Ummm mercenary costs per turn are 175 Gold Crowns. Where did you get 770 from?
Under the new system they would be 700 gold crowns.
I noted personal bias in my comment, why are you harping on it?
Last edited:
Warhammer Fantasy: A Dynasty of Dynamic Alcoholism
- Thread starter torroar
- Start date
- Mature
-
- Tags
- warhammer warhammer fantasy fantasy intrigue happens male protagonist ck2 quest belief stronk count of cannons drunken wisdom foes in the shadows graf of guns if you have a question check the front page first it begins... mountain vietnam ogres paranoia rising unseen enemies everywhere use the search function before asking waifu wars wake the bull
Ummm mercenary costs per turn are 175 Gold Crowns. Where did you get 770 from?
Under the new system they would be 700 gold crowns.
I noted personal bias in my comment, why are you harping on it?
Again, wanting a harder starting position(wanting a lower net income at the start in this case) and wanting wanting higher army upkeep(which is harder scaling) are two completely separate issues.
And I already made my position that IF we are to increase army upkeep we should increase tax income to make turn 1 net income remain the same pretty clear.
The reason for that position is because re-balancing turn 1 gross income to account for turn 1 army upkeep costs is a way to deal with the second issue without altering the income level that was defined as appropriate for us at the start of this quest.
If you want a harder starting position to go with your suggestion of an increased army upkeep? You can argue for it. But if you argue for it? Expect others to argue against it. And frankly? "Because I personally prefer it" is not an argument.
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
Sadly, this is warhammer. Destro doesn't need to worry about logistics.
Massgamer
Advance toward the Future
- Location
- The Future
This is totally random, but do people think we can pull off a ridiculously huge cannon design like the Tsar Cannon? Of course we would actually use it more than once and wouldn't be a mostly show piece.
It would be basically impossible to move around most of the time but would make hell of a defensive weapon.
It would be basically impossible to move around most of the time but would make hell of a defensive weapon.
- Location
- Australia
There's something about these kinds of games that I don't quite understand. We usually get actions where we build roads and such and then they give us income. We take the action, the roads (or equivalent, but it's usually roads) get built, and we get income. What I don't understand is why haven't those roads already been built? Why didn't one of our predecessors take such an obviously useful and profitable action before dying and giving us our piece of land?
Last edited:
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
Why is American infrastructure currently rotting from lack of maintenance?
- Location
- United States
I've always assumed that it was not at the time profitable, or that said predecessor did not have the opportunity to do so.
It could be that no one lived near where the road was built at the time, and thus building it would be a waste of money.
It could be that the roads were outdated and worn down, and that new ones had to be built and maintained to replace them.
It could be that the predecessor didn't have the absurd amount of funds Freddy has, and thus couldn't afford to invest that much into infrastructure.
But regardless, I usually don't think about it, since the answer is that "this gives you money because Torroar says it does".
You kind of have to accept some abstraction in games such as these.
- Location
- Australia
I don't know. All I know is that for some reason, CK2 quests typically have road-building as an action that can be done (many times right out of the gate), seemingly without any of the hypothetical issues that a predecessor would've faced.
......Sigh.
I'm not trying to back date the system to work from turn 1 like you seem to be attempting.
You were the one to ask if the proposed upkeep could be viable in turn 1. I did the math and it proved viable but I am not and continue to not be interested in balancing every other income aspect from quest start around it.
If you would like to re-balance all the income and expenses as well as option costs, please be my guest.
The mistake is thinking I was asking if the proposed upkeep could be viable.
I was not asking. I was asserting that turn 1 income levels ought to be increased to keep the turn 1 net income the same if we followed your proposed increase in army maintenance and suggested we account for that by equally adjusting the turn 1 income upward.
Later turns can remain the same for all I care as those have nothing to do with our starting position and everything with the rate of escalation. Which is the main thing adjusting upkeep costs would address.
You forget that the Ironblaster already clearly exists, and pretty clearly outmasses the Tsar Cannon.
------
As for the money thing...jeez.
The reason it costs what it did at the start, is because that's what Gaius' quest did.
But I see the backing behind the idea of it. They are pretty well armed, armored, trained, etc. And they should probably cost more than they have. But at the same time, there's absolutely no way I'm going back to Turn 1, modifying literally every chunk of the economy, option costs, and etc. up until this point to match it. And if I were to modify military raising/upkeep costs, I would also have to increase the taxes portion.
I'm not saying I am going to be doing this, but it is something for me to think about.
Okay, folks, if I did increase raising and maintaining costs for the military, with conmmesurate tax increase to match, would this be acceptable moving forward? It would make things a bit less 'generous', as it was described, but...yeah. Thoughts? I would not be retroactively editing backwards, that's waaaay more math than I'm willing to do, it would just adjust things moving forward.
- Location
- The internet
Seems fair. Incidentally, I always assumed that the reason the taxes and farming income was so terrible is that most of it was going into basic government stuff. Its just the extra and a way to simplify bookeeping.
Massgamer
Advance toward the Future
- Location
- The Future
That is a totally good point and there is already an option in place to see about getting our hands on one so will retract idea for being redundant.
Whatever sounds good for you and is easiest.
Evaunit02mark1
S-s-smell the Prey, S-s-start the Hunt.
Eh?
I mean I won't complain if that's what you're asking, because at the end of the day it's not that big a deal for me.
If the prices go up then we'll just have to cut back on a few more eccentric policies until we can ensure we stay in the black, if they don't then we keep the course as it were.
It does make sense from a realistic standpoint, in a way, if only to be a soft cap to say "Hey, you've got a pretty big army, it can probably handle a lot of shit, why not turn your gaze elsewhere for a bit."
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
I am in favor of this.
- Location
- United States
I say to just do whatever makes the quest more enjoyable for you.
I don't really keep track of Ostland's current finances, since it's basically enough for most of our problems, so as long as this change doesn't suddenly leave us destitute I won't have a problem with it.
- Location
- Mobile, Alabama
What's going to be easier for you? Because I'm fine either way.
Alas, I never thought I'd get this far, so I didn't start with one.
Honestly, it would probably make things easier, by virtue of actually making it so that the treasury doesn't absolutely explode like it kind of has been, unnaturally.
It shouldn't, or at least I don't think it should.
-----
I'll think on it, probably'll decide tomorrow after looking closely through the thread.
- Location
- Mobile, Alabama
Well good enough for me. Light this candle.
Massgamer
Advance toward the Future
- Location
- The Future
Well seems you pleasantly surprised yourself how far you come in general.
That's a good a reason as any really. We aren't the High Elves who have infinite wealth basically.
- Location
- India
So we are getting more professional soldiers for the army? And more taxes imposed upon nobles?
