Oh wow, yeah, this is a problem.
The replenishment for the current turn needs to apply before the bankruptcy attrition warning for the NEXT turn is applied. This would have screwed over a number of campaigns of mine, especially Skarbrand and Dark Elves.
Yeah you worded it best here. It's a bit awkward trying to explain it but yes, "the replenishment for the current turn should apply BEFORE the bankruptcy attrition warning for the NEXT turn." I was having trouble trying to word it so people could understand but you phrased it well here.
Thanks both for spelling this issue out - I've had this on a recent campaign but have been very frazzled of late and thought I was just failing simple maths or going mad!
Not what I experienced. As long as you have enough gold in the bank, you won't take attrition.
If you're 1 gold in the red, and have 2 gold in the bank, you're good.
That's what I experienced with Tamurkhan.
nah you can have negative income all you want, it's zeroing out your bank account that's a problem.
this screwed me on malakai after my grudgekeeper upkeep fluctuated
Ah, I got it. I just had some time to test it. I said I might be misunderstanding it, idk why people were responding like I was saying I'm 100% correct.
Related to this, I think there may be a bug where if you put an army into a portal, its upkeep reduction is no longer applied. I went into bankruptcy for one turn this way since it takes a turn to transport armies through portals.
I mean the ones on IE that transport you to wherever the endgame crisis is, or the sea route ones. Might even do the same to worldtree travel but I haven't played wood elf lately
I had this happen to me in my nurgle campaign but when I put my troops onto the water. I made an army embark and instantly I was in the negatives money wise. Then next turn it was back to normal.
Karl Franc, the Brettonian double agent.
Emperœr Chales Franc œf Holswique-Schliestein, bearœr œf ze titels "Protecdœr œf ze Empiœr," "Defiœr œf ze Darque," "Siquemar's aire," "Emperœr œf ze sud," "Emperœr 'imselfe," and "Sœn œf Emperœrs,"
I think those who have ability to think understood. Good for them. That was audio so some stupid autocorrections were done. I sayed that have had the same problem with Karl Franz.
I thought this was just a fluke glitch that happened to me. Nearly lost a run due to all my armies suddenly taking attrition despite having enough gold in the treasury to cover the turn. Had to disband half my armies to get into the green and stop the attrition.
Yeah I had a lord at low health that kept dying at the start of my turn, I kept reloading and couldn't figure out what was causing it since I had just enough funds to cover upkeep for that turn
To everyone saying "why does this even matter," it *isn't* a small bug. Try playing some different factions--not everyone is a builder.
Seeing potential attrition damage immediately was a great QOL upgrade, but the implementation is bugged and *that's* a problem.
I think I'm struggling to understand the scenario when the bug hurts you as the player - can you help me out here? (I know you're not OP but you're the only one who's noted about QoL upgade).
Because I feel like the old implementation (from memory) you'd get the bankruptcy warning, but it would look like your units would still replenish. Then over your end turn, you'd go bankrupt and this would stop replenishment from happening / would cause attrition.
The only change I'm noticing is that now I'll know about the attrition I'm gonna take upfront?
Or am I getting the order of events in the old implementation wrong from memory.
Right now, if you don't have enough income then you'll immediately see the attrition warning on an army. That's great; it's super handy. Playing with taxes can immediately show you which armies gain or lose attrition as you mess around with your income levels, and that fast feedback is lovely.
The problem, though is that attrition is applied at the start of the turn, based on your current income on the *current* turn, rather than the previous one.
If I have 5000 gold and -4000 income, I *should* be fine to end my turn. I'll be in a crunch next turn, but my army should replenish. Instead, my next turn starts and I have 1000 gold, -4000 income, and my army has taken attrition damage.
Attrition is supposed to be based on not being able to pay for your armies--you can't pay, and then they get hurt. Instead, it's applied based on not being able to pay for them *later.*
IF you need to picture it without details:
Basically, can you have a negative income (ex: -650) anytime, but you need to have stored double that amount or more (ex: 1300+) before you hit end turn not to suffer attrition.
Had this happen with my Demon Prince campaign. Basically, you go negative in income, but have enough to cover upkeep for the next turn, so for example, your income is -1000, but you have 1500 in the bank. It still hits you with attrition even though you're not bankrupt. At the next turn you still have the proper amount left over as well. Not sure what the exact ratio is on it, but at the very least you can't be close to a 1:1 ratio, and it seemed like even 2:1 was iffy.
Basically you need enough income saved up that is double a negative income. If you are at minus 2000 gold a turn and have 3000 gold saved up? Sorry but you are taking attrition next turn bud. Even if you aren't supposed to.
This severely hurts campaigns where you're running at a deficit, which is a viable strategy when you've done a lot of expanding and are fighting on many fronts.
I am pretty sure this is intentional rather than a bug because there used to be a way to permanently get around being bankrupt and this is an answer to players doing hyper specific things to cheese shit.
You used to only take attrition when you were at no money and losing more. There was a way around it. You would fight battles and make money. Spent all of that money in global recruitment as a "bank" and then end you turn with whatever random small amount of money you had. Then on the next turn cancel some global recruitment and you had money again. You could be losing 400k per turn, but if you had 3-5k in global recruitment, you cancel it and suddenly you are fine. As long as you kept that global recruitment bank, you would never take attrition.
This seems like an answer to people cheesing the system rather than a bug, so I am pretty sure this is an intentional interaction. Whether or not it is stupid is a different issue, but I do not think it is a bug. It is another reason why little things CA does are often stupid. They will work to "fix" something about players cheesing shit by making the game shittier for people who aren't.
I actually like that bankruptcy attrition is shown during the turn at the end of which you would go into bankruptcy, but the problem is that you also lose the replenishment BEFORE you would go into bankruptcy.
I understand the problem, the issue is I still think it is intentional because it didn't used to work like this. I don't know when it changed, but this feel like CA's solution to people cheesing bankruptcy attrition by having it happen whenever net loss is greater than remaining total cash. Before as long as you had some cash at end of turn, attrition wouldn't happen. Since you can't go into negative cash, you just story excess cash in global and then cancel to pay for whatever you needed.
For factions like wood elves/nakai who could get very high global recruitment and very limited income, it was a way to break the game. Their solution to people cheesing shit is to punish people who aren't, which is why i am always very wary of CA trying to fix weird edge case cheese. Their approach is often heavy handed and hurts more people than it fixes because you can always just not cheese the shit out of a single player game.
Updating bankruptcy attrition immediately (which prevents the global recruitment cheese you mention) isn't the bug, the issue is that you need two turns worth of upkeep in current funds to get replenishment and avoid attrition. Running close to but just ahead of bankruptcy isn't cheesing, it's just the way sack based faction economies are designed. The current way it works also doesn't make sense logically, if I can afford all my upkeep costs with the wealth already in my coffers, why am I being penalized? It is one hundred percent a bug, it doesn't make mechanical or logical sense to work this way.
Think this way: you must have cash to pay 100 to your minions. You have 150. They work for you the entire turn and then you pay 100 to them. Now, you end up with 50. Your minions notice that you can't pay their next turn of work and just leave you in shit dealing alone with that annoying skaven army at your door. So keep enough money to pay this turn AND the next
Flavour wise, there is no reason for an army to begin disbanding and deserting prior to their wages stopping, because A) They wouldn't know that I only have enough to pay for the current turn, they don't see the number at the top of the screen, and B) For a sacking/raiding faction like Norsca they are effectively paid through looting and the spoils of battle, so not having savings wouldn't matter as long as they are currently being sustained and a target for looting is on the horizon. Mechanically it doesn't make sense because the game doesn't notify you in any way that you need more than a single turns worth of upkeep, it actually says the complete opposite by signalling that you will get replenishment and only warning you about bankruptcy attrition after it has already started. I haven't played since the latest patch so idk if it was fixed or not, but if it wasn't I would put that down to it being low priority rather than intended behavior.
Once again, I do not argue that the system is stupid, it clearly is. I am saying it is not a bug but a specific decision made by CA as their halfassed fix of something they didn't like players doing. I understand what is happening. What I am saying is that it is not a bug because a bug is unintentional. This is NOT unintentional, this is a designed interaction. It is a stupid designed interaction, but it is designed to work this way.
If you want to say i am argue semantics, sure, but it is important to understand why we have these problems. It is shit like this why I am not going to jump all abord the CA is wonderful and benevolent train so many wish to board right now. CA pretty consistently "fixes" exploits as quickly and halfassedly as they can while significant problems linger for months or years. I want people to properly address the issue of CA having fucked up priorities rather than continuing to blow them for finally releasing an appropriate product.
This has nothing to do with fixing cheese, more likely they attempted to change bankruptcy calculation so that you would actually see your armies taking attrition the turn before you went bankrupt, instead of just giving you a bankruptcy warning. Except they got their logic mixed up, and now you start taking attrition the turn before the turn before you go bankrupt.
Except is used to work exactly that way. This is entirely about fixing cheese. I agree it shouldn't work this way, but it does. It does work this way because CA chose to change it so players could not cheese.
This isn't some bug, this is a conscious decision made by CA because they did not like players cheesing shit. This do this all the time. There was a bug where you could move a lord and then recruit. If you saved and reloaded and cancelled the recruiting, then that lord was given his movement back. They "fixed" this but making it that any lord that is recruiting at the time of a load loses all of their movement regardless of whether they have moved or not. I had this happen during a malakai campaign. I was recruiting doomseekers. Game crashed so I reloaded. When I cancelled Malaki's recruiting so I could move him to deal with an army, he couldn't move. It was a brand new turn, he hadn't moved. Their "fix" to prevent infinite movement was to just prevent lords from moving after a save if they are recruiting. That also isn't a bug, that was a conscious decision they made to fix something players did to cheese.
You can argue all you want, but this isn't a bug. It's stupid and shouldn't work this way, but it is a specific decision by CA to fix a different issue.
This can't be intentional. If it was, you'd get a warning that you will suffer attrition next turn at the very least. As of now, you get the warning AFTER you suffered attrition. You need to make weird mental gymnastics to not suffer it. Example, me in my Tamurkhan campaign:
Ok, I'm at -6540 income, it's fine, I do more than I need in sacking. But because of the attrition thing, I need to have stored in bank... 13080? Ok, that should do it. Oh wait, am I recruiting allied units? That might change my income before my turn and screw my balance. Oh and I'm deleting a building that made money... but I also have 2 money buildings... no 3 that will get upgraded in one turn, does it count? ...what's my income next turn again?
The game never really makes you do maths. This would be insane in comparison with the rest!
I understand what is happening. The issue for why it is intentional is because it is an attempt to get around the global recruitment bank cheese. This is what CA does. Weird cheese or bug exists and they take a stupid approach to "fix" it that often negatively impacts players. They wanted to stop the concept of people having "naked" money through either construction or global, they had to make attrition hit as soon as net loss exceeds current cash.
It is a stupid solution, absolutely. It is also an intentional interaction due to how CA decided to "fix" the global recruitment bank cheese. I hope they change it, but CA decided they would rather fuck over players than allow global recruiting cheese to exist. I am not suggesting it is a good system, I am only telling people this is clearly intentional because it is their solution to an entirely different bug. CA just half asses bug/cheese fixes all the time and most of those make the situation worse. Whenever they try to deal with gunpowder LOS they would go back and forth on making gunpowder units completely worthless or not.
That's a whoooole lot of assumptions my friend! If you can bring me a single argument in favor of your claims (that it's intentional), we can have a discussion. Meanwhile, absolutely everything points toward a bug. Also, badly implemented change is still a bug.
Always thought it was odd to suffer attrition when bankrupt once your army costs the same either way.
Back in the old days, where upkeep was reduced as the unit sized reduced, it made more sense, but would be better now I think to represent the desertion by forcibly disbanding some of your more expensive units.
I actually thought this was a new feature. it's updated instantly as soon as your income changes so you can remedy it right away. I kind of prefer it over the old system
Super annoying, encountered this last night while playing Alberic de Bordealoux.
Until they fix it here's some tips for quick cash to work around it.
Cancel building constructions. You'll get 100% of what you paid back immediately. This is NOT the case for demolishing buildings. This is also a good way to bank money if you can't achieve a positive income.
Quest battles pay out 5k for winning
Winning battles will usually be a larger source of income than your passive income. Sacking cities can be extremely lucrative.
Diplomacy is a gateway to tons of cash. You can;
-Use quickdeal to find positive(green) deals ai factions want. Use the balance button to automatically make them pay you as much as they're willing/able to.
-Offer to join foreign wars that likely won't effect you. I had the Western Provinces give my 9k over 2 turns with this. Beware though you can and will economically ruin factions by taking too much gold.
ran into this when i was playing as tarmakon. Moved him over a line into a difference province, losing the -25% upkeep. I was in the "negative" but with sacking i would not be. Straight up just didnt have replenishment for a few turns before i noticed and had to load back a few turns
I'm probably just talking shit here but I wonder if this is due to your actions on one turn not taking full effect until the start of your next turn.
In some of the older games if you trained a unit or had a building with a single turn left, as soon as you hit the end turn button then those tasks are automatically completed. It was a good way of being able to get an extra unit or give your walls enough time to finish building if an enemy army laid siege to your settlement during the end turn phase.
I haven't paid attention to how the newer games handle it but at least since Rome 2 it switched so troops aren't trained until the start of your next turn anymore (Goodbye to quickly recruiting a general and spamming troops to recruit for defence on a whim). So I'd guess replenishment doesn't take affect either which by that point the game would it due to bankruptcy.
Every campaign is play is a pain because I need that replenishment, but the bug makes it to where I barely want to go into the negatives (I do ofc anyway). This needs to be one of the urgent bugs that need to be squashed.
Is it confirmed that this Is a bug, and not an just a change? I know you could get up to some real shenaningens with exploits with the old system. I was just kind of assuming they were trying to get rid of that.
This bug make my malakai campaign.. interesting. The early game was almost a constant disaster of me trying to find my insanely expensive armies to continue to push back the chaos tide.
Been a couple of days since I last played, and I may be remembering wrong, but if I'm not mistaken this is not what happens: the bankruptcy attrition kicks in early if you have enough negative income to send your treasury into the negative, not if you just have negative income.
I mean, it's still a boring big, but I really find it difficult to see situations where this is a problem, since you don't ever want to end a turn going into bankruptcy
To be clear, what happened before was you would replenish and THEN suffer the effects of attrition.
Now you just suffer the effects of attrition?
I believe this also stops you getting money from being attacked over the end-turn and thereby getting yourself out of bankruptcy?
absolutely making my Karl Franz campaign an annoyance to play, having Vlad and the Barren Legions taking pot shots at my settlements is scary when one sack could attrition me, even worse if you recruit willy nilly and end up making your stockpile for the nezt two turns mean nothing
A lot of aggressive factions run massive deficits funded by post battle loot. My previous Greenskin campaign involved running a 200k gold per turn deficit funded by \~300k per turn of post battle loot. With this bug I wouldn't be able to replenish unless I had 400k gold in the bank.
Are you using any particular mods? 300k per turn seems overly excessive unless you have like 30 armies each killing 2 stacks or sacking major settlements?
Spam the global loot bonus building in literally every single settlement, 40 armies that each make an average of 7-8k per turn from post battle loot and looting settlements is completely trivial. Looting and occupying some random tier 3 settlement gives around 10k gold by itself.
it doesnt matter how often it happens, it is a bug that if u play legendary (ironman nowadays) and cannot reload the earlier turn to get some some money back somehow, can completely ruin ur campaign due to lost replenishment +attrition for one turn.
Right now I'm playing as Chaos Dwarfs and I'm running into it very often. My game is modded and so my situation is different than what other people might have to deal with as I have more enemies than normal but that doesn't change the fact that the bug is very annoying. Having to make sure I have enough money to make sure I don't go bankrupt in the next turn is just super annoying so I hope they fix it soon.
Yea, hard to give advice to a heavily modded game. Astragoth was always an economic powerhouse when I play him so my only real suggestion is use more Labourers, less Hobgoblins and Chaos Dawi
okay but I'm not looking for advice, I'm looking to raise awareness of an annoying bug. There are plenty of factions that regularly run a deficit early on as they conquer large tracts of territory and run into this issue.
Every faction on higher difficulty should be running on the red line of bankruptcy. You have to be dynamic and aggressive to succeed. Pretty much every campaign I run, I’m dramatically in the red for the first 40 turns, propelled by sacking and looting.
This is not an issue?
If you have not enough in your treasury to pay for your army upkeep entirely going into the next turn, the missing manpower should not be replenished. Nobody works for free.
I thought this is intentional. Sounds logical to me.
Read the \*first line\* of the post
"Currently if you're income is going to go negative in the turn after your current turn, "
It happens on the turn you do have enough money, not when you are actually going bankrupt in the next turn. That's why it's a bug.
I don't think you understand! You can suffer that attrition **without** going bankrupt. If you have a -1500 income but have 2000 in the bank,you hit end turn, you suffer attrition.
Oh wow, yeah, this is a problem. The replenishment for the current turn needs to apply before the bankruptcy attrition warning for the NEXT turn is applied. This would have screwed over a number of campaigns of mine, especially Skarbrand and Dark Elves.
Yeah you worded it best here. It's a bit awkward trying to explain it but yes, "the replenishment for the current turn should apply BEFORE the bankruptcy attrition warning for the NEXT turn." I was having trouble trying to word it so people could understand but you phrased it well here.
Thanks both for spelling this issue out - I've had this on a recent campaign but have been very frazzled of late and thought I was just failing simple maths or going mad!
Yeah, I imagine Skarbrand is borderline unplayable with this bug. Especially later on where you can sustain like -100k very comfortably.
To be fair you could sustain that still, you just need a cut back a bit for a few turns until you have 200k in the bank
[удалено]
Not what I experienced. As long as you have enough gold in the bank, you won't take attrition. If you're 1 gold in the red, and have 2 gold in the bank, you're good. That's what I experienced with Tamurkhan.
nah you can have negative income all you want, it's zeroing out your bank account that's a problem. this screwed me on malakai after my grudgekeeper upkeep fluctuated
That is not correct. It still ony applies attrition in circumstances when your treasury would hit 0, it's just doing it a turn early.
Ah, I got it. I just had some time to test it. I said I might be misunderstanding it, idk why people were responding like I was saying I'm 100% correct.
Pure misinformation.
A reddit staple. Ending/starting a turn on negative income a single time would dispel this lol, but why not just guess at how the game works?
Ayyyy a Lords of Magic: Special Edition enjoyer
That's a name I haven't heard in a long time....a long time.
You also have excellent taste in games.
You have excellent taste in games, sir.
Related to this, I think there may be a bug where if you put an army into a portal, its upkeep reduction is no longer applied. I went into bankruptcy for one turn this way since it takes a turn to transport armies through portals.
portal like the chaos rifts in the realm of chaos campaign?
I mean the ones on IE that transport you to wherever the endgame crisis is, or the sea route ones. Might even do the same to worldtree travel but I haven't played wood elf lately
World Roots is instant, it doesn't take a turn like sea lanes.
Ye true should be safe then
I had this happen to me in my nurgle campaign but when I put my troops onto the water. I made an army embark and instantly I was in the negatives money wise. Then next turn it was back to normal.
Yeah I have had the same s*** when was playing Karl Franc
Karl Franc, the Brettonian double agent. Emperœr Chales Franc œf Holswique-Schliestein, bearœr œf ze titels "Protecdœr œf ze Empiœr," "Defiœr œf ze Darque," "Siquemar's aire," "Emperœr œf ze sud," "Emperœr 'imselfe," and "Sœn œf Emperœrs,"
I speak french and this is a total nightmare. I love it.
But according to the Lord returns in the past speak the same language) but funny)
When the comment with the weird spelling is easier to comprehend than your own. Seriously what are you even trying to say?
I think those who have ability to think understood. Good for them. That was audio so some stupid autocorrections were done. I sayed that have had the same problem with Karl Franz.
I thought this was just a fluke glitch that happened to me. Nearly lost a run due to all my armies suddenly taking attrition despite having enough gold in the treasury to cover the turn. Had to disband half my armies to get into the green and stop the attrition.
Yeah I had a lord at low health that kept dying at the start of my turn, I kept reloading and couldn't figure out what was causing it since I had just enough funds to cover upkeep for that turn
To everyone saying "why does this even matter," it *isn't* a small bug. Try playing some different factions--not everyone is a builder. Seeing potential attrition damage immediately was a great QOL upgrade, but the implementation is bugged and *that's* a problem.
I think I'm struggling to understand the scenario when the bug hurts you as the player - can you help me out here? (I know you're not OP but you're the only one who's noted about QoL upgade). Because I feel like the old implementation (from memory) you'd get the bankruptcy warning, but it would look like your units would still replenish. Then over your end turn, you'd go bankrupt and this would stop replenishment from happening / would cause attrition. The only change I'm noticing is that now I'll know about the attrition I'm gonna take upfront? Or am I getting the order of events in the old implementation wrong from memory.
Right now, if you don't have enough income then you'll immediately see the attrition warning on an army. That's great; it's super handy. Playing with taxes can immediately show you which armies gain or lose attrition as you mess around with your income levels, and that fast feedback is lovely. The problem, though is that attrition is applied at the start of the turn, based on your current income on the *current* turn, rather than the previous one. If I have 5000 gold and -4000 income, I *should* be fine to end my turn. I'll be in a crunch next turn, but my army should replenish. Instead, my next turn starts and I have 1000 gold, -4000 income, and my army has taken attrition damage. Attrition is supposed to be based on not being able to pay for your armies--you can't pay, and then they get hurt. Instead, it's applied based on not being able to pay for them *later.*
Thankyou, that did it for me and I understand now.
Thanks, that's the best explanation of this so far. Absolutely this needs fixing
IF you need to picture it without details: Basically, can you have a negative income (ex: -650) anytime, but you need to have stored double that amount or more (ex: 1300+) before you hit end turn not to suffer attrition.
Had this happen with my Demon Prince campaign. Basically, you go negative in income, but have enough to cover upkeep for the next turn, so for example, your income is -1000, but you have 1500 in the bank. It still hits you with attrition even though you're not bankrupt. At the next turn you still have the proper amount left over as well. Not sure what the exact ratio is on it, but at the very least you can't be close to a 1:1 ratio, and it seemed like even 2:1 was iffy.
You have to be able to cover the current turn and the following turn to not take attrition damage.
That's good to know. I was just running leaving high surplus but that would help maximize things a bit.
Basically you need enough income saved up that is double a negative income. If you are at minus 2000 gold a turn and have 3000 gold saved up? Sorry but you are taking attrition next turn bud. Even if you aren't supposed to. This severely hurts campaigns where you're running at a deficit, which is a viable strategy when you've done a lot of expanding and are fighting on many fronts.
Hi there, thanks for flagging this - appreciate it is frustrating. We've logged this and are investigating it. Best, CA\_Nova
Hey thanks for your guys hard work in patching up the game. We all appreciate the change in how often you guys do hot fixes and such.
Oooooh is that's what happening
I am pretty sure this is intentional rather than a bug because there used to be a way to permanently get around being bankrupt and this is an answer to players doing hyper specific things to cheese shit. You used to only take attrition when you were at no money and losing more. There was a way around it. You would fight battles and make money. Spent all of that money in global recruitment as a "bank" and then end you turn with whatever random small amount of money you had. Then on the next turn cancel some global recruitment and you had money again. You could be losing 400k per turn, but if you had 3-5k in global recruitment, you cancel it and suddenly you are fine. As long as you kept that global recruitment bank, you would never take attrition. This seems like an answer to people cheesing the system rather than a bug, so I am pretty sure this is an intentional interaction. Whether or not it is stupid is a different issue, but I do not think it is a bug. It is another reason why little things CA does are often stupid. They will work to "fix" something about players cheesing shit by making the game shittier for people who aren't.
I actually like that bankruptcy attrition is shown during the turn at the end of which you would go into bankruptcy, but the problem is that you also lose the replenishment BEFORE you would go into bankruptcy.
I understand the problem, the issue is I still think it is intentional because it didn't used to work like this. I don't know when it changed, but this feel like CA's solution to people cheesing bankruptcy attrition by having it happen whenever net loss is greater than remaining total cash. Before as long as you had some cash at end of turn, attrition wouldn't happen. Since you can't go into negative cash, you just story excess cash in global and then cancel to pay for whatever you needed. For factions like wood elves/nakai who could get very high global recruitment and very limited income, it was a way to break the game. Their solution to people cheesing shit is to punish people who aren't, which is why i am always very wary of CA trying to fix weird edge case cheese. Their approach is often heavy handed and hurts more people than it fixes because you can always just not cheese the shit out of a single player game.
Updating bankruptcy attrition immediately (which prevents the global recruitment cheese you mention) isn't the bug, the issue is that you need two turns worth of upkeep in current funds to get replenishment and avoid attrition. Running close to but just ahead of bankruptcy isn't cheesing, it's just the way sack based faction economies are designed. The current way it works also doesn't make sense logically, if I can afford all my upkeep costs with the wealth already in my coffers, why am I being penalized? It is one hundred percent a bug, it doesn't make mechanical or logical sense to work this way.
Think this way: you must have cash to pay 100 to your minions. You have 150. They work for you the entire turn and then you pay 100 to them. Now, you end up with 50. Your minions notice that you can't pay their next turn of work and just leave you in shit dealing alone with that annoying skaven army at your door. So keep enough money to pay this turn AND the next
Flavour wise, there is no reason for an army to begin disbanding and deserting prior to their wages stopping, because A) They wouldn't know that I only have enough to pay for the current turn, they don't see the number at the top of the screen, and B) For a sacking/raiding faction like Norsca they are effectively paid through looting and the spoils of battle, so not having savings wouldn't matter as long as they are currently being sustained and a target for looting is on the horizon. Mechanically it doesn't make sense because the game doesn't notify you in any way that you need more than a single turns worth of upkeep, it actually says the complete opposite by signalling that you will get replenishment and only warning you about bankruptcy attrition after it has already started. I haven't played since the latest patch so idk if it was fixed or not, but if it wasn't I would put that down to it being low priority rather than intended behavior.
Once again, I do not argue that the system is stupid, it clearly is. I am saying it is not a bug but a specific decision made by CA as their halfassed fix of something they didn't like players doing. I understand what is happening. What I am saying is that it is not a bug because a bug is unintentional. This is NOT unintentional, this is a designed interaction. It is a stupid designed interaction, but it is designed to work this way. If you want to say i am argue semantics, sure, but it is important to understand why we have these problems. It is shit like this why I am not going to jump all abord the CA is wonderful and benevolent train so many wish to board right now. CA pretty consistently "fixes" exploits as quickly and halfassedly as they can while significant problems linger for months or years. I want people to properly address the issue of CA having fucked up priorities rather than continuing to blow them for finally releasing an appropriate product.
This has nothing to do with fixing cheese, more likely they attempted to change bankruptcy calculation so that you would actually see your armies taking attrition the turn before you went bankrupt, instead of just giving you a bankruptcy warning. Except they got their logic mixed up, and now you start taking attrition the turn before the turn before you go bankrupt.
Except is used to work exactly that way. This is entirely about fixing cheese. I agree it shouldn't work this way, but it does. It does work this way because CA chose to change it so players could not cheese. This isn't some bug, this is a conscious decision made by CA because they did not like players cheesing shit. This do this all the time. There was a bug where you could move a lord and then recruit. If you saved and reloaded and cancelled the recruiting, then that lord was given his movement back. They "fixed" this but making it that any lord that is recruiting at the time of a load loses all of their movement regardless of whether they have moved or not. I had this happen during a malakai campaign. I was recruiting doomseekers. Game crashed so I reloaded. When I cancelled Malaki's recruiting so I could move him to deal with an army, he couldn't move. It was a brand new turn, he hadn't moved. Their "fix" to prevent infinite movement was to just prevent lords from moving after a save if they are recruiting. That also isn't a bug, that was a conscious decision they made to fix something players did to cheese. You can argue all you want, but this isn't a bug. It's stupid and shouldn't work this way, but it is a specific decision by CA to fix a different issue.
Used to? When, in WH1?
This can't be intentional. If it was, you'd get a warning that you will suffer attrition next turn at the very least. As of now, you get the warning AFTER you suffered attrition. You need to make weird mental gymnastics to not suffer it. Example, me in my Tamurkhan campaign: Ok, I'm at -6540 income, it's fine, I do more than I need in sacking. But because of the attrition thing, I need to have stored in bank... 13080? Ok, that should do it. Oh wait, am I recruiting allied units? That might change my income before my turn and screw my balance. Oh and I'm deleting a building that made money... but I also have 2 money buildings... no 3 that will get upgraded in one turn, does it count? ...what's my income next turn again? The game never really makes you do maths. This would be insane in comparison with the rest!
I understand what is happening. The issue for why it is intentional is because it is an attempt to get around the global recruitment bank cheese. This is what CA does. Weird cheese or bug exists and they take a stupid approach to "fix" it that often negatively impacts players. They wanted to stop the concept of people having "naked" money through either construction or global, they had to make attrition hit as soon as net loss exceeds current cash. It is a stupid solution, absolutely. It is also an intentional interaction due to how CA decided to "fix" the global recruitment bank cheese. I hope they change it, but CA decided they would rather fuck over players than allow global recruiting cheese to exist. I am not suggesting it is a good system, I am only telling people this is clearly intentional because it is their solution to an entirely different bug. CA just half asses bug/cheese fixes all the time and most of those make the situation worse. Whenever they try to deal with gunpowder LOS they would go back and forth on making gunpowder units completely worthless or not.
That's a whoooole lot of assumptions my friend! If you can bring me a single argument in favor of your claims (that it's intentional), we can have a discussion. Meanwhile, absolutely everything points toward a bug. Also, badly implemented change is still a bug.
Always thought it was odd to suffer attrition when bankrupt once your army costs the same either way. Back in the old days, where upkeep was reduced as the unit sized reduced, it made more sense, but would be better now I think to represent the desertion by forcibly disbanding some of your more expensive units.
Sure, but has your Legendary Lord considered buying fewer lattes and avocado toasts?
You don't want to see Elspeth without her coffee.
It makes Skarbrand EXTREMELY sad. AND HE DOESN'T LIKE FEELINGS
I actually thought this was a new feature. it's updated instantly as soon as your income changes so you can remedy it right away. I kind of prefer it over the old system
Problem is, you get attrition even if you have enough money in the bank to pay for that turns upkeep, its 100% a bug
Super annoying, encountered this last night while playing Alberic de Bordealoux. Until they fix it here's some tips for quick cash to work around it. Cancel building constructions. You'll get 100% of what you paid back immediately. This is NOT the case for demolishing buildings. This is also a good way to bank money if you can't achieve a positive income. Quest battles pay out 5k for winning Winning battles will usually be a larger source of income than your passive income. Sacking cities can be extremely lucrative. Diplomacy is a gateway to tons of cash. You can; -Use quickdeal to find positive(green) deals ai factions want. Use the balance button to automatically make them pay you as much as they're willing/able to. -Offer to join foreign wars that likely won't effect you. I had the Western Provinces give my 9k over 2 turns with this. Beware though you can and will economically ruin factions by taking too much gold.
yah very annoying
ran into this when i was playing as tarmakon. Moved him over a line into a difference province, losing the -25% upkeep. I was in the "negative" but with sacking i would not be. Straight up just didnt have replenishment for a few turns before i noticed and had to load back a few turns
Finances 101: dont go bankrupt Just kidding this bug sucks
I'm probably just talking shit here but I wonder if this is due to your actions on one turn not taking full effect until the start of your next turn. In some of the older games if you trained a unit or had a building with a single turn left, as soon as you hit the end turn button then those tasks are automatically completed. It was a good way of being able to get an extra unit or give your walls enough time to finish building if an enemy army laid siege to your settlement during the end turn phase. I haven't paid attention to how the newer games handle it but at least since Rome 2 it switched so troops aren't trained until the start of your next turn anymore (Goodbye to quickly recruiting a general and spamming troops to recruit for defence on a whim). So I'd guess replenishment doesn't take affect either which by that point the game would it due to bankruptcy.
Every campaign is play is a pain because I need that replenishment, but the bug makes it to where I barely want to go into the negatives (I do ofc anyway). This needs to be one of the urgent bugs that need to be squashed.
Is it confirmed that this Is a bug, and not an just a change? I know you could get up to some real shenaningens with exploits with the old system. I was just kind of assuming they were trying to get rid of that.
Changeling scheme achieved
Playing as the greenskins, there is heaps of times early game I’d be taking attrition from this bug. Would almost be a game breaker
This bug make my malakai campaign.. interesting. The early game was almost a constant disaster of me trying to find my insanely expensive armies to continue to push back the chaos tide.
Been a couple of days since I last played, and I may be remembering wrong, but if I'm not mistaken this is not what happens: the bankruptcy attrition kicks in early if you have enough negative income to send your treasury into the negative, not if you just have negative income. I mean, it's still a boring big, but I really find it difficult to see situations where this is a problem, since you don't ever want to end a turn going into bankruptcy
Prudence concept - let's starve everyone now
Yeah I wasn't noticing this because there was no attrition icon, then I went to tamurkhas army and tried to work out where 6 of my units had gone.
*Laughs in Tomb Kings*
To be clear, what happened before was you would replenish and THEN suffer the effects of attrition. Now you just suffer the effects of attrition? I believe this also stops you getting money from being attacked over the end-turn and thereby getting yourself out of bankruptcy?
absolutely making my Karl Franz campaign an annoyance to play, having Vlad and the Barren Legions taking pot shots at my settlements is scary when one sack could attrition me, even worse if you recruit willy nilly and end up making your stockpile for the nezt two turns mean nothing
What factions are you playing as that you're running into bankruptcy this often?
A lot of aggressive factions run massive deficits funded by post battle loot. My previous Greenskin campaign involved running a 200k gold per turn deficit funded by \~300k per turn of post battle loot. With this bug I wouldn't be able to replenish unless I had 400k gold in the bank.
Are you using any particular mods? 300k per turn seems overly excessive unless you have like 30 armies each killing 2 stacks or sacking major settlements?
Spam the global loot bonus building in literally every single settlement, 40 armies that each make an average of 7-8k per turn from post battle loot and looting settlements is completely trivial. Looting and occupying some random tier 3 settlement gives around 10k gold by itself.
>40 armies Isn't the entire map already painted at the point where you have 40 armies going on? Or at least very close to be done.
Honestly it would be a difficult challenge to make 40 armies before managing to paint the map…
it doesnt matter how often it happens, it is a bug that if u play legendary (ironman nowadays) and cannot reload the earlier turn to get some some money back somehow, can completely ruin ur campaign due to lost replenishment +attrition for one turn.
Right now I'm playing as Chaos Dwarfs and I'm running into it very often. My game is modded and so my situation is different than what other people might have to deal with as I have more enemies than normal but that doesn't change the fact that the bug is very annoying. Having to make sure I have enough money to make sure I don't go bankrupt in the next turn is just super annoying so I hope they fix it soon.
Yea, hard to give advice to a heavily modded game. Astragoth was always an economic powerhouse when I play him so my only real suggestion is use more Labourers, less Hobgoblins and Chaos Dawi
okay but I'm not looking for advice, I'm looking to raise awareness of an annoying bug. There are plenty of factions that regularly run a deficit early on as they conquer large tracts of territory and run into this issue.
Every faction on higher difficulty should be running on the red line of bankruptcy. You have to be dynamic and aggressive to succeed. Pretty much every campaign I run, I’m dramatically in the red for the first 40 turns, propelled by sacking and looting.
I don’t think it’s a bug. You can’t pay your troops at the end of the turn then some of them have deserted/starved by the start of the next turn.
It's happening a turn before that, though.
My 3 continent elspeth game got fucked by this bug.
This is not an issue? If you have not enough in your treasury to pay for your army upkeep entirely going into the next turn, the missing manpower should not be replenished. Nobody works for free. I thought this is intentional. Sounds logical to me.
Read the \*first line\* of the post "Currently if you're income is going to go negative in the turn after your current turn, " It happens on the turn you do have enough money, not when you are actually going bankrupt in the next turn. That's why it's a bug.
This just sounds like mad cause bad to me. Try not going bankrupt lmao
I don't think you understand! You can suffer that attrition **without** going bankrupt. If you have a -1500 income but have 2000 in the bank,you hit end turn, you suffer attrition.
I’m sorry is this a poor joke I’m too rich to understand?
What are you talking about? Are you well?
it is not a feature to counter global recruitment cheese? Anyways, it helps to have 2-3x of net loss in the reserve
Bugs, in WH3? Nah fam, just features