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

[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.

[General Tacticus]

Well, I am of the opinion that setting taxes at 200 is roughly equivalent to finding a suitably unscrupulous minor official, helping him recruit a set of burly bodyguards, and officially make him your tax collector. He'll extort what he can for a time, send you your share of the bounty, and eventually the high unrest will force him to more or less stay in his fortified manor and tax only the farmer next door, unless you back him up with some real troops...

[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.