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

[Endoperez]

Even if there are no armies, there might be enough officials to do their work. Did the Sheriff of Nottingham have an army of few thousand men? I think he didn't. Said by Johan earlier in this thread:

You are assumed to have some adminstrative authorities in place in a province even when you do not have any commanders there, they are assumed to be able to threaten the populance enough to recieve the increased incomes.

I dont think that the game should limit the tax level. Taxes are the king's prerogative and so the players should be free to do what they want. But revolts should be much more common ('A good shepherd should shear his flock, not skin it' said the Roman saying).
What about the following : taxes are not limited but when unrest reaches 100, there is a chance every season that the province openly rebel. The chance is (unrest level -100) %. Or 10% for 110 unrest, and 100% for 200 unrest. If the insurrection happens you see 30 indep units (or 1/1000 pop ?) appearing from nowhere to free the province. This solution is both logical and realistic : dont you think that local population could revolt if taxes are killing them, if pillage is allowed or if young virgins are abducted by evil mages ?
Cheers

[licker]

Firstly I think I made my point courteously, my post asking for the real world history to be kept in check isn't an attack, its a simple statement that as far as game mechanics go in a fantasy based computer game, what actually happened in *our* history has little bearing. What does matter is that the system is satisfing and works within the framework of the game, the fact that the English pillaged without keeping a local force (though they must have used their troops for this anyway...) is entirely beside any point when discussing the abstraction of unrest in Dominions. Either the system works for you or it doesnt. Obviously it doesn't work for me, and if your criticism of my view lies on the fact that I am not a historian, then you fail to grasp that this is a game, not a historical simulator.

It is for that precise reason that I often argue against using 'reality' as an arguement for why game mechanics should exist or be changed, reality in a game should be based more on enjoyability or serving a greater function in the game than on keeping up with what people think makes sense based on reality. Now you will notice that that sentiment precludes me from using historical evidence to support my views, then again that's not really a problem for me, I'm trying to keep on message with the notion that this tactic is flawed from a game mechanics point of view, and it is abusable. We can talk about realism and rationalizations supporting both sides of the argument, but neither side will move an inch that way, that's why I ask to keep history out of it, that's why I ask to look at the effects on game play rather than anyones personal thoughts on what is realistic and what is not.

I suppose the main difference of opinion then lies in how we interpret the abstractness of unrest and taxes. I take it to be removed from military entirely, as no military is needed to enforce the harsher policies. Sure the sheriff of Nottingham didn't have a 1000 men running around, but then again the scale of dominions doesn't have 1000 men running around very often either, at least not in any single province. It would satisfy me if there were a level of local militia required to support higher taxes, I could accept their presence as the backbone that enforces the lords will. Simply put, for me, provinces with zero military presence and high taxes should not provide either the income they do, nor the unrest that is generated.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that this discussion has created some new food for thought for the devs and how they approach the economic aspect of dominions, wheather or not a change is effected to 'correct' ( ) this aspect or not isn't all that critical to me, I'm more than satisfied to continue to look at game elements that seem weak and seek ways to improve them.

As to the Lord of the Rings... what can I say? I loved the book and the movies, but I can honestly say that my enjoyment of them had nothing to do with Tolkins ability to keep some historical basis in it. The story is what was compelling, the world of middle earth is to me no better and no worse than any other fantasy based world I've encountered in books. In fact my favorate fantasy series is Stephen Donaldsons six books on Thomas Covenent, though I'm not sure why thats germain to this point Just thought I'd pimp Donaldson, all his works are excellent, and hey, he lives in New Mexico

[Gandalf Parker]

OK as I see this thread it goes like this. Some feel that the tactic (my favorite tactic that I often bring up) of increasing taxes to the max (the max being an important point), pillaging, blood hunting, all for the purpose of poisoning the land in case its taken back is a cheesy tactic. OK, it probably is.

Doing it to the province around a castle while the defenders are shoved inside is cheesy. OK.

Its not realistic? then we need to check history. The concept of armies pillaging, living off the land, salting the earth, generally making the countryside unproductive either to increase its own army or to decrease its usefullness to the enemy is pretty well documented in any major war of any age.

Its not a good thing for the game? Too easy to do? Shouldnt be allowed at all? Then we need to offer an alternative.

So its either a bad realism (and we suffer historical discussions) or its a bad tactic for the game to support (and we need formulas which answer the pros and cons)

[Gandalf Parker]

as posted by licker:

I suppose the main difference of opinion then lies in how we interpret the abstractness of unrest and taxes. I take it to be removed from military entirely, as no military is needed to enforce the harsher policies. Sure the sheriff of Nottingham didn't have a 1000 men running around, but then again the scale of dominions doesn't have 1000 men running around very often either, at least not in any single province. It would satisfy me if there were a level of local militia required to support higher taxes, I could accept their presence as the backbone that enforces the lords will. Simply put, for me, provinces with zero military presence and high taxes should not provide either the income they do, nor the unrest that is generated

OK so the idea that a seiging enemy is doing horrible damage to the province around a sieged castle makes more sense than it turning up taxes in a captured province and moving on?
I can see that. Maybe it should require at least one of my seiging armys be set to patrol instead of seige.

If I march an army thru a province, crank the taxes, and leave one tax collector there then I could probably expect that poor shmuck to be barbecued by morning. If I leave a small army there then I have a better chance of getting the taxes...

Hmmmmm when I play with lots of chaos scale or major unluck, and I do my nasty tactic, Im almost hoping for a random event of knights or adventurers to save the province. Takes it out of my hands but also keeps it out of his hands with a powerful defending force.

Maybe it would satisfy both Versions of the debate (realism and gamey) if the cheesy tactic would increase the chances of losing the province. So if you really want the tactic to work then you need to invest alittle in defence or patrol to keep it long enough.

Actually, at any time, whether its my own province, or one I freshly took, or a castle Im seiging.... If I crank taxes to the maximum bleed possible, pillage, blood hunt, whatever shoots up unrest.. then there should be a high chance that someone will "save" the province from me. Or that they will revolt. OR (totally new thought) that they might even switch sides?

I think there is already some of this in the game but maybe the chances of retribution could be increased abit. Just brain-farting here.

Gandalf Parker

[ January 04, 2004, 15:36: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[aldin]

and now for something completely different (mebbe... well, probably not )

Let us imagine our fantasy land without allusion to history. Each area of this land is in one of three conditions:

1) Neutral - Neutral provinces maitain an army to defend themselves so that they don't pay taxes to anyone.

2) Conquered - Conquered provinces have had it proved to them, at the point of the sword, that they live at the sufferance of their conqueror. They pay taxes, at the rate set by the conqueror, because they have no other choice. Even if the army isn't "there", it's within a few days' march as far as they know.

3) Home - The only possible argument in my mind is that perhaps home provinces need to be treated better, but it is the fervent, worshipping home of the pretender and likely to put up with abuses for the sake of their lord.

I'm generally of the opinion that a 'trick' that can be easily performed by any player is fair game. It merely adds a layer of complexity in considering how best to use the trick or in calculating how best to defend against it's employ.

~Aldin

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by aldin:
I'm generally of the opinion that a 'trick' that can be easily performed by any player is fair game. It merely adds a layer of complexity in considering how best to use the trick or in calculating how best to defend against it's employ.

Im all for extending the things that a player can do. I dont want to see any tactic "removed" from the game. However they all must have consequences and balances which keep it from being a no-brainer choice. I do admit that this one seems like it could use some sort of balancing consequence. Some better reasons to consider the pros and cons.