been insanely expensive.

I like the current mechanic where colonial nations can fight amongst themselves without automatically dragging their overlords into a major European total war. I think it would be a lot more immersive if players had to really think about the costs involved in giving their far-flung colonies direct military support. It could also open up options about asking the colonies to share some of the burden of troop upkeep for their defence, just as happened in the 13 colonies after the 7 Years' War.

Just like in real life, committing a sizable number of troops in the colonies should be prohibitively expensive and not something you could do and still run a surplus. Britain in the mid-1700s was one of the wealthiest countries in Europe and fighting the 7 years War took them into unprecedented amounts of debt. The infinite money of the late game is a big problem. If even large and rich countries had to make tough choices about maintaining huge standing armies and sending troops across the world, it would make for much more interesting gameplay.

 

[magni.]

I think I have a solution with out changing gameplay

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ow-to-stop-the-money-flood-past-1600.1067567/

 

[Ixal]

Some random ideas:
- Building upkeep
- Increase State and especially Territory upkeep
- Reducing devastation drains gold.
- Lock Manufactories behind the Economic Ideas

But in the end I don't think coming up with more and more ways to spend all the gold you get will solve it. We need a complete overhaul of the income system, similar to what Paradox did with the forts.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Some random ideas:
- Building upkeep
- Increase State and especially Territory upkeep
- Reducing devastation drains gold.
- Lock Manufactories behind the Economic Ideas

But in the end I don't think coming up with more and more ways to spend all the gold you get will solve it. We need a complete overhaul of the income system, similar to what Paradox did with the forts.

1. would be kind of a loop where you build to make money and they drain money
2. isn't it expensive enough in the early game already?
3.good luck with that
4. oh yeah, sure that will not backfire

 

[Ixal]

1. would be kind of a loop where you build to make money and they drain money
2. isn't it expensive enough in the early game already?
3.good luck with that
4. oh yeah, sure that will not backfire

1. Mostly yes, thats why it is a random idea. But there are several building which dont give money or only indirectly.
2. No. Or do you ever stop conquering provinces while you are at the state cap because you cant afford their upkeep?
3. Good luck with what? Please bring arguments.
4. Because?

 

[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.


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.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-expanding-unit-types.1067623/#post-23766841 Here we go!

 

[bbqftw]

People mostly have a very different definition of what "wide" or "blobbing" means, if you blob at a WC pace before 1600 you will pay a price for it and it's by no means easy if you start as a minor

Ryukyu with Exploration, Administrative, Religious, Humanist, Influence will have to beat most enemies through good micro since you lack any military ideas

And you'll likely pay half of your income to decrease corruption, if you think there is too much money before 1600/1650 you probably just don't know how to spend it, other players are drowning in loans and have to engineer bankruptcies

The matter of the fact is, that a tall Prussia with military ideas (or any other nation for that fact) will beat the Ottoblob. Most wide countries can't before the very late game.

this guy understands.

Practically everyone in this thread either doesn't know how to spend money to push the game to its limit or needs to raise their difficulty level.

You can almost always convert money into more expansion fronts, points, trucebreak efficiency, parallel war efficiency, AE reduction. Just because you don't see the faucets doesn't mean they don't exist.

In fact, too much money is more a problem suited towards tallish play. There is just simply not enough to do once you have secured your stable position.

 

[ecrurudesby]

Practically everyone in this thread either doesn't know how to spend money to push the game to its limit or needs to raise their difficulty level.

Or maybe, juuuuuuuust maybe, they aren't interested in World Conquest or measuring their testicle size.

 

[Rikissa]

Or maybe, juuuuuuuust maybe, they aren't interested in World Conquest or measuring their testicle size.

Why would less money make the game more enjoyable for you in that case?