Re: Income and population mechanics
 

And if you really have a problem with using two at 120%. Then just use one at 110%. Still nets you an extra 600 gold in the first 24 turns, and doesn't reach gold parity until turn 46.

It just seems sort of strange that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to take death scales in order to get an advantage early at the cost of some gold later in the game, but very few are willing to do the same with overtaxing. 120% taxing along with patrolling kills off less % population than death 3 scales, but actually nets you more gold than 3 scales of order.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

Or, in CBM, you could take O3/P3 instead of O3/G3, have a similar income and be in a better position to leverage it. In all cases holding your first army back for 1-3 turns, overtaxing high and then going to normal tax is better than a perpetual 10/20/30% in both the short and long term.

I agree taking death for order is also a bad decision, not what death scales should be used for. Death scales are really only viable for big bless or blood strategies and should always be combined with luck.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

Alright. Assume no growth and O3P3 (But for MA man thats pretty sub-optimal since all your crones are old and without growth will be seriously hurting) Tax at 120. You still end up with 1073 more gold by turn 22 with gold hitting parity at turn 45. As I said before, since all the math is multiplicative, an extra multiplier like production scales increases the effectiveness as well.

And yes, I would agree that overtaxing even higher while holding your intial army back is even better, but that doesn't change the fact that perpetual overtaxing is also effective.

Answer this question with actual numbers. Why is temporary overtaxing at 200% an effective strategy but temporary taxing at 200% followed by long term overtaxing at 120% not an effective strategy? Obviously, it not as effective if you have to use 10 x 10 GP units plus a 40 GP commander to do it. But if you can do it with a 20 GP unit the math works out pretty well it its favor. You keep saying that its not effective, but I haven't seen any actual numbers illustrating why its not.

It seems like the real downside is not the amount of gold you generate, but rather the micromanagement that the strategy entails.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

Note that the discussion, from my side, has always been that overtaxing like this is a bad use of Growth 3.

I have not disputed the fact that you can get an extra 1000-1500gp doing it, I actually stated that before you did, but the biggest cost in doing so is the 120 pretender points you have wasted. There are just plain better ways to spend those points if your not going to take advantage of the exponential nature of the Growth scale.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

My point about overtaxing has nothing to do with growth vs. no growth. Its about gold now vs. gold later. The growth is mainly there for MA Man because your crones need it. As I said the math is similar without the growth and just O3P3 scales. Because of the mechanics if you have fewer positive multipliers the value of overtaxing is less. But as long as you have those multipliers the amount of gold you can get early is very significant, leading to a significant force advantage early on. Basically as long as you have fairly positive scales you should overtax if possible (i.e. have a cheap unit with a high patrol value), if you have neutral scales the question is more difficult. With negative scales the calculation starts to tip back in favor of normal tax rates.

If you want another good look at this check out Executor's recent guide for Bogarus. Basically the same idea but it uses Simargls for the patrolling.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

And this is why we are never going to agree, you believe that the opportunity cost of this unit, which can easily be raised in a captured province, is lower than the opportunity cost of a mage.

Every forester you hire is a mage you aren't hiring if you had played efficiently.

And I would say it's about mages now vs. mages later. The difference is that gold doesn't win games, mages and research do.

The value of taxing high early for the first couple of turns isn't that it gives you extra gold; It's that you can convert that gold quickly into an early second castle with lab, and recruit 2 mages a turn.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

I agree. Mages now vs. mages later are much better. However, what you're saying is that you have to give up mage recruitment in order to recruit a few foresters. I'm saying that isn't the case. One, you don't have to give up mage recruitment and two you end up with more mages very quickly.

First, you probably don't have to give up mage recruitment, one of several things could occur:

1. You have a fortress up but have not had a chance to build a lab yet.

2. You have some gold left over and can't afford to recruit another mage.

3. You have a fortress up that you don't intend to put a lab in at least for a few turns.

Two, you end up with more mages, faster. Just 4 turns of overtaxing at 120 can net you +300 gold. Which = 2 additional mothers of Avalon. So even if you had to give up one turn of mage recruitment to get the forester, you end up being able to afford 2 additional mages within 4 turns.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

Do you think I don't understand this? I'm not just hoarding gold and sitting on the piles laughing maniacally. Overtaxing high early helps you do this, as does overtaxing high continuously. Gold now vs. gold later by default means you'll end up with more mages now vs. later. With more gold you get more fortresses and labs, and thus more mages.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

None of these things should ever happen if your playing well.

Re: Income and population mechanics
 

Not exactly, a second early fortress and lab is a great start, a third early fortress and lab makes you a big fat target at exactly the time rush builds are looking for one.