Which ruler ever removed the possibility to remove a tax collector? They needed money and they needed it much.
-
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.
Its more the fact that you have no control over placing them. You can place them in your own realm, and choose between it, why not have a choice with acquired lands? I often opt not to create tax collectors in many of my provinces unless they have RR offsets like manufacturies and the such, so its rather frustrating to not have the option in other provinces. According to the idea that every province should have a tax collector because "they needed money and they needed it much" in that case it seems we shouldn't have a choice at all in the beginning and they just get promoted as you go along.
Which doesen't make much sense to me.
how about having a tax collector be destroyed whenever rebels take the province. seems to me that the tax collector would be one of their first places to trash and burn down. Even if the tax collector escaped with his head on his shoulders, i'm sure he wouldn't be all too eager to return any time soon.
They had no problems returning, usually with a troop of soldiers to personally oversee the hanging of the rebels.
In many cases rebels would not dare to mess with tax gatherers, because of the even stricter punishments.
And if they kill them, and the survivors do not return, you just promote a few go-getters, all the lists over taxpayers have copies in the capital, and it is the raising of tax-rolls that is the main point of raising TC:s
Yeah, I suggested this about 6 months ago as well. It seems to make perfect sense to me, if you can appoint them you should have the option of dismissing them. Maybe associate a penalty, such as a cost of 50 or 100 to have them removed, to try and negate any exploitation of the feature.
As it is, Tax Collectors are sadly rather underpowered, which is why most of the veteran players recommend not using them. Perhaps the +RR should be lowered from 3 to 2?
You might want to see the analysis in this thread - especially towards the end...
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74123&highlight=colonies
EDITED to include the correct hyperlink...
Last edited:
well i believe france has the strongest economy and france has a very strong army therfore france must be the best.
vive la france.
vive la france.
I think that these two solutions are possible:
1. Ability to remove TC at will (by the player, probably in the promotion screen too).
2. Lower RR of TC to +2 (from +3).
I personally prefer the first, of course, but it may consume too much time to code it while Johan certainly doesn't have a lot of spare hours.
Anyway - it would be a disadvantage for ai not to be able to remove TC's. Any WC would be easier too.
1. Ability to remove TC at will (by the player, probably in the promotion screen too).
2. Lower RR of TC to +2 (from +3).
I personally prefer the first, of course, but it may consume too much time to code it while Johan certainly doesn't have a lot of spare hours.
Anyway - it would be a disadvantage for ai not to be able to remove TC's. Any WC would be easier too
.
France did not, to my knowledge, have the biggest economy, that honour greatly corresponding to the Spanish, with their huge american possesions, or the strongest economy, in the sense of correct practices, a honour that would go to the English. Still, France, with their rich home provinces, and their relatively open markets, could easily qualify for number 2 to 4 for that categories.
What France really had was a huge population comparred to the rest of the European powers, that supplied a seemingly endless manpower for their wars, and that could overexhaust its opponents. And that was the key to French supremacy from the second half of the XVII century.
France could easily have nearly two and a half times more people than Spain, and after the 30 years war, could quiet outnumber the HRE.
With the advent of very good generals like La Turenne and the decline of the Spanish army, France could take the lead in Land tech, that the Spanish troops had (more or less up to the first quarter of the XVII century).
What France really had was a huge population comparred to the rest of the European powers, that supplied a seemingly endless manpower for their wars, and that could overexhaust its opponents. And that was the key to French supremacy from the second half of the XVII century.
France could easily have nearly two and a half times more people than Spain, and after the 30 years war, could quiet outnumber the HRE.
With the advent of very good generals like La Turenne and the decline of the Spanish army, France could take the lead in Land tech, that the Spanish troops had (more or less up to the first quarter of the XVII century).
That is an interesting analysis. However, I'd argue that even if a Tax Collector can be profitable, it doesn't make sense for them to be such a painful choice compared to all the other infrastructure improvements. Some pain, sure, which is why I'd say a +2 RR would be a good compromise... +1 would be too low, as a TC/CJ combination should still give you some negative on the RR side.
I kind of like the +2 RR idea. Less work on Johan's part and actually . . . it just kinda makes sense considering a tax collector isn't exactly doubling the taxes collected. It's just one more ducat and such.
Bah
Six months?
I suggested this at least 18 months ago but it doesn't seem to be happening. I still think it would be logical, but I've given up waiting for it.
I also agree that +3 revolt risk is excessive.
I agree +3 RR is too high. I also think +1 income per year is a bit too low. If you think about it the +3 RR is quite a huge amount considering you only get +1 income. I mean most European provinces are actually in the 20-30 yearly income bracket so the extra 1 is a small percentage.
I'm no historian but it would surprise me if most European countries didn't have local tax collecting mechanisms (which I believe is what tax inspectors represent) quite early on in their history, so I think there should be a clear monetary advantage, enough to outweigh the RR, to having them - unless of course you have a really unstable country.
Of course, realistically they should really convey a percentage benefit (probably based on both tax and trade).
However beefing up the income, reducing the revolt risk and possibly uppin the cost would seem fair to me as:
a) with the increased maintenance, there is less money to go round - this could make up for it;
b) there would be a clear case for tax inspectors which would be more historical (IMHO);
c) it would help the AI because even the most war-mongering AI nations build tax inspectors almost everywhere.
EDIT
and d) it would help the AI because it is not so hot on quelling revolts (this is part of what I meant with (c) but I wanted to make it explicit).
I'm no historian but it would surprise me if most European countries didn't have local tax collecting mechanisms (which I believe is what tax inspectors represent) quite early on in their history, so I think there should be a clear monetary advantage, enough to outweigh the RR, to having them - unless of course you have a really unstable country.
Of course, realistically they should really convey a percentage benefit (probably based on both tax and trade).
However beefing up the income, reducing the revolt risk and possibly uppin the cost would seem fair to me as:
a) with the increased maintenance, there is less money to go round - this could make up for it;
b) there would be a clear case for tax inspectors which would be more historical (IMHO);
c) it would help the AI because even the most war-mongering AI nations build tax inspectors almost everywhere.
EDIT
and d) it would help the AI because it is not so hot on quelling revolts (this is part of what I meant with (c) but I wanted to make it explicit).
Last edited:
Another strong reason to at least reevaluate the TC's is the changes made to war exhaustion. During the "old" WE, the effects of the +3 revoltrisk was significantly smaller than it is now. So, IMHO, either give the option to remove them, as no sane player with at least a few conquest ambitions would want to build them anyway, or make them more endurable by reducing the added revoltrisk to perhaps +2.
I doubt it'll happen, but IMHO opinion it would perhaps be better to have a "taxation slider", similar to the research sliders, where you choose how hard to tax your realms, affecting tax incomes and revoltrisk, and possibly other factors. A downside with it would be that taxation wouldn't be a "local" choice as it is now, but I don't know if it was common to tax different parts of the kingdom differently during the EUII timnespan...
I doubt it'll happen, but IMHO opinion it would perhaps be better to have a "taxation slider", similar to the research sliders, where you choose how hard to tax your realms, affecting tax incomes and revoltrisk, and possibly other factors. A downside with it would be that taxation wouldn't be a "local" choice as it is now, but I don't know if it was common to tax different parts of the kingdom differently during the EUII timnespan...
RR +2 sounds good to me and if that can't be changed howzabout incresing it's effectiveness with incomes.