Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Reduce Income

TheImperialWar#5677TheImperialWar#5677 Registered Users Posts: 46
edited August 2022 in General Discussion
sometimes less is more. when income is too high it lessens the tension for mid/late game and makes the game more repetitive as you can always afford most of what you require without sacrifice.

reducing income in the mid/late game will greatly reduce player snowball and nerfing most income/upkeep modifiers and technologies is one of the best ways to achieve that. a soft gold cap that reduces income after a certain stored amount may also be useful, especially for higher difficulties.

as players should always decide how they want to play their games, an income slider that increases or decreases player income and removes/adjusts the soft cap could also be implemented.
Post edited by TheImperialWar#5677 on

Comments

  • razenb#1517razenb#1517 Registered Users Posts: 650
    Player will snowball no matter the income.
    And players want to snowball.
    If legendary is too easy for you use some mods or just dont spent your money.
    Dont know if you are trolling here but income is not the problem why the endgame is garbage
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Registered Users Posts: 2,951
    razenb said:

    Player will snowball no matter the income.

    That's demonstrably untrue. Obviously at zero income the player won't snowball so there's a point at which you can reduce income to slow snowballing.
  • Slugus#5078Slugus#5078 Registered Users Posts: 1,027
    I don't want to play a game where I have zero income and I am better having less settlements than more, it sounds very very... very... stupid.
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Registered Users Posts: 2,951
    Slugus said:

    I don't want to play a game where I have zero income and I am better having less settlements than more, it sounds very very... very... stupid.

    I actually liked how corruption scaled in Attila total war a lot. At some point pressing occupy in 100% of situations is no longer a good thing and you want to create puppet states/vassals or raze territory instead of just continually expanding. Which actually reduces the tedium of the endgame since you have less territory to manually defend and fight battles over and manage the buildings of. Your vassals do a lot of the tedious fighting for you.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,765


    a corruption mechanic that lightly taps down on building income as you capture more regions could also be implemented, for example 1% reduced building income per 10 regions. capturing more regions should always be a net positive, but not as much as it does currently.

    Ah, you mean the reason Attila's ****.
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Registered Users Posts: 2,951
    edited August 2022


    a corruption mechanic that lightly taps down on building income as you capture more regions could also be implemented, for example 1% reduced building income per 10 regions. capturing more regions should always be a net positive, but not as much as it does currently.

    Ah, you mean the reason Attila's ****.
    Attila is easily the best campaign map experience in the series. It's great. I've got 1600 hours played I love it.
  • goremandgoremand Registered Users Posts: 182
    The problem with nerfing income is often the end result will just be players sitting around clicking "end turn". For example if I need 10 turns to get the money to upgrade my provinces I will wait 10 turns, if you nerf income so I need to wait 20 turns I will wait 20 turns. This doesn't really add much challange imo because I am still doing the same simple thing, just slower.

    The reason slowing the player down doesn't make the game harder is that the AI tend to "plateau" very early. They may get free money on harder difficulties, but they can't invest it sensibly, they may have lots of armies but they cannot coordinate them properly, just send them into the meat grinder.

    Don't get me wrong, I dislike the frontloaded difficulty of this game and the tedious map-painting, making the player think about where to expand and promoting vassals and military allies would be a good thing.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,765
    Nitros14 said:


    a corruption mechanic that lightly taps down on building income as you capture more regions could also be implemented, for example 1% reduced building income per 10 regions. capturing more regions should always be a net positive, but not as much as it does currently.

    Ah, you mean the reason Attila's ****.
    Attila is easily the best campaign map experience in the series. It's great. I've got 1600 hours played I love it.
    Yeah, but if it was optimised better you'd have gotten through it in like 400 :P
  • mightygloin#2446mightygloin#2446 Registered Users Posts: 6,141
    razenb said:

    Player will snowball no matter the income.
    And players want to snowball.

    I snowball no matter the income.
    And i don't want to snowball.

  • TheImperialWar#5677TheImperialWar#5677 Registered Users Posts: 46
    edited August 2022
    corruption may be the wrong way, I disliked how supply lines punished you and this could lean too much in that direction. I removed it from the op.


    this is mainly for players who think the mid/late game is too easy and want more of a challenge but without punishing them for making the right choice.

    a lot of the gameplay degrades when money is no longer an issue too soon into a campaign. with the removal of most of supply lines (a good thing) it's a bigger problem in game 3.

    this approach mainly targets the synergy between income improvements and upkeep reduction which has a big effect on snowball without affecting the early game too much. if the early game is too slow there can be a boost to base income.

    a soft cap on positive income after say 250k stored means you don't have games where you're sitting on millions of banked gold by midgame with most of the tension and risk of losing are gone. and this can be adjusted by you.

    this shouldn't be forced on players if they like snowballing or even want it increased, hence the options. people should play the game how they want and if they want to snowball even harder than currently possible, it's their choice.

    sometimes players want a relaxed power fantasy, setting income to 500% and painting the map within a few hours, and that's a perfectly fine way to enjoy the game that you spent your money on.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,765


    a soft cap on positive income after say 250k stored means you don't have games where you're sitting on millions of banked gold by midgame with most of the tension and risk of losing are gone. and this can be adjusted by you.

    Right, but you're not sitting on that gold because of income (unless you're specifically High or Dark Elves), but because you stopped spending because there stopped being anything to spend it on. Your empire is built up, your armies are finalised (and you preserve them because you're the player and able to do so), sometimes you need a new one but you probably have enough for all your strategic needs so if you do it's pretty much just vanity.

    And changing income wouldn't affect that at all.
  • TheImperialWar#5677TheImperialWar#5677 Registered Users Posts: 46
    getting to that level of income is usually a combination of income increasing and upkeep reduction effects. if you can reach that amount otherwise it suggests a balance problem with the economy itself.

    gold should be a factor in your decisions throughout the entire game rather than just an early game mechanic. and if you want to remove it as a factor in a campaign you should have that option as well.
  • Bloodydagger#9716Bloodydagger#9716 Registered Users Posts: 4,886
  • Bayes#3307Bayes#3307 Registered Users Posts: 5,149
    razenb said:

    Player will snowball no matter the income.
    And players want to snowball.
    If legendary is too easy for you use some mods or just dont spent your money.
    Dont know if you are trolling here but income is not the problem why the endgame is garbage

    It is a part of the problem, which is much bigger now that supply Lines have been gutted. Delaying when you reach critical mass will keep the game more interesting for longer.
  • razenb#1517razenb#1517 Registered Users Posts: 650

    razenb said:

    Player will snowball no matter the income.
    And players want to snowball.

    I snowball no matter the income.
    And i don't want to snowball.

    What do you want instead?
    Losing the campaign or not play at all?
    A monkey can snowball in tw with this garbage AI and this will never change cause total war games sell enough no matter the AI.
  • RonNLRonNL Registered Users Posts: 807
    The AI just need to be stronger and smarter. The way it is now it feels the ai is in a crippled state.
  • LESAMA#5456LESAMA#5456 Registered Users Posts: 2,203
    The problem is not the money but that you can’t spend it late game as the building tree is shallow at it’s best. Only 3 tiers for most buildings. Expanding the building options would make the game also that much more fun.
Sign In or Register to comment.