Dist. penalty stead of land connect

[Jayavarman]

No land connection tax penalty should be removed. Instead, there should be a distance penalty dependent on how far prov is from capital along with any natural/political barriers like oceans, countries, etc. I don't see why a prov separated from capital by small body of water should suffer -10% tax just like a prov 3000 miles across the ocean.
As infrastructure and naval techs increase, penalty should be reduced.

 

[unmerged(9811)]

Originally posted by Phillip V
No land connection tax penalty should be removed. Instead, there should be a distance penalty dependent on how far prov is from capital along with any natural/political barriers like oceans, countries, etc. I don't see why a prov separated from capital by small body of water should suffer -10% tax just like a prov 3000 miles across the ocean.
As infrastructure and naval techs increase, penalty should be reduced.

That's a good idea, almost like Civilization's corruption. Do you think Centralization should affect it at all?

 

[King of Men]

To reflect the greater difficulties of moving stuff across water, sea provinces could count double or triple for this distance. And yes, centralisation and maybe aristocracy should definitely affect this.

 

[Stingray]

Water was NOT a separator during the time period. Sweden benefitted from having a system of lakes and rivers, and was held together due to the long coast. If someone needed to go anywhere, water was the preferred way. It went faster smoother, and was safer (well at least out of the mediterrainean). You didn't get to finland by land, you shipped forces there.

Water should if possible count as less than land for distance modifier, this would change as infrastructure got more developed.

 

[King of Men]

This is a good point, and I should have though of it myself : Here in Norway it wasn't until the very late nineteenth century that it was more convenient to go across the mountain rather than row out to sea and into the next fiord. But does this apply to large oceanic distances? There is a limit to the amount of tax money you can carry in a rowboat. To make things even more complicated for the coders, how about open-sea areas counting double, while coast-sea areas count half?

 

[Stingray]

Well, the bigger the province the greater the penetaly... But maybe just a simple capitol thingie would be easier to implent. Like, capitol in europa, ok 20% less tax in America. Or something like that... But I don't know as I'm not scripting.

Oh and btw, there should be a COT in Skåne, instead of in stockholm.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by King of Men
This is a good point, and I should have though of it myself : Here in Norway it wasn't until the very late nineteenth century that it was more convenient to go across the mountain rather than row out to sea and into the next fiord. But does this apply to large oceanic distances? There is a limit to the amount of tax money you can carry in a rowboat. To make things even more complicated for the coders, how about open-sea areas counting double, while coast-sea areas count half?

I think it would be best to simply calculate travel time with current naval technology (as far as seazones are concerned) and then base the tax loss on that... higher naval tech reduces travel speed significantly, and would thus serve rather well to represent improvements over time.

 

[unmerged(9895)]

good idea, but logically impossible because the map uses provinces instead of hexes, so 1 province would have a distance of 1 unit, no matter the size of the province. That would mean that a well organized, european government would have a much shorter distance (smaller provinces in europe) that a rag-tag asian government would (much lager provs out there) before occur the same penalty.

what might be implimented is a minus for the total number of provinces you have compared to your centralization/decentralization. this would have something of an effect like (for example) your slider right in the middle could have X amount of provinces under its control before it occurs a -1 (or maybe -2) percentage to ALL provinces for each province it controls over the number X. As you moved to more centralized your number, X, would grow higher, and get lower as you went decentralized. basically this would be a way of saying as you put more power into the hands of fuedal lords instead of a central monarchy, corruption is much harder to control. Large nations like Spain, or Russia, would have only the choice to go centralized or face mega corruption. That right there is proof enough for a logical and historical reasoning for this rule.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

And I'd call it an incentive to go Centralized....

 

[Pwyll]

How about a penalty for no land connection to its CoT

 

[N Katsyev]

I'm all for the removal of "no land connection" penalty unless its cases where the capital and the provinces are on seperate continents and not connected by land. We've seen that such parameters are in use in the game, and could definitely be applied here. This would also vastly improve, for one, Denmark's position, as we could finally and rightfully seperate Sjaeland from Jutland as an island, without it having a huge economic penalty for Denmark. This is obviously just one example (and one I admit pretty close to my heart) where this would be a great change.

 

[Earl Grey]

Originally posted by Stingray
...
Oh and btw, there should be a COT in Skåne, instead of in Stockholm.

Say what?
The danes on this forum would go nuts if Skåne got a CoT with their beloved Copenhagen right next door!

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by Earl Grey
Say what?
The danes on this forum would go nuts if Skåne got a CoT with their beloved Copenhagen right next door!

not really.

Cot in a national province is always nice...

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
I'm all for the removal of "no land connection" penalty unless its cases where the capital and the provinces are on seperate continents and not connected by land. We've seen that such parameters are in use in the game, and could definitely be applied here. This would also vastly improve, for one, Denmark's position, as we could finally and rightfully seperate Sjaeland from Jutland as an island, without it having a huge economic penalty for Denmark. This is obviously just one example (and one I admit pretty close to my heart) where this would be a great change.

Agreed; there should be no "no land connection" penalty for the same continent. I would, however, also find it acceptable to make it "no penalty within region, 5% penalty for other region but same continent and 10% penalty for other continent".

I also think that the non-continental penalty should be lowered for naval nations (with no penalty at fully naval, regardless of location in the world).

 

[Varyar]

Originally posted by Stingray
Oh and btw, there should be a COT in Skåne, instead of in stockholm.

Not to hijack the thread, but... why do you say that? I'd say that at least Stockholm, Copenhagen and Gothenburg all should have the "Nordic COT" rather than Skåne.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Onslaught
Agreed; there should be no "no land connection" penalty for the same continent. I would, however, also find it acceptable to make it "no penalty within region, 5% penalty for other region but same continent and 10% penalty for other continent".

I also think that the non-continental penalty should be lowered for naval nations (with no penalty at fully naval, regardless of location in the world).

The regional idea isn't bad, I wan't completely sure if there was anything to check for region however. Also, having naval reducing the effects of "no land connection" is absolutely brilliant. This could in itself make my original suggestion not quite so important a change, however i'd still like to see it implemented.

Sooo.... so far:

Land connection penalty only applies when the province lay in a continent apart from the capital and not connected by land. Naval/Land slider effects "no land connection" penalty. (A possible suggestion would be with this, to have a 2% change from the baseline 10% at 5, therefore fully naval would grant no penalty, and full land would grant 20% penalty... This is beautiful, another balancing factor the land/naval slider everyone? )

*edit* Oh, and of course, Sjaeland loses its land connection with Jutland.

 

[unmerged(7034)]

I don't agree. I think the present penalties are fine.

Travelling through the territory of another country or by ship should carry penalties, and the way they're modelled now is simple and effective. We could go on prolonged trips here ("what about storms? hey, if you have many storms port sea zones you lose an extra x% of income!") but it's pointless. Life is short.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

THe no land connection penalty is silly. It means that there is no penalty for any land power while there is for a maritime power. This in an age when travel by sea was far easier and cheaper than travel by land!

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Land connection penalty only applies when the province lay in a continent apart from the capital and not connected by land. Naval/Land slider effects "no land connection" penalty. (A possible suggestion would be with this, to have a 2% change from the baseline 10% at 5, therefore fully naval would grant no penalty, and full land would grant 20% penalty... This is beautiful, another balancing factor the land/naval slider everyone? )

It would make naval even more interesting than it already is with its trade bonus.

 

[Gwalcmai]

I'll start by saying that I agree with revamping the whole "no land connection" thing. I have, however, a small problem with the solution you came up with.
If I understand your regional/continental solution, a portuguese held Tangiers would incur the full 10% penalty, while say Sweden owning Brittany would get a 5% cut to taxes from it. This sounds a bit off, if you ask me... I think the distance thing sounds better.