Greek base taxes are a joke, improve them.

[grumphie]

instad of just modelling population, how about a " wealth"(or whatever is deemed a good name) modifier liek thing. not getting sieged and looted, trade and especially colonies would increase wealth, which in turn would increase short term income through modifiers, and improve your long term prospects due to +base tax events and the like. doing badly(getting carpet sieged, doing badly at trading, going bankrupt) would instead lower these prospects. think of it as prestige, or the muslim piety bar. or maybe even better: provincially like LA. smaller nations would also have much more volatile bar than others.

the better you'd do, the better your provinces would. let's say: you're the hansa. you are doing awesome: you controll trade in your local node, have fleets protecting them, winning wars and bringing back the psoils while your own lands stay untouched. as an result, your cities are amongst the richest in europe. now, if you'd piss off denmark, losing your fleet and getting sacked you would also fall very quickly.

a diffrent example: you are england, having united the isles and having some colonies. you are isolating yourself from the rest of europe, and don't participate in their wars. your local economy however is booming, controlling the channel with your mighty fleet and brinign back riches form the new world. yet your country didn't immideatly turn into a powerhosue liek the hansa - while you did get a bit richer, you are still only slightly more wealthy than europe on average. on the other hand, having your fleet sunk in a war against spain won't hurt you as much either.

this'd make tall at least somewhat viable if you play your diplomatic cards right(assumign ofcource that money was readjusted for this system, as it currently is rather worthless after 1500), and model things such as the rise of the northern low countries or the fall fo greece.

if that is too complicated, can we possibly get center of trade/estuary province modifiers like things for tax as well(center of wealth/population center) which would boost taxes and the like.

 

[Rainbow Mirage]

base tax isn't even a great metric for defining a regions wealth, gameplay wise.

now, what you really want is for all your provinces to have cloth, most OP trade good in the game

Cloth and fish are both top tier trade goods in the game. But in 1.8 the question mark trade goods is the best you can get!

 

[yerm]

Unfortunately, base tax represents more than raw population. I believe base tax is meant to be a value of the ability to tax the region, the taxable population, and most importantly the actual land itself. Look at India, for example, and you'll see huge population without the base tax to match, versus the Caribbean, which has a base tax that represents abundant potential plantation yield.

There is definitely merit to making war devastation hurt regions long-term, or having more ability to build up areas' income potential, but streamlining everything into purely a head count is NOT the way to do it.

 

[Chieron]

Unfortunately, base tax represents more than raw population. I believe base tax is meant to be a value of the ability to tax the region, the taxable population, and most importantly the actual land itself. Look at India, for example, and you'll see huge population without the base tax to match, versus the Caribbean, which has a base tax that represents abundant potential plantation yield.

There is definitely merit to making war devastation hurt regions long-term, or having more ability to build up areas' income potential, but streamlining everything into purely a head count is NOT the way to do it.

Well, the islands have too high base_TAX, but their production would suck otherwise.. Some production modifiers like the Stora Kopparberget modifier in Dalarskogen could boost that back up without making them so utterly rich.
In general, basetax is working out so-so as a model for the economic prosperity of thousands of provinces during 400 years. It also allows more provinces without actually adding all suburbs..
Some more meaningful variability would be nice, however, especially in those provinces that saw major changes during the time period (like Hungary or Vijayanagar).

As for the population argument: that was somewhat present in EU3, but got totally out of control, as population growth being exponential means you have to keep it in check somehow. Doing that for thousands of provinces all the time. And then you still need to model the actual taxability and prosperity, which actually is different from local autonomy.
Not to mention that there usually are no reliable data for any province population during any point in the period, let alone 1444..

For OP: Athens was just way past its prime in 1444 (since Roman times, actually), Greeks did see Constantinople as their true capital. If it became capital, the +2 capital bonus would make it viable.
I just love the estuary suggestion.. of which major river?

 

[yerm]

For OP: Athens was just way past its prime in 1444 (since Roman times, actually), Greeks did see Constantinople as their true capital. If it became capital, the +2 capital bonus would make it viable.
I just love the estuary suggestion.. of which major river?

Morea is really the part of that region in southern Greece that was flourishing and needs to be boosted. I would argue for Morea, Thessaly, and Crete to get big base tax boosts, while a lot of the rest of Greece should be leveled. It's hard to make a good historical argument for either Athens begin relevant OR for the southeast Balkans to be more prosperous than the northwest, at least at game start. Forming Greece needs a lot of improvements; a similar decision to what Byz/Ottos get not the least of it. Really though I think fixing the the DLC missions for Byzantines and adding cool greek ideas should kinda come first, and making Athens get a boost similar to something like Warsaw is nice but not as needed.

 

[grommile]

Cloth and fish are both top tier trade goods in the game.

Cloth is better than Wine, and nearly as good as Iron, which is in turn competitive with the likes of Coffee, Ivory, and Spices.

Fish, on the other hand, is terrible - low price, and much of the production is in low-BT provinces.

 

[dstarsboy]

This is along the same line as the discussion we had about south eastern Europe (Hungary especially) being ridiculously poor. If you look at population density of the year 1600, you'll see that they aren't as poor as land like Scandinavia and Spain, which in the game seems to have more wealth/manpower somehow.. even if you take trade completely out of the equation.

 

[Thatiswackson]

base tax isn't even a great metric for defining a regions wealth, gameplay wise.

now, what you really want is for all your provinces to have cloth, most OP trade good in the game

Cloth? Are you serious... I would take gold, silk, dye etc. anyday over cloth. Sure the "trading in" bonus is alright.

 

[yerm]

This is along the same line as the discussion we had about south eastern Europe (Hungary especially) being ridiculously poor. If you look at population density of the year 1600, you'll see that they aren't as poor as land like Scandinavia and Spain, which in the game seems to have more wealth/manpower somehow.. even if you don't pursue trade.

There's certainly a good argument to be made for many of these regions simply not giving nearly enough manpower, and also in tying manpower to population.

Wealth, however, still needs more factors. Perhaps they could do this by having regions own some kind of production modifier (high/medium/low, or something like that), but in general it's just not really easy to do. In total war games, for instance, they have town wealth to reflect this sort of thing. This game doesn't long-term account for regions that are devastated by war, piracy, and slavery, except as lower numbers. Southern Italy is an example of a region that's high population but low base tax and done so on purpose. The Kingdom of Naples was a backwards and poor, but crowded, part of Europe for most of the game's period - it's still poor today.

The game has really high base tax to population in Spain/Portugal, and really low population to base tax in the Balkans, Hungary and southern Italy. Scandinavian provinces (aside from capitals) above Skane are really poor unless I'm mistaken. Portugal, Castile, and Aragon can and probably should take a hit on their base tax. They make so much from incoming trade that they frankly don't need it for the money, the only problem would be it nailing them right in the force limit. This leaves Southern Italy, Hungary and Balkans, which are off - these regions are effectively given tax values that reflect the aftermath of the Italian Wars or Ottomans, despite the 1444 start preceding these, and as a result are unnecessarily weaker in the game than they should be.

In short, population alone is not a good measure of wealth. If you wanted to add it, you'd also need to have overpopulation, overcrowding, and other similar ailments to balance it.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I am very much in favour of raising the Balkans to their historical strength, along with everyone else.

 

[oblio-]

There's certainly a good argument to be made for many of these regions simply not giving nearly enough manpower, and also in tying manpower to population.

Wealth, however, still needs more factors. Perhaps they could do this by having regions own some kind of production modifier (high/medium/low, or something like that), but in general it's just not really easy to do. In total war games, for instance, they have town wealth to reflect this sort of thing. This game doesn't long-term account for regions that are devastated by war, piracy, and slavery, except as lower numbers. Southern Italy is an example of a region that's high population but low base tax and done so on purpose. The Kingdom of Naples was a backwards and poor, but crowded, part of Europe for most of the game's period - it's still poor today.

The game has really high base tax to population in Spain/Portugal, and really low population to base tax in the Balkans, Hungary and southern Italy. Scandinavian provinces (aside from capitals) above Skane are really poor unless I'm mistaken. Portugal, Castile, and Aragon can and probably should take a hit on their base tax. They make so much from incoming trade that they frankly don't need it for the money, the only problem would be it nailing them right in the force limit. This leaves Southern Italy, Hungary and Balkans, which are off - these regions are effectively given tax values that reflect the aftermath of the Italian Wars or Ottomans, despite the 1444 start preceding these, and as a result are unnecessarily weaker in the game than they should be.

In short, population alone is not a good measure of wealth. If you wanted to add it, you'd also need to have overpopulation, overcrowding, and other similar ailments to balance it.

1 minor nitpick - as far as I know Southern Italy was not as poor as presented, before 1800, and especially before the Risorgimento. I've read a bit about the topic and one point of view is that the Northerners basically plundered Southern Italy during the unification of Italy.

 

[bbqftw]

Cloth? Are you serious... I would take gold, silk, dye etc. anyday over cloth. Sure the "trading in" bonus is alright.

You can't build manufactories for silk and dye.

 

[yerm]

1 minor nitpick - as far as I know Southern Italy was not as poor as presented, before 1800, and especially before the Risorgimento. I've read a bit about the topic and one point of view is that the Northerners basically plundered Southern Italy during the unification of Italy.

I respectfully disagree with whoever held that point of view. Northern Italy had outspoken dissent to going past Rome before it happened; it couldn't have only become poor afterwards. Historically, it's very easy to see that the Kingdom of Naples was overpopulated and poor. The city of Naples itself was a mess. WHY this is the case, from Italian wars to government to Barbary raids to mafia, I can leave up to debate, but the reality of it being poor and having been poor for a good length of this game is not really something that I would question unless you got me some good evidence. If you do, and it's free to read at work, I'll read it though.

 

[FreeSoc]

This is along the same line as the discussion we had about south eastern Europe (Hungary especially) being ridiculously poor. If you look at population density of the year 1600, you'll see that they aren't as poor as land like Scandinavia and Spain, which in the game seems to have more wealth/manpower somehow.. even if you take trade completely out of the equation.

I do support buffing the non-Greek Balkans and Hungary in terms of basetax and manpower, but do you have a source that actually shows European population densities in/around the year 1600? Because that map is of population density in the 21st century.

 

[Slym]

Honestly, if any areas in Europe need a buff in base tax I would say the Rhineland and the lowlands. They're both pretty good but they were historically very wealthy regions which is why they were so coveted by France, the HRE and Spain for most of the time period this game takes place in.

 

[Chieron]

Honestly, if any areas in Europe need a buff in base tax I would say the Rhineland and the lowlands. They're both pretty good but they were historically very wealthy regions which is why they were so coveted by France, the HRE and Spain for most of the time period this game takes place in.

Either are very wealthy regions already, on par with Italy.. No need of a buff basetax-wise there.
Manpower would be another story (manpower in the German region is shit, Central Asia level compared to the rest of Europe, esp. France)

 

[Ultrix Prime]

A step on the way to forming Greece, if you will.

How would one form Greece?

Sounds like something I'd like to do

Edit: nvm, I just looked at the wiki - I don't recall this being there before - the form greece event.

 

[justin6477]

How would one form Greece?

Sounds like something I'd like to do

Edit: nvm, I just looked at the wiki - I don't recall this being there before - the form greece event.

Just make sure to form it with someone that gets a unique idea set. Venice and the Knights are good choices. I suppose Cyprus works too.

 

[oblio-]

I respectfully disagree with whoever held that point of view. Northern Italy had outspoken dissent to going past Rome before it happened; it couldn't have only become poor afterwards. Historically, it's very easy to see that the Kingdom of Naples was overpopulated and poor. The city of Naples itself was a mess. WHY this is the case, from Italian wars to government to Barbary raids to mafia, I can leave up to debate, but the reality of it being poor and having been poor for a good length of this game is not really something that I would question unless you got me some good evidence. If you do, and it's free to read at work, I'll read it though.

The best I could find are references in several Wikipedia articles, the source is not freely available.
You'll unfortunately have to buy the book if you want the exact quote/section

The South was poorer and had a less advanced economy, but I don't buy the "overpopulated" argument. If you know the situation, the Great Irish Famine had the same accusations thrown around by the English, while they were basically starving the Irish to death and not giving them even the opportunity to consume their own food produce, preferring instead to sell them for profits.
Anyway, this is off-topic and I think that the difference in 1444-1821 between the Italian North and South are adequately represented in-game through base tax.




Getting back on topic, a complete overhaul of the base tax system is extremely complex and fraught with even more perils than the current system. Which is actually quite decent if you think about it. There are some problematic topics such as Europe having more base tax than Asia, Hungary having less base tax than some people think it should have, and in this case Greece also having less base tax than wanted.
But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a solution.

I actually think base tax should be increased overall and local autonomy should model changes - with different government forms controlling floors of autonomy. Feudal Monarchy? 50% minimum local autonomy. Celestial Empire? 50% minimum local autonomy. Khanate? 50% minimum local autonomy. You want less local autonomy? Tech up and get a better government form. This would actually model the evolution of different regions in the game better - Europeans tech up faster, change their government forms quicker, become richer. I'd also rename "Westernization" "Modernization" to get rid of the silly moniker.

About the exact topic at hand, as I said, Greece needs no base tax buff. As much as we love the Roman Empire and the Byzantines, their "empire" was in shambles. Basil II Bulgaroktonus and Alexios I Komnenos were long dead. The former empire had been long split (and somewhat devastated) by the Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks, French, Venetians, etc. Even Constantinople itself was basically in shambles before its conquest (imposing wall notwithstanding, since that were built a long, long time before 1453 ).

* I use scare quotes for the 1453 "empire" since it was smaller and less powerful than contemporary Wallachia. At which point nobody can call that "an empire".

 

[yls3431]

The best I could find are references in several Wikipedia articles, the source is not freely available.
You'll unfortunately have to buy the book if you want the exact quote/section

The South was poorer and had a less advanced economy, but I don't buy the "overpopulated" argument. If you know the situation, the Great Irish Famine had the same accusations thrown around by the English, while they were basically starving the Irish to death and not giving them even the opportunity to consume their own food produce, preferring instead to sell them for profits.
Anyway, this is off-topic and I think that the difference in 1444-1821 between the Italian North and South are adequately represented in-game through base tax.




Getting back on topic, a complete overhaul of the base tax system is extremely complex and fraught with even more perils than the current system. Which is actually quite decent if you think about it. There are some problematic topics such as Europe having more base tax than Asia, Hungary having less base tax than some people think it should have, and in this case Greece also having less base tax than wanted.
But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a solution.

I actually think base tax should be increased overall and local autonomy should model changes - with different government forms controlling floors of autonomy. Feudal Monarchy? 50% local autonomy. Celestial Empire? 50% local autonomy. Khanate? 50% local autonomy. You want less local autonomy? Tech up and get a better government form. This would actually model the evolution of different regions in the game better - Europeans tech up faster, change their government forms quicker, become richer.

About the exact topic at hand, as I said, Greece needs no base tax buff. As much as we love the Roman Empire and the Byzantines, their empire was in shambles. Basil II Bulgaroktonus and Alexios I Komnenos were long dead. The former empire had been long split (and somewhat devastated) by the Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks, French, Venetians, etc. Even Constantinople itself was basically in shambles before its conquest (imposing wall notwithstanding, since that were built a long, long time before 1453 ).

I dont think people wants a complete overhaul of basetax system, at least I dont.
But what I want is to have devastation of wars on wealth represented in the long turn. This can simply be done with events tied up to high WE, sieged/occupied provinces famines etc. Also peacefull countries should be able to create more wealth than warmongering countries. Veritas et Fortitudo Mod does this with black death events. So it should not be so hard nor require a complete overhaul.