|
|
|
 |

January 3rd, 2004, 08:13 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 990
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by johan osterman:
quote: Originally posted by RyanZA:
...
These "heavy handed" methods should not be causing this level of death within the population then.
I am not asking for a total rewrite of the unrest code, only that when conquering a province with high unrest, it is lowered somewhat to stop people just 'buying unrest' for the oposing player, and to better fit in with an army arriving to liberate the province from the harsh taxes it has been facing from the enemy.
|
Why shouldn't they cause death? Unrest is an abstraction that is intended to represents civil unrest as well as other forms of disorer and lawlessness, so unrest means there are dissenters, agitators, bandits etc. people that your patroller discourage by a few (or more than a few) hangings. Unrest is intended to be a number of factors some of these your patrollers solve by killing people, some by just showing up and putting the fear fo God into your people and in some cases they might repair bridges, clear passes of brigands or do whatever else might be reqiured to restore order.
As for your Last point I remember being frustrated by opponents using similar tactics against me in VGA Planets, but now it doesn't bother me. What would bother me on the other hand would be the possibility of allied player switching provinces between each other to share the use of a province and lower the unrest present. At present they do at least get the small penalty of increased unrest, your suggestion would reward their behaviour. I'm not so sure they would be rewarded if the unrest reset to 100 assuming it was higher to begin with... anyway that's all completely beside the point.
The point being that this strategy, no matter how you wish to abstract unrest, has zero consequence for the agressor, in fact he ultimately benefits from the 1 or 2 turns of additional income due to his 200% tax rate.
I don't think that my origional suggestion of capping the level that you can raise taxes in one turn is overly disruptive, and yet it would 'fix' this problem. A better solution would be to track province ownership, have supply lines mean something for tax collection (similar to supporting troops), or change the system completely. However, I recognize that those latter solutions are more work for perhaps little actual gain.
Now while the concepts of pillageing, scortched earth, and general problems from battles being fought on your farm lands are certainly valid, the failing as I see it is that 200% tax shouldn't cause as much disruption as quickly as it does. Personally I think that if you want to wreck a province you had better use your military to do it, or spend more than a few turns screwing up the tax to do it.
Again, its not a big deal to me in SP, I chose not to abuse this aspect, I just think that for MP it should be looked at and hopefully improved for all aspects of game play, as since the AI doesn't seem able to deal with this tactic (it doesn't do it itself that I've seen) it is definately cheese to use it in SP.
|

January 3rd, 2004, 10:02 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by RyanZA:
The idea of an army passing through a perfectly happy province, and going along with an insane tax rate with no sign of the enemy is a bit far fetched.
|
The english in the 100 years war made a practice of moving rapidly through french terrotories pillaging as they went (no stopping to pillage) simply to ruin the local economy. The french would react with much larger forces and chase the english home but the damage is done. This is a very, very, close parallel to the Dom tactic you hate and yes the French hated it because it was damn hard for them to counter.
It is not a cheesy tactic at all - even a little bit. It is very historical. War was brutal far beyond what many seem to imagine. As for the idea that the local people have a community of interest with either empire fighting over them this was seldom the case in history .
"When Kings make war, poor little men must tremble"
Cheers
Keir
|

January 3rd, 2004, 10:14 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by johan osterman:
In the early stages of dom 2 development there were some discussions of changing the way unrest works, so that there was a provincial unrest and one national happiness factor for the whole empire as well as a couple of other ideas,
|
I'm very glad you stuck with the current model. Nationalism/Nations may seem the sort of thing thats been around for ever but the standard view in history is that it arose with the rise of the bourgeoise/capitalist state. A French peasant in the middle ages suffered most at the hands of the french rulers - the community of interest many suppose didn't exist on the whole. The emergence of free cities and the conflicts between the nobles and the merchants that this entailed is another example of how disparate interest were in these times.
I think most of the criticisms of the tax system are on the level of "this doesn't feel right." This is not particularily helpful as what feels wrong to a modern person may feel quite right for a feudal lord. Could the critics respond more to the historical details being used against them and rely less on commen sense as it is no guide whatsoever when you leave behind the commen.
Cheers
Keir
Cheers
Keir
[ January 03, 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]
|

January 3rd, 2004, 10:57 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 296
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by Pocus:
I dont think its a big issue compared to an active pillaging. 200% taxes cost you 3% of population and 18-20 unrest. Annoying but not that crippling for the re-conqueror.
Ywl, I'm rather unsure that the defender of a besieged fort get his income. I have not made specific tests about that though, are you sure?
|
I'm sure.
He does and the tax rate is by the seiger.
|

January 4th, 2004, 02:12 AM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 990
Thanks: 13
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
quote: Originally posted by johan osterman:
In the early stages of dom 2 development there were some discussions of changing the way unrest works, so that there was a provincial unrest and one national happiness factor for the whole empire as well as a couple of other ideas,
|
I'm very glad you stuck with the current model. Nationalism/Nations may seem the sort of thing thats been around for ever but the standard view in history is that it arose with the rise of the bourgeoise/capitalist state. A French peasant in the middle ages suffered most at the hands of the french rulers - the community of interest many suppose didn't exist on the whole. The emergence of free cities and the conflicts between the nobles and the merchants that this entailed is another example of how disparate interest were in these times.
I think most of the criticisms of the tax system are on the level of "this doesn't feel right." This is not particularily helpful as what feels wrong to a modern person may feel quite right for a feudal lord. Could the critics respond more to the historical details being used against them and rely less on commen sense as it is no guide whatsoever when you leave behind the commen.
Cheers
Keir
Cheers
Keir Historical details? What on earth do historical details have to do with this? Dominions may borrow from history/mythology, but its not a historical simulator of some kind. Now before you take those words and use them against me, let me remind you that what I'm after is modifing a game mechanic that not only 'doesn't feel right', it quite simply isn't right in the context of its effect on the rest of the game.
Simply put the freedom to *raise* taxes, especially in provinces with existing unrest, to the maximum level makes no sense. Moreover, historically it simply wasn't possible, again in the context of the abstracted unrest and taxes in dominions, without useing some kind of military or other *stationary* force to enforce compliance. I have no problems with using pillagers to do this, but the free destruction one gets from simply setting taxes to 200%, *especially in newly conquered provinces* is simply abuseive of the system.
Now please tell me what would be wrong with my original suggestion of capping the amount that taxes can be raised (over 100%)? Does it have a negative effect on the game overall? Does it not fix the 'problem' that at least some people are concerned with?
And please, keep the history lessons in the books, they are not germain to this discussion of game mechanics. (though they are otherwise quite interesting )
|

January 4th, 2004, 03:06 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
Quote:
Originally posted by licker:
[Historical details? What on earth do historical details have to do with this? Dominions may borrow from history/mythology,
|
Ever heard of Lord of the Rings? Y'know the fantasy series by that Tolkien dude? Yeah the expert in ancient Languages and history who created a believable world because he understood the structures of certain levels of human development, the way human thought and language changes with different social orders. Its not a coincidence that the Lord of The Rings is so widely aclaimed.
Dominions is, to my understanding, deeply rooted in our history and this is a big part of why it is so good.
Quote:
Simply put the freedom to *raise* taxes, especially in provinces with existing unrest, to the maximum level makes no sense. Moreover, historically it simply wasn't possible,
|
Hang on you don't care about history? So what is your basis for saying something is odd then? As compared to what?
The ability to raise crippling taxes existed and was excercised. Whole populations were deported, slaughtered, had one hand chopped off, decimated and many other atrocities. So why can't we raise taxes to 200%? Is 20 unrest really such a big deal? It only takes one turn to recover at 0% taxes. Economic warfare was extremely commen in history - especially when hard to take strongholds abounded. On of the reasons you choise to fight a battle is to stop your crops being burnt.
The english tactic in the 100 years war, described previously, represents the exact form of warfare you object to so where is the problem in terms of history?
Quote:
Now please tell me what would be wrong with my
original suggestion of capping the amount that taxes can be raised (over 100%)? Does it have a negative effect on the game overall?
|
Yes. As noted by others, the existing system allows people to choose to either conquer peacefully (lower taxes to 0%) or conquer brutally - raise taxes to 200% or somewhere in between. Its a good feature and I think your suggestion would be kill joy.
"Ooh no big bad tyrant you can't be a brutal conqueror, no you have to delay a turn in each province to pillage and thus cripple your campaign"
Sod that - instant taxes = booty from pillage during conquest. No problem.
Quote:
And please, keep the history lessons in the books, they are not germain to this discussion of game mechanics. (though they are otherwise quite interesting )
|
Actually I think the history is very relevant and if you want to make a counter case what are you going base it on? Your own personal grasp of the logic of fantasy universes? Sorta leaves us lacking a commen ground. Sure magics and real gods changes things but this is how the peoples of ancient history percieved the world anyway so their perspective is very relevant. The way the ancients fought is also very relevant as they faced many of the same physical constraints.
Cheers
Keir
[ January 04, 2004, 01:07: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]
|

January 4th, 2004, 03:27 AM
|
 |
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 410
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...
>The ability to raise crippling taxes existed and was excercised.
Not without troops to keep the peace.
This entire discussion is foolish. It has been established clearly that "taxes/tax rate/unrest" is actually an abstraction.
Licker: If you don't like the system, make your point courteously and hope that if enough people speak out, that IW will care. Frankly I'm with you in not being particularly happy with the whole economic system.
Keir: If you like the system, just say so. No need to rationalize about how the system is realistic, it isn't, and it's not even meant to be.
Now shake hands and be friends. 
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|