Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

[N Katsyev]

Okay, now I posted this elsewhere, but seeing as how it was all jumbled up with other stuff, and now probably burried and getting little to no attention, I thought it would be better to put a fresh new post on my final ideas regarding the subject.

My original idea was based on a continental system, similiar to that of manpower, however we could get some funny results with this, as someone pointed out, Sweden getting no penalty for Brittany and Portugal getting a penalty for Tangiers. This and not much enthusiasm has made me decide my second idea upon it was more appropriate.

Which is:

Land connection penalty rules stay the same as they were. However it is now tied to one's land/naval slider in this way: 2% incremental changes dependant upon slider position, with a baseline at 10%. Sooo, land/naval 5 would grant you 10% penalty, full naval 0% and full land 20%.

Naturally this would help along the historical trend that the more overseas possesions a country gets, the more it would begin to gravitate toward the naval slider, else it would start getting significant penalties to its overseas income.

*edit* For example, France while keeping a continental policy (more land than naval) would still want to avoid the extra income loss of going full land, while a totally land country like Austria would have very little to no harm (from this penalty anyway) from going full land. (yes, there is the lowlands, but they hardly keep those for very long anyway)

 

[RedPhoenix]

I think its a great idea linking it to the naval slider

 

[metroncho]

I like the idea, but perhaps there should be an unavoidable minimun penalty?

Naval slider improvements have my support.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by metroncho
I like the idea, but perhaps there should be an unavoidable minimun penalty?

Naval slider improvements have my support.

I did think about the minimum penalty part, but i'm not entirely convinced its needed. Not too many countries wan't to totally go naval anyway, also if there were a minimum penalty we'd end up with yet another slider where 9 or 1 are the most common "ideal" settings... If we did make a miniumum penalty, we'd have to make the maximum penalty more...

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by N Katsyev

Land connection penalty rules stay the same as they were. However it is now tied to one's land/naval slider in this way: 2% incremental changes dependant upon slider position, with a baseline at 10%. Sooo, land/naval 5 would grant you 10% penalty, full naval 0% and full land 20%.

The naval setting does already simulate the impact on trade via the trade modifier.

The land connection penalty only applies to taxes (and hence also the maximum number of troops that can be raised at a time).

While I can see an argument for the naval inclinations of a nation to impact their trade (overseas trade, really, but it is an approximation), I do not really see a reason why they should impact the raising and collection of taxes - save for an obscure desire to make the naval end of the land slider stronger. (It is already very strong, at least if you are a major trading nation)

 

[Smirfy]

Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
The naval setting does already simulate the impact on trade via the trade modifier.

The land connection penalty only applies to taxes (and hence also the maximum number of troops that can be raised at a time).

While I can see an argument for the naval inclinations of a nation to impact their trade (overseas trade, really, but it is an approximation), I do not really see a reason why they should impact the raising and collection of taxes - save for an obscure desire to make the naval end of the land slider stronger. (It is already very strong, at least if you are a major trading nation)

"In the period which we have just considered, France justified his (Louis IVX) confidence by a magnificent and on the whole successful maintenance of his attitude against all Europe; she did not advance but neither did she greatly recede. But the display of power was exhausting it ate away the life of the nation, because it drew wholly on itself and not upon the outside world, with which it could have been kept in contact by the sea. In the next war that followed , the same energy is seen but not the same vitality; and France was everywhere beaten back and brought to the verge of ruin. The lesson of both are the same; nations like men, however strong decay when cut off from external activities and resources which at once draw out and support their internal powers. A nation as we have already shown , cannot live indefinitely off itself, and the easiest way by which it can communicate with other people and renew it's own strength is by sea"

Mahan

I agree with your point Peter that the colonies should not gain advantage for raising troops but feel the that the Naval minded nations of Portugal Holland England and Venice deserve extra help that is no way factored into the game to represent their merchant marine and the revenue and credit facilities they generated.

France on the other hand does not even need to promote tax collectors.

 

[Smirfy]

"by 1712 the expenditure of France was 240,000,000 francs, while taxes brought in only 113,000,000 gross after deducting losses and nessecary expenses only, only 37,000,000 remained in the treasury: the deficetwas sought to be met by anticipating parts of the revenue for years ahead, and by a series of of extraordinary transactions tedious to name or to understand."

Mahan

The naval powers credit never suffered as dramatically or as critically as land power.

France can fight Europe win lose or draw and suffer no penalty wheras the naval power colonisation etc is set- back

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Re: Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Smirfy
I agree with your point Peter that the colonies should not gain advantage for raising troops but feel the that the Naval minded nations of Portugal Holland England and Venice deserve extra help that is no way factored into the game to represent their merchant marine and the revenue and credit facilities they generated.

France on the other hand does not even need to promote tax collectors.

In that case you are, perhaps, arguing that the trade modifier for the land slider needs to be increased rather than the tax modifier.

The trade taxes produced in provinces, which is separate from the trade income from merchants, would seem to represent amongst other things the revenue and credit facilities you are talking about - and it is affected by the trade modifier, and hence the naval slider.

As for the original presupposition that naval is weak, I do not agree. Being naval does allow you to colonise while still being mercantilist and somewhat innovative, and the trade modifier is significant. In single player I almost invariably go naval, as it is the better setting (more colonists, better merchants, substantially higher income, much higher morale fleets). In multi player, however, it is more of a toss-up, and most players go land rather than naval because of military unit prices. If more players remembered that the trade percentage not only influenced the chance of getting (and keeping) merchants in COTs and their COT income, but also their trade taxes from every single province, it might not be so.

 

[Smirfy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
In that case you are, perhaps, arguing that the trade modifier for the land slider needs to be increased rather than the tax modifier.

The trade taxes produced in provinces, which is separate from the trade income from merchants, would seem to represent amongst other things the revenue and credit facilities you are talking about - and it is affected by the trade modifier, and hence the naval slider.

As for the original presupposition that naval is weak, I do not agree. Being naval does allow you to colonise while still being mercantilist and somewhat innovative, and the trade modifier is significant. In single player I almost invariably go naval, as it is the better setting (more colonists, better merchants, substantially higher income, much higher morale fleets). In multi player, however, it is more of a toss-up, and most players go land rather than naval because of military unit prices. If more players remembered that the trade percentage not only influenced the chance of getting (and keeping) merchants in COTs and their COT income, but also their trade taxes from every single province, it might not be so.

"Though the land and trade of both England and Holland have excessive burdens upon them yet credit continues good both of them and us : wheras the finances of france are so much more exhausted that they are forced to give twenty and Twenty five percent for every penny they send out of the Kingdom unless the sent it in specie."

Lord Treasurer of England (1706)

Now thats inflation yet France with her income and low troop costs does not suffer any such penalties, the trading nations seem to suffer more which is to me anyway strange.

As said before the game does not factor in the revenue generated by a merchant marine that was far and away more valuable than any internal trade.

Can galleys still be used effectively in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean?

 

[N Katsyev]

This really had little to do with the naval slider being weaker or other such things. Its the fact that a naval nation simply shouldn't suffer from distances seperated by sea as much a nation full concentrated on its land forces should. The more naval a nation is, their effectiveness concerning overseas posessions would simply be much higher. This land connection penalty is just a way to show that, and make the more naval nations, who usually include overseas possesions to be more united.

 

[unmerged(9191)]

Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
The naval setting does already simulate the impact on trade via the trade modifier.

The land connection penalty only applies to taxes (and hence also the maximum number of troops that can be raised at a time).

While I can see an argument for the naval inclinations of a nation to impact their trade (overseas trade, really, but it is an approximation), I do not really see a reason why they should impact the raising and collection of taxes - save for an obscure desire to make the naval end of the land slider stronger. (It is already very strong, at least if you are a major trading nation)

What did they throw the sacks of money from manhatten to london?

Something has to get it there....

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Re: Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Imperial Army
What did they throw the sacks of money from manhatten to london?

Something has to get it there....

And being a naval oriented nation makes it easier for your ships to transport coffers of tax money? (The part that is not used in the colony for administrative purposes, of course)

 

[King of Men]

No, it makes it easier to avoid having your gold shipments stolen by English privateers. Think Drake.

 

[Johan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Final Thoughts on "No Land Connection Penalty"

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
And being a naval oriented nation makes it easier for your ships to transport coffers of tax money? (The part that is not used in the colony for administrative purposes, of course)

No, but a naval oriented country would probably have ships to transfer funds and tax collectors and troops around without having to pay extra costs renting ships, or paying off local pirates.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

It seems to me this would rather unbalance the slider, which is already pretty unbalanced, particularly later on in the game. Wouldn't centralization be a more sensible slider to base this on? Local authorities presumably being better able to extort taxes from the populace. Not that that one isn't pretty unbalanced too.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
It seems to me this would rather unbalance the slider, which is already pretty unbalanced, particularly later on in the game. Wouldn't centralization be a more sensible slider to base this on? Local authorities presumably being better able to extort taxes from the populace. Not that that one isn't pretty unbalanced too.

Actually it could be seen that decentralization means local authorities get more taxes for themselves

But i concur that naval is already somewhat better...

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
It seems to me this would rather unbalance the slider, which is already pretty unbalanced, particularly later on in the game. Wouldn't centralization be a more sensible slider to base this on? Local authorities presumably being better able to extort taxes from the populace. Not that that one isn't pretty unbalanced too.

Sea trade should be unbalancing later in the game thats just the way it was.

are 200k horse armies not unbalancing?

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by DarthMaur

But i concur that naval is already somewhat better...

Do you put masts on your horses

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Smirfy
Do you put masts on your horses

No, but i wasn't going to go full land as Russia. And that pretty much tells everything.

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
No, but i wasn't going to go full land as Russia. And that pretty much tells everything.

*Falls off stool scalds self with tea*

Thats the way the sliders should work not just going to extremes thats where the balance should be between threat and capability

not ahistiorical either remember Peter