Why is decreasing tariffs more expensive than increasing tariffs?

[delpiero1234]

Title says it all. I don't see any logic behind making decreasing more expensive. In my opinion increasing/decreasing tariffs should not cost any ADM points at all. If it has to cost Monarch Points then change it to diplo points but no precious ADM points.

 

[Shogunate Hokan]

i don't think you should lose prestige for appointing and keeping the same or different guy for colonial nations, that shit is B/S

 

[aitaituo]

It costs more to decrease to discourage you from decreasing them.

I do agree that it's annoying that they cost ADM points and only give small increases/decreases. Paradox knows damn well that ADM is golden.

 

[Novacat]

I find it amusing that its best to just not touch tarriffs at all, its not like money means anything in the game and generally your colonial vassals need it more than you do.

 

[sinkingmist]

Increasing tariffs also increases LD more than decreasing tariffs reduces it.
So even if both cost no ADM power, one step increase and one step decrease results in a net gain of LD (which in most cases is bad).

I've modded it so both increases and decreases are ADM free, and see no problems (for myself, and for AI).

 

[marnues]

It requires government changes, so of course it requires ADM. Convincing parliament that we should decrease that which makes us fat requires more work than going the other way. What's all the fuss about?

 

[Isaios]

Yeah, ADM is probably the right cost (though DIP might fit since it's could be called a diplomatic move), but I find the price too high, or the steps too small.

Maybe if by paying the cost, you could set the Tariff rate to whatever you wanted it'd be a bit easier to digest.

 

[Talamare]

I support it having a token cost, like 10 per change...