Inflation in newest beta

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Okay how about -.33% instead of -.25%.

I am not sure yet if .25% is the right percentage, I thinkwe need to play some games to test it out to see if the figure need to be changed, it feels like its about in the right neighbourhood though, considering inflation levels were FAR too low before.

 

[unmerged(12740)]

are there mp games going on to test this?

 

[unmerged(6816)]

Colonial powers like England or France never have governers in all provinces so their inflation would never reduce. Maybe only 75 of the provinces should have governers.

 

[unmerged(10951)]

Pretty sure you don't need em in all to reduce, just a .25% maximum. Even messed up as it is, it indicates a slight deflation rate with only a few governers, and would only work if you put the slider all the way down and natural inflation (i.e. gold provinces) isn't too high.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Originally posted by Tonitrus
and would only work if you put the slider all the way down and natural inflation (i.e. gold provinces) isn't too high.

And I like it. You actually have to work now to get your inflation down.

 

[daedalus]

The big looser on this might be spain. With two inflation events that add a total of 50% inflation, plus inflation from gold that is between 0.30-0.45% during most of the game, it will be very hard to control inflation, even for the cautious player. But that is a very particular case.

 

[JohnMK]

Indeed which is why I'm suggesting a higher #. Or perhaps mayors could ameliorate regular inflation and gold inflation too, in which case you could leave it at .25%.

So it'd subtract 0.25% from the gold value. If it's normally .36% and your treasury income inflation is say .15%, you'd be left with:

.11% inflation + .00% inflation.

I like that. That's with 100% mayor coverage.

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Really, Spain on SP is not a loser. In fact it´s easier to solve the inflation problem.

 

[TheLoneTaco]

though most of this is flying over my head, i must comment that getting governors will be harder, considering that everytime you conquer a province you must replace the tax collector and lawyer - a loss of 150 ducats and 3 years.

-Matt

 

[Medicine Man]

Thoughts on the new tax system

After much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, I've decided that I like the new taxation system. Not getting census taxes from provinces that have no tax collector makes it just a little bit more difficult to profit from warmongering. Non-culture, non-core provinces are now going to be revolt bait for the rapacious warmonger bent on conquest. Build taxmen or get nothing from your new conquests. I love it. Any change that makes it more difficult to for the player to expand beyond the historical boundaries of his nation is a much needed enhancement.

But... and you knew there was a 'but' coming here... I'm a little concerned about what this change will do to the nations at the start of the grand campaign.

As Peter has pointed out, most nations are going to have very little trade or production revenue at the start of the game. This low income, coupled with the often too-large standing armies, may make it very difficult for nations (AI and human) to even build their starting economy. Particularily nations that start the grand campaign in wars.

While it isn't going to be much of a problem researching infra 1, and most human players will manage to build tax collectors one way or another, I'd still like to suggest a few small changes:

One of the following:
1) You always get census taxes from core provinces you control
2) You get 50% of your census taxes without a tax collector

-- or better yet, combo the two of them --

3) You always get 50% of your census taxes from core provinces you control

I hope Johan and company will consider one of these modifications, I personally like number 3 the most. I also am looking forward to some detailed explanation of how the new deflation system actually works.

Cheers.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Yeah, revolters get screwed without that nice income cause I think when they take over province it would loose its tax collecter. (right?)

Oh yeah, and I dunno if this has been mentioned, but i don't think that the governors combating inflation is working right now... maybe fighting 25% a year, but definately not .25

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by knott
Will not this make nation gets even more money? With all citys having promoted govenors you can without negative effects take out 25% of your income in pure cash.

Previously it used to be that you could (if small) take out 0% because all cities had gov's.

If you were big you suddenly could take out 100% in cash and then appoint a few gov's and have no negative effects.


On another point, corruption should remain, but with +1 inflation instead of +10.

Good point re:State Bankrupcies by PE, maybe only +5 inflation for a SB (total +5 for loans and +5 for SB.. hmm sounds low, how about +0.5 inflation for loans instead of +1. You'll still get more inflation when trying to repay it)
(That would make SB into 7.5% infla)

 

[Nikolai II]

Oh..

I think a solution to MM:s problems, at least for small/revolter nations could be that 'census taxes always accrue for capital province'.

The capital is supposed to be under tighter control = lower RR, so presumably there are significant royal demesnes there that give census taxes.

edit: And what deflation do you get for having no gov's? Methinks that there should be a 0.05 or 0.1 minimum deflation as well..

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by KwangTiger
Yeah, revolters get screwed without that nice income cause I think when they take over province it would loose its tax collecter. (right?)

Oh yeah, and I dunno if this has been mentioned, but i don't think that the governors combating inflation is working right now... maybe fighting 25% a year, but definately not .25

This seems to be the bug fixed in mar29 release

 

[unmerged(11750)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Okay how about -.33% instead of -.25%.

Well, with Peter's post re Corruption and State Bankruptcy in mind, how about -.50%? This would make the recovery time for bankruptcy (25%) 50 years, which seems reasonable to me. A recovery time of 20 years for Corruption still seems harsh, but maybe the inflation hit for that event should be reduced, too. For that I like 3% ... 6 years recovery time with governors in every province.

Thoughts?

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by JohnMK
Indeed which is why I'm suggesting a higher #. Or perhaps mayors could ameliorate regular inflation and gold inflation too, in which case you could leave it at .25%.

So it'd subtract 0.25% from the gold value. If it's normally .36% and your treasury income inflation is say .15%, you'd be left with:

.11% inflation + .00% inflation.

I like that. That's with 100% mayor coverage.

I find it that you all are thinking spain must play the way you all have been playing it so far, the easy way, this simply means if spain wants to control the rampant inflation they will have to find ways to balance the income so that it's not all out of gold only, I believe spain (in reality) didn't have in the end all its income coming from gold either

This just means new strategies will have to be developed, I like this change and i am starting to firmly believe .25% is the perfect number, it just means maybe spain cant race for the incas right away in 1500, they didn't conquer them that fast in reality either you know. They will have to build traditional colonies first to balance the income.

 

[artemis667]

Originally posted by Crimson King
Well, with Peter's post re Corruption and State Bankruptcy in mind, how about -.50%? This would make the recovery time for bankruptcy (25%) 50 years, which seems reasonable to me. A recovery time of 20 years for Corruption still seems harsh, but maybe the inflation hit for that event should be reduced, too. For that I like 3% ... 6 years recovery time with governors in every province.

Thoughts?

0.25% is fine. If you make the factor much higher than that, then countries will be able to mint massive amounts of coin without much penalty. I don't think the corruption should be to much of a worry. As for the bankrupties, just be careful and make sure it doesn't happen ;-)

 

[unmerged(11750)]

I retract my previous suggestion. Instead:

How about linking the maximum monthly deflation due to governors to the monarch's administrative skill. Better admin skill yields more deflation. Have it range from, say, .10% to .50%. That way, in the case of Spain, who everyone seems to be worried about, inflation will be relatively easy to keep in check until Carlos II shows up.

 

[unmerged(11750)]

Originally posted by artemis667
0.25% is fine. If you make the factor much higher than that, then countries will be able to mint massive amounts of coin without much penalty.

Only after spending a lot of coin to promote governors everywhere. Think of it as more return on investment.

 

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by Crimson King
I retract my previous suggestion. Instead:

How about linking the maximum monthly deflation due to governors to the monarch's administrative skill. Better admin skill yields more deflation. Have it range from, say, .10% to .50%. That way, in the case of Spain, who everyone seems to be worried about, inflation will be relatively easy to keep in check until Carlos II shows up.

I think this is a marvelous idea. The more ways we get to tie the monarch into the nation, the better. I'm not ready to speculate about the numbers yet, lots of people to do that, but some sort of tie-in would be grand.