Should the income penalty for wrong religion be removed?

[mrnoun]

"malus

n : apple trees; found throughout temperate zones of the northern hemisphere [syn: Malus, genus Malus]"

So, technically, it is a word in the English language. Sorry.

To get back on topic, I agree that it'd be nice to see a change here. I'd like to see bonuses/penalties become multiplicative rather than additive, since it does make more sense to me. But it doesn't make sense to me to have religion/culture alter income twice, once with the standard 30% penalty, and a second time for revolt risk. Unifying the two by increasing the RR for non-state religion/culture would simplify matters.

 

[Stonewall]

Originally posted by Edge
Well, the huge tax penalties for wrong religion and wrong culture are clearly unrealistic. Economic benefit was the very reason for conquering such areas, and I have heard no evidence presented that people of the wrong religion or culture pay less taxes. All people in every time pay taxes under coercion, not because they say "geez, I agree with the religion and culture of the state, I think I'll send them 30% of my income!" In fact, the poster brought up a great point that the Christian provinces of the OE might have actually paid more taxes because they had to pay the so-called "infidel tax".

I would disagree here. I don't think the tax penalties are "clearly" unrealistic at all. Taxation doesn't just represent the amount of money collected, its the entire tax system. Thus if you have a German speaking lord trying to collect taxes from Farsi speaking speaking peasants, there is going to be some inefficiency, which is well represented by wrong-culture penalty. In an ideal game the cultures would have a relationship system where French vs German gives less penalty thatn say Japanese vs English. but in the absence of such system, the way EU2 deals with the religious/cultural barriers is quite good.

There were lots of reasons why countries went to war and conquered provinces. Some dealt with economics, but many didn't.

That said, I like the new proposal by Onslaught. I also totally agree with Peter's frustration with the additive (as opposed to multiplicative) bonus/penalty system.

 

[unmerged(18418)]

Originally posted by mrnoun
"malus

n : apple trees; found throughout temperate zones of the northern hemisphere [syn: Malus, genus Malus]"

So, technically, it is a word in the English language. Sorry.

You've just proved my point. Thank you.

 

[unmerged(17303)]

I think he meant Malice?

Eh. I don't know.

 

[unmerged(10802)]

I've always thought it stupid how the revolt risk for religion differences is the same all round- the christians should all have small penaltys for each other especially protestant and reformed. Sure there was protestant-catholic trouble but that was caused by the catholics trying to convert the protestants and for failed conversions you still get rebels and there is plenty of events to represent this. Certainly in England there were many catholic areas which were OK on the whole.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

Originally posted by Friedrich II
I think he meant Malice?

Eh. I don't know.

Malus. Opposite of Bonus. I think its Latin.
Anyway, its been used quite often in various DP and game mechanics discssions, so its acceptable here, if not by the losers who run dictionaries. Most dictionaries don't even have diploannex

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I have to say, I like Peter's suggestion. Religious tolerance was common enough in Europe that there should be a sensible way to represent it in the game.

 

[unmerged(6006)]

Taxes are paid because the people are compelled to pay. So whether you like the government or not is not relevant to how much tax you pay.

Clearly not someone who has ever been to Italy. . .

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
[..]
(Actually, what I would really like to see would be for the modifiers to be multiplicative rather than additive. The current system has a large number of peculiarities attached.)

Maybe a combination of add/multiply functions would be even better, so that you can't get away with zero x zero =zero RR.
That sounds like the ideal answer, but then I'm not a mathematician. Or a programmer.

 

[VinceV]

Originally posted by Edge


However, all this is pretty much irrelevant, because the penalties were not put in because they are historical or realistic. They were put in for reasons of "game balance". In the minds of the designers, something has to be done to stop out of control meglomanical humans from building huge non-historical empires. This is their solution.

I think Edge is bang-on here; at least I can't see it any other way. It seemed to be the same reason for the new TC rule because it was too easy to just conquer lots of territory, avoid the +3 RR of having a tax collector promoted, and still get the tax.
People come back and say "Well, you can't collect taxes without a tax collector" which sounds well and good and logical, but I don't think it was that over-riding logic that brought about the new rule; moreover it was to discourage expansion but limiting the immediate benefits of taking over new territories.(and this trend continues, too many warmongers 'ruining' too many MP games maybe )

I am in favour of Onslaught's proposal; it's perhaps his best one yet although the recency of my Japanese experience may be weighing heavily on my mind. In that game, I took over the great trading centre of Malacca. Add up the non-state-culture penalty, non-state-religion penalty, no land connection to capital penalty, Konfucian religion penalty, +3 nationalism revolt risk penalty and you get a grand total of ZERO percent income. Did I miss any there? I do not think this is all too exceptional a case, either. Sure, the Malaccans aren't going to be ready to give all this money to their new Japanese overlords, so keep the non culture and RR penalties. Let them hide their wealth from me and pretend they're poor, I expect that. But there has GOT to be some incentive for me to grab that city from them; especially considering there is no way to simulate the vast quantities of cash which were sometimes gained when nations plundered newly conquered areas.

 

[Mattias]

I am in favour of Onslaught's proposal

I understand the game-designers intentions BUT one still has to keep some of the real-world reasons to conquer foreign lands - and yes trade-centres always were juicy to try to grab! The Swedish efforts to make the baltic sea an inland sea and the vast Portuguese conquests in around the Indian ocean comes to mind. Of course the benefits wasn't as bis as they expected (esp for the Portuguese) but they sure made some income from their possesions. /M

 

[Filou]

Originally posted by Owl
Maybe a combination of add/multiply functions would be even better, so that you can't get away with zero x zero =zero RR.
That sounds like the ideal answer, but then I'm not a mathematician. Or a programmer.

30% penalty means you multiply by 0.7
0 penalty means you multiply by 1.
No problem here.
You have some learning to do if you want to be wise Owl

And if we take PE example of zero income and do it multiplicative instead of additive, one gets 0.7 * 0.7 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 31.36% of normal income.
That's pretty low, but still better than nothing.

Anyhow, the thingy with double hit of income penalty due to religious diference plus RR should really be corrected.

 

[OLDTIMER]

Agree to all posters thinking that penalties for "wrong religion" and "wrong culture" shoulde be decreased. Because in real life
tolerance generates in most cases gratitude, people like to adopt habits of the rulers and cultures can mingle and adapt to each other.
Examples? Poland, Lithuania and Sicily under the Normans and
Swabians.
So during a certain timespace the penalties should gradually decrease.
Rgds
Oldtimer

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by VinceV
I am in favour of Onslaught's proposal; it's perhaps his best one yet

Thank you... I think.




Perhaps we who request a change should write up one or two proposals and post them (along with a poll, perhaps with the following options: "I like A", "I like both but prefer A over B", "I like both but can't decide which I think is better", "I like both but prefer B over A", "I like B", "I would like to see a different approach" and "Change is bad, things are good as they are")?

 

[Szordrin]

Simple and workable. I'll go with Peter's sugestion!

 

[Varyar]

Although I liked Onslaughts suggestion, I think Peters suggestion would be both more realistic and easier to implement. The revoltrisk proposed is perhaps a bit too high though. I'd prefer +2%/+4% or perhaps +3%/+4%, but +3%/+5% is too much.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by Varyar
Although I liked Onslaughts suggestion, I think Peters suggestion would be both more realistic and easier to implement. The revoltrisk proposed is perhaps a bit too high though. I'd prefer +2%/+4% or perhaps +3%/+4%, but +3%/+5% is too much.

Aren't our suggestions pretty much the same, except for different numbers?

Anyway, there seems to be a reasonably strong support for replacing the current unavoidable economical penalties (both religion and culture) with RR bonuses ("bonii"?) that would, in effect, have the potential to result in almost as big economic penalties (though avoidable by pursuing peace and stability) and make wrong-culture, wrong-religion provinces harder to control.


Shall we go with +3% (+4%) for both culture and religion, then, and start propagating the truth to the masses?

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Filou
30% penalty means you multiply by 0.7
0 penalty means you multiply by 1.
No problem here.
You have some learning to do if you want to be wise Owl
[...].

Wisdom lies in avoiding mathematics.

mine does, anyway.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Owl
Wisdom lies in avoiding mathematics.

Not really. In mathematics you will find true beauty.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally posted by Onslaught
Aren't our suggestions pretty much the same, except for different numbers?

Anyway, there seems to be a reasonably strong support for replacing the current unavoidable economical penalties (both religion and culture) with RR bonuses ("bonii"?) that would, in effect, have the potential to result in almost as big economic penalties (though avoidable by pursuing peace and stability) and make wrong-culture, wrong-religion provinces harder to control.


Shall we go with +3% (+4%) for both culture and religion, then, and start propagating the truth to the masses?

Definately sounds like a good proposal to me. I have long thought that the current inflexible system was strange, modifying it to this system would be much better.