Aurvandil's War Machine

[Darksun]

What tax rates are you running in the cities? According to the game, 14% is high. I would have thought that 23% would get you tossed out right away.

Also, remember that Aurvandil (until recently) only had one city.

[De-Legro]

The capital of a small realm, with the support of the Lord or a good Courtier can often have 20%+ tax rates.

[Darksun]

I'm obviously playing this wrong then

[DoctorHarte]

What tax rates are you running in the cities? According to the game, 14% is high. I would have thought that 23% would get you tossed out right away.

We have one courtier and 4 knight plus my estate in the city which boosts both Authoirty and Production to 250%+. 4 days until my next tax: tax income   23 %   1361 gold

[dustole]

I've been running 25% tax rate in Golden Farrow for a couple weeks now...

With an investment, currently 108% production, I am projected to bring in 3200 gold.   1914 gold to me and 1286 to my 4 knights. 

[Bedwyr]

What tax rates are you running in the cities? According to the game, 14% is high. I would have thought that 23% would get you tossed out right away.

I ran Askileon at 19% with Koli only working on it, and I've seen regions run at 25% with lord in residence and proper buro support (I say buro because this was before the new class system).

[Chenier]

Again, a positive return in a city.

I just invested in Chesney:
You have now invested 370 gold in this region, boosting production by 69 % to 169 %. Your advisors hope for a return of ca. 420 gold, if everything works well.

Positive returns in a city.

Looks pretty consistent to me. Investments yield positive returns in cities; might not elsewhere.

I invest consistently in cities, consistently at a loss. Perhaps that's because I invest at 100% production.

[JPierreD]

I invest consistently in cities, consistently at a loss. Perhaps that's because I invest at 100% production.

My investment in Giask was made at 99% production. And the expected gain is high.

[Vellos]

I invest consistently in cities, consistently at a loss. Perhaps that's because I invest at 100% production.

Very strange.

Maybe Tom has already coded in a diminishing return? Maybe frequency of investment diminishes returns?

Or maybe it's not about production, but about population? Are the cities where you invest at full population?

Is the tax rate atypical?

Is there a very large militia presence?

Has it suffered any anomalies in the past week that could cause the game to make erroneous predictions if those predictions were made on the previous week's info?

I've personally never made an investment with negative returns that I can remember.

[De-Legro]

Very strange.

Maybe Tom has already coded in a diminishing return? Maybe frequency of investment diminishes returns?

Or maybe it's not about production, but about population? Are the cities where you invest at full population?

Is the tax rate atypical?

Is there a very large militia presence?

Has it suffered any anomalies in the past week that could cause the game to make erroneous predictions if those predictions were made on the previous week's info?

I've personally never made an investment with negative returns that I can remember.

Yes very interesting, in my experience cities generally provide positive returns as well. Other regions are a bit more varied but cities generally provide good returns.

[Galvez]

I believe it is part of the system that constant investments don't pay off.

[Chenier]

Very strange.

Maybe Tom has already coded in a diminishing return? Maybe frequency of investment diminishes returns?

Or maybe it's not about production, but about population? Are the cities where you invest at full population?

Is the tax rate atypical?

Is there a very large militia presence?

Has it suffered any anomalies in the past week that could cause the game to make erroneous predictions if those predictions were made on the previous week's info?

I've personally never made an investment with negative returns that I can remember.

My investments are not THAT frequent. Not every week, but maybe every 2-4 weeks on BT.

Typically very little militia, full population, above-average tax rates.

I'm not in Fheuvenem to do another test, though, and I don't want to invest in Paisly with that 50% vacant estates and 25% wildlands... that would seem rather pointless, with that awful tax efficiency.

[Anaris]

Very strange.

Maybe Tom has already coded in a diminishing return? Maybe frequency of investment diminishes returns?

Or maybe it's not about production, but about population? Are the cities where you invest at full population?

Is the tax rate atypical?

Is there a very large militia presence?

Has it suffered any anomalies in the past week that could cause the game to make erroneous predictions if those predictions were made on the previous week's info?

I've personally never made an investment with negative returns that I can remember.

Or maybe...the estimate given when you make the investment isn't a perfect one, but rather a guesstimate based on current conditions and a basic knowledge of how production changes over time in some particular version of normal conditions.

There are many, many factors that could make the return estimate more or less than what you actually get back.

[Vellos]

Or maybe...the estimate given when you make the investment isn't a perfect one, but rather a guesstimate based on current conditions and a basic knowledge of how production changes over time in some particular version of normal conditions.

There are many, many factors that could make the return estimate more or less than what you actually get back.

Very possible.

But the two people who have posted on here with detailed analysis of returns evinced very accurate estimations by the game. So maybe those were flukes, not a huge sample size, but I'm inclined to think the estimate can at least be trust to get the sign of the returns correct, if maybe not the exact amount.

[Tom]

But the two people who have posted on here with detailed analysis of returns evinced very accurate estimations by the game. So maybe those were flukes, not a huge sample size, but I'm inclined to think the estimate can at least be trust to get the sign of the returns correct, if maybe not the exact amount.

The estimate is very good if conditions in the region don't change much. Most people understand the warning it gives and invest in regions away from battles, etc. - i.e. in stable regions. Which means the estimate will be very near.