So apparently there's a lot of people unhappy with the estate system?
I find that intriguing because I have to say that it has been good to me.
I've been duke under all tax systems since 2004 and I have to say that in my opinion this is hands-down the best one. All it demands is the willingness to put up with boring work in exchange for lots and lots of gold.
I am the guy who uses this system to aim for 10 knights as duke of a mediocre city and takes in everyone else who comes along (currently I've got 14 but during the invasion the same city supported 18 knights - which was the whole realm at the time). In another city I used exuberant estate support to make the city's normal income with 1/3 of the population.
My point is, if there are landless nobles in a realm where you're Duke: get started already and reap the heaps of gold and possible political power that come free with every city. If you have too little nobles: do something to attract new ones.
Lords of poor or distant regions however do have too much trouble attracting knights in the first place in my opinion.
And taking new regions could also use some tweaking to benefit realms who are short on nobles.
I kind of like the large patches of wasteland that have arisen on some fronts though. That is war how it should be fought: kill your enemies, burn their lands. On the other hand, before the blight Thalmarkin had to let several of our Northern rebellious, undead-spawning badlands go rogue in order to be able to expand one region South. 3 badlands for a strategically important stronghold is not too bad a trade but not all realms have the possibility of completely shielding a rogue area from other realms _and_ have a strategically important region bordering right next to them.
Therefore there should I believe always remain the possibility to take regions for tactical or even purely expansionist purposes.
Has anyone else had positive or negative experiences with the estate system?
I wrote an article on Estates in The Journal (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/The_Journal) in September 2009. I pretty much still stand by all that now. In fact, I can hardly believe that it's been what? Three or four years since the noose of estates was first placed around BattleMaster's neck - and it's still there, unchanged, choking the life out of us.
I'm sure the trickle of new players we get nowadays really enjoy missing out on proper wars because their realm doesn't have enough nobles to even contemplate expansion. Instead they get sent ridiculous distances across entire continents for a battle or two. That or get stuck with maintenance duty. It isn't satisfying. And while it's all well and good saying realms should do more to woo nobles, we're all drawing from an ever diminishing pool. Now there are fewer than 800 active players.
Estates are killing BattleMaster.
I'm with Revan. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the way it ended up working out was godawful. Dev team is actively working on fixing it, though, and the new estate system combined with open offers (so that lords and Dukes who need knights put out offers that people can see when starting a new character or emigrating or joining a new realm) should fix a lot, and bring in some nice new options (have your estate support your religion, for instance :D ).
Quote from: Revan on July 07, 2011, 01:52:33 AM
. Instead they get sent ridiculous distances across entire continents for a battle or two.
I agree with most of what you're saying but, I think that alliances with neighbors are what cause armies to march all the way across the continent. For example, Barony of Makar marching all the way south across Atamara, or Oriolton attacking Giblot--everyone knows that the march is for two reasons:
1. get rid of "too much peace" messages
2. leadership is too cowardly/lazy/friendly to attack an enemy that can actually fight back--ie their neighbors.
Even in Darka, we can't attack Talerium, so we have to march halfway to Makar and around the stupid lake, just to comply with a stupid treaty arrangement to stay out of Talerium.
While the execution might not be what we all hoped and dreamed (at this point its more like a pyramid scheme) I am a huge fan of the concept and really want to see it be successful.
Story time. So way back in the day (2007/8-ish?) I had a character in Caligus (EC) who was promoted to Baron of Scio, a small mountain region next to the capital with 800 pop, just enough food to feed itself, and a gold output of ~150. Now, 1 knight was far more than adequate to maintain order and most people probably would have stopped there and gotten fat off the income. But my character was in this for the glory and prestige that comes with becoming a lord, which he decided (for a number of reasons) to show by having a lot of knights serving him. Long story short: regular merciful courts and about 40 estate points in authority let him/me crank up the tax rate over 20% and keep 6+1 knights with respectable weekly incomes without losing any control or production in the region.
In short: Inherit very poor barony, add lots of estates, rival marches in both income and vassals, flaunt what ya got
Quote from: egamma on July 07, 2011, 05:53:23 AM
2. leadership is too cowardly/lazy/friendly to attack an enemy that can actually fight back--ie their neighbors.
Kind of, but not really. If you don't have the nobles for expansion, attacking neighbors is motivated by the same "Get Rid of Too Much Peace" mentality as attacking people across the continent. If all you need is a battle every week or two to stave off TMP, why attack a neighbor whose territory you don't have the nobles to take and will only results in some of your own regions probably getting looted, when you can just attack someone far away, keep your regions healthy, and still stave off TMP? I think if people had the excess nobles to attack their enemy and, say, take one of their duchies, they would do it.
Look at Darka when they took the Massillion Duchy from Eston. They had the nobles to expand, they wanted to fight, so it didn't matter that Eston and Darka had been in a trend of working together lately, they just attacked us cause we were close and weaker and took a duchy. Easy as that.
QuoteLong story short: regular merciful courts and about 40 estate points in authority let him/me crank up the tax rate over 20% and keep 6+1 knights with respectable weekly incomes without losing any control or production in the region.
In short: Inherit very poor barony, add lots of estates, rival marches in both income and vassals, flaunt what ya got
You must have a very, very different concept of what "respectable weekly income" is!
A rough estimate says that running 20% (at 150 gold) gets you ~215 and, 25% gets you ~268.
The 268 evenly divided by 7 works out to average income of 38 gold a week. While impressive
from a poor region, that's far from respectable income and you also had to run court to maintain
that? With such income it would take years to build and enlarge a single recruitment center...
(a reasonable infantry center took me 100+300 and needs another 500 to go to size 3)
You also have a very very strange concept of fun.
Run court all the time and wave your big knight dick.
If you think this is a reason why you want the estate system to succeed I think uh should be removed.
This is one of those moments were I'm not sure I'm inhabiting the same planet as some of my other BM players. I don't know where these promised lands are with realms literally drowning in nobles so they can hire six, 10, however many nobles at once per region. But as much as two years ago there were places in BattleMaster feeling the severe strain of noble shortage. That was with 1000 active players. Now we have 800 and the problem is only worse.
Why anyone is happy with a core game mechanic that we have to consider OOC before we even act IC is beyond me. The reason why places like Oritolon march across entire continents is because they don't even have enough nobles to hold what they have, let alone pick an expansionary war with a neighbour. Back in the day folks, we used to be able to go to war with our neighbours. Region stability wasn't tied to stacking up Knights. War came easy and it was fun. Now the first question any council member must ask when war is raised is 'do we have the nobles?'
This ain't TravelMaster. We're not planning holidays. If I started BattleMaster now and my only experience of battle and war was after a week or two's march every so often where nothing is risked and nothing is gained, I'd probably have stopped playing sharpish. Estates have done far more to harm BattleMaster's core experiences than player conservatism (as reflected by Too Much peace) ever did.
Quote from: Revan on July 07, 2011, 11:58:59 AM
This is one of those moments were I'm not sure I'm inhabiting the same planet as some of my other BM players. I don't know where these promised lands are with realms literally drowning in nobles so they can hire six, 10, however many nobles at once per region. But as much as two years ago there were places in BattleMaster feeling the severe strain of noble shortage. That was with 1000 active players. Now we have 800 and the problem is only worse.
Why anyone is happy with a core game mechanic that we have to consider OOC before we even act IC is beyond me. The reason why places like Oritolon march across entire continents is because they don't even have enough nobles to hold what they have, let alone pick an expansionary war with a neighbour. Back in the day folks, we used to be able to go to war with our neighbours. Region stability wasn't tied to stacking up Knights. War came easy and it was fun. Now the first question any council member must ask when war is raised is 'do we have the nobles?'
This ain't TravelMaster. We're not planning holidays. If I started BattleMaster now and my only experience of battle and war was after a week or two's march every so often where nothing is risked and nothing is gained, I'd probably have stopped playing sharpish. Estates have done far more to harm BattleMaster's core experiences than player conservatism (as reflected by Too Much peace) ever did.
Yes, well spoken and I think your views are held by a great many battlemaster players.
As I understand it, the new estate system is on its way so we can just wait for that :)
In fact, while I'm here grumping, here's a link to a thread I killed with a veritable essay on what I think has happened to BattleMaster in the last six years and what the problems are. Seems as Estates, whilst a big factor, can't be the only reason why the playership is declining. I mean, I'm sure we could solve a lot of problems by simply closing a continent and adjusting the number of nobles you can have on Dwilight, but that would be a very sad day and doesn't really address the how and the why. Estates as presently constituted would work fine if we had the players for it.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,196.msg2454.html#msg2454
Quote from: Perth on July 07, 2011, 07:15:01 AMLook at Darka when they took the Massillion Duchy from Eston. They had the nobles to expand, they wanted to fight, so it didn't matter that Eston and Darka had been in a trend of working together lately, they just attacked us cause we were close and weaker and took a duchy. Easy as that.
Lies! Our attack was a pre-emptive strike to head off the planned Estonite invasion of Darka! >:(
You know it's true... ;D
I thought it was because of the Duke of Massillion running his mouth about Darka :P
Quote from: Revan on July 07, 2011, 12:17:53 PM
I mean, I'm sure we could solve a lot of problems by simply closing a continent and adjusting the number of nobles you can have on Dwilight, but that would be a very sad day and doesn't really address the how and the why.
I think closing a continent would be an excellent idea. The problem is, which one?
My suggestions are: Beluterra or the Colonies. Of course, everyone has their favorite continent, so here are my explanations:
Beluterra: half the continent is gone anyway.
Colonies: politics are at a standstill, with nobody wanting to take on Lukon. It's a pretty boring place to play.
I have a few suggestions...
1. Allow each player 1 character/continent
2. Allow each player additional characters if they are a Lord and additional characters cannot be region Lords. (this would allow for expansion to a new region soften the blow to current estates by allowing the new region lord to start a new character with an estate)
That'll just cause Lords to park their second characters in their region as clones. Hardly helpful. And it would be a rather pointless solution to a problem that is already planned on being fixed when the estate reforms come through.
Quote from: AlexR on July 07, 2011, 08:03:50 AM
You must have a very, very different concept of what "respectable weekly income" is!
Well, my numbers might be off since it was over 4 years ago but it worked out to around 50 gold each which, at that time on the EC was the average character income. And who said building a recruitment center was even on the list of things that needed to be accomplished?
Quote from: Kai on July 07, 2011, 11:02:21 AM
You also have a very very strange concept of fun.
Run court all the time and wave your big knight dick.
Well, yeah. It wasn't just clicking a button once a day and writing one message saying "I'm important look at my knights!". It was the interaction of 7 people roleplaying at once. I won't go into detail since this is off-topic enough as is, but to put it bluntly the fun came from the interactions and dynamics of the mini-duchy I built rather than watching my 50 man unit silently beat the crap out of some other guy's 50 man unit every 3 days.
Quote from: Revan on July 07, 2011, 11:58:59 AM
The reason why places like Oritolon march across entire continents is because they don't even have enough nobles to hold what they have, let alone pick an expansionary war with a neighbour. Back in the day folks, we used to be able to go to war with our neighbours.
This ain't TravelMaster.
I think this is part of the mindset that creates this issue with estates. I have one real question and several rhetoricals:
Why must wars simply be fought for conquest? Why is it that the only way to wage war is to forcibly remove the other realm's influence from a region then put your own nobles in their place? Why can't you use gunboat diplomacy to force the lord and his knights to defect? Why can't you go on a raid, steal some gold, and go home? If a realm insults you/your king/your mother, why can't you simply crush their standing army and force them to appologize without conquering half of their territory?
Hell, look at Dwilight. People whine and complain about how the continent is so big and that they are lucky to have 1 knight per region
and yet realms are still expanding into the unclaimed territory. Its not purely the fault of the estate system. Everyone wants to conquer new regions and spread out the few nobles in the realm because it gives them a chance to move up in the pyramid scheme that is feudalism. I won't say if this is good or bad, but you can't only blame the system when the choices people make are just as responsible.
QuoteThat'll just cause Lords to park their second characters in their region as clones. Hardly helpful. And it would be a rather pointless solution to a problem that is already planned on being fixed when the estate reforms come through.
I am sure there is a better way to allow additional nobles for existing players. For example, allow more nobles and 3 per continent but with a limit of 1 per realm. I find it great to play in 2 different realms and could probably play in 3, but even the best/eldest players who have 2 nobles in the same realm regularly send messages from the wrong sender and generally don't do a very good job of separating them.
QuoteWell, my numbers might be off since it was over 4 years ago but it worked out to around 50 gold each which, at that time on the EC was the average character income. And who said building a recruitment center was even on the list of things that needed to be accomplished?
Well, all of my Lord characters seem to be building RCs and walls (where possible). Perhaps because I got the war-torn regions that were demolished. As a lord I want to build up my region and the realm needs recruitment centers...
As far as income -- 38 is a far cry from 50. I doubt that the average _lord_ income was ever 50 (you'd hope to make more than your knights). Anyone receiving 40 or even 50 gold ends up relying on help from a wealthy noble -- assuming you're doing anything at all that causes you to lose men. Plus, as had been rightly pointed out, there simply aren't enough nobles. Getting a 2nd noble is pretty difficult, even when I can offer well above 50/week.
Quote from: Sacha on July 07, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
That'll just cause Lords to park their second characters in their region as clones. Hardly helpful. And it would be a rather pointless solution to a problem that is already planned on being fixed when the estate reforms come through.
Heh, I thought that was happening already? Even I've ended up doing it. One of the only sure ways to try and boost your nobles these days and keep your realm ticking over is to employ two characters in the same realm. Which is another thing that can't help the atmosphere because that's essentially, like the warfare issue, a meta decision. I don't really want two characters in the same realm but life's gonna be hard whatever I do.
I know I probably shouldn't still be banging on about estates, but I'm dubious as to whether we might actually soon live without their debilitating pall over our heads. Now I live in fear that the changes will be mostly cosmetic. Until I see firm details, I'm going to be sceptical :-\
Quote from: J-Duds on July 07, 2011, 07:25:23 PM
I think this is part of the mindset that creates this issue with estates. I have one real question and several rhetoricals: Why must wars simply be fought for conquest?
You're missing the point. Conquest is no longer even a
choice for the majority of realms. And it isn't anything to do with anything any of us are doing in-character, in-game. It's to do with the fact that the player base has diminished. Though considering that wars of conquest
had to take place on your own borders and not on the other side of the continent, yes, I wouldn't mind at all if it once again loomed large in BM diplomacy.
50 gold? 30 odd gold?
what's so good about that? are the dukes paying proper prices for food? chances are they aren't.
did estates make lords pay their knights more? did trading make dukes pay the rurals more? (and thus enhancing income of lowly knights)
chances are.. no. but is it the fault of estates/trading.. or is it the fault of players? far too many players are nationalists and we hear drivel about low prices or whatever for the good of the realm.
That's because the players *gasp* like being on a team. Because BattleMaster is advertised as a team game. And like it or not, the Realm is the Team. Given the way the current system works, and I don't see this changing ever, let alone soon, it's going to stay that way. Realms that work together to get things done will be more efficient and more effective than realms that don't.
Quote from: fodder on July 07, 2011, 09:20:50 PM
we hear drivel about low prices or whatever for the good of the realm.
This I've never understood. Low prices for food do not benefit the realm.
High prices for food are good for the realm, as that gets more gold to the rural lords and knights which means you have more units at a reasonable level and like it or not, the most efficient army is (leaving aside considerations like looting types, razing fortifications, TO's, etc) an army with every unit the same size because of the diminishing return in CS for larger units.
Low food prices benefit the Dukes, and
only the Dukes. There's nothing good for the realm in them at all.
Quote from: Bedwyr on July 08, 2011, 02:12:53 AM
This I've never understood. Low prices for food do not benefit the realm. High prices for food are good for the realm, as that gets more gold to the rural lords and knights which means you have more units at a reasonable level and like it or not, the most efficient army is (leaving aside considerations like looting types, razing fortifications, TO's, etc) an army with every unit the same size because of the diminishing return in CS for larger units.
Low food prices benefit the Dukes, and only the Dukes. There's nothing good for the realm in them at all.
It is only good for the realm if the Dukes would prefer to allow the cities to starve rather then pay a decent price for food :)
Quote from: Bedwyr on July 08, 2011, 02:12:53 AM
Low food prices benefit the Dukes, and only the Dukes. There's nothing good for the realm in them at all.
Damn
communist. ...... ;)
Quote from: Bedwyr on July 08, 2011, 02:12:53 AM
This I've never understood. Low prices for food do not benefit the realm. High prices for food are good for the realm, as that gets more gold to the rural lords and knights which means you have more units at a reasonable level and like it or not, the most efficient army is (leaving aside considerations like looting types, razing fortifications, TO's, etc) an army with every unit the same size because of the diminishing return in CS for larger units.
Low food prices benefit the Dukes, and only the Dukes. There's nothing good for the realm in them at all.
Usually this is handled in a more direct and honestly simpler manner where nobody has to stuff with the trading. Lords send food when dukes want it, dukes sponsor armies and hand out gold. Trading was one of the most unpopular classes ever, of course nobody is going to touch this.
Quote from: Bedwyr on July 08, 2011, 02:12:53 AM
This I've never understood. Low prices for food do not benefit the realm. High prices for food are good for the realm, as that gets more gold to the rural lords and knights which means you have more units at a reasonable level and like it or not, the most efficient army is (leaving aside considerations like looting types, razing fortifications, TO's, etc) an army with every unit the same size because of the diminishing return in CS for larger units.
Low food prices benefit the Dukes, and only the Dukes. There's nothing good for the realm in them at all.
Depends on what the Duke does with his money. I paid my Lords zilch for their food, they just wheeled it into my city by the cartload. But, out of the 800-1,000 gold I made every week, a good 500-700 flowed to the rural Lords. Everybody was happy, and the ducal army was strong and efficient.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2011, 07:03:18 AM
Usually this is handled in a more direct and honestly simpler manner where nobody has to stuff with the trading. Lords send food when dukes want it, dukes sponsor armies and hand out gold. Trading was one of the most unpopular classes ever, of course nobody is going to touch this.
The entire thing can be handled without Traders though.
Quote from: De-Legro on July 08, 2011, 01:06:53 PMThe entire thing can be handled without Traders though.
But it requires people to do something. And that means they have to
learn how to do something. And most people just don't
want to learn. Then there's the occasional "I don't use that feature, it has too many bugs", despite the fact that they don't know of any specific bugs, but there
must be bugs in it because someone once said there were bugs... Add in the confusion of the interface that has both the ox cart and caravan systems, manual automated caravans, automatic automated caravans, player trader caravans, manual purchase orders, auto-generated warehouse purchase orders, automated transfer settings, etc., etc., and it's interface overload for many players, spread across too many screens. (Or maybe not enough screens? Or poor placement choice on the screens that do exist? Or poor naming choices?) Sure,
I understand the interface, but that's probably because I helped Tim work it out. And maybe that's part of the problem, because I'm not an interface designer. The food prediction system on the Trade Settings page mimics my personal Excel spreadsheet that I used to do food transfers when I was banker of Astrum.
Somebody said something about poor regions not being possible to give a decent share to 6 knights.
Check this out: http://imageshack.us/f/838/bmomglloringel.png/
(mind that i have only 2 knights, region is quite far from capital and yes i am keeping stats fluctuating between 80 and 100% and i just made an investment, lets see if i can handle 2/3% tax increase for a week and see how much of the projected income will actually be collected :P)
micromanage to the max!
Quote from: egamma on July 07, 2011, 05:02:02 PM
I think closing a continent would be an excellent idea. The problem is, which one?
My suggestions are: Beluterra or the Colonies. Of course, everyone has their favorite continent, so here are my explanations:
Beluterra: half the continent is gone anyway.
Colonies: politics are at a standstill, with nobody wanting to take on Lukon. It's a pretty boring place to play.
Preventing people from playing on the island of their choice will not necessarily make them pick a new realm, and if they do they won't necessarily like it. They will most certainly be bitter and resentful, though.
This would just be yet another attack on players to force them to play a certain way (or in a certain place). And if they lose the realms that were keeping them in the game to begin with, and end up in realms that don't meet their expectations, they are likely to leave.
I for one, will not stick around if BT is closed for arbitrary reasons. If BT dies due to the incompetence of humans realms, I'll likely try to stick around, but I doubt I will get enough interest in the other continents to keep me playing. Dwi is ok, but not enough on its own, and I can only have 1 character there. Circumstances will play a great role, but I've played all of the continents and I know what I am ready and no longer ready to do for this game.
Quote from: Indirik on July 08, 2011, 03:14:43 PM
But it requires people to do something. And that means they have to learn how to do something. And most people just don't want to learn.
bugs and interface aside, what's so different from having to use the old ox cart and the new caravans? they still have to do something. something needs doing, even if once only, otherwise food won't even get to the cities.
and ox carts are on their way out, no?
speaking of prediction, it would be nice for a region lord to see predictions for their own stupid region.
-------
...is it really team work to have central taxes that line the pockets of dukes who pays squat for food and then pay out gold manually?
----------
20 odd% giving 700. with investment and only 2 knights? someone tried it in ajitmon or something like that i think and it certainly dropped a lot faster than normal... don't remember how much he got out of it, whether he broke even or not.
thing is, i'm not sure 6 knights will help.. as i don't think having tons of estates is going to help much beyond a certain point of tax threshold.
all you really need is 200% estate coverage in both authority and production. Beyond that is just extra...
I can maintain a 20% tax rate in Niel (FEI) quite easily. But estate coverage matters for taxes, at least up to 200% coverage.
Quote from: dustole on July 09, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
all you really need is 200% estate coverage in both authority and production. Beyond that is just extra...
I can maintain a 20% tax rate in Niel (FEI) quite easily. But estate coverage matters for taxes, at least up to 200% coverage.
Can we get confirmation of this? I thought that there was no benefit above 100%, at least for production.
Perhaps it would be ideal to have 100% coverage of production and 200% for authority?
Quote from: egamma on July 09, 2011, 07:48:51 PM
Can we get confirmation of this? I thought that there was no benefit above 100%, at least for production.
Perhaps it would be ideal to have 100% coverage of production and 200% for authority?
Above 100% estate coverage will not give you more production or more gold, but it will keep your production from dropping when you run a really high tax rate. I noticed that I get less production drops when I had over 200% production coverage.
You get extra effects for Estate Coverage when it's >200%:
Good estate support benefits production.
Good estate support reduces independence.
And when it's >300%:
Excellent estate support benefits production.
Excellent estate support reduces independence and improves loyalty.
Basically they allow you to recover quicker and makes it easier to maintain a region (Which allows for higher taxes, more drafts etc.).
How do you keep morale up without courts when running taxes to fit 2-300% estate?
If you plan on running high tax rates, greater than 15%, you are going to need to have someone in or near the city to do work on it. I am running 20% in Niel and have been keeping it there for a few weeks now, but I need to hold courts or do civil work every day to do so.
Excuses, but apparently my percentages aren't correct. I just got Good Estate Coverage bonus with only 189% coverage.
Quote from: dustole on July 10, 2011, 10:45:09 AM
If you plan on running high tax rates, greater than 15%, you are going to need to have someone in or near the city to do work on it. I am running 20% in Niel and have been keeping it there for a few weeks now, but I need to hold courts or do civil work every day to do so.
Thats really boring.
Quote from: Telrunya on July 10, 2011, 12:54:59 AM
You get extra effects for Estate Coverage when it's >200%:
Good estate support benefits production.
Good estate support reduces independence.
And when it's >300%:
Excellent estate support benefits production.
Excellent estate support reduces independence and improves loyalty.
Basically they allow you to recover quicker and makes it easier to maintain a region (Which allows for higher taxes, more drafts etc.).
Thresholds should be 150 and 200% if I remember correctly.
That might have been the mistake I made, yes.
in case your intrested, I tried to push a rural region to the max with 2 knights(both on production) as described in my post earlier.
it projected something like 700 offcourse the actuall income was much lower.
But still a whoping 423 gold tax income where i normal reach 250/275 with something like 18% taxes.
this is what the region indicates for income (at 10/12% probably): Gold: 213 gold
To achieve this i had to invest on time, keep doing mercyful courts with police work to deal with the 10% + morale drops a day and raise the tax level between 24/26% and my region still looks as if she could handle another week of harsh taxes.
Just wanted to know how far it is practically possible to go in micromanaging a rural region.
Next time i'll pick a region closer to the capital thou...
Quote from: Nosferatus on July 15, 2011, 09:05:27 AM
in case your intrested, I tried to push a rural region to the max with 2 knights(both on production) as described in my post earlier.
it projected something like 700 offcourse the actuall income was much lower.
But still a whoping 423 gold tax income where i normal reach 250/275 with something like 18% taxes.
this is what the region indicates for income (at 10/12% probably): Gold: 213 gold
To achieve this i had to invest on time, keep doing mercyful courts with police work to deal with the 10% + morale drops a day and raise the tax level between 24/26% and my region still looks as if she could handle another week of harsh taxes.
Just wanted to know how far it is practically possible to go in micromanaging a rural region.
Next time i'll pick a region closer to the capital thou...
That investment probably cost you the additional income you gained...
Quote from: Nosferatus on July 15, 2011, 09:05:27 AMthis is what the region indicates for income (at 10/12% probably): Gold: 213 gold
That gold value on the region statistics is not a tax income predictor. It is the amount of gold generated by the region's economy per day. Not
tax gold. Think of it as the amount of gold "spent" in the region each day when at 100% production. This is the figure to which your tax rate is applied. Like a sales tax.
It just so happens that the "Gold" rating of the region is the approximate tax income of a region with a 15% tax rate because of the way the math works.
With the new update, does it matter in what way the region is taken over for it to take effect? (I'm thinking of buying regions, regions switching allegiance on their own, Religious TO's etc.)
Quote from: Telrunya on July 15, 2011, 01:08:57 PM
With the new update, does it matter in what way the region is taken over for it to take effect? (I'm thinking of buying regions, regions switching allegiance on their own, Religious TO's etc.)
Only regular takeovers (brutal, hostile, friendly, colony).
Luria Nova just RTOd a rogue region, we'll see how that turns out.
Thank you for the clarification! A quite important detail for some :D
Quote from: Anaris on July 15, 2011, 01:22:35 PM
Only regular takeovers (brutal, hostile, friendly, colony).
What if estates are set so that they are "good" and supposed to offer bonuses. Will positive bonuses apply the first week too?
Quote from: Chénier on July 15, 2011, 11:45:01 PM
What if estates are set so that they are "good" and supposed to offer bonuses. Will positive bonuses apply the first week too?
Nope, total estate holiday.