-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
................and finally I know why it is called the Gold Coast 
so much gold wasted for those 3 little colonies o
so much gold wasted for those 3 little colonies o
Originally posted by Attila the Hun
................and finally I know why it is called the Gold Coast
WRONG! There are 2 TPs that can easily be burned to the ground! POrtugal, by God given right the owner of those provinces, was one more time stepped over in negotiations! Exactly as the first time
And you didn't learn ANYTHING:wacko: Well, OK, you will have the lesson repeated again - we are always ready to help :rofl:
You are off your rocker, Barnius. Consider your 1599 figures and your 1621 figures and remember that Russia has grown, not shrunk. Then look at, for instance, the census taxes, and you will realise that your 50d figure is off by more than a bit. [If it is to be used for a comparative estimate, that is]Originally posted by Barnius
Yes, at +2 stab Russia would have almost 50 d more
The same goes for Poland that is suffering just slightly from killing off its aristocracy, of course. Those RR can hurt tax income
Last edited:
I thought if everything was the same except the stability. Naturally, Russia probably suffers some other problems...
But yes, you are right, in a few years everything will be in place and than we will see the real Russia.
The problem is that you just add 10% to the total taxes when going from -3 stab (1.00 tax) to +2 stab (1.10 tax), which is twice a fallacy.
First because that is not how it works in EU2: A province with 70% tax rate (e.g. a foreign culture province with land connection) gains 1/7th from a 10% boost. Secondly because stability also affects RR, and RR affects the tax percentage
You can contact Tonioz for that, I believe.
He did some for diplomacy universalis too.
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
The problem is that you just add 10% to the total taxes when going from -3 stab (1.00 tax) to +2 stab (1.10 tax), which is twice a fallacy.
First because that is not how it works in EU2: A province with 70% tax rate (e.g. a foreign culture province with land connection) gains 1/7th from a 10% boost. Secondly because stability also affects RR, and RR affects the tax percentage
Ouch! Than I really messed it up!
But than all my analyses are pretty much pointless
My goal is to show sort of economical strength of a country in an ideal case, so without influence of stability, rebellions, war, RR, war taxes...Do you have any suggestions how to accomplish that?
Although I would really like to have it somewhere in the leadger...
Hey, it could have been worse: Somebody could have been wartaxing (+150%)
This is my favourite example: A province of wrong culture and religion but with land connection is 40%. With, say, 7% total RR on the side, you get a 5% total tax modifier. When you wartax it is 155, which is thirty-one times the income of the 5% case and nearly four times the standard case.. Clearly, using the high 155% figure to estimate the real income/worth of the province gives a misleading picture, but so does using the 5% figure. The closest to the truth is the 40% figure, but even that one should be 60% (50% higher!) instead at +3 stability.
Your approach is, given the information available, probably the best one as it beats having none. (Otherwise, somebody would have to write a small script for you to extract the relevant data from /db/province.csv and the save game to get the real figures, and that is more work than it is worth, really) I am, however, always rather sceptical of the tax and census tax columns for purposes of comparison.
I will explain my reasons for picking ortho group in 1615.
OE in Mach 1 was huge. It had an income that rivaled most europeans, even without trading and had probably the largest manpower in the game. Thanks to their incredible income and the fact that noone buggered them for about 150 years, made it possible for them to be at -3 stab, even suffer a civil war etc., to keep up in tech. Her neighbours were also relatively unscary compared to what the Mach 2 counterpart has to fight.
This OE has:
- A huge Russia
- A very powerful Austria who rules most of Germany
- A very big Poland with most conversions done and soon ready to go full inno
- Being completely beaten out of Hungary
- All her nighbours have new and great leaders, OE has emptied her list
Now if this OE is even close to be able to compete with other powers, she needs to be on par with them in tech. Of course, she has the rich area of Africa, gold and CoT. Sadly, this is not a reliability, as its so damn far away and nations like England could get it once shes rich and powerful enough.
The rule was made for an OE the size and power of Mach 1. This OE has been beaten in practically every single war except the invasion of Hungary. Putting her in the Muslim tech group makes her even weaker compared to nations in the vicinity.
Please, dont beat down my nation so much that it becomes boring to play
. Its enough that i dont have Slavonic culture, something that would at least have encouraged an attack against Europe. Its also enough having Persia as a neighbour, being tweaked into becoming a damn powerhouse and should be considered as hard as fighting a human!Even with Ortho tech group, i will become quite weak. Austria has secured her position and i have very small chances at keeping parts of Hungary for long. Add to that that my neighbours are and will become even more powerful, whence i wont be able to reap the benefits of trade, staying at the same income for practically the rest of the game. Giving this OE muslim tech group puts the last nail in the coffin.
I would like you to reconsider your decision Wyvern. Its unfair considering the circumstances and i regret that i didnt bring it up before the session, but somehow i had thought the rule did not apply and had only been a subject of discussion (my bad for not reading the rules on page one). Not a reason of course.
Gary,
I said I'd talk to you before the weekend about my ability to participate fully in the future.
As for revenge-of course. The Lowlands are still in Protestant hands-soiled, treacherous Protestant hands-and France retains Artois.
As for the three province rule, see my post above... See your followup. See the way I dropped it. Disagreeing with you and "having a bad attitude" are two different things. You demanded I go easy, I did.
I said I'd talk to you before the weekend about my ability to participate fully in the future.
As for revenge-of course. The Lowlands are still in Protestant hands-soiled, treacherous Protestant hands-and France retains Artois.
As for the three province rule, see my post above... See your followup. See the way I dropped it. Disagreeing with you and "having a bad attitude" are two different things. You demanded I go easy, I did.
Last edited:
There is one issue with this rule (as has been suggested elsewhere): it speaks of European provinces and colonies, but nothing is said specifically about non-colonies outside of Europe.
Or have I sniffed too much glue again? If I have not, I'd like to suggest that the rule is edited to cover that "hole". My biased recommendation would be that there should be no province limit for such countries, or at least for pagan ones. If I have been sniffin' too much of da glue, I apologize.
As to how much glue you have been sniffing, I could not say.
On the province issue, however, the three province rule governs all outside Europe except certain colonial wars (the ...otherwise the 3 province rule still stands. part), but an exception were made for pagan nation in the first play session, an obvious oversight remedied, that did not make it into post #1.
BTW, can anyone tell me why we had Mughals as player nation yesterday? I ALMOST choked when I saw it!
Than I calmed down a bit: he could occupy my 3 colonies, but PTC would NEVER accept peace and I suppose his country is a bit more instabile than mine...
If only he ordered a few conversions...Do you think Portugal left India because the enemies are too strong? Noooo, we just want nice good Sunii subjects! One day our two COTs will be land-connected:wacko: .
EDIT: some spelling
Than I calmed down a bit: he could occupy my 3 colonies, but PTC would NEVER accept peace and I suppose his country is a bit more instabile than mine...
If only he ordered a few conversions...Do you think Portugal left India because the enemies are too strong? Noooo, we just want nice good Sunii subjects!
One day our two COTs will be land-connected:wacko: .EDIT: some spelling
Last edited:
It was made for the OE based on the OE's general performance in MP games that always saw the OE stay on par with the most powerful European nations in tech, not just Machiavelli 1. Even now, your poor poor weak underachieving Ottoman Empire is doing somewhat better than historically (if you consider Africa a good substitute for Hungary, that is), is one of the richest nations around [just check Barnius' charts!], is religiously homogenous, has an awful lot of manpower, and is doing quite nicely in the tech department.
[smartass]
As for kicking Persian ass, if you really consider it as hard as fighting a human player, how about preparing for such a fight before you declare war?
[/smartass]
We had, temporarily, one player too many due to the good substitutes that turned up and we had good reason to suspect that we would lose a player soon (as also happened). Thus we had a Great Mogul around in the interim.
And yes, so is Russia, with her infra and stuff.
And i WONT get richer. A cap of about 150 - 200d monthly income is what i can strive for.
Isnt every other nation doing better than historically in this game?
Really? From what i have seen, they tend to get munched, smashed, raped and killed by Austria and neighbours once her time of glory leaders sets in....