Census tax in latest patch

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by ryoken69
Another problem I have noticed is that the AI keeps very very little money on hand. This means that it is much harder for AI vs AI wars to be resolved with no land changing hands, since they will keep asking each other for a little cash. If they accept the deal, they have to take out a loan and head down the road to bankruptcy. If they keep fighting, over time the little one-prov minors get eaten up one by one, plus other nastier side effects.

One never takes a loan to pay for peace.

It might happen if they pay for peace (getting to zero treasury) and then have negative incomes (from previous loans or oversized armies) but a loosing AI with extant loans should go banrupt, while a loosing AI with armies remaining is stupid

 

[Dagfinn]

I love this new tax collector scheme, but something will have to be done with starting possitions.

I have tested it now, and it seems to me that the ai nations DOES NOT have the cash to start building TC's.

IMHO you will have to do one of two things:

1. Give all nations a TC in their starting CB provinces.

2. Rewrite the rule, so that you dont need TC's in your CB provinces to collect yearly taxes.

 

[Woreczko]

Some info how poor, primitive countries may be affected by no_census_tax rule:
Siberia:
Monthly income - 1,2 (stability = 3)
Upkeep of 10k cavalry (under the limit) - 0,9
Thus yearly income with treasury maxed out, upkeeping 10k cav. - 3,6
Yearly income upkeeping 6k cavalry(absolute minimum, costs 0,6)with treasury maxed out - 7,2
Infra 1 with slider maxed out - March 1434
Infra 1 with no public investments - April 1437

Not to mention that tax collectors cost 50

 

[unmerged(6881)]

It seems that some suggestions like that of Medicine Man about census halved only are getting serious support. Let's wait for more tests.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Zagys
Am I correct in assuming that monthly tax income is completely unaffected by the new feature? What's the problem then, yearly census taxes make up less than half of your total yearly income.

Well, one problem is that the AI hardly ever has enough cash on hands to promote tax collectors, and no way to get the cash for the smaller nations.... Which makes the game even easier for the human player, when a great many AI nations are only receiving 50-80% of their pre-this patch income for decades on end.

For many nations it is not possible to save up much more than 5-10d/year from monthly income (and that is when under the support limit), and that is by putting all funds into the treasury and not using any on wars. A human player can do that (although 5%+ inflation to gain the cash to promote a tax collector is steep) - the AI does not.

 

[Velociryx]

If the goal is to promote the use of TC's by human players, then this new scheme certainly does that.

However, it seems clear that the AI cannot cope with it. The path of least resistance seems to be to "fudge" in favor of the AI, either making it such that they recieve all their incomes anyway (and it'd be transparent from the player's POV, cos if you capture an AI's province, the TC would disappear anyway, so you'd have no real way of knowing for sure if he had built one there or not).

As to the 50% rule with no TC's....I like it, but it becomes unnecessary if you give AI's their income back. Human players can cope with the rule as it stands, and quite easily at that.

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(2833)]

What about AI not needing tax collectors to get census taxes? Hehehe...

 

[The Witch-King]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I have not played the latest beta patch yet, but I'm all for the idea of disallowing annual tax revenues in provinces without TC's (doesn't alter my style of play a bit, since I am already in the habit of building them everywhere as soon as I am able to).

Another poster made the comment that it makes it difficult to maintain huge standing armies, and I would say that this is both a good thing, and historic. Maintaining huge standing armies *should* be difficult, and for those countries that begin with large forces, it poses an interesting (and immediate) in-game decision. How do you want to play it? Disband that army to get yourself down to an operational limit, or declare an early war, and sacrifice your "troop cushion" for early gains, hoping like hades that you can make the money last long enough to make solid gains? (or, spend the coin you've got, attack anyway, and eat an early bankrupcy, along with the nasty side effects that go with it?). The only problem I can see is that the early bankrupcy actually becomes a halfway attractive option, which IS ahistoric. (If I know there's no way in HELL I can support the troops I've got, and I have sufficient tech to build TC's, my inclination would be to DoW on day one of the GC and use my army to get me some quick "sucker punch" gains, take out max loans and use the money to build TC's everywhere, let the economy tank (hopefully after a lightning war that reduces my army for me, and nets me another 3-6 provinces), then kick back for five years and let the effects wear off.

-=Vel=-

Yes, but the worst effect of bankruptcy - the inflation kick - never wears off, does it?

 

[unmerged(9563)]

well under the new patch it would wear off in I think 120 years of no monthly production of gold and full governors in all territories.

 

[unmerged(15394)]

I'm in favour of the new TC system where they get removed after you conquer it in war. I agree the start condition of each country is completely messed, and in the game I have played the AI doesn't cope well.

What would happen if at the start of the game, every province in the game gets full census income as if a TC existed, but as soon as it was conquered once, this was eliminated.

Maybe this has been said before.

 

[Porcius]

The new tax system will take some getting used to.

I just started a game as the Ottomans. I have three big armies. I have to disband two to get to the maintenance limit, but the third won't be big enough to take down the Byzantines. It takes 18 months to get to Infra 1 with the treasury slider set to .23 inflation rise. I decide to disband one army and eat the costs.

Result: Bankrupt by 1424 to keep my enemies away and build TCs. More loans are taken out. Obscurantism event happens, coupled with WE. I'm holding my own now - +5 provinces, but no money to collect their taxes. Inflation is 37% in 1428. If it weren't for an heir being born and a 75o monopoly company, who knows how bleak the economic setting would be.

The Turks start with a lot of Orthodox provinces that they cannot collect big monies from, infrastructure of zero and an army three times bigger than they can afford. Like I said, I'm doing OK militarily, but the inflation is going to kill me before too long. The Georgians are already getting uppity.

If I hadn't forgotten the new alliance rules and joined a Candar alliance, I might have been able to salvage the situation. (Bastards wasted my taking of Constantinople before Morea could fall.)

 

[unmerged(1744)]

For my $.02, I think both players and AIs should get 50% of the census taxes before TC are installed. This gives incentive to do it, but doesnt completely hamstring countries until they can do it.

Another possibility might be to make TCs cost 25d. The effect is still permanently on your RR, so the cost can be lower IMO without making them a 'no-brainer' decision everywhere.

Finally, I'm opposed to all the 'AI doesnt have to deal with it' changes. Yes, making the game more difficult has appeal, but constantly giving the AI crutch after crutch begins to make it so that you arent even playing the same game as the neighboring countries. We could add M1A1 MBTs to every AI's starting armies too...that would certainly make the game harder, but would it be better? Imagine playing Chess against a novice player but he gets two more Queens in place of his Bishops. Would it be harder? Sure, but would it still be Chess? Not hardly.

There are plenty of places to make the game 'harder', but not all of them have their place before it the game stops being a semi-historical sim. Having small countries that can easily fight off a player controlled huge country may make the game more difficult, but suspension of disbelief really begins to fade when it becomes too extreme.

Personally, I think that if people want a 'challenge' from the AI, the hardest level can be set to 'Ludicrous' ( ). On Ludicrous level, the AI can have all sorts of cheats and bonuses but the 'norm' of the game should keep the AIs as close as possible to the default rules. Little tweaks here and there are necessary and beneficial, but wholesale changes begin to destroy the realistic feel of the game.

YMMV

Talenn

 

[Velociryx]

Talenn - I agree and disagree in the same breath, if that's doable....:lol:

On the one hand, yes. I'd prefer an AI that was both challenging AND did not rely on cheats.

However, if I have to pick one or the other, I'll take challenging AI every time, even if it means living with the fact that the AI gets to play with a slightly easier rules set.

Giving the AI their taxes whether or not they have TC's, or giving them TC's everywhere at game start is, as far as I can tell, the path of least resistance in this case.

The way things stand at present, the game is far LESS challenging than before, because the AI cannot cope with the latest round of changes, and therefore cannot maintain a sufficient army to fend off a human player who's even slightly determined to make territorial gains against them.

BB wars are largely irrelevant now, since none of your opponents can field a credible threat anyway, and the only thing stopping easy WC are your own rebels, which are far more threatening than anything 90% of the AI countries can throw at you.

That's about as ahistorical as it gets....

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(7458)]

Well, if a rules change is so radical that you have to disable it for the AI completely, maybe it's not a change that was really required...

The problem of "too large standing armies" was already addressed by the new formulae for support limits. The problem of "too much money" has also been addressed by the reduced percentages for trade income at Trade level 1, plus the new rules for Trade Agreements.

IMO, I like the world of 1419 as it was originally portrayed, where you could choose a county that already had a functioning economy. You could immediately start playing the game, and think about what you wanted to research, who you want to be friends with, and who you want to fight.

Now you get to either spend several years (or decades) working just to build a rudementary cash income, or trying some exotic schemes like deliberately bankrupting yourself to come up with the cash quicker than your neighbors. Once that's done, you can actually start playing the game, and get round to the decisions listed above.

If a tougher AI is desired, why not just give them a 10% and 20% bonus to income at Hard and Very Hard, rather than giving them a completely different rules set?

All that aside, I do like the feature of destroying TC's when you conquer a province. It lets you choose to either be a benevolent conqueror or an oppressive one.

Best wishes,

Stilicho

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I agree with Stillcho here 100%

 

[unmerged(12740)]

i agree w/ stillicho in the sense that i think that the functionality of economies shld, in most cases, be already at "ok" when you start. i don't think that most of the countries in 1419 were facing financial crises in 1419. (one exception might be france, but teh 15th c was the start of an economic boom in italy for example, iiuc.) this is definitely a problem for the ai & as such i believe it shld (& will) be tweaked.

as someone pointed out earlier in this thread the tax collectors represent an increased ability to coerce taxes out of the population as opposed to a tax system itself. i rather like that w/o tc's you don't get census tax income, but think that most countries shld start w/ tax collectors in most provinces. (not nec. all core provinces as i don't think taxation really extended to the northern reaches of sweden in 1419, but maybe i'm wrong.)

anyways, i wld definitely advocate functioning economies for all countries that historically had them in 1419 &, as it stands, that means tax collectors. unfortunately, that may mean too much work for johan. so perhaps the other solutions are better.

 

[daedalus]

what about this: you always get your census taxes from you core provinces? (loyalty, control, etc). You only get census taxes from non-core provinces with a TC on it. (or maybe 50%). This will work ok, since it will be a good incentive to promote baliffs to TC for human players. I usually do it always for my core provinces, since they can take the +3RR better.

 

[daedalus]

One more thing: As it right now promoting in the latest beta TC is a no brainer. It needs to be balance in a way where the player actually can take a strategic decision on to promote or not to promote.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I agree with Daedelus. It should be a choice, not a requirement. Right now, saying you have a choice is like holding a hot poker to someone's head and saying, "Left or Right Eye?"

 

[Porcius]

Well, there is still the choice to promote TCs in non-core provinces with different cultures and religions. That +3 RR can really hurt sometimes, but if TCs are the only way to get any real money you have some serious thinking to do. This is a strategic calculation.

As for building TCs at home not being a "real choice", neither is promoting governors - only an idiot wouldn't do it if it's how to keep inflation under control. With so many other more important decisions to make in the game, the fact that hiring TCs in core provinces isn't a head scratcher doesn't bother me that much.