Please Buff the Base Tax of Non-European provinces. They are Too Poor!

[Amosblanco]

Just have a feeling that the total base tax of European provinces is now almost equal to total base tax in Asian provinces, many times higher than African and American ones.

Those historically rich provinces are not reflected in new EU map, thought they added a lot of provinces there(which is good). Like the Nile Valley (2 base tax for each province in upper Egypt?) Persia (Isfahan=3 base tax?) Mesopotamia (Basra=3 base tax? and bunch of riverside provinces with 2 base tax?-- Though historically the region was poor throughout the EU period due to constant warfare there between Peasia and Ottomans, but that should be reflect through LA rather than base tax）India (1 base tax for Kochi? Only 7 for central Doab?)....

Compared to those freaking rich European provinces with a lot over 10BTs (especially in Austria as a mean to buff the Hapsburg emperor). For me, I feel disgusting when playing any non-European campaign.

Besides the hot issue of 50% LA for colonial provinces, end trade node and trade propagation, hordes mechanics, 75% LA for oversea provinces, and too westernization (too easy to quick), I humbly ask Paradox. Stop being Orientalist, and buff the base tax of non-European provinces

 

[AndreasPhokas]

Persia should be a fair bit richer and delhi should be on Paris level base tax.

 

[Legend92]

totally agree, even austrian mountains has more basetax than middleeast biggest cities

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Perhaps EU4 could use a rework to the tech system where provinces have some kind of tech modifier that amplifies their tax. Chinese provinces, for example, would be extremely rich in theory, but they would be piss poor at providing actual revenues, and they would have to be modernized (regardless of the tech group of the owner) to get them up to full productivity.

 

[henzington]

at least for china part that is done with the LA floor of 50%

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Perhaps. I would assume that European colonizers there get the 75% Autonomy limit.

Maybe it could be a function of actual Tech level, since the tech groups do inevitably result in the ROTW falling behind. That way you would have Ming starting out as historically rich as they were, but then they start a long backslide. New World provinces should receive events over time that give more base tax (representing immigration and the increasing complexity of their economies).

 

[RobRoy3]

Wait. I'm confused. The rest of the world gets a huge buff in 1.8. And you're complaining that they are too poor?!

Well, maybe. But I'm still getting used to how much better things are, that I haven't really had time to notice how bad things are.

 

[josh127]

With WoN and RP I had a problem with it because there was never money for anything. With AoW I don't have an issue with it. Yes, Europe is in far better shape, but in both my Cherokee game and Aztec game I was able to maintain advisors, fill out an army, and do little stuff like hire mercs and build some buildings. All this while colonizing. In 1.6 and 1.7 I wouldn't even be able to maintain a decent sized army. Either the money is better, or I've learned to better manage my money, and that last part is not very likely! lol

Of course in my Brandenprussia game I'm just rolling in it to ridiculous proportions. But, that's sorta what I would expect in that game. I shouldn't be playing in that area anyway. Just wanted a break from thinking

 

[GChapman]

AoW added a lot of new provinces, so the wealth everywhere in Europe (and maybe also in other parts of the world) exploits. What about decreasing the tax in Europe to balance the game?

 

[uishax]

Its balanced enough, Ming/Qing has the most base tax in any period of the game, northern india is cramped with 6+ bt provinces. Persia and mesopotania were never rich during this period. Egypt does need buffing, Cairo is poorer than timbuktu, but ottomans have enough difficulty beating mamluks.

 

[Stategem161803]

Start the game in 1444, turn off ti, and look at the economic mapmode. You will notice a distinct systematic difference between Europe and ROTW.

Edit: It should be this way to an extent, even if it is ahistorical (for gameplay reasons), but it's still too much.

 

[Mafiabrett]

I always liked to think Tax base is based on the average annual income for every citizen. Thats why Milan and Paris are so rich, they had the most upperclass citizens. Now yeah sure Beijing and Delhi are the most populated cities in Asia but they didn't exactly have alot upperclass citizens with tons of money compared to Europe. When your talkinga bout the rich provinces Austria has in the Alps that are all like Tax base 4-8 and stuff. Think about how many castles/estates are in those regions with some of Germanys most famous noble families owned = Tax Base.

Now of course you can say Nobles werent taxed as high therefor having tons of Lower class citizens makes more money then thats true.. but i like my annual income theory more.

Im all for events that add tax base to the provinces though. If you westernize as Ming or Qing, then they get events that increase tax base in their capital so it rivals Paris is all fine at that point.

 

[987655mm]

The problem with Base tax is that it always stays the same or becomes higher (never gets lowers) so it is hard to display the European colonization era towards the end of the game, when the natives are rich and powerful. I know that this is not a favorable situation, but until they can get around implementing things that balance this problem, we probably will have to stick with the Art of War changes (which are btw, not bad at all and have made the game a hell lot better).

 

[ChildeR]

The rest of the world mostly has better trade goods than Europe, though, so production income is better.

 

[Xinkc]

The problem with Base tax is that it always stays the same or becomes higher (never gets lowers) so it is hard to display the European colonization era towards the end of the game, when the natives are rich and powerful. I know that this is not a favorable situation, but until they can get around implementing things that balance this problem, we probably will have to stick with the Art of War changes (which are btw, not bad at all and have made the game a hell lot better).

Well, it does get lower when serfs move to the capital but it's more of a basetax moving system. I agree that it would be nice to see events that cause basetax to lower in some circumstances. Something like, losing 1-2 basetax to weathy provinces that are sieged down 2-5 times within 30 years or so. If the province is already poor, then Autonomy increase or something.

EDIT: Also, it's a hyperbole that Europe has a ton of 10+ basetax provinces, right? I've conquered much of it a few times since AoW and I don't recall seeing many provinces over 10 basetax.

 

[murlocmancer]

In all my games I see A-historically powerful non-european powers is all I know. Why yes they were richer then represented, the balance of the game is fine.

 

[Starshock]

I would like basetax to increase over time, but also be setback by wars, i.e a battle in the province decreases BT by 0.1 or something, the province getting looted decreased the by by 0.5 and a successful siege decreases it by 1. This could help simulate the effect wars did have on countries. Also could be easily abused though, so there has to be a way to balance it out.

 

[josh127]

Well, it does get lower when serfs move to the capital but it's more of a basetax moving system.

I think that event is an excuse for the game to troll me with a stab hit. Obviously when serfs move from one province into my capital the entire nation suffers.

 

[Lessing]

Basetax is a very abstract design that doesnt allow for an easy way to represent provinces getting richer and more populous, which is one of the major shortcomings of EU4. I dont think we'll ever see a fix for that.

 

[Amosblanco]

Well, it seems that the key issue here is what does BT mean in this game? The population in this provinces? How fertile the land is? How many potential revenue can this province generates? ....

Of course Europe should be richer than the rest of the world, but only in the latter period after the 17th century. Currently there have mainly three factors that determines the actual tax income in a province: 1. Base tax 2. local autonomy 3. tax efficiency. My opinion is, for those "less developed" provinces in the east during the latter period of the game, their "poverty" compared to "more developed" European provinces should be reflected through LA and tax efficiency rather than BTs.

Also, the BT in a province should not be stable, but increase or decrease through different factors like the increase of population, the cultivation of lands or wars. The historical fact is the world population more than doubled throughout the EU period (not only in Europe but also the rest of the world)