[RyanZA]

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RyanZA:
That still shouldnt kill large amounts of population to fix. I think the unrest is definately meant in a more litteral fashion, as well as taxes. When you put the tax on 100, its normal tax which they expect. When you put it on 200, its twice as much tax as theyd normally pay, so they get upset and go off and cause unrest. Which should be at least partially relieved by the province being conquered by someone else.

Kristoffer made the game, I am sure he knows quite well what he means with unrest.

And I thought your post answering Kristoffer was a bit disingenious, if you where a little more charitable in how you interpreted Kristoffers post it should be apparent that he did not mean that you tax bridges to death nor that your patrollers hunt and kill rebellious bridges. Unrest is meant to represent general disorder in the province, it is more abstracted than just popularity, but it also includes popularity. Taxing more than 100% out of a province does not correspond exactly to raising income tax in a modern economy, it represents a non sustainable and abusive collection of various funds and resources in the province, if you are still hung up about the bridge consider it amongst other things a siphoning of maintenance funds resulting in disrepair etc. This abuse of the province and its populance results in disrepair of public works, farmers that are taxed so heavily that they do not have the seeds to replant their fields and people that have taken to banditry out of desperation or anger and so on. People die when the province are patrolled because there are bandits and dissenters that are hung to quell the unrest or desperate people slain while trying to steal food from the patrolling forces that have just repaired a bridge fallen in disrepair etc. Unrest is an abstraction, an abstraction that serves it's purpose and can be fit to relevant historical facts if you utilise a little charitable imagination.

Edit: If you consider unrest as an abstraction unrest relative to players also make less sense. Unlike the inhabitants of Robin Hood movies people do not automatically and instantly switch from lawlessnes and banditry just because a tyrant is disposed, nor are roads and bridges repaired or crops replanted without effort.

---

Yes but this all occurs over a period of a single turn. With no hostile army anywhere near to enforce this general provincial destruction. The loss of some repairs (this is medievil times, we'r not talking electrical grids here..) for a single turn is not about to place the province into a situation where the liberation of the province causes half of the population to be unable to construct anything. This would require a general pillage of the province by an army, not a few tax collectors left behind an army.