Dear chadz,
the problem is as follows:
The fiefs with price 24 gold, under the system you just replaced, really had a problem regeneration S&D. This ment that one side of the map (the side against the UIF was actually preety screwed since they had mostly very high price selling fiefs)
The Side of the map that looked how the system worked (the UIF side), decided to avoid setting high price fiefs in order to get faster S&D regeneration.
The problem is now as follows, the non-UIF side of the map was heading into what would of been known as the Great S&D crisis of strat, instead with these changes they are going too avoid that. The change also means even though they set up there economy incorrectly at the start of the round they are now been rewarded for pushing the selling the price to 24 instead of investing more points into prosperity, as the change allows there S&D supply to recover enough to sustain their current trading habits. THe UIF however has invested in prosperity and now has in effect lost 4 gold per good for 100,000's of sold goods since the start of the round, there economy is now also incorrectly set up in regard too prices given the removal of the price/prosperity relationship effect.
The end result of this is, the UIF is been punished for looking how the system works, and the Colalition and their friends are been rewarded for having just set prices high and ignoring how the orignal system was designed to work.
Yours Respectfully,
Andswaru.
P.S. It would not of looked like such a gaint screw over if the change had not happened just as Coallition S&D was drying up. I would also either ask Tomas to stop been a leading figure in the fallen/HRE/GK alliance or too remove himself from a position of great influence in regard to strat changes in order to avoid future misunderstandings based upon his position in the game/development.
First off, the S/D regeneration based on goods price was bad from the start. I proved that villages with high cost needed such a high prosperity index(all villages 15g+) that you could only turn a city into a proper trading spot while castles would, over time, be able to reach it. 80% of fiefs would have been neglected in terms of economic capability. Having High prosperity is still good. But now you need both sides of the coin. You can't have hundreds of low cost high prosperity villages while at the same time, low prosperity high cost villages can't be used either.
YOU NEED A DAMN BALANCED ECONOMY. How is it that hard to understand? Also, it was only 2x regeneration at 5g price but 1x at 15. So in effect, you on the old system had more supply than demand. Also with the huge trade coalition that is the UIF, complete coordination of prices sounds like a damn machine. No flairs, no individualism, just hive mind. Why don't you boys stop trying to control every little thing, and make your factions into proper economic hubs.
UIF got hit by their Min/Maxing of strat.Concerning the goods change: It's perfectly fine. No more single run low caravans. You actually either have to make large armies(thereby paying huge upkeep) or you have to get actual TRADERS to make runs. Perhaps letting your clan more free reign would do you guys wonders. 20 guys, with 100 troops allows you to sell 2000 goods in different places.
These changes affected everyone, but NA is too pigheaded to try and control the economy 1 way with their alliances so each faction made their own economic choices. You know what, it's
working fine for us. Perhaps you guys can learn from us and see how it's done.
