just a question for the masses. Are most nations close to being self sufficient by turn 10?
I am sure on a team you have one or two nations needing gold every turn, but most should be able to support themselves.
Or in every game you have 3+ nations that need gold close to every turn? isn’t that difficult on the rest of the team.
Do most people save at least one emis to improve their nations tax base?
touchy subject isnt it?
This game is too diverse to answer that question in a simple way. Even the weakest nation can maintain itself if it concentrates on economics, but this might not always be what the team needs. So it often is a wise decision to neglect economics and push on the nations strengths, whatever they are. Note that a nation can become self sufficient by transferral of pop centers which sometimes is a better way than a steady stream of gold and not prone to countermeasures like siegeing and stealing.
As a rule of thumb, I create four emmies out of the first seven new character slots whatever nation I play (with the possible exception of Cloud Lord and Noldo). This should leave you in a stable position when camp limit is hit, usually about turn 10, but I have seen turn 7, in FA games even earlier. Then improve all camps to villages. Further improvement is only worthwile if you want to recruit or need a backup capital. After that the emis should have enough skill to be used offensively in a company. As for the relation of giving/receiving nations:
As long as the gold transfers do not affect the whole team balance of gold and/or orders, there is nothing to worry about. If your teammates are just lazy or sloppy, that is a different matter ;o)
Hope that helps
In Life there are people unable to manage their finances. So, in this game there are people unable to manage their nation’s economy–no matter what the circumstance.
One particularly vivid memory is a fellow who was operating both NG and SG, the two richest nations in the game. His starting plans were so grandiose that he demanded everyone elses timber, etc so that he could execute them. When it was pointed out that strategy is the art of bringing ends and means together and he should consider a less ambitious program he accuse people of trying to sabotage him. He washed his hands of the future, forseen, ensuing defeat.
The scary thing is that there are nations run by people like this. North Korea leaps immediately to mind.
Well Mormegil kind of answered your question and Arthedain73 did his customary ‘stroke my ego while only peripherally maintaining contact with the issue at hand’, so I’ll give it a try 
>> “just a question for the masses. Are most nations close to being self sufficient by turn 10?”
In my experience (not vast, admittedly) it varies from game to game and game type to game type: in FFA games individual players are more concerned about their economes and spend more of their resources on improvements but get less assistance from teammates, while in team games some economies are intentionally neglected to some degree in order to take advantage of nation abilites (CL agents, Hire for free nations, etc)… Also, 1650 games come to violence much quicker than 2950 games, meaning nations generally have less time to improve themselves economically.
>> “I am sure on a team you have one or two nations needing gold every turn, but most should be able to support themselves.”
Darks have pretty crappy economies in comparison to the Freeps, so it’s not really uncommon to see 2 transfers a turn (on average, since season changes, combat, etc can make it vary from 0 to 5 easily).
>> “Or in every game you have nations that need gold close to every turn? isn’t that difficult on the rest of the team.”
In a team game, it’s not really a problem since from an entire team point of view, 12 (or 10 or whatever) nations are economically supporting the armies/characters/fortifications of 12 nations… the fact that some nations pay more and some spend more isn’t always relevant.
>> “Do most people save at least one emis to improve their nations tax base?”
I’d shoot (with the largest caliber handgun I could find, at point blank range, directly into the neck) the player who didn’t have a home improvement emissary up until at least late game.
>> “touchy subject isnt it?”
Often …some people don’t see a team as a team; contributing freely towards the common goal. Some see it as individuals cooperating together with scorecards to maitain an even balance, despite what evening balances at inappropriate times can do to the team.
El Gringo
Executive Producer
Nastrytroll Films
(Coming soon to a theatre near you: “Middle Earth Reloaded: Eru Hits The Bong”)
Originally posted by El Gringo
Well Mormegil kind of answered your question and Arthedain73 did his customary…
Almost scared to wade in here…
I’d shoot (with the largest caliber handgun I could find, at point blank range, directly into the neck) the player who didn’t have a home improvement emissary up until at least late game.
Now I’m definitely scared to wade in here…Better edit my profile and take out my home town… When my emissaries reach their 60’s, they’re off to the enemy. If I name a new one during the game, he’ll be home safely “training”. I’ll call him my “home improvement emissary” if it let’s me live, but that isn’t his cause celebre.
…some people don’t see a team as a team; contributing freely towards the common goal. Some see it as individuals cooperating together with scorecards to maitain an even balance, despite what evening balances at inappropriate times can do to the team.
All true. Disturbing that so many consider the “12 nations supporting 12 characters” the oddity and the individual “I can balance My economy, you’re on your own.” the typical.
Brad
I think being stingy with resources is usually a newbie problem. I remember my first game (102, twelve years ago…wow!) when Arthedain asked for military support and me as Dwarf calculated and demanded the costs for upkeeping and equipping 1000 hi… embarrassing! With game experience usually comes insight.
Fortunately, in all the games I played over the last years, I seldom experienced situations where a teammate was reluctant to give any support that was asked for. On the contrary: people were constantly offering all resources they could spare to the team. This was not due to their altruistic nature, but to the fact that resources should be located where they can be used to the best team effort. Players who ignore this will learn the error of their ways very simply - they’ll lose the game.
Gold has not been a real probem for me. No matter what nation I play. A sure way to become poor or go broak is to buy from the caravan’s. I also find a lot of players killing their nation to build Hvy. Cav. Then sucker their team member’s into help em out with gold. When I send gold, it had better be spent on worthy issue’s.
For I can always find some way to use gold for my nation. As for order 550… Well it really depend’s on what is happing in your game. Taking pop cent from your enemy is always better than imp pop.
I also find a lot of players killing their nation to build Hvy. Cav. Then sucker their team member’s into help em out with gold.
Many players make the mistake of seeing HC as costly, when with planning, they’re the cheapest army around.
If you want to take an MT/fort (say, loyalty 70, Disliked, C30, morale 30, training 10, wo/no), you’d need 2400 HC or 4000 HI.
To recruit that much at an MT of your own, you’d need 6 turns for the cav or 10 for the HI.
Total cost to get the cav: 50K. For the HI:90K. Worse, if it takes two turns movement for the cav to arrive and three for the HI, that’s another 28K vs. 48K. (All these numbers laid out in a forthcoming Bree, or I can post 'em for scrutiny).
Yes, yes, the mounts and leather cost something, but at 6 each for mounts (14K) and 3 for the leather (14K), it’s still a steal.
Yes, it takes more orders to get them, and they may not be available – there are plenty of reasons not to get Cav. But cost – with careful planning – doesn’t need to be one of them.
Spending 140K for an attack that could have been done for close to 100 – and six turns sooner! – sounds like a sucker move to me.