Noob Question and Population..

[Sarenarass]

So overall I think I like pretty much every single change made into EUIV except for one thing (that I can think of atm) which is population which has been mentioned previously in another forum but I would like more to have a single discussion based on this only.

So.. the "noob question" is if there is no population anymore what determines what provinces make more money ASIDE from buildings (and trade)? As I have some provinces that are making much more money than others in my test game as Venice and what determines this?

Next.. onto population.. I felt Francech made a good point. Getting rid of population (and the extra tax high populations give) gets rid of the "value" of certain provinces. You could now turn any province into an extremely valuable one despite its location. You could turn Northern Russia or Greenland into a larger worth than some much larger cities if you just built a bunch of nice buildings. It makes you want to favor quantity of provinces over quality. Say if someone owned all of the Russian land beyond the Ural mountains and built a bunch of buildings in it they could be richer than someone who say just owns all of Turkey if they don't have as many buildings.. which isn't very accurate.

Now.. those are my thoughts.. what of YOURS?

 

[SomethingSharp]

Population never really made that much of a difference. It impacted production and trade value a little bit but never the tax, which is determined from a base tax which is set for each province. So if you hover over the tax value of each province, you'll see the base tax in the tooltip. So Albania is 1, and Constantinople is 14, for instance.

In any case, in late-game EU3, production values far exceeded tax in most cases. We won't be able to tell in EUIV until we can play into the 1700s, but it might be the case here too.

But whatever the mechanics, population is irrelevant. Big cities are already represented by high base tax values, and even in EU3 population did

 

[unmerged(752132)]

Im kind of glad populations gone, Something sharp seemed to get everything, but even on aesthetic level it was sort of annoying. Having most provinces in china being 9999999 by the middle of the game, and many other places in the world by the end of the game was a minor annoyance.

I do however like that they kept native populations affecting the statistics of your colonies based on there size and how you choose to deal with them. Thats a nice touch.

 

[Sarenarass]

Population never really made that much of a difference. It impacted production and trade value a little bit but never the tax, which is determined from a base tax which is set for each province. So if you hover over the tax value of each province, you'll see the base tax in the tooltip. So Albania is 1, and Constantinople is 14, for instance.

In any case, in late-game EU3, production values far exceeded tax in most cases. We won't be able to tell in EUIV until we can play into the 1700s, but it might be the case here too.

But whatever the mechanics, population is irrelevant. Big cities are already represented by high base tax values, and even in EU3 population did

Ah. I didn't play EUIII TOO much and so I wasn't sure the impact that population had. I assumed it would make quite a big deal but with the base tax that seems to be handled ok. Then I don't mind population being gone.