Income and population mechanics

[Torgon]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10701954/Tax...culations.xlsx

Just made up a spread sheet to calculate this out. Adjust assumptions and scales as desired. I have it set for a build I was trying out for man. O3P1C3G3

Bottom line is that overtaxing at 1.2 in your capital brings in about 1000 gold extra within around 20-25 turns at which point the total difference begins to decrease. At 1.3 its around 1500 gold extra by around turn 20. Your talking about an extra fort or two within the first 20 turns. That's a pretty big deal.

Overall I would say its worth it. Especially in CBM. In vanilla the trade off is a bit more questionable since foresters have a lower patrol and you almost always need 2.

However, as MA Man you also have an incentive to get up a lot of extra forts. You don't quite live and breath the stink of castle walls the same way was LA Man, but you do have some advantages they don't. Namely nature mages coming out you ears to provide supplies, and a bunch of stealthy, high strength wardens (if you're playing CBM) to sneak in and hold up the walls. Given this you can probably have a couple forts crank out a forester or two for 20 gold to patrol some provinces, leading to more gold, leading to more forts, leading to more mages. True if you used a capital recruitment turn to pick up another forester you would lose some research, but ultimately you get more if you have more castles cranking out mothers and bards.

As far as optimizing the strategy, you want as many positive scales as possible. Since the tax rate is multiplicative with any scales, the more positive modifiers you have the more this trade off tilts in favor of over taxing. For instance with O3P3G3 you can get almost 1800 extra gold by turn 21 at 1.3 tax. Take it up to 1.5 and you can get almost 2700 extra by turn 20. That's two extra forts, two labs, and almost half a temple.

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by Torgon

Overall I would say its worth it. Especially in CBM. In vanilla the trade off is a bit more questionable since foresters have a lower patrol and you almost always need 2.

Basic testing in CBM shows that you do need 2.

[Torgon]

Originally Posted by Nightfall

Basic testing in CBM shows that you do need 2.

Two will basically ensure that unrest never builds up. But in general I've found that one keeps unrest at 0 when taxing at 120% probably 90% of the time. Every once in awhile you miss a turn, but you're still only getting up to 2-4 unrest usually before it drops back down to zero. Still even if you insist on using two, that extra 1100 in gold income over the first 20 turns is still worth it. Its an extra fortress + part of a lab to crank out bards.

Lets assume you need one forester for every +10 in taxes. If you're taxing at 150 you get an extra 2390 gold within the first 20 turns, with the advantage dropping off after that. It hits gold parity around turn 40. Each forester costs 20 gold, 1.3 upkeep. Lets just say 2 for simplicity sake. That's 10 gold per turn in upkeep. So at turn 20 your still sitting at +2190 gold. Which would be about 2 extra castles and a lab, or 16 extra mothers, or 62 extra wardens, or 39 extra Knights of Avalon. It seems like this is well worth it. And that assumes the foresters are completely worthless other than for patrolling. They're still scouts, and they's also precision 12, a pretty good chassis for some magic bows (thunder bows in CBM 1.92 are wicked).

And if it takes 6 foresters then stick 6 foresters on it. Are you really saying that you're not going to have a few fortress turns free here and there at some point? Fortress completed prior to a lab going up? spend 20 gold for a forester. Left with an odd amount of gold at the end of a turn and cant afford another mother or bard? Spend the 40 gold and buy a couple foresters. Seems pretty easy to get a few of these guys, and once you do crank up the taxes, and even if you have to actually recruit one INSTEAD of a mother or bard, they pay for themselves rather quickly. And with the extra gold you get from overtaxing you can get more mothers and bards in the long run. Yes, it might take awhile before you end up with the six needed to tax at 200%, but that doesn't counter the overarching point: gold now is worth MUCH more than gold later since it lets you expand now.

[Torgon]

And if you really have a problem with using two at 120%. Then just use one at 110%. Still nets you an extra 600 gold in the first 24 turns, and doesn't reach gold parity until turn 46.

It just seems sort of strange that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to take death scales in order to get an advantage early at the cost of some gold later in the game, but very few are willing to do the same with overtaxing. 120% taxing along with patrolling kills off less % population than death 3 scales, but actually nets you more gold than 3 scales of order.

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by Torgon

And if you really have a problem with using two at 120%. Then just use one at 110%. Still nets you an extra 600 gold in the first 24 turns, and doesn't reach gold parity until turn 46.

Or, in CBM, you could take O3/P3 instead of O3/G3, have a similar income and be in a better position to leverage it. In all cases holding your first army back for 1-3 turns, overtaxing high and then going to normal tax is better than a perpetual 10/20/30% in both the short and long term.

Originally Posted by Torgon

It just seems sort of strange that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to take death scales in order to get an advantage early at the cost of some gold later in the game, but very few are willing to do the same with overtaxing. 120% taxing along with patrolling kills off less % population than death 3 scales, but actually nets you more gold than 3 scales of order.

I agree taking death for order is also a bad decision, not what death scales should be used for. Death scales are really only viable for big bless or blood strategies and should always be combined with luck.

[Torgon]

Alright. Assume no growth and O3P3 (But for MA man thats pretty sub-optimal since all your crones are old and without growth will be seriously hurting) Tax at 120. You still end up with 1073 more gold by turn 22 with gold hitting parity at turn 45. As I said before, since all the math is multiplicative, an extra multiplier like production scales increases the effectiveness as well.

And yes, I would agree that overtaxing even higher while holding your intial army back is even better, but that doesn't change the fact that perpetual overtaxing is also effective.

Answer this question with actual numbers. Why is temporary overtaxing at 200% an effective strategy but temporary taxing at 200% followed by long term overtaxing at 120% not an effective strategy? Obviously, it not as effective if you have to use 10 x 10 GP units plus a 40 GP commander to do it. But if you can do it with a 20 GP unit the math works out pretty well it its favor. You keep saying that its not effective, but I haven't seen any actual numbers illustrating why its not.

It seems like the real downside is not the amount of gold you generate, but rather the micromanagement that the strategy entails.

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by Torgon

Answer this question with actual numbers. Why is temporary overtaxing at 200% an effective strategy but temporary taxing at 200% followed by long term overtaxing at 120% not an effective strategy? Obviously, it not as effective if you have to use 10 x 10 GP units plus a 40 GP commander to do it. But if you can do it with a 20 GP unit the math works out pretty well it its favor. You keep saying that its not effective, but I haven't seen any actual numbers illustrating why its not.

Note that the discussion, from my side, has always been that overtaxing like this is a bad use of Growth 3.

I have not disputed the fact that you can get an extra 1000-1500gp doing it, I actually stated that before you did, but the biggest cost in doing so is the 120 pretender points you have wasted. There are just plain better ways to spend those points if your not going to take advantage of the exponential nature of the Growth scale.

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by Torgon

Obviously, it not as effective if you have to use 10 x 10 GP units plus a 40 GP commander to do it.

And this is why we are never going to agree, you believe that the opportunity cost of this unit, which can easily be raised in a captured province, is lower than the opportunity cost of a mage.

Every forester you hire is a mage you aren't hiring if you had played efficiently.

Originally Posted by Torgon

Its about gold now vs. gold later.

And I would say it's about mages now vs. mages later. The difference is that gold doesn't win games, mages and research do.

The value of taxing high early for the first couple of turns isn't that it gives you extra gold; It's that you can convert that gold quickly into an early second castle with lab, and recruit 2 mages a turn.