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
