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

[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.

[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