I'm sorry to say it, but the nerfs on economy have made it suck in 1.4.1

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
You are punished for playing the game constantly. A moderate sized non-elite army (150 t1 to t4 troops) is costing more than your castle + villages can grant you, in my playthrough I have 1 caravan 2 workshops + 1+k prosperity castle and I'm losing 1500 gold per day. I mean, come on! This nerf-spree has went too far...
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
I think they should more or less roll back passive income to the way it was in 1.3. If devs are worried about gold snowballing, they should further nerf loot payouts. (Post battle loot should still yield some good stuff - but maybe 1/2 the # of 'bent iron broadswords' or whatever).

'Cause that's clearly what the devs are accounting for in the description above - the premise that you'll be making lots of money actively from loot. I just think they should re-balance more toward passive income a bit.
 
Best answers
0
I think they should more or less roll back passive income to the way it was in 1.3. If devs are worried about gold snowballing, they should further nerf loot payouts. (Post battle loot should still yield some good stuff - but maybe 1/2 the # of 'bent iron broadswords' or whatever).

'Cause that's clearly what the devs are accounting for in the description above - the premise that you'll be making lots of money actively from loot. I just think they should re-balance more toward passive income a bit.
That, and add a meaningful gold sink. I have said it before and I have seen other people mention it, imo they should reduce the value of gear and increase the cost of troops. And definitely get workshops back to a point where they give a meaningful income, otherwise they might as well remove them from the game.

Without a long term gold sink there is simply no way to prevent the player from snowballing, all these nerfs are doing is making the early game annoying.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
That, and add a meaningful gold sink. I have said it before and I have seen other people mention it, imo they should reduce the value of gear and increase the cost of troops. And definitely get workshops back to a point where they give a meaningful income, otherwise they might as well remove them from the game.

Without a long term gold sink there is simply no way to prevent the player from snowballing, all these nerfs are doing is making the early game annoying.
Yeah- troops should cost more (and another new late game feature like feasts costs gold). But I would say only higher tier troops should cost more. Otherwise, you end up punishing the early game player pretty hard. Conversely, having more high tier troops available (via training or recruitment) at a high gold cost would kill multiple birds with one stone.

And yes, nerfing workshops only hurts the early game player, really. The few hundred gold different per day doesn’t really matter much late game, but for a minor clan leader w a couple parties and no fiefs, a few hundred gold per day is a lot to lose.
 

King Yngvar

Squire
WBVC
Best answers
0
Just sell some battle loot, or craft a javelin and sell it. That seems to be the way the devs want us to manage our economy.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
Just sell some battle loot, or craft a javelin and sell it. That seems to be the way the devs want us to manage our economy.
yes I know, but it's TOO ANNOYING. having to fiddle with that awful and laggy UI every 5 minutes, having to manually select what to sell so you don't lose precious preserved gear because YOU HAVE NO ****ING STORAGE, hell not even Drag + Drop works properly, it always glitches... The entirety of this UI feels wrong, glitchy, laggy, clumsy.... Also, I hate that it gives so much money, and tbh it's not fun, I've never had fun selling garbage in any RPG in my entire life, but this is in a whole new level hahahaha

The issues with the UI are 3 mainly, first and foremost they want to render 3d objects in all of the listed objects, of COURSE it'll lag. Secondly, there's no intuitive way to use it, it took me a long while to figure out the drag and drop, but it has to be dropped in a very specific way, if not, it bugs, goes back to your inventory or opens that damned "item count"... Thirdly, it's visually polluted and disorganized, it's really hard to keep track of everything you own or search for specific items, the filters do not filter enough.
 

King Yngvar

Squire
WBVC
Best answers
0
I agree with you here, but it's not about the troop costs. I think they should be even higher considering other costs. I would like to see them reduce item prices, loot shouldn't be enough to support a whole army. Meanwhile significantly increase tax income, being landed nobility SHOULD be enough to support an army.
 

Because

Veteran
Best answers
0
I agree with you here, but it's not about the troop costs. I think they should be even higher considering other costs. I would like to see them reduce item prices, loot shouldn't be enough to support a whole army. Meanwhile significantly increase tax income, being landed nobility SHOULD be enough to support an army.
The problem with the tax plan is that there is no where near enough land to go around unless they separate villages from towns/castles so you would end up with a lot of nobles unable to afford an army.
 

King Yngvar

Squire
WBVC
Best answers
0
The problem with the tax plan is that there is no where near enough land to go around unless they separate villages from towns/castles so you would end up with a lot of nobles unable to afford an army.
Clan lords who are not the clan leader could be given an "allowance" as a percentage of the main lord's tax income.
 

Because

Veteran
Best answers
0
Yeah that could work, might make it tricky as a player vassal but that's why we get caravans and workshops. I guess as players we would be able to provide the same allowance to any party we spin off too.
Makes the value of land more important, and would also have huge ramifications for snow balling as might lead once you start to get more land you will also instantly massively strengthen your side and weaken your opponents as you will have the ability to field larger and better armies, whereas their clans will be impoverished and have a lot of trouble mounting a counter attack.
Kinda realistic, but at the pace of the game at least currently I would lead to kingdoms disappearing fairly quickly.
 

eritchie

Recruit
Best answers
0
That, and add a meaningful gold sink. I have said it before and I have seen other people mention it, imo they should reduce the value of gear and increase the cost of troops. And definitely get workshops back to a point where they give a meaningful income, otherwise they might as well remove them from the game.

Without a long term gold sink there is simply no way to prevent the player from snowballing, all these nerfs are doing is making the early game annoying.
Yeh and also projects and upgrades to your cities and castles could be great gold sinks. Currently it costs nothing to build all this stuff and there is so much more you could add to build and upgrade/ invest in.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
To combine 2 thoughts above (higher troop costs* and [higher passive tax income + lower active looting income]:

This would create a situation in which only powerful landed nobility could afford to maintain large #s of higher tier troops - while those w/out as much land could still get by on nerfed loot income, but would have to make do with lower-mid tier troops. I actually like that a lot. You could see a real battlefield difference between the soldiers of landed nobility and the more ragged men of the lesser non-landed lords. Plus, you'd be more likely to see less professional high tier troops in raids and more likely to see more ragged lower tier men in those kinds of low-rent shenanigans.

All of this pre-supposes that they fix fief distribution mechanics, which is sorely needed anyway.

*To be clear, I think that higher troop cost should be realized in both upfront recruitment cost and also higher upkeep costs. I do like the floating-price based on a marketplace of recruits idea, but only if we presuppose higher supply of higher tier recruits and higher costs for higher tier recruits as a baseline.