[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