Death and Taxes... well mostly taxes...

[PvK]

Seems to me there is already a strong limit against taxing at 200% without troops - the unrest goes way up, reducing your actual income. That seems quite consistent with the feeling "you should need to have some troops to enforce high taxes".

It also seems to me that not requiring units to enforce taxes is a huge blessing, but as has been said, it doesn't mean there is no one there to enforce them. Administrators and police are most often not military units, and it would add a lot of micromanagement and not much fun to have to recruit, feed, and move them around explicitly. It also wouldn't be right to involve them in battles. It seems like the correct decision to me to abstractly handle them via tax settings and their effects. The fact that it's often not easy to immediately take taxes from a conquered province _is_ represented elegantly by the addition of unrest to a province when it gets taken over. It just might not be noticed or appreciated since it is abstract and not spelled out.

So, what's the fuss about?

Too much permanent damage done to a short-term conquered province without having to use troops? If so, let's see some statistics so we can decide whether the values are reasonable or not.

PvK

[Keir Maxwell]

Re relevance of history.

Back in the old days the ancients road round on horses, they fought with swords, spears, bows . . . they sieged castles, suffered from under supply problems, taxed peasants and so on.

Sound anything like a game you all play?

I find the argument that "I'm not a historian so history doesn't matter" bizarre. Take history out of the equation and we have no basis for even beginning a discussion on the game. So whart are swords then? Any answer you give will be informed by history - the better informed the better in general.

So you find it annoying Licker that I have keep referring to history? *shrugs" Do you know I still read up avidly and much of it is to do with my interest in ancients wargaming - thats right batles with pointy and cutty things. How else can I attempt to understand these but by studying there real usage? The idea that abstract reason can provide us the answers is very wrong. If you want to understand warfare in the age of swords and bows then study history. Want to understand the impact of taxes in a feudal society - study history. If you can't be bothered then thats cool but is there really anything wrong with me bringing history to bear on this debate? It seems profoundly relevant and the only commen ground we have for the discussion. Otherwise its just "I like playing this way" verses "I like playing that way."

I do like Steven Donadlsons Gap series. Disturbing but very compelling. I got frustrated with Thomas "what can I do?" Covenant but I did read them all.

To repeat PvK's point. Nobles who rule provinces have their own forces with which they cheerfully oppress the peasants and merchants (nobles didn't like merchants). How do we know this - history.

Cheers

Keir

[Catquiet]

I don't think you should be allowed to raise taxes past %100 unless the province has an unbroken connection to one of your forts.

That way if you use a stealth or summoned army take over a province in the middle of enemy territory, you would have to stay and pillage to ruin it.

[licker]

Sigh....

You don't need to study history to know what a sword or a horse or a noble is. In fact my first exposure to those things came not at all from history, but from stories my father would tell me about some made up prince in some made up fairy tale land. Perhaps we have a problem with the meaning of the word history though, I don't know...

"So you find it annoying Licker that I have keep referring to history? *shrugs" Do you know I still read up avidly and much of it is to do with my interest in ancients wargaming - thats right batles with pointy and cutty things. How else can I attempt to understand these but by studying there real usage? The idea that abstract reason can provide us the answers is very wrong. If you want to understand warfare in the age of swords and bows then study history. Want to understand the impact of taxes in a feudal society - study history. If you can't be bothered then thats cool but is there really anything wrong with me bringing history to bear on this debate? It seems profoundly relevant and the only commen ground we have for the discussion. Otherwise its just "I like playing this way" verses "I like playing that way." "

What I find annoying is trying to apply some historical tidbit as proof for why a *game mechinic* is good or bad. I've said it many times, its a fantasy game, *not* an historical simulator. What should matter is how the game elements come together to make the game entertaining and in the end playable. Now I'm not saying that this abstraction makes the game unplayable, I am saying though that in terms of its effect on game play it is lacking and unintuitive.

I can follow all the arguements put forth for *rationalizing* the 200% tax bit, I just don't accept them. There are easy fixes to this problem as I see it, limiting the amount that taxes can be raised above 100%, tying in the local militia to raising taxes above 100%, keeping track of past province ownership...

Running an army through an enemies lands should be painful for him, but the cost to the attacker in terms of time spent wrecking the land is trivial, no its not even trivial, its simply non-existant, that is what I feel is wrong, there should be some additional cost to 200% tax rates, or it should be made more difficult to achieve them quickly (1 turn is waaaaaaay to fast for the damage it can create). History has zero bearing on this for me, and I fail to see how it should have any bearing on this for anyone. Look once you start walking down the road of supporting abusable game elements based on their *historical accuracy* you open up a pandoras box where you are forced to further defend or attack other elements that are abstracted for game play reasons. I've been down this road before though so I won't repeat the journey unless you really want me to... just go looking in the old thread about the new weapons system that I think Saber championed, we all got into it good there too

Finally I've got nothing against history, I find most of it fascinating (been reading Dan Brown's books, interesting religious stuff there), however, when it comes to computer games, unless I'm playing something like Gettysburg or Eastern Front, I don't really care how accurate they get their history so long as the game mechanics work and the plot/setting isn't so rediculose that it distracts from the rest of the game. That sentiment applies to Dominions, that the devs kept things as accurately as they did from both a historical and a mythological point of view should be applauded, until and unless that POV begins to influance further development issues in a negative and restrictive way.

As to Covenent being a bit of a drag... well yes things did bog down a bit in the third books of the two series, and Covenent was a drag, however, I think that was part of the point of his journey. Anyway, glad to hear you liked the Gap series, that was a fabulous read for me, especially after you got through the first novella, which contained most if not all of the disturbing elements. The fact that I'm a big Wagner fan didn't hurt either And since I mentioned him earlier if you havn't already take a look at Dan Brown (The Divinci Code, Angels and Demons...) it may not exactly be anyones cup of tea, but if you like your historical conspiracies then its really quite entertaining.

Lastly, Stephen King?!?!?!?? What were they smoking

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by licker:

As to Covenent being a bit of a drag... well yes things did bog down a bit in the third books of the two series, and Covenent was a drag, however, I think that was part of the point of his journey.

Indeed. By the second series he had overcome his personel paralysis and was ready to kick butt. I certainly enjoyed the world SD created.

Anyway, glad to hear you liked the Gap series, that was a fabulous read for me, especially after you got through the first novella, which contained most if not all of the disturbing elements.

I think you are forgetting the scene with the cigerettes being put out. Still the worst certainly came first. I'm not adverse to disturbing at times as the real world is pretty disturbing at times and struggling to understand how the world ticks is one of my primary joys/obsessions - disturbing and all.

I think the Gap serious is top notch science fiction and a big step ahead of Donaldsons other work.

Have you tried Dan Simmons? Hyperion (Sci-fi) and its sequals are stunning if you are that way inclined. Dan Simmons was sort of "discovered" by Steven Donaldson at a learning to write course and after Dan Simmons (a student on SD's course) read out his short story SD said somehting like "I have always wished i could write like that." Dan Simmons is an awesone writer. His story telling is so compelling and his horror novels are exactly that.

Lastly, Stephen King?!?!?!?? What were they smoking

I haven't read much Steven King and what I have convinced me that he was badly in need of a good editor - man does he overwrite. You could halve the size of the books of his I've read and you would be doing them a big favour.

Here is a fun dominons reading list. Historical fiction is the best way to enjoy history and here are some of the best.

Mary Renault - I worship at thy feet.
Cecilia Holland - Rakossey, Rakossey, where for art though Rakossey? Also "Until the Sun Falls" is the an incredibly enthralling account of the mongols conquering.
Rosemary Sutcliff - young adult? Boy are they lucky. Read everything she's written set before 1500AD and it will be a journey of joy through the history of the british isles. Mostly read "A Knights Fee" as this provides so much of the basics regarding how feudalism actually worked. "Dawn Wind" is a brilliant account of the devestation that war leaves in its trail.

I could keep going but these are probably the big three in my opinion. There are many other great historical novels but these authors are distinguished by their breadth, consistency, quality and attention to history.

There is no real point going on with the substantive debate on the "reality" of Dominions. Without at least commen ground for disagreeing upon what is the point?

Don't worry, be happy

Keir

[licker]

Dan Simmons... Sounds very familiar, though I can't recall if I've read him or not, what exactly has he written? I'm hoping it wasn't the necrophage (or whatever it was called) series, I didn't really care that much for that, in as much as I can't recall the author anymore anyway

No doubt the Gap Series is better than Covenent, and I think Donaldson would say as much, he matured greatly between those two endevors. The Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through were also fun reads, if not entirely on the same level. His short stories are fun too, but they are just that, short stories. The cigarettes on Angus didn't bother me nearly as much as what happened to Morn early on, maybe because Angus was so dispicable, or because the incident was in the past (as much as Angus's past explains how he got to be the way he was), I do have that disconect though, retelling of events isn't nearly as dramatic to me as if those events are being presented in the prenent tense.

I will look for those other books you mentioned in the library, though my wife will probably enjoy them more than I will, she has a thing for historical fiction that I can't tap into. Well I'm just another shallow American I suppose...

Anyway, have you read any of Simon Greens books? He did the Deathstalker series (sci-fi) and Hawk and Fisher (fantasy). He's a bit quirky, but his writting style appeals to me greatly, a fair amount of sarcasm, but also a decent wit.

I'll also mention Robert Jorden for the great disappointment I feel in reading the Wheel of Time series, god he needed to end it all a while back, though from reading the first few books I was quite hopeful for a thrilling series. Its a shame that he's turning into L. Ron Hubbard, though without his own personal cult, or at least he doesn't have Tom Cruise as a true believer

As to the fruitfulness of continuing our discussion on the 200% tax issue... well I'm willing to let it drop for the time being, though I don't know what common ground we really need other than both being fans of Dominions2 (oh and being well enough aquainted with the game to discuss some of its finer points). I will remain steadfast that history is largely irrelevent in the discussion, or any discussion of game mechanics for that matter. I will agree though that its better to get something 'right' than to simply make up something in its place, but in this specific case there are ample rationalizations for either viewpoint, so I am quick to discard all of them and try to remain focused on the impact on gameplay and the 'cheese' (or abuse) factor.

Its not a big deal though, I can choose not to use it in SP, and in MP I can just ensure that no one can ever do it to me