Taxing and Patrolling... is it worth it?

[TheDemon]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Uh ? How come Growth 0 is more overtax profitable than Growth 3 ?

It's only relative profitability. Growth will always be more profitable in the absolute sense. But like I was saying earlier, growth isnt any sort of 'counter' for overtax losses.

Exactly. I didn't set my spreadsheet up to do comparisons because I was looking for the breakeven point. If you copy the whole thing to a new sheet, I'm sure you can set up a comparison column.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The Demon: that's turns until the turn income is higher without overtaxing, yes? What about cumulative income? How long until the *total* income collected in the province is higher if you just let it go? (I'd check myself, but strangely enough i don't have excel on this computer - maybe i'll look tonight)

I mentioned both.

For 30k pop:

At Growth 0, Growth 3, and Death 3, the last turn the income for 150% tax is greater than the income for 100% tax is turn 20, 19 and 21 respectively.

This is per turn income.

At Growth 0, the last turn the total income for 150% tax is greater than the total for 100% tax is turn 42.
At Growth 3, the last turn the total income for 150% tax is greater than the total for 100% tax is turn 39.
At Death 3, the last turn the total income for 150% tax is greater than the total for 100% tax is turn 45.

Total income = cumulative income

[Squirrelloid]

sorry, was reading too fast apparently. Now that i've gotten a chance to look at your spreadsheet it was more obvious. =P

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by TheDemon

Exactly. I didn't set my spreadsheet up to do comparisons because I was looking for the breakeven point. If you copy the whole thing to a new sheet, I'm sure you can set up a comparison column.

I get that, but it's still quite counter-intuitive that the scales which make population re-grow actually end up making a net loss faster than the scales that kill pop even faster.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I get that, but it's still quite counter-intuitive that the scales which make population re-grow actually end up making a net loss faster than the scales that kill pop even faster.

Net loss? Wow, I think you are interpreting it a bit wrong. It makes the overtaxing tactic less effective quicker. Because if you didn't overtax the pop that doesn't disappear would also grow quicker and raise your income quicker.

Say at turn 40 without growth the 100% cumulative income is 3000gold. But with growth 3 it is 4000k. Of course the point where the overtax would give less than these values comes earlier when the end number is higher.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Net loss? Wow, I think you are interpreting it a bit wrong. It makes the overtaxing tactic less effective quicker.

That's what I said, yes. Overtaxing starts making a net loss earlier with G3 than with G0, compared to 100% taxes with the same scales.

I realize the total income made during those 20ish turns will have been higher with G3 than G0 or D3. However, it is still very puzzling to me that G3 makes overtaxing less (relatively) effective, when you'd expect the pop regrowth would mitigate the pop loss from overtaxing and thus keep the overtaxing gravy train going a bit longer.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I realize the total income made during those 20ish turns will have been higher with G3 than G0 or D3. However, it is still very puzzling to me that G3 makes overtaxing less (relatively) effective, when you'd expect the pop regrowth would mitigate the pop loss from overtaxing and thus keep the overtaxing gravy train going a bit longer.

Then I would advice you never to get stock options or other financial stuff IRL. At least not without proper guidance.

[TheDemon]

In slightly more intuitive terms:

Both the 100% and the 150% sides of the equation had their income grown by Growth. I am ignoring the 6% income bonus, I am talking about only population growth. BUT, despite Growth the 150% side of the equation is losing population overall. Growth is a percentage; since the 150% loses population every turn, the gains from Growth are less every turn in absolute terms. By contrast, the 100% side gains population every turn, so it grows faster every turn in absolute terms.

Growth causes both incomes to grow, but the 100% side grows faster than the 150% side. Every turn the 150% slows as it bleeds population and the 100% speeds up as it gains population. That gap means the 100% side catches up to the 150% side earlier.

Just to put forth an example, with no Growth, the 100% side and the 150% side both hit 300 gpt at turn 20. With Growth 3, the 100% side and the 150% side both hit 355 gpt at turn 19. It's earlier, but both sides of the equation are making more gold in absolute terms.

[Kobal2]

Ok, I understand now. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

@Soyweiser : Tell me about it. This is why I can't have nice things

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

@Soyweiser : Tell me about it. This is why I can't have nice things

Ah, don't worry. The whole system is biased for the ultra rich. The more disposable income you have the easier it is to get richer. (The last 20 years the gap between rich and poor has increased! Go conservatives).

[Mardagg]

guys,its nice to know some precise numbers now,but you are missing lots of things that are important to sucessfully use this strat.

1. only big population provinces should be overtaxed at 150,because only there the shortterm net money for early/midgame outweighs the longterm loss of population in my experience.This is common sense after a while if you try and test a lot with this strat.
Those provinces keep losing pop and therefore they are basically taxed 140,130,120,110 until they are taxed 100 and keep getting population again with grotwh 3.
This means you got only some provs starting with tax 150,some with 140,some with 130 and most with 120/110 and all the low pop provinces arent overtaxed at all.

2.sometimes the patrollers dont make all unrest go away,thus it makes no sense to overtax the province that turn because you would only get like 1-5 gold more,meaning that growth 3 is a good way to regain at least some pop that turn.

3. overtaxing makes a lot of sense for blood hunt nations,since they often lose a lot of money blood hunting all those 4.5k to 8k pop provinces.Growth 3 offsets the population loss of blood hunt/
low tax combo and nearly offsets the loss of blood hunt/patrol combos.

4.You need the same number of patrollers to fight the unrest regardless of the province being 8k pop or 30k pop.That means your per number patroller that is sitting in the province every turn is effectively worth much more "gold" in big provinces.This is especially important to consider when you start with the strat at early game,where you normally only get a few new patrollers every turn...thats why you start and should concentrate your efforts on the biggest provinces.

All in all,this strat is relying on micromanaging your provinces every turn.