thanks

@太易 I see. 400 gold/month is a very high income, so you will be affected by corruption even if you have very high skills and a lot of lifestyle perks. If you find that the effects are too severe, you could try reducing the corruption level in the settings decision (see the pictures).
Let me know if that helps.

Thank you for your humility and friendliness. May Buddha bless you!
I am an Augustus of the Roman Empire, deliberately improving my 11 point management skills (along with lifestyle skills and the help of my spouse, totaling 55 points) by believing in the Zabulistan (the Sun Church), and by means of treasure and game rules settings, giving myself up to 14 territories!
But in the end I found a total of 400 gold coins, about 40% of which vanished. This made my finances very difficult.

@太易 Sure, I will set up an option to lessen the effects.
In the meantime, could you provide some details on how corruption is too high? What are the income, corruption loss, rank, skills and traits of that character?

Regrettably, the corruption seems to be too serious. Could a less corrupt version of Hogs be introduced?

I have updated the description to make it clear that the mod only affects well-to-do rulers.

@Captain Smollett The goal of the mod is to reduce the income of very wealthy rulers, so the mod only affects rulers above an income threshold. In almost all cases these end up being highly skilled player characters or their direct relatives.
So why give more punishment for incompetent rulers?
1) Realism. There are many examples in history of massive corruption under incompetent rulers.
2) Drama. After succession, in almost all cases the new ruler is both less competent and doesn't command as much loyalty as their predecessor. Imagine a situation where the player has an extremely adept ruler, who dies in a battle, leaving a child to inherit the throne. This would cause corruption to dramatically increase. and significantly reduce the heir's ability to fend off another claimant ===> more drama

Balance things right out of the gate: why are we punishing bad rulers even more? Which rulers will the player have - good or bad ones? Rhetorical question, ofc, we all know the answer.
I get that it makes sense, but balance wise if everything "made sense" all the time then snowballing would probably be even worse than it already is.

also granted - i didnt play the mod, i just read the description and looked at the pictures :P

@neutron_pressure Ahhh I see I see! Yeah it not starting for the first 30 gold of profit, yeah that's good - I was worried this would make playing as a lower rank character even more difficult when I feel the difficulty is appropriate. Appreciate how upfront and open to discussion you've been in here <3

@JSJosh That was one of the things I have spent a while thinking about. Historically the courts of higher ranked rulers had more corruption, but they also had vastly more assets to oversee. If a baron suddenly had the domains and vassals that an emperor has, their stewards would be immediately overwhelmed and it would be extremely easy for anyone to skim off from the top. I also get that it is the higher level courts that need the most income reduction in the game.
So, the mod is currently set up so that corruption only hits above an income threshold and that threshold increases with rank. But the basic threshold is high enough, that it would almost never affect low ranking characters (an average skill count would need to be above ~30 gold/month to see any effects, and those would only be relevant above 50, see plots in the description).
If you see any examples in the game where the mod does something weird, please let me know.

Also, another balance thing, wouldnt it make more sense for higher ranks (barony->duchy->kingdom etc) to have HIGHER corruption rather than lower?

Practically, lower tiered rulers would have more direct control over their bureaucracy and land because theres less moving parts and more direct control over a higher % of assets. An empire's system would be vastly more complex and harder for the emperor to enact direct control over.

Gameplay-wise, lower tiers is when the money problems are already rougher and you have to be tactical with how you spend it and when youve worked yourself up to an empire you are probably already making gangbusters, that would be the right time to enact the penalty, not before.

Food for thought!

@JSJosh Yes, although I am not sure whether the player should be exempt. On the one hand it will allow the player to amass vast wealth and raise giant armies with their conqueror characters, but it will also lead to serious economic instability when their (non-conqueror) heir takes over, which could add some nice drama to the story of the campaign.

@PhantomImmortal That is an interesting idea. I am prototyping a simple version that would add some of the game's original country corruption modifiers. We will see whether I can balance it.

"Also, to keep the game challenging, conquerors and great khans are not affected by corruption."

Does this mean that player-controlled conquerors also don't get corruption?

May i have some oats brother?

Neuuu.

I wonder if you can look into debuffs for one's domain, especially re: development. Perhaps a modifier (especially one for the capital), or events that start firing more about bridge collapses, bandits stealing, etc? Oh wait... perhaps ones that take down your building levels!

Can't believe you put a picture of paradox fans as the mod's thumbnail

@無壹 Thanks, I have added the link.

@Dallan Great idea! I have implemented a simple version of that, so now some of the income lost to corruption is given to corrupt councillors/court position holders

@neutron_pressure Such a great mod！I want more Chinese player to use it, so I've translated it into Chinese, could you please add a link in description?

Here's my translation: https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3090564070

This is definitely an interesting idea, though I haven't gotten to try it out. I wonder if you've thought increasing councillor/courtier salaries in line with these factors, so some of the gold ends up on them (and if they're landed, they can use it for their purposes?) IDK if AI characters bribe others for schemes etc, come to think.

@One Proud Brazilian That is a neat idea, although that would widen the scope of the mod and turn it into a full economic rebalance. While I would love to have something like that, I know that it would take someone with a lot more CK3 modding experience than I have.

How about creating positive or negative modifiers for counties with more or fewer economic buildings than military ones, to incentivize the construction of economic buildings despite their increased price? In short, a county with more economic buildings than military ones is "happier," while a county with more military buildings than economic ones is "rebellious."

As a vassal, building more economic buildings (more "happier" counties) could also lead to a more favorable "liege opinion."

Just an idea to complement this mod!

@kalanyr Fair enough, I was on the fence about that too. I have removed that, but kept the increase to building new holdings.

I don't think increasing the cost of building upgrades further is a good idea, the final tier or 2 of the economy buildings already cannot pay for themselves in a normal length game unless you either have cost reductions when you start them or spec around increasing the income from them for the rest of the game.

(The last couple of tiers of buildings in general are pretty abysmal, with what are fairly incremental increases for very high costs, since the improvements for each level are pretty much identical but the costs go up dramatically )

Even if the player can work around this, this makes these things into AI traps.