Taxing
 

So, why tax to 200%? I'd like to hear some comments.

Re: Taxing
 

To reliably afford expensive mages or building construction costs in the first year or so assuming you have a reliable way to keep the unrest down?

Re: Taxing
 

like Bo Jangles says, it is common practice to tax 200% on the first turn while using your starting commander to patrol. This gives a big boost in the number of units you can immediately recruit and, thus, allows you to expand much faster. You would only do this on the first turn typically.

Also, when raiding enemy territory, if you don't expect or plan to hold on to a province for very long, it is worth taxing 200%. That way you suck as much gold out of it while you can, and by the time the enemy gets it back the unrest is so high (and maybe pop so low) as to make it worthless in the near future.

Re: Taxing
 

I was aiming more for the raiding part, and you're wrong Omnirzon.

Re: Taxing
 

I'm not sure what you're looking for Exec.
However, taxing increases unrest. Unrest decreases the ability of units to patrol.

So there is a slight benefit if you are planning on using stealthy units and are planning to stay in province.

Re: Taxing
 

???

Re: Taxing
 

When you set taxes to 200% in a province you just raided, it's not you who gets the gold if you lose the province, it's your enemy, and most of the time the enemy will recapture the province, that's why you put 200% taxes in the first place right, because you expect to lose it and want to cause maximal damage to the enemy?

But by setting them to 200% you're not really doing anything (if he takes them back the same turn).
He'll get the doubled income for that turn and all the gold he'll lose due to minimal unrest caused by one turn of taxing will be coved by the initial turn when he recaptured the province with 200% tax.

So, it makes more sense to put the province to 0% tax if you know you're gonna lose it.
Since then he will recapture the province with no income gain that turn and that will hurt him more than the 200%, where like I said the gold gained from 200% taxing and the lose from minimal unrest cause by raiding will be more or less the same, and he will not have actually lost any gold.

Re: Taxing
 

Well, I have taken some raided provinces back where the taxes were set to 200% after 1 turn or so. The drop in population was quite noticable (though, maybe I'm overreacting cause I'm a nice good that likes his people to thrive). Afterwards I had to set taxes to 0 to reduce unrest. Don't know though if they did something else like pillaging, though.
So if your enemy doesn't have perfect mobility to take all the raided provinces back on the same turn, it does make sense imo.

Re: Taxing
 

Then, why don't you just set all your provinces to 200% tax and then a bit reduced tax for the few turns?

Because it doesn't pay off. You lose gold to even small amounts of unrest.

Also, Illuminated One makes an excellent point - if you raid effectively enough, the enemy cannot take all the provinces back in the same turn. I remember doing this with ea vanheim.

Re: Taxing
 

You're the one that's wrong Executor. Taxes are reset when a province is captured, meaning your entire post is erroneous.

Re: Taxing
 

I want my minute and 48 seconds back right now!

Re: Taxing
 

Apologies from my behalf, you can have your (108sec/9 posts = 12 sec per post) 12sec back. There you go.

Re: Taxing
 

I did some testing and:

Without any taking of provinces:

Treasury(i+1) = Treasury(i) + income(i) - upkeep(i+1)

That is, each turn treasury is increased (or decreased) with the difference of last turn's income and this turn's upkeep.


When nation A takes a province from nation B:

Nation B gets income reduced by the amount the taken province earned (as expected).

Nation A gets income increased by an amount that I could not determine. It is not:
a) the amount nation B lost
b) the amount that the province shows as income when captured
c) the amount of income the province would have with the new owner and taxes set to what the previous owner set (including taxes set at 100%)

Re: Taxing
 

therefore, if nation A takes province b from nation B on turn t, and sets taxes to 200% on turn t, but then nation B retakes province b on turn t + 1, nation B does not get income(taxes = 200%), but rather gets some as of yet to be determined amount. thus, it is worthwhile to set taxes to 200% whenever a province is captured for which the capturing nation doesn't expect to hold for more than t + k turns, where k is a small constant under which it is worthwhile for the capturing nation to set taxes to 200% for?

OK. makes perfect sense.

Re: Taxing
 

Exactly.

I just wish I could find a formula for the undetermined amount.

Re: Taxing
 

From the situation without taking or losing provinces it seems that changes in income due to dominion/scale changes and unrest affect future income but not current income?

Did your test province have neutral dominion and scales? That would affect income for the different nations.

Re: Taxing
 

I don't understand the problem.

On turn(i) you conquer a province. The act of conquering it increases the unrest, and may result in the owner of the province having or not having dominion.

Are you saying that the the modifications for unrest (and possibly dominion switch) do not explain the income received?

Re: Taxing
 

100% expected income from province B implies no unrest or scale effects, as thejeff says.

But when a province changes hands, earlier in the turn sequence, that raies unrest in the province from zero (by around 5 to 15), even if there is no battle. The unrest increase occurs before income is generated for the province, since that's right at the end of the turn sequence. So income is lower than expected.

I think that ignoring scale effects, income for a freshly-takes province is calculated at 100% no matter what the previous occupant taxed that province at, as Micah says. The income for the province in the turn the province is taken is also affected by the unrest. Then the auto-taxation rules are applied and taxes are lowered to reduce the unrest in the upcoming end-of-turn.

@Psycho: it's option 'C' in your explanation, if you include lower income due to unrest.

Edit: Ninjad by Chris!

Re: Taxing
 

The option c) includes the changed scales effect and unrest decrease. The income with nation B's scales would be a), the same amount as nation B. Unrest is not the explanation either.

Re: Taxing
 

OK, here is a concrete example:

Nation A takes a province from B. Nation B has 181 gold income from the province. Next turn there are no changed scales (Order3 Sloth3 Growth2 Misf2, Magic1) and 23 unrest in the province.

Nation A earned 102 gold from the province.

Taxes were set automatically to 50% and income with 23 unrest and 50% taxes is shown as 47.

When I set taxes to 100% and with 23 unrest income is 97.

I put taxes to 0 to reduce unrest, click end turn. Scales remain the same. With 100% taxes and 0 unrest income is 140 gold.

I can find no combination that would give me the received 102 gold from the province.

Re: Taxing
 

Insufficient data, still.

a). It is doubtful that the dominion changed the same time ownership did, so the province is still under enemy dominion, in which case event tho the scales may change you will not get the full benefit of them.

b. Also need to know the population of the province, and finally the nations. Some nations (abysia for example) have special features.