Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...

[ywl]

I often go the other way in my SP game, i.e., I decrease the tax rate to 0 while seiging. The income of the defender is set by same tax rate. So, if I set it to zero, I can deprive the defender of the income and have less trouble quenching unrest when I get the castle.

[licker]

Originally posted by Teraswaerto:
Does one or two turns with taxes at 200% really ruin a province? How much pop does one turn with 200% tax kill?

One turn no, two turns... maybe, its not so much about killing pop as it is about the killer unrest (over 100), but the title 'unrest and taxes' didn't have the same ring to it

[licker]

Originally posted by ywl:
I often go the other way in my SP game, i.e., I decrease the tax rate to 0 while seiging. The income of the defender is set by same tax rate. So, if I set it to zero, I can deprive the defender of the income and have less trouble quenching unrest when I get the castle.

Really? The defender gets income from beseiged provinces? I didn't know that (though I don't get seiged that often... ) Anyway, I don't see any abuse in setting taxes to zero.

[PvK]

I haven't studied the details of the effects of high taxes enough to have an opinion on the cheese level, but I see your point. Effortless collection of super-taxes could be cheesy. On the other hand, it could make sense, depending on what the effects are.

It makes some sense in this game world to be able to march an army through and collect some taxes right away. The conquering army could appoint local sub-warrior honchos to collect taxes.

However, setting taxes to max without any troops present should be noticably less lucrative, and noticably less damaging, than having troops actually plundering the province.

I do like the idea of having provinces remember whom they are mad at. Liberate a province from a hated tyrant, and they won't be mad at you. Try to conquer people who loved their former god, and you may start with massive unrest. Etc.

Playing casually with the existing system, it tends to seem ok. Violence causes unrest, low taxes and patrols reduce it, and I haven't seen any weird results. However I'm still enjoying leisurely playing the game against the AI and not trying to exploit the system.

What actually happens when you over-tax? I know unrest goes up and some population dies. How much? How long does it take to repair a province with high unrest by setting taxes to low or zero? It's always seemed pretty quick (a few turns) to me in the case of unrest from sites/events/magic/blood-hunts/battles.

PvK

[aldin]

I'm certain I dont understand the way this works, so I'd appreciate feedback. Your home province starts with ~30,000 people, right? Growth boosts that by 0.2% per turn per scale, right? Patrolling kills 10 population per 1 unrest killed patrolling, right? So if 140% tax rate produces 8 unrest (it does), doesn't Growth 2 more than offset it (+120 Growth -80 Patrolling)?

Thanks for the responses!

~Aldin

[apoger]

>Patrolling kills 10 population per 1 unrest killed patrolling, right?

There is also pop loss due to the tax rate.

[Keir Maxwell]

I'm not convinced that the whole raising tax for unrest etc is so cheesy. As I understand it (and I may well be wrong) unrest reduces supplies so setting your own provinces to 200% tax in the face of an on rushing army you can't beat right now seems a very legitimate approach. Being of scottish ancestry I can appreciate the impact of burning your own land in front of the enemy to deny them the use of it.

In terms of raids on enemy provinces which capture them briefly and raise taxes its like having an option to pillage in the turn you take the province - it take as a bit to round up all the booty so you don't get it straight away. "Move and Pillage" should probably be an order but till they do it raising taxes to 200% is ok by me.

The idea that it only takes a couple of turns to destroy a province by over taxing does not fit my experiance. I have bought provinces back from 100-200 unrest just by leaving them at 0% tax. It takes awhile but so it should. It generally seems to take a bit less time than it would to get the unrest to that level at 200% tax. Reducing unrest by low taxes *seems* to me more reliable than the added unrest from high taxes but this might just be dominion impact decieving me. In my experiance unrest is decreased 3+% per 10% less taxes and increased 2-3% per 10% increased taxes. My guess is both figures are 3% and the deviation is the impact of dominion as the higher the numbers involved the closer the maths seems to get to the magic 3% per 10% tax.

I'm not saying there are no abuses or unrealistic possibilities and some have been mentioned - I'm justing putting forward the view that the present system has its strengths and any changes should reflect this.

cheers

Keir