We are drowning in money. Please make it stop.

[hashinshin]

NERF MANUFACTORIES. IT'S THE ANSWER.

 

[Bobalay]

I had a couple ideas of things that would increase expenses for massive inter-continental empires while also not overly hurting people who like to roleplay or play tall:

You could have certain military tech levels increase army maintenance, the same way dip tech increases naval maintenance. It would make sense in-game, because giving someone a rifle and ammunition costs more than giving them a stick with a pointy thing at the end, and since an army will be the biggest expense by far for a massive empire, it would be immediately noticeable, while being less painful for people who play tall and have the time to actually lower their maintenance sliders between wars.

Lowering autonomy could be a passive expense, as in for every province with an autonomy higher than the minimum floor, there will be a passive expense of some fraction of a ducat per development per autonomy change. This would make it so newly-conquered land will take a while before it pays for itself, and represent the expenses of setting up a communications network and imposing laws on your new territory. It's another expense that would only really sting if you're conquering everything, and not affect tall players/roleplayers.

 

[durbal]

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.

It's not about l33t players vs. n00bs. Too much money hurts even the best players because it trivializes a huge game mechanic for all players. In other words, the fact that there's too much money doesn't mean some players are incompetent -- it means that a game mechanic is trivialized and players are asking to make it a real mechanic just like those others you listed. The convertibility of money into other resources doesn't help your case, since all you're essentially saying is that the massive amount of income in the game at the money just makes everything easier and, in my opinion at least, boring -- and that's entirely the point being made.

Put it this way: if money were more restricted, would you take it as an additional challenge and adapt your strategy? If the answer is yes, then money should be restricted since then I think we're all in agreement.

 

[bbqftw]

There is already mechanism for increasing your war expenses by ~4-10x.

The fact that most players don't even consider taking it because they don't like the AI being given 'artificial bonuses' as if that is some mortal sin is telling enough. Claim challenge then doesn't take challenge when offered.

I disagree entirely with your premise that making money is particularly 'easy'. These are fundamentally playstyle issues, the money critique has been one that always exists. If you spend the entire game making short term sacrifices to snowball your economy then of course you will have no money issue in 150-200years. Just like someone who overexpands in an RTS will soon have too much income that they cannot spend.

In addition, you can remove manufactories from the game entirely and there would still be the issues of exponential money growth. You want to start attacking the issue? Unleash the AI to start going OVER force limit once they have enough cash in the bank. Also giving them arbitrary -alliance chances towards the player will help.

Exert enough existential pressure on the player and money issues will correct themselves.

 

[chegitz guevara]

too much money, too much manpower, too many mercenaries

 

[Runite Drill]

I agree that, in general, there is too much money on hand toward the latter end of the game - even considering things like forts everywhere and going over your force limit.

Good suggestions so far:
- Increased army maintenance for distance from cored land.
- State maintenance increase over time.
- Base +0.1 inflation per year.

My own additions:
- Increased maintenance for wrong culture/wrong religion advisors.
- Maintenance for Trade Companies. For example: 1 Ducat/Year/Development in trade company.
- More mid/late game money sinks like canals (although one-off sinks only mitigate the issue). For example:
> Palace/equivalent upgrades. Say, 5 levels:
1. +1 Military Leader Without Upkeep. Admin tech 8, 500 ducats.
2. +1 Missionary. Admin tech 13, 1000 ducats.
3. -0.05 Yearly Corruption. Admin tech 18, 2500 ducats.
4. +1 Diplomat. Admin tech 23, 5000 ducats.
5. +2 Diplomatic Reputation. Admin tech 28, 10000 ducats.

> Global one-off unique buildings like World Wonders. One wonder for each idea group - must have group completed to build it. Require a monthly investment to progress build, 10000 ducats total. If beaten to completion, get CB, but no refund. Bonus goes to owner of province in which wonder is built. Some example bonuses from wonders in the following idea groups:
Innovative: +20% Institution Spread, -20% Embracement Cost.
Economic: +1 Building slots in all owned provinces.
Administrative: +1 Administrative power per month.
Diplomatic: +1 Diplomatic power per month.
Exploration: +1 Colonist, +10% Chance to attract new settlers.
Influence: -20 Liberty Desire.
Defensive: +33% Defensiveness.
Offensive: +0.5 Army Professionalism per year (or +5% Discipline and +10% Morale for those without CoC).
Quality: +10% Fire damage given, +10% Shock damage given.

- New diplomatic actions involving the transfer of ducats. For example; bribes, buy favours, trade/technology agreements.


Those are my thoughts.

 

[Karabas1543]

too much money, too much manpower, too many mercenaries

Agreed. All major world powers in my current playthrough have standing Merc armies that never get disbanded. Russia's got 100 merc regiments, Ottos have 200+. Manpower is basically unnecessary since there's enough money to just keep paying for mercs.

 

[Halo]

Knowing how PDX balance things, they'll probably make it so going to war gives a -100% malus to your entire income so for the duration of any war your treasury keeps draining. Though this will have zero effect on powerhouse nations and make it extremely not fun to play small ones.

That's always why balancing EU4 is hard because any changes to the game mechanics affect nations asymmetrically. There are 3 tiers of nations: 1). Too big to fail = Ottos, Ming, France 2). Medium nations or nations with great potentials that are fun to play until they become Too Big to Fail within the time frame of EU4 = Brandenburg, any nation that can form Persia/Mughals etc. 3). Extremely weak ones that get gobbled up by #1 and #2

Nerfs in general game mechanics (not nation-specific nerfs) is going to absolutely destroy nations in #3 making them unplayable short of exploits, while doing nothing to nations in #1 and 2.

 

[Brynjar]

Nerfs in general game mechanics (not nation-specific nerfs) is going to absolutely destroy nations in #3 making them unplayable short of exploits, while doing nothing to nations in #1 and 2.

Nerfing stuff like manufactories and trade companies won't really affect your third category, but it will affect large nations.

 

[Starcomet]

I personally like to have a treasury full of gold. But the best way to handle this I think is similar to what CK II does. There are plenty of random events which require you spend money to avoid serious penalty or something and standing armies in the game (retinues) are VERY expensive to maintain when they get very large. EU IV could increase the number of random events which require you spend gold to prevent something and increase the maintenance of army's I suppose.

 

[schondetta]

You can dump the resource into another at a huge loss. Id spend 10k ducts in 1700s for 2000 manpower any day

 

[Martynios]

I personally like to have a treasury full of gold. But the best way to handle this I think is similar to what CK II does. There are plenty of random events which require you spend money to avoid serious penalty or something and standing armies in the game (retinues) are VERY expensive to maintain when they get very large. EU IV could increase the number of random events which require you spend gold to prevent something and increase the maintenance of army's I suppose.

CK2 also suffers from money overload.

 

[Ixal]

You can dump the resource into another at a huge loss. Id spend 10k ducts in 1700s for 2000 manpower any day

That is called hiring mercenaries and only devalues other aspects of the game when you can simply throw money at them.

 

[Starcomet]

CK2 also suffers from money overload.

Later on after you have fully upgraded your demesne and/or have a lot of mayor vassals. If you play as a merchant republic you can also make a long of Gold. As the Roman Empire, I could not keep a large treasury until I had fully upgraded economic buildings. And I always had a very expensive retinue to maintain.

 

[Martynios]

Later on after you have fully upgraded your demesne and/or have a lot of mayor vassals. If you play as a merchant republic you can also make a long of Gold. As the Roman Empire, I could not keep a large treasury until I had fully upgraded economic buildings. And I always had a very expensive retinue to maintain.

In my current game I haven’t actually upgraded any economic buildings and I’m maintaining a 30k retinue cap while owning only Iberia and Jerusalem. My treasury is 50k.

 

[Starcomet]

In my current game I haven’t actually upgraded any economic buildings and I’m maintaining a 30k retinue cap while owning only Iberia and Jerusalem. My treasury is 50k.

What is your income? in my current game I have almost 100K retinue cap. Maybe it is because I am not playing with defensive pacts on. When I had them on, I indeed could get over 50K in my treasury. But with them off, I can barely keep 10K and I have a monthly income of 90+.

 

[durbal]

There is already mechanism for increasing your war expenses by ~4-10x.

The fact that most players don't even consider taking it because they don't like the AI being given 'artificial bonuses' as if that is some mortal sin is telling enough. Claim challenge then doesn't take challenge when offered.

I disagree entirely with your premise that making money is particularly 'easy'. These are fundamentally playstyle issues, the money critique has been one that always exists. If you spend the entire game making short term sacrifices to snowball your economy then of course you will have no money issue in 150-200years. Just like someone who overexpands in an RTS will soon have too much income that they cannot spend.

In addition, you can remove manufactories from the game entirely and there would still be the issues of exponential money growth. You want to start attacking the issue? Unleash the AI to start going OVER force limit once they have enough cash in the bank. Also giving them arbitrary -alliance chances towards the player will help.

Exert enough existential pressure on the player and money issues will correct themselves.

You're the one making arguments about money regarding the game's difficulty level -- I don't think anyone else is. I couldn't care less about that and I'm sure many others don't either. I think there's too much money and it trivializes large aspect of the game, marginalizing many game mechanics and therefore making it boring. I literally just said that in the post you responded to.

 

[cristofolmc]

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.

As a matter of fact, thats what broke Spain's treasure so many times during THIS timeline pricesely. It was always at war, which required a permanent standing army, and Spain had SEVERAL (in Spain, Italy, Neherlands....). This is not represented in game and its awful. France with 50k troops or more in 1550-1650. What the heck is that?

EU4 still has to learn so much about CK2....which is more much accuarate in terms of historica and gameplay mechanics. Recruitment system should work just like it does in CK2 because it is how it work still during most of the EU4 timeline. But without nobles. They should mix this system with the estates/parliament system (which were the ones that financed and supplied and supported war during much of this timeline). Of course, the crown as it was much more powerful than medieval ages, would not depend so much on nobles to raise armies, but they still weren't standing armies at ALL.

 

[cristofolmc]

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.

This doesn't sound hard to implement AT ALL. Why wouldn't they do that? For the blacklash from the usual whinners (the game is too hard muah buaaaah)?

Mind you, it would be only a temporary solution, as king's and country's coffers would never be so filled as they get in EU4. It was hard enough to keep up a suplurs let alone get to swim in so much money you dont even have anyhing to spend it on anymore. That's just ridiculous and a shame on the developers for not fixing such an important issue after so many 20e DLCs...

 

[Martynios]

What is your income? in my current game I have almost 100K retinue cap. Maybe it is because I am not playing with defensive pacts on. When I had them on, I indeed could get over 50K in my treasury. But with them off, I can barely keep 10K and I have a monthly income of 90+.

100+