The ever-increasing costs of manufacturies

[Marcus]

I've just learned that manufacturies' cost always increases, the more you build, the more you have to fork over, is there any kind of logic behind this and (more importantly) some way to reverse this process (except for burning them down and losing provinces, of course) ?

 

[unmerged(548)]

is there any kind of logic behind this

Yes, though I have yet to understand it =)

and (more importantly) some way to reverse this process (except for burning them down and losing provinces, of course) ?

You could minimize the inflation also. Helps a bit. Don't know what else you can do, since I don't know the factors affecting price (like mayby country size ?).

 

[unmerged(2037)]

I'm pretty sure that the price of manufactory depends only on the number of manufactories you already have (except inflation).
The price does not depend on country size (nr. of provinces controlled) as I played England some time ago and solidified economy for some time - ie upgrading colonies to cities and building manufactories.

I believe the price increase is proportional to price of last manufactury at the beginning and ss soon as the manufactory cost reaches about 1500 - 2000 with 0% inflation the next manufactury cost about 100d more than previous. In other words I think the difference between ith and i++th manufactury aproaches some value (~100d) and do not exceed it.

 

[unmerged(1995)]

In my own experience, I feel that there are steps in the price increase.
Lately, my manufacturies cost went up from around 4000 to 12000 (or did I dream ?).
No way to explain this by +100D increments. I believe I have about 80 manufactories.
And I am pretty sure I never paid 6000D to 12000D manufactories (but maybe my attention was lacking ?).

Also I don't understand why all manufactories don't cost the same, as they give roughly equivalent benefits ???

 

[unmerged(1609)]

I noticed something else with regard to manufactories. When you look into the screen when you can choose which manufactury to build you see an info about how many factories you can build at lower cost. I noticed that this number changes. I used all the limit of low cost manufacturies but sometimes later when I looked at that screen again I got another chance to build a manufactury at lower cost. I wonder what afects this limit? Thought that it might be related to your infrstructure tech level but apparently it's not the case. I cecked that increase of the limit happend without advancing to another tech level. Anybody knows something about that?

 

[unmerged(1995)]

In the BG, you would build manufactories.
During the course of the game, you had a limit on the number of manufactories you would build, depending on the year and country. You could exceed that limit, but if you did, great problems would arise in case of rebellions in your country (more rebellions, and other things I don't remember) which were so stringent that you would not usually exceed your limit.

I suspect that the "number of manufactories at a lower cost" has something to do with that.

The problem in the CG is that the economic model is more or less broken ; you make way too much money and can buy hordes of manufactories. Thus, that limit has no real impact on the game or so it seems.

 

[unmerged(2650)]

Is the BG economic model completly different from CG's?

In CG my feeling is that exotic CoT revenues are somewhat excessive, if you establish a monopoly in such a CoT your cash sky-rocket.

 

[unmerged(1995)]

The economic model is somewhat different in the BG, but still close enough that one familiar with the BG does recognize everything.

It feels better in the CG in the way it is done. In particular, you imagine that in the BG you could not count the exact trading value of the trading places (which, by the way, are at sea in the BG, suggesting that you earn money by moving things around) dynamically : this would be too much cumbersome. And even so, it was quite cumbersome to count your earnings in the BG.

However, the CG is badly flawed in the amount of money you can earn.
In the BG, the very best trading places will earn you no more than half your yearly income if you play the french, for exemple, supposing you get the monopoly. So I'd estimate that the best trading places should yield no more than 80D in the CG to remain in line with the BG. As the competition in the trading centers is much fiercer in the CG than in the BG (nobody would manage all these minors !!!!), a best case estimate in Europe is that you can get a monopoly with a total of 10 slots ; with a return of, say 0.5 for trading level, this means a good European CoT could rise up to 360D in face value : thus, in the CG, the European CoT are globaly allright (except those of colonial powers which inflate a bit too much). But the CG exotic CoTs are quite another matter ! their value should be cut by a factor of at least 4.

One of the thing that is different in the CG from the BG is that CoTs (their equivalent) have fixed and low values in the BG. CoTs in the far east would be of low value. You would not make money by capturing the trading value of a country like China ; you would instead implant a trading post or a colony (not recommended!!) in a juicy area. This area would yield you an amount of products to sell at the current market value. So, if the CG were to be closer to the BG, a trading post/colony would yield a very low trading income, and a better production income. And exotic countries would provide little to the trading value of CoTs. One way to do so in the CG would be to simply lower the trading value of all exotic products (furs, sugar...) and perhaps increase the production value of trading posts.

The CG is also badly flawed in the amount of colonist it gives you : with the british, you can thus colonize half the world with lvl 7 colonies in the CG. From what I recall, in the CG you get as much as 5 time the number of (traders+colonists) you get in the BG. This also helps inflate dramatically your income from the middle of the game onwards.

I guess these choices were made to give more appeal to the CG, at a heavy cost to historicity. In the CG, things are more dynamic and occur faster than in the BG. But the result is that the clever English player can for exemple deny the access to North America to all other countries, whereas this was absolutely impossible in the BG.

 

[unmerged(2650)]

Thanks yves,

very interesting post.

May be i would try to tone down the exotic goods revenues in a OH test game to see the effect, there is a goods.csv with prices.

Just for fun, i like to modify games

 

[Viking]

The way around the ever increasing manufactory cost is to save up 100,000o burning through inflation then build enough governors to reduce the inflation to 0 then build 100 manufactories all over the world. Or save 20,000 and build 20. Then you do not pay increaced costs for each manufactory. But the costs do jump up heavilly. From my "Home" manufactory drive in 1650 which covered all of england and ireland in manufactories in one go to my "Indian and American" manufactory drive in 1720 the cost jumped from 1000o to 4000o per manufactory. I had in the end 1792 100+ manufactories all over the world.

 

[unmerged(548)]

I used all the limit of low cost manufacturies but sometimes later when I looked at that screen again I got another chance to build a manufactury at lower cost. I wonder what afects this limit?

This is where I think country size might be a factor.
Yves theory about the BG limits for ceratain periods is also quite plausible.

 

[unmerged(548)]

Originally posted by Cunctator
Thanks yves,

very interesting post.

May be i would try to tone down the exotic goods revenues in a OH test game to see the effect, there is a goods.csv with prices.

Yes, this probably is a good idea, since the "luxury goods" tend to skyrocket to doulbe the nominal value quite fast anyway.
Enevn though the value is probably entirely correct, it does berake the economic system somewhat that a nation is able to tap into such a large part of that money.

 

[unmerged(1995)]

Well, in the BG, you would get good money from exotic goods anyway.
Especially with well developped trading post and colonies.
Some countries could get very rich.

However, it did not impact the game in the same way. In particular, Tech increases were not affected as much in the BG by revenue as in the CG. If you had lots of money, what would happen is that :
- you'd spend a decent amount on upgrades (traders, colonies, tech...),
- probably maintain a sizeable army and fleet,
- keep some in your coffers to rot under inflation (much worse and realistic in the BG than in the CG).

Some of the very important differences are :
- in the BG, you may make one attempt each turn (every 5 years) to increase your military tech (choose one of navy or army),
- in the BG, you may make one attempt each turn to increase your infrastructure or trading techs or install a new manufactory (choose one only)

each attempt is influenced by :
- monarch rating (1 to 9, usually between 4-6)
- money poured in the attempt ; but the bonus would not exceed +3 (if I recall correctly)
- possessed manufactories for military techs only : +1 for each manufactory of the right type, max +2
And then, you would roll a d10, and you'd have to get more than 15, if I recall correctly still

Obviously, monarchs values where alwasy very important, and if you had a monarch who sucked, your tech would not improve much, even if you had lots of money (he just is not able to apply all his money to the right things). On the other hand, you also see that if you had a monarch who rocked, you could make quite good progress, even with little money (you still need a basic amount of money to progress) Does Frederick I reminds you of something?

As you see, it is not as much the amount of money you make which makes a huge difference : it is the way it is used. And in the CG, a monarch is very useful at the start of the game, and you just don't care if your monarchs suck at the end : you make so much money that the monarch input is negligible ; in the BG, just try and play historical monarchs for Spain or Turkey up to the end of the game, and then you'll understand what is a badly led country


Now, if I were tweeking the parameters of the game, I would attempt a combination of these :

- reduce the number of colonists you get overall by 5 (would that be possible ?) ; consequences : much less high profits colonies/trading posts ; nobody can monopolize a given area ; and, of course, trading revenues go down hard ; also, because you really need a return on your first invetsments, traders become much more necessary (I never use traders, except to 'reserve' areas to colonize later)
- reduce the costs to increase tech : make each step linear (slightly increasing cost) instead of exponential ; keep it low. exact values to determine of course, but also probably to stabilize (to keep it in line with your earnings)
- reduce the overall effects of infrasture and trade technology (diminish the increase in generated trade) ; in the BG, these techs only gave you a better chance of success at some action ; you did not make more money with them. I'd say that the increase should not be more than 2% or 3% (but of course, you need it much less because tech is much cheaper). I would even try and see if a "no increase" in revenue would be playable (i.e. do your techs affect success chances or not ; I'd say yes : my lvl 10 merchants seem quite resilient, and success when placing a merchant is quite good too).
- probably reduce the overall trading values of all commodities (I believe a factor 2 or so).
- the size factor for countries should also be tweaked if possible (to reduce the bonus small countries would get under that new model).
- something probably not feasible : don't divert Chinese trade so easily to Euopean CoTs.

That's about all ; overall expected effects : much less money overall (especially in the second half of the game).
- Monarchs much more important.
- Much less colonies : placement becomes crucial.
- With less money, troops are costly, maintaining large armies is costly, thus making war is not a necessarily winning proposition.
- Diplomacy (with cash) becomes less frequent : much more difficult to make vassals and such.
- All in all, with less money, you just cannot afford to do everything you wish ; in the BG, you sometimes skipped whole phases (no increase in techs...) because there was no money left...

If someone tries something like this, I'd really be interested

 

[unmerged(2650)]

An overhelming task

Some of the points you listed may be addressed with easy patches to configurations files. Good base prices could be changed, and colonist number too IIRC. HIMO it's not so easy achieve the desidered overall effect on the game, considered the time span involved. Besides, as you said, the mechanics is very different from BG.

What you said about monarch skill if very interesting. Now the only factor to be cosidered in the end game is diplomacy skill, it affects vassallization and annexation attempts. Possible solution: military and adminstrative skills should have a 'relative scale' compared to money you earn in each period, so a good value for the first century could be 3 and 15 in the last century. Obviously a general decrease in money revenues should be done.

IIRC RealEU, from Laurent Favre, is addressing some of these points. I'll take a closer look at it. I don't want to make a new mod, i don't have the time and the skill to do it. But if could help to refine it...

 

[unmerged(548)]

Auch Yves, a lot of your suggestions would require a lot of remodelling to incorporate in the game.

I still think though, that reducing money (as Real RU does) together with perhaps a 20-30% decrease in "luxury goods" values would be a pretty good aproximation for getting most of the same effects. This is also very easily done by simple text editing =)

(actually taking down goods vaule might not even be necessary in Real EU, must play a full game before I make up my mind =)

 

[unmerged(1995)]

Originally posted by Huszics
Auch Yves, a lot of your suggestions would require a lot of remodelling to incorporate in the game.

I know ; this is why I have not even attempted it.

I still think though, that reducing money (as Real RU does) together with perhaps a 20-30% decrease in "luxury goods" values would be a pretty good aproximation for getting most of the same effects. This is also very easily done by simple text editing =)

(actually taking down goods vaule might not even be necessary in Real EU, must play a full game before I make up my mind =)

It doesn't take away the fact that colonization is much too strong in the game.
You really need to reduce the amount of colonizatin to keep in line with both the BG and history.
Reducing colonization by reducing the amount of available money is not sufficient ; such a solution would greatly advantage historical non colonial nations which could then make as many attempts as colonial nations.

The drastic division by 5 that I suggest would put the CG roughly on par with the CG in that regard. Actually, colonization/trading posts attempts should perhaps also be much more costly in that case (x5).

 

[unmerged(548)]

Originally posted by yves

It doesn't take away the fact that colonization is much too strong in the game.
You really need to reduce the amount of colonizatin to keep in line with both the BG and history.
Reducing colonization by reducing the amount of available money is not sufficient ; such a solution would greatly advantage historical non colonial nations which could then make as many attempts as colonial nations.

Hmm a plausable sideeffect I would guess. Though I have no clue since I havn't gotten so far in my REU games, but are you shure that these problems arise ?

 

[unmerged(2650)]

yves wrote

It doesn't take away the fact that colonization is much too strong in the game.

I didn't play Real EU already, but from what i have seen in the modified files it doesn't address this specific subject. Indeed it cuts the income lowering the stability modifier but don't change the balance between europe economy and RotW economy, not directly at least.

Looking at the goods prices in my last game and recalling what makes these prices increase, i think that the end game has a sort of 'looping factor' that inflate exotic CoT revenues: lot of money -> more manufactory, governors, cheif jugdes -> exotic goods demand increases -> exotic good prices increase -> higher exotic CoT revenues.

 

[unmerged(548)]

Originally posted by Cunctator
yves wrote


I didn't play Real EU already, but from what i have seen in the modified files it doesn't address this specific subject. Indeed it cuts the income lowering the stability modifier but don't change the balance between europe economy and RotW economy, not directly at least.

The reduced money mean there will be a LOT LESS colonization going on. This reduces ROTW economy.
I'm not shure though about if this is enough to stop the cumulative income affect later in the game as ROTW incomes increase. Thus there, as I said, might be the need for taking down the base value of some of the goods (mainly the 5 "luxury goods")

 

[unmerged(1995)]

Originally posted by Huszics

Hmm a plausable sideeffect I would guess. Though I have no clue since I havn't gotten so far in my REU games, but are you shure that these problems arise ?

My reasonning is the following :
- a colonist-rich country won't be able to send all of it's colonists as colons and will send the others as traders.
- a colonist-poor country won't see any interest (at least if played by a human player) in using it's rare colonists as traders and will send them as colons.

The result is that the colonist-poor countries will get almost as many colonies as colonist-rich countries.
The only advantage of colonist rich countries will be their number of trading posts.

And then, of course, you don't solve everything by reducing the price of goods : I remember that when I played Russia, I was able to maintain a steady pace of heavy colonization in Siberia, using all availaible colonists in colonization attempts. I did so on the yearly income only. And founded Vladivostock about a century before it was historically founded. Russia is a very good exemple because this is a country that, at the beginning, makes almost no profit from luxury goods.

As for the fact that colonization is too strong in the game, I'll take as exemple my last GC, playing England ; I did fully colonize all the following areas (meaning at least colonial city status = 700+ inhabitants) :

- All of North-East America (border on Texas), except for Iroquois and 5 other areas held by other colonial powers,
- Six areas in the american West coast,
- All of Siberia, up to Sibir, descending into central asia to the border of Persia,
- All of New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and all pacific island,
- All of South-Asia and India, except for eight areas held by other colonial powers,
- Two areas in Indonesia, Taiwan
- St-Helena, Falklands, and 4 provinces in Africa.

Among of all these colonies, I had quite a number of full fledged cities (5000+ inhabs).
I don't care to count the number of provinces this is, but it is huge. It gave me about 1500+ ducats in yearly income.

It is much more than the Victorian Empire, one century early.
I somehow feels this is a bit too much

I also remember a game with Autria, played "historically" (i.e. catholic), where I had 10 full colonies in Southeast-Asia...

Reducing the number of colonists would have the benefits of :
- more historicity, with slower pace of colonization,
- slower increase in income, both from trade and from provinces,
- more interest for trading posts, especially in non hospitable areas.

It would still not address the trading income problem fully, because one trader alone usually generate a good trading value (half what a full colony generates), and because you could still gain a CoT which would divert most of the Chinese trade.

But combining a decrease in luxury goods prices and a drastic decrease in available colonists would, in my opinion, reach the desired result.