Europa Universalis III

[Daniel]

Europa Universalis III is another grand strategy game made by paradox and in my opinion it is the best out of them, the game shines when playing in mutliplayer as it is not bogged down by excessive micromanagement of economy(Victoria 2) or dynasty(CK2). The warfare is a lot more tactical than in CK2 as well, being that if your troops are better equipped, their morale is higher (due to how you have progressed with your country) or you are holding a terrain advantage you can win despite being highly outnumbered.

Here is a picture of a friends SP campaign, you can see the similarities between the other paradox games, in the menus, interface and map, take note that the picture is about 500 years past the game start date.

Spoiler

[close]

[Harry]

Good to see you are using Death and Taxes i.e easy mode.

[Daniel]

Good to see you are using Death and Taxes i.e easy mode.

Harry if you read what I said it was a friends campaign, im sure you can guess who

But we both know the AI on death and taxes is far better than vanilla, it doesn't just sit there and let you kill it.

[Hekko]

I find the economic side enraging in EU3, most choices surrounding the economy are absolutely moronic. The fact that one cannot budget the money in a reasonable manner oneself is bad enough, but the fact that saving causes inflation absolutely horrifies me as a student of economics.

[Daniel]

I find the economic side enraging in EU3, most choices surrounding the economy are absolutely moronic. The fact that one cannot budget the money in a reasonable manner oneself is bad enough, but the fact that saving causes inflation absolutely horrifies me as a student of economics.

Well the game is not based on advanced economics system, I agree that lot of the stuff doesn't make sense, but it doesn't need to make sense to be fun for me at least.

[bigvhd]

I find the economic side enraging in EU3, most choices surrounding the economy are absolutely moronic. The fact that one cannot budget the money in a reasonable manner oneself is bad enough, but the fact that saving causes inflation absolutely horrifies me as a student of economics.

Minting, which you are referring as "saving" in EU3 (and is actually called minting in EU3 as well), in real life does cause inflation as does it in game. A good example of this is the hyper inflation that occurred in Germany, where they minted to pay off the debts they owed to America in between the first and second world war. The inflation caused by this crippled the economy forcing desperate people to vote for the Nazi's. And we all know the rest. GG.

[Bluehawk]

And yet the sums involved are based entirely on taxation, and if you invest the money in tech instead of stockpiling it, then your inflation goes down magically. Minting should have its own slider, independent of the others.

[bigvhd]

And yet the sums involved are based entirely on taxation, and if you invest the money in tech instead of stockpiling it, then your inflation goes down magically. Minting should have its own slider, independent of the others.

Ok smart asses, there is a difference between reality and game play mechanisms. Yes, these games try to be realistic to an extent, but then again if you think about it, it's still a game and would never be fun if you were simulating real life. Given the fact that you wouldn't be able to take over the world for example because people wouldn't except your religion, or your culture and so on. The economics in this game aren't there to be watched intently they just give an impression on how well your country is doing in comparison to others.

Either way, what Hekko suggested was that the game was implying that inflation was based on something completely different to what it is in real life. Which it doesn't. The reason inflation goes back down is so that they use the inflation as a game play mechanism, to prevent things like random events which will increase inflation. Also it means that, unlike in real life, you don't have to re make your entire currency to get rid of inflation. Honestly, if your concerned enough to post, then you either haven't played the game thoroughly or you need to go play Economics Simulator 2013 (which doesn't exist, so you don't intently search for it, because no-one gives a shit). Kthnxbai.

[Hekko]

I find the economic side enraging in EU3, most choices surrounding the economy are absolutely moronic. The fact that one cannot budget the money in a reasonable manner oneself is bad enough, but the fact that saving causes inflation absolutely horrifies me as a student of economics.

Well the game is not based on advanced economics system, I agree that lot of the stuff doesn't make sense, but it doesn't need to make sense to be fun for me at least.

It does to me since it makes the game so counter intuitive to play that I am spending more time trying to disentangle what the insane system actually is. Especially since the game arbitrarily sets a "proper" spending on tech, meaning that you cannot create a surplus without tanking inflation. Not to mention that inflation is not compounded but just a flat rate as far as I know.

And yet the sums involved are based entirely on taxation, and if you invest the money in tech instead of stockpiling it, then your inflation goes down magically. Minting should have its own slider, independent of the others.

Quoted for truth. This here sums up an easy fix to the problem, to the point where it is mind boggling that it isn't this way in game currently.

Ok smart asses, there is a difference between reality and game play mechanisms. Yes, these games try to be realistic to an extent, but then again if you think about it, it's still a game and would never be fun if you were simulating real life. Given the fact that you wouldn't be able to take over the world for example because people wouldn't except your religion, or your culture and so on. The economics in this game aren't there to be watched intently they just give an impression on how well your country is doing in comparison to others.

Either way, what Hekko suggested was that the game was implying that inflation was based on something completely different to what it is in real life. Which it doesn't. The reason inflation goes back down is so that they use the inflation as a game play mechanism, to prevent things like random events which will increase inflation. Also it means that, unlike in real life, you don't have to re make your entire currency to get rid of inflation. Honestly, if your concerned enough to post, then you either haven't played the game thoroughly or you need to go play Economics Simulator 2013 (which doesn't exist, so you don't intently search for it, because no-one gives a shit). Kthnxbai.

Inflation is based on the exact opposite of what causes inflation in real life. Slowing down spending (i.e. Creating a surplus for the government means that there is less money in circulation, which in itself ought to create deflation if there is nothing else creating a pressure for inflation. I have played EU3 enough to know that I do not want to touch it with a stick, for me the problem is equivalently as bad as hoverboard mounted laser alien legionaires would be in RTW.

[Daniel]

It does to me since it makes the game so counter intuitive to play that I am spending more time trying to disentangle what the insane system actually is. Especially since the game arbitrarily sets a "proper" spending on tech, meaning that you cannot create a surplus without tanking inflation. Not to mention that inflation is not compounded but just a flat rate as far as I know.

Well it took me but a few hours to mostly understand the basics of how the economics work in the game, its rather simple, once again I agree that some things do not make sense but its not hard to understand.

It is true that it is impossible to create a monthly surplus without inflating, but you are not supposed to, you are supposed to incur small monthly costs then you receive a large sum of money at the end of each year which will contain that years profit(if you are not overspending). There are also ways to mint without incurring an increase in inflation, to name them all out would be too much, but they exist.

Quoted for truth. This here sums up an easy fix to the problem, to the point where it is mind boggling that it isn't this way in game currently.

Well its an easy fix, but not a quick one, if you end up racking up around 20% inflation your country is pretty much crippled, with everything costing so much its hard to run an army and its hard to even turn a profit, it could take 100 years or more to get that back down to a manageable level.

I have played EU3 enough to know that I do not want to touch it with a stick

This is also not true, it can be used its all about knowing how to use it and how to counteract it, I remember a multiplayer game I had with some guys, which one of them was minting I think around 40 denars a month, without racking up a huge level of inflation, in fact I think it didn't even add any. Bare in mind this was a bit into the game so he had taken the required measurements to prevent inflation.

Do not take offence to this Hekko but you seem to have not fully understood the game whilst you were playing it and again, economy is but a small focus on EU3 which is why its easy to understand, the game main focus in my opinion is warfare.

[bigvhd]

It does to me since it makes the game so counter intuitive to play that I am spending more time trying to disentangle what the insane system actually is. Especially since the game arbitrarily sets a "proper" spending on tech, meaning that you cannot create a surplus without tanking inflation. Not to mention that inflation is not compounded but just a flat rate as far as I know.

Ok smart asses, there is a difference between reality and game play mechanisms. Yes, these games try to be realistic to an extent, but then again if you think about it, it's still a game and would never be fun if you were simulating real life. Given the fact that you wouldn't be able to take over the world for example because people wouldn't except your religion, or your culture and so on. The economics in this game aren't there to be watched intently they just give an impression on how well your country is doing in comparison to others.

Either way, what Hekko suggested was that the game was implying that inflation was based on something completely different to what it is in real life. Which it doesn't. The reason inflation goes back down is so that they use the inflation as a game play mechanism, to prevent things like random events which will increase inflation. Also it means that, unlike in real life, you don't have to re make your entire currency to get rid of inflation. Honestly, if your concerned enough to post, then you either haven't played the game thoroughly or you need to go play Economics Simulator 2013 (which doesn't exist, so you don't intently search for it, because no-one gives a shit). Kthnxbai.

Inflation is based on the exact opposite of what causes inflation in real life. Slowing down spending (i.e. Creating a surplus for the government means that there is less money in circulation, which in itself ought to create deflation if there is nothing else creating a pressure for inflation. I have played EU3 enough to know that I do not want to touch it with a stick, for me the problem is equivalently as bad as hoverboard mounted laser alien legionaires would be in RTW.

Without saving/minting to treasury (all money into technology).

Spoiler

[close]

Inflation modifier pop out showing me taking -0.01 inflation a year even with saving/minting in progess (money taken out of technology to save).

Spoiler

[close]

Minting/saving without taking inflation. Showing me gaining substantial amounts of money in comparison to when I don't mint/save at all.

Spoiler

[close]

Play the game please.

[Hekko]

It's not the fact that I do not know how the system ingame works, it's the fact that it's completly and utterly ridicolous that makes me dislike it. It's not the fact that it's simple or streamlined, it's the fac that it makes it complicated, but in a way where it's realistic, but just a wierd arbitrary retarded system. Like I said, it's the equivalent of hoverboard mounted laser legionaires in RTW. It's a historical game that is supposed to give you an immersion into how it would be to run a country during that era, an immersion which is broken terribly by this major inconsistancy.

[Sanitarium]

Not so long time ago we finished our 4th full great campain in EU3: Divine wind with our regiment (Semenovsky), about 10 players were playing in total I was playing as Manchuria, 2nd place money income, 2nd largest army.
Warning: Big picture

Spoiler

[close]

[Daniel]

Not so long time ago we finished our 4th full great campain in EU3: Divine wind with our regiment (Semenovsky), about 10 players were playing in total I was playing as Manchuria, 2nd place money income, 2nd largest army.
Warning: Big picture

Spoiler

[close]

Looks like a good one, no large "world wars" before it ended?

[Sanitarium]

Daniel, Yeah, there was a war between two alliances (Spain, Scandinavia, Russia, Manchuria) against France and HRE, where 2nd alliance lost which made France spit out few new countries and HRE to give up some provinces. Also a war between Russia and Manchuria for siberia, which ended up with an alliance against HRE agression