Caribbean etc. islands

[unmerged(6159)]

I'm starting this thread to discuss the question of taxvalues on small islands.

Also I would reccommend that the tax value of all the Carribean islands except for Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the provinces on Cuba and Hispaniola aslo be lowered to 3. I see no reason why these islands should get 5 or 6 tax apiece. They were rather small islands after all and presently Fernando Po gets 2 only. I'm unaware that they produced sugar more heavily than the provinces I reccommended be omitted from this reduction. Their getting 5 or 6 tax apiece isn't really good for gameplay anyways as human Spanish players go out of their way to TP them all before Britain and France show up on account of their high tax value. Also this will discourage a human Portuguese player from going there early too as these islands are investment/profit wise the best set of provinces in the game to be colonized. This adjustment should curb the strong incentive for ahistorical gameplay here.

I would also reccommend reducing Mauritius and Bourbon to 4 as these islands were prety heavily colonized. I think it's fair they should be slightly more valuable than the east Carribean

Why the heck do these little islands have large (5 and 6) taxvalues anyway? I'm thinking primarily of the Lesser Antilles. From the point of view of accuracy this makes next to no sense. The things that are affected by taxvalue are:
1) Tax income (obviously). High taxvalue makes the provinces relatively more valuable early on when trade and production efficiencies are low than late in the game when tax is much less important. In real life the income from these islands was only large in the 18th century. Their wealth and value to the mother countries was based on sugar production. If taxes represent income from the countryside (and city population has no effect on them) then it's hard to see why they should have a high taxvalue - the land area of all of these islands is very small (even Trinidad)
2) Attrition. The islands were notoriously unhealthy, and units stationed there usually withered away from disease. Why can they support such high armies? (Mauritius and Reunion are a little different here.) (This also has the potential to let the AI build ridiculously large armies, but as far as I can tell it only does that on islands in it's home continent.)
3) Recruitment. As far as I know no-one ever recruited many troops in the Caribbean. Sure the Barbadians defended themselves during the Civil War, but agaisnt a very small expedition. Why can we raise quite large armies on these islands?
4) Maximum fort size. The Spanish built big forts in the Caribbean. I don't think anyone else ever did.

None of these provides a reason for the taxvalues of these provinces. Does anyone know if they were lower in the boardgame? I can't really think of any important game reasons to make the taxvalues so high, except to make the islands more valuable. But the high taxvalues strongly encourage the Spanish to colonize them, which they never did.

Sugar is very valuable, and usually hits a very high price by the end of the game. And world sugar production was concentrated in the Caribbean. That should be the reason to colonize here.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Yes put it to 1 and 2 across the whole carribean, the sugar/tobacco/coffee is reason enough to colonize them

 

[unmerged(31425)]

I'm starting this thread to discuss the question of taxvalues on small islands.



Why the heck do these little islands have large (5 and 6) taxvalues anyway? I'm thinking primarily of the Lesser Antilles. From the point of view of accuracy this makes next to no sense. The things that are affected by taxvalue are:
1) Tax income (obviously). High taxvalue makes the provinces relatively more valuable early on when trade and production efficiencies are low than late in the game when tax is much less important. In real life the income from these islands was only large in the 18th century. Their wealth and value to the mother countries was based on sugar production. If taxes represent income from the countryside (and city population has no effect on them) then it's hard to see why they should have a high taxvalue - the land area of all of these islands is very small (even Trinidad)
2) Attrition. The islands were notoriously unhealthy, and units stationed there usually withered away from disease. Why can they support such high armies? (Mauritius and Reunion are a little different here.) (This also has the potential to let the AI build ridiculously large armies, but as far as I can tell it only does that on islands in it's home continent.)
3) Recruitment. As far as I know no-one ever recruited many troops in the Caribbean. Sure the Barabadians defended themselves during the Civil War, but agaisnt a very small expedition. Why can we raise quite large armies on these islands?
4) Maximum fort size. The Spanish built big forts in the Caribbean. I don't think anyone else ever did.

None of these provides a reason for the taxvalues of these provinces. Does anyone know if they were lower in the boardgame? I can't really think of any important game reasons to make the taxvalues so high, except to make the islands more valuable. But the high taxvalues strongly encourage the Spanish to colonize them, which they never did.

Sugar is very valuable, and usually hits a very high price by the end of the game. And world sugar production was concentrated in the Caribbean. That should be the reason to colonize here.

Even if the tax values are lowered players will still colonize them and the reason why is because they cost so little to coloniza and of course late game when production and trade a higher proportion of the income. I do know that Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Cuba, and Hispaniola were all heavier populated and had alot of plantations early. For these reasons I recomend they not be reduced as well. Otherwise I agree with what your saying.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Yes put it to 1 and 2 across the whole carribean, the sugar/tobacco/coffee is reason enough to colonize them

Yes but if its lowered that much no human player will touch them until mid 1650s or so and plantation do count for tax value. The point is that other provinces that had much larger plantations wind up having less tax. It's imbalanced. I think 3 tax a peice is fair for the winward islands and Curacao but 1 or 2 I would say is overkill and may negatively effect gameplay. I of course don't want any reductions for the provinces I have listed in the last 2 posts here.

 

[Yakman]

4) Maximum fort size. The Spanish built big forts in the Caribbean. I don't think anyone else ever did.

The largest fortress in the Americas is in Haiti. It was built by the Haitians to defend themselves against the French after Napoleon's failed expedition there.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I do know that Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Cuba, and Hispaniola were all heavier populated and had alot of plantations early. For these reasons I recomend they not be reduced as well. Otherwise I agree with what your saying.

I agree about the Greater Antilles - after all they were colonized early. They are also a whole heck of a lot bigger. As to plantations I'm not so sure. Intensive sugar production on Cuba wasn't introduced until the British conquered the island.

 

[Yakman]

curacao should be producing salt too...

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Yes but if its lowered that much no human player will touch them until mid 1650s or so and plantation do count for tax value. The point is that other provinces that had much larger plantations wind up having less tax. It's imbalanced. I think 3 tax a peice is fair for the winward islands and Curacao but 1 or 2 I would say is overkill and may negatively effect gameplay. I of course don't want any reductions for the provinces I have listed in the last 2 posts here.

The income from production, trade and trade taxes is much bigger than the income from taxes, even early in the game (1550). If these provinces would be reduced in value I might first try to hit the tobacco NA coast, but after that I definately go for some sugar islands not only do they provide a good income, they are also a good plae to put refineries.

Have 1/2 in most provinces, 3 in the most important provinces and increase tax values by events if necessary.

At the same time tax values of other provinces in the area should be reviewed.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

The income from production, trade and trade taxes is much bigger than the income from taxes, even early in the game (1550). If these provinces would be reduced in value I might first try to hit the tobacco NA coast, but after that I definately go for some sugar islands not only do they provide a good income, they are also a good plae to put refineries.

Have 1/2 in most provinces, 3 in the most important provinces and increase tax values by events if necessary.

At the same time tax values of other provinces in the area should be reviewed.

You're wrong on this one. First of all a country only gets a small part of the production and trade income for some time.

Secondly tax is the only regular inflation free income you get without mayors and whether you're paying attention to it or not the bulk of the income you are supporting your troops with and colonizing does indeed come directly from taxes. That chunk of money you get every january comes exclusively from census tax, which is your province tax.

Thirdly you get income for them twice as they contribute to your monthly income as well as the annual census tax.

At all points in the game the best income is tax. If I played you a theoretical MP game and I grabbed mass colonies with 6 tax and all wool and you grabbed all sugar and spice colonies with tax 1, you wouldn't stand a chance. I'd blow your income away. Study the economy FAQ more if you don't believe me and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Lowering these islands from 6 tax to 1 or 2 will make me grab all mainland provinces long before I'm willing to take them. It really does make a huge difference. The only reason why people will still take them pretty quick at 3 tax is because they cost so little to colonize and have higher chances for success.

Currently these east carribean islands are the best places to get in the game. And I can tell you for a fact that the best way I've gotten rich fast with Portugal, or anyone who can get there for that matter, is always ALWAYS by grabbing these islands asap. They are the most profitable per ducat of investment in the whole game and this is one of the major reasons why I dislike them being so valuable. The excessive value of these provinces was one fo the biggest motivating factors for me in making west Africa worth more to TP and colonize by Portugal and anyone following them getting whats left.

They just makes the game too 1 dimensional, at least for all players who have figured out this little quirk in the game.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

You're wrong on this one. First of all a country only gets a small part of the production and trade income for some time.

By the time the Carribean should be colonized (1500-1550) your TE and PE should be around 40-50, thus you'd have a considerable income from that. And TE and PE should only increase.

Secondly tax is the only regular inflation free income you get without mayors and whether you're paying attention to it or not the bulk of the income you are supporting your troops with and colonizing does indeed come directly from taxes. That chunk of money you get every january comes exclusively from census tax, which is your province tax.

Colonizing shouldn't be a inflation free game imho, the rewards is good enough as it is. Exploring and colonizing the world gives you access to COTs all over the world where an European can easily dominate.

Thirdly you get income for them twice as they contribute to your monthly income as well as the annual census tax.

At all points in the game the best income is tax. If I played you a theoretical MP game and I grabbed mass colonies with 6 tax and all wool and you grabbed all sugar and spice colonies with tax 1, you wouldn't stand a chance. I'd blow your income away. Study the economy FAQ more if you don't believe me and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Check the economy FAQ again and see who wrote it

Let's examine the income from those two provinces (I don't think there are colonizable tax 6 sheep provinces BTW) in the early colonizing era (~1550)
Assumptions: average province modifier 100%
Average TE and PE 50%
Trade half through monopolized colonial COT, half Euro COT, average 50% collected

A tax 1 sugar province

Taxes: Fully developed colony: 2*(1+2)=6
Production: 1*15*0.5+2=8.5
Trade tax: 6*0.5=3
Trade: 1*20*0.5*0.5=5

Total income: 22.5

And a tax 6 sheep province

Taxes: Fully developed colony: 2*(6+2)=16
Production: 1*5*0.5+2=4.5
Trade tax: 6*0.5=3
Trade: 1*5*0.5*0.5=1.25

Total income: 24.75

So it's a roughly the same income in the early colonizing phase, but as time progresses the income from the sugar province gets much higher than from sheep.

Besides like I said all taxes in the area should be lowered, including the sheep provinces

Lowering these islands from 6 tax to 1 or 2 will make me grab all mainland provinces long before I'm willing to take them. It really does make a huge difference. The only reason why people will still take them pretty quick at 3 tax is because they cost so little to colonize and have higher chances for success.

Currently these east carribean islands are the best places to get in the game. And I can tell you for a fact that the best way I've gotten rich fast with Portugal, or anyone who can get there for that matter, is always ALWAYS by grabbing these islands asap. They are the most profitable per ducat of investment in the whole game and this is one of the major reasons why I dislike them being so valuable. The excessive value of these provinces was one fo the biggest motivating factors for me in making west Africa worth more to TP and colonize by Portugal and anyone following them getting whats left.

They just makes the game too 1 dimensional, at least for all players who have figured out this little quirk in the game.

Exactly that's why they should be made less attractive, by lowering the tax values. Africa shouldn't be made more valuable, the Carribean should be made less valuable. There is too much money flowing in the game as it is.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Let's examine the income from those two provinces (I don't think there are colonizable tax 6 sheep provinces BTW)...

There's one in Australia isn't there?

You are clearly right about the economics - and in real life these islands were colonized in the early 17th centruy, NOT the early 16th. The only point idontlikeforms has on his side is the inflation-free income being a little better, but the amount of extra inflation you incurr is pretty meaningless IMHO.

But either way these islands will still be very attractive even if they have taxvalues of 2 or 3. It would be nice if we could make Tobacco worthless until 1600, but that's obviously not in the cards.

As to lowering all taxvalues - I think that's another discussion. I wanted to focus on the tiny islands in the game that have taxvalues of 4 or 5 and higher.

Still, anyone care to speculate as to why they were set up with high taxvalue? The points made in this thread are pretty obvious, and must have been apparent when the set up was adopted.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Because in the end those islands where very profitable??

 

[Zander]

I think lowering these tax values is an excellent idea. I mostly wouldn't go as low as 1, though: 1, to me, speaks of a particularly poor province. But 2 or 3 should be high enough for any island that couldn't support a large population.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

By the time the Carribean should be colonized (1500-1550) your TE and PE should be around 40-50, thus you'd have a considerable income from that. And TE and PE should only increase.

Yes you will get income from it but you will get very little inflation free income.

Colonizing shouldn't be a inflation free game imho, the rewards is good enough as it is. Exploring and colonizing the world gives you access to COTs all over the world where an European can easily dominate.

Why not?

Check the economy FAQ again and see who wrote it

Then you should know better thna to dispute me on this. The math doesn't lie even if it's miscalculated the fault would be with you not the figures. And the math is a staunch idontlikeforms supporter in this debate.

Let's examine the income from those two provinces (I don't think there are colonizable tax 6 sheep provinces BTW) in the early colonizing era (~1550)
Assumptions: average province modifier 100%
Average TE and PE 50%
Trade half through monopolized colonial COT, half Euro COT, average 50% collected

A tax 1 sugar province

Taxes: Fully developed colony: 2*(1+2)=6
Production: 1*15*0.5+2=8.5
Trade tax: 6*0.5=3
Trade: 1*20*0.5*0.5=5

Total income: 22.5

And a tax 6 sheep province

Taxes: Fully developed colony: 2*(6+2)=16
Production: 1*5*0.5+2=4.5
Trade tax: 6*0.5=3
Trade: 1*5*0.5*0.5=1.25

Total income: 24.75

So it's a roughly the same income in the early colonizing phase, but as time progresses the income from the sugar province gets much higher than from sheep.

The real trade income is half what you got here, because you will get .25 after inneficiency is deducted not .5. Are you going to own a monopoly for sure? Unlikely in a european port like Andalusia.

This tax income is what gives you free passes in accrueing inflation for spending money on troop supports and colonizing. The infaltion accrued in one year from havy many low tax value colonies may not be much but after doing this for 50 years it winds up having a significant impact on the game. Colonizing literally needs to be a financially justifiable expense. If conquering other nations and making manus is going to pay off bigger than there will be less interest in colonizing. Switching these provinces will make a very big difference in gameplay and strategies that humans are using. If what you want here is implemented I can assure I will being telling you I told you so in 6 months to a year when what I'm claiming becomes too painful to ignore.

Exactly that's why they should be made less attractive, by lowering the tax values. Africa shouldn't be made more valuable, the Carribean should be made less valuable. There is too much money flowing in the game as it is.

Africa has already been made more attractive. The main reason for there being too much money is becaue of the random event "capital attraction" as I recently pointed out in the random events thread not because colonies need to be lowered in value by a substantial margin.

I got alot more resonses to alot of posts that Are on here today guys but I got to go to school I'll be back later on and you can count on seeing my name in the most recent posts for alot of threads.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The real trade income is half what you got here, because you will get .25 after inneficiency is deducted not .5. Are you going to own a monopoly for sure? Unlikely in a european port like Andalusia.

Perhaps you misread his assumptions. He's assuming you can keep a monopoly in the colonial COT and 25% in your European COT. And that there is a 50% chance trade will go to either one. So your argument is with the assumptions, not the math.

This tax income is what gives you free passes in accrueing inflation for spending money on troop supports and colonizing. The infaltion accrued in one year from havy many low tax value colonies may not be much but after doing this for 50 years it winds up having a significant impact on the game. Colonizing literally needs to be a financially justifiable expense. If conquering other nations and making manus is going to pay off bigger than there will be less interest in colonizing. Switching these provinces will make a very big difference in gameplay and strategies that humans are using. If what you want here is implemented I can assure I will being telling you I told you so in 6 months to a year when what I'm claiming becomes too painful to ignore.

I'm convinced your putting too much weight on census taxes. If the incomes are equal it is undeniable that census taxes are worth more than other income. But in his example the diference between the two cases is 10d per year. It should take less than 0.01% inflation per year to make the difference. Even if you do that with 10 colonies we're talking about 5% inflation after 50 years. Yeah that hurts, but only a bit.
You may be right about the effects, but I'd be shocked if 3d of base tax in what, 15 provinces, has that big of an effect.

Africa has already been made more attractive. The main reason for there being too much money is becaue of the random event "capital attraction" as I recently pointed out in the random events thread not because colonies need to be lowered in value by a substantial margin.

I disagree with that. That random event certainly causes problems, but it no worse than any other random event that increases taxvalues. Assume there are 80 countries in the game. The event is therefore firing about once a year. This increases base taxvalues by 200d per century. Is this a problem? Sure, but only because it isn't balanced by events that lower it. And incomes that are increased by 200d isn't a huge effect anyway.

I could, with about as much justification, claim that the excess amount of money sloshing around comes from having too many countries and neighbour bonuses that are too high.

However, I see no reason to reduce the taxvalues of the Greater Antilles unless it's part of a larger rework of taxvalues across the board.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Perhaps you misread his assumptions. He's assuming you can keep a monopoly in the colonial COT and 25% in your European COT. And that there is a 50% chance trade will go to either one. So your argument is with the assumptions, not the math.

Well that is is true but not initially.

I'm convinced your putting too much weight on census taxes. If the incomes are equal it is undeniable that census taxes are worth more than other income. But in his example the diference between the two cases is 10d per year. It should take less than 0.01% inflation per year to make the difference. Even if you do that with 10 colonies we're talking about 5% inflation after 50 years. Yeah that hurts, but only a bit.
You may be right about the effects, but I'd be shocked if 3d of base tax in what, 15 provinces, has that big of an effect.

5% is a big effect, especially over a good length of time.

I diagree with that. That random event certainly causes problems, but it no worse than any other random event that increases taxvalues. Assume there are 80 countries in the game. The event is therefore firing about once a year. This increases base taxvalues by 200d per century. Is this a problem? Sure, but only because it isn't balanced by events that lower it. And incomes that are increased by 200d isn't a huge effect anyway.

Yes but the event I'm talking about often fires twice as often because there are extras that fire with 6 centralization or higher. So thye really do make a big difference, especially when 1 province countries arew annexed by large ones in the 15th or 16th centuries.

However, I see no reason to reduce the taxvalues of the Greater Antilles unless it's part of a larger rework of taxvalues across the board.

Neither do I as it would require re-working alot of the setup. Look guys here's the point about the tax value being decreased.

Presently they are worth 6 tax apeice when they are very small islands. Other provinces which we know had larger agricultural produce have lower tax value. Therefore it's imbalanced to keep them at 6.

On the other hand they did have some agriculture and reducing them to 1 or 2 would be inacurate because other provinces in the game that had even less agriculture than these islands get 1 or 2.

Also tax is meant to represent land tax on agriculture. Therefore the fact that they had at least a decent amount pretty much neccessitates that they get at least 3. This tax isn't just for grain or european provinces. If there was a decent amount of agriculture there, yes even sugar, than making it 1 or 2 only would be out of balance with the rest of the game.

How they presently are negatively effects game play but lowering them to 1 would just negatively effect gameplay in the opposite direction as they would become less important and deliberately ignored for some time by any experienced human player who knows their math. The AI is the real loser if the value is dropped to 1 because they will colonize them and not take the more valuable mainland provinces before this like we will.

Also your guys estimates of the value of sugar isn't quite accurate. Sugar has a base value of 16 and has a decent demand at the start of the game, but the problem is that they are only modified by refineries and when legal counsels and mayors are being made left and right and refineries aren't other commodities that you are assuming are less valuable actually wind up exceeding sugar in value for some time and sometimes even for the rest of the game.

Admittedly sugar is one of the more valuable comodities in the game but unless a deliberate mass refinery strategy is being used they actually do get surpassed by quite a few other commodities in value.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Why not?

5% is a big effect, especially over a good length of time.

The income gained from trading over the whole world is big enough to justify a couple of inflation points, and getting 5% inflation is not that much

Yes but the event I'm talking about often fires twice as often because there are extras that fire with 6 centralization or higher. So thye really do make a big difference, especially when 1 province countries arew annexed by large ones in the 15th or 16th centuries.

Too much money is also a problem in the vanilla game, so the influence of that event isn't that great

Neither do I as it would require re-working alot of the setup. Look guys here's the point about the tax value being decreased.

Presently they are worth 6 tax apeice when they are very small islands. Other provinces which we know had larger agricultural produce have lower tax value. Therefore it's imbalanced to keep them at 6.

On the other hand they did have some agriculture and reducing them to 1 or 2 would be inacurate because other provinces in the game that had even less agriculture than these islands get 1 or 2.

Also tax is meant to represent land tax on agriculture. Therefore the fact that they had at least a decent amount pretty much neccessitates that they get at least 3. This tax isn't just for grain or european provinces. If there was a decent amount of agriculture there, yes even sugar, than making it 1 or 2 only would be out of balance with the rest of the game.

Ok, so you agree to decrease them, but not to 1-2 but to three, well that's ok with me.

How they presently are negatively effects game play but lowering them to 1 would just negatively effect gameplay in the opposite direction as they would become less important and deliberately ignored for some time by any experienced human player who knows their math. The AI is the real loser if the value is dropped to 1 because they will colonize them and not take the more valuable mainland provinces before this like we will.

If I can get to the Carribean at the same time, or a little later than Spain ai I will get the most valuable provinces, no matter what. And the ai does do the the math on colonizing, its just not as efficient at the execution as a human.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

3 sounds reasonable to me, but I wouldn't touch Jaimaca, Cuba, or Puerto Rico. Just my two ducats worth.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

The income gained from trading over the whole world is big enough to justify a couple of inflation points, and getting 5% inflation is not that much

You're missing the point. By my colonizing high tax provinces first, I'm avoiding the inflation.

Too much money is also a problem in the vanilla game, so the influence of that event isn't that great

How so? Please exaplain why? Are syou uggesting that the tax shouldn't be removed from the event or that the events shouldn't be deleted? If so Please give an explaination as to why.

Ok, so you agree to decrease them, but not to 1-2 but to three, well that's ok with me.

It was my proposal in the first place friend. That's why I'm quoted in post no.1 of this thread.

If I can get to the Carribean at the same time, or a little later than Spain ai I will get the most valuable provinces, no matter what. And the ai does do the the math on colonizing, its just not as efficient at the execution as a human.

As far as I know the AI factors in priorities from the AI settings and then within those constraints just picks the best percantage chances for success. As near as I can tell though I think there is still a little bit of randomness in their choices. But I'm pretty sure taxes aren't factored in in the AI's deciding where to colonize. I've playtested this alot lately. if you know differently please explain as I'm quite curious about this.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

3 sounds reasonable to me, but I wouldn't touch Jaimaca, Cuba, or Puerto Rico. Just my two ducats worth.

Those and Hispanola are mostly agreed upon to be left alone.