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

Expanding on the Inflation Mechanic For a More Challenging Lategame

Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior MemberPosts: 20,735Registered Users
TWWH introduced the inflation mechanic for army upkeep, the more armies you have the costlier they are. I find this is a better limitation than hard limits in R2/TWA since it feels more diegetic rather than gamey. There's however still a threshold in the midgame where, once you've broken past it, you still end up swimming in money and owning more settlements is almost always a net boon to the player, so a large, well-developed Empire is practically unassailable.

So I thought about it, what if the economy of the player as a whole was subject to inflation like in RL? The more money you have circulating in your empire, the less it is worth. So my suggestion is that not only does army upkeep go up with every army, but let there also be a slight increase to recruitment and building cost and a reduction in effectiveness for money generating buildings for every X settlements the player takes over. This way the player would still have to be thoughtful about where to spend his money in the lategame and a large player empire would come with its own set of challenges instead of becoming an unstoppable juggernaut that's boring to play as. You could even add research and building effects that affect the inflation rate. I would even exempt trade income from this to make it more useful.

This should however be a player-exclusive mechanic. The AI already has a hard time keeping its large Empires together should it manage to create one.

Comments

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    Have you been playing the Bretonnia campaign? Because I don't blame you for wanting the economic part of the game to be harder. Bretonnia has many skills and even two edicts that really have you swimming in money at some point.

    But I don't think this is a problem once you have top tier armies, but at that point you are almost unstoppable anyway. So economy be damned. Do you play with lower tier armies the whole time? because it is possible to do that, especially with reinforcements and autoresolve.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,167Registered Users
    Nice idea. I add the upkeep receives an increase the more lands a player has. Of course the upkeep reduction technologies, traits are independent to this.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 1,001Registered Users
    I don't think the reason the AI is not a challenge in the lategame comes from the size of your empire. In my experiance, it has more to do with the AI not being able to challenge your best army once it (the army) has reached a certain level (like @KGpoopy alluded to). And given how easy it is to replenish a damaged army, it will almost always be at full strength. Another point is that the player can most of the time exploit the knowledge about how the AI behaves in certain situations (like how likely it is going to attack a settlement of the player).

    That being said, I am not against something like this (could also be archieved in other ways like for example the corruption mechanic from Med2).

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file