[johan osterman]

I won't argue the strategic effects of the current system with you since I think they are ok, and it boils down to a matter of taste.

Originally posted by RyanZA:

...
Again, on non-tactical terms, broken infrastructure or destroyed crops do not require that you kill a large amount of your population to fix. I fail to see how killing the farmers helps them plant their crops any faster.

Edit: One further thing,

quote:

---

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.

Unrest of this type could not be removed by lowering taxes? Why would proper banditry (not revolting peasantry) be stopped by lowering taxes? They dont pay taxes already! They arent going to start plowing fields just because someone wont be asking for as much gold anymore.

---

You do not need to be so literal, reduced taxes can also represent distributing previously collected in natura taxes, providing seeds to farmers, hiring people to repair bridges, administrative measures to counter bandits (bounties, hiring additional constables or whatever) etc. Unrest represents general disorder in the province, patrolling represents a heavy handed way of dealing with this, lowering taxes a less heavy handed way. Dom 2 is not intended to be a realistic economic model unrest, resources, income, taxes and patrolling are all abstractions and they obviously fall short of modelling reality in many respects, but I do think they do what they are intended to do well enough and to me at least are believable enough not to upset my sensibilities.