Estate/Tax Revamp Proposal Take 2

[Eldargard]

Recently I heard that the dev team was looking to make the following happen:

I want more knights to mean more gold per percent of estate—so that if the Lord has a 20% estate, and 1 knight has a 10% estate, and the Lord's weekly tax just from his estate averages 150, then another knight takes a 10% estate, the Lord's weekly tax goes up to 155. And the other knight's weekly tax goes up. Thus, not only would Lords who want to benefit the realm try to take on more knights, Lords who want to make a load of money on their own will, too..

I'm saying I would change the code so that the same estate you have today would start making more money, without the Lord making any changes to that estate, just because another knight took an estate in the region.

So I have been looking to find an formula that would make the following above goals happen. My first attempt failed miserably due to me misremembering what the dev team was looking for. Now that I have reviewed this I have a second potential proposal. Though my final proposal is detailed at the end, I have decided to go ahead and include all the work that lead me to the final suggestion.

Once again, I will use Dantooine as my base as it is the only region I have detailed information on. I am also assuming that production would average at 69% and that the regions tax rate is at 14%. The real averages might be different.

I will also assume that the lord will want to get the most gold possibly from the region by simply using the largest estates possible. From what I tested thus far, this system should yield the desired results regardless of how the lord chooses to divide his region.

I am also not calculating in a lord taxing their knights. This is because knights will see a boost in income regardless of this tax rate as long as the boost in untaxed income is over 2 gold.

Also, I lack the information that I would need to perform a comparable check on a very rich region (like Giask) and a very poor region (like Desert of Silhouettes). This system might break down under such extremes but  I am not smart enough to know this without doing the calculations (though I suspect there may be an issue). If so, the problem might be fixable by simply adjusting the size of bonuses. If the devs find this proposal interesting they can either perform their own calculations using the information here or give me the missing info and I will happily run the numbers and post them. If there is no interest, that is fine too!

Finally, i would like to describe the formula I am using here which is based on what is listed on the wiki. I have included the math for each step but have sloppily rounded off the results to the nearest whole gold piece.

REGION_GOLD_STAT * CURRENT_REGION_PRODUCTION * CURRENT_REGION_TAX_RATE * DAYS_IN_A_WEEK * ESTATE_SIZE * ESTATE_EFFICIENCY

When there wildlands or empty estates and their income should go to the lord, I add this to the equation when determining the Lords tax share:

+ REGION_GOLD_STAT * CURRENT_REGION_PRODUCTION * CURRENT_REGION_TAX_RATE * DAYS_IN_A_WEEK * SIZE_OF_UNCLAIMED_LAND * .5

Toward the end I talk about giving the region lord a 10% boost to their earned income this is calculated by modifying his formula to the following:

REGION_GOLD_STAT * CURRENT_REGION_PRODUCTION * CURRENT_REGION_TAX_RATE * DAYS_IN_A_WEEK * ESTATE_SIZE * ESTATE_EFFICIENCY * 1.1

With Wildlands with income from wildlands and empty estates:

Code: [Select]

Lord has 40% Estate and 60% Wildlands:
No production boost needed
Lord: 456*.69*.14*7 * .40 * .83 + 456*.69*.14*7 * .60 * .5 = 102 + 92 = 194

Lord has 40% Estate and 20% Wildlands, Knight has 40% Estate:
+45% Production(45% total boost)
Lord: 456*1.14*.14*7 * .40 * .83 + 456*.69*.14*7 * .20 * .5 = 200
1 Knight: 456*1.14*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 169

Lord has 40% Estate, Knight 1 has 40% Estate, Knight 2 has 20% Estate:
+25% Production (70% total boost)
Lord: 456*1.39*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 206
1 Knight: 456*1.39*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 206
2 Knight: 456*1.39*.14*7 * .20 * 1 = 124
Here we can see that due to the loss of empty estates and wildlands to knights, huge productivity boosts are needed to ensure the Lord's income will actually increase thanks to taking on a knight. This is fairly problimatic and suggests that, in order to meet the requirements above, Lords should probably not make money from unoccupied land.

With Wildlands with no income from wildlands or empty estates:

Code: [Select]

Lord has 40% Estate:
No bonus needed
Lord: 456*.69*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 102

Lord has 40% Estate, Knight has 40% Estate:
+5% Production
Lord: 456*.74*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 109
1 Knight: 456*.74*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 109

Lord has 40% Estate, Knight 1 has 40% Estate, Knight 2 has 20% Estate:
+5% Production (10% total boost)
Lord: 456*.79*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 117
1 Knight: 456*.79*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 117
2 Knight: 456*.79*.14*7 * .20 * 1 = 70
Here we can see noticeable increase in income with much more reasonable production boosts. The problem now is that lords will, as a whole, earn a whole lot less money off of regions - especially with no or few knights. It is no longer possible to nearly double your earnings just by not having a knight. (Even if you tax your knights to the max. I like this but others might find it frustrating.

Also, the only benefit lords have to make estates out of wild lands is that my doing so makes it easier for knights to take estates which would than boost your income. The traditional idea is to allow a lord to earn income from empty estates but not from wildlands but this will cause the lord to lose significant income if an estate is taken which will require in huge production bonuses being needed (the same as describes in the first scenario) if we are to meet the goals listed above.

Instead, I suggest a bonus to the region lords income based on how much of their region is a part of an estate - empty or occupied. So if 100% of your region is a part of one estate or another you gain a 10% boost - always. If 77% of your region is a part of one estate or another you gain an 8% boost. If 44% is a part of an estate than you gain a 4% boost.

With Wildlands giving no income and unmanned estates giving some income:

Code: [Select]

Lord has 40% Estate:
No bonus needed
Lord: 456*.69*.14*7 * .40 * .83 * 1.1 = 112

Lord has 40% Estate, Knight has 40% Estate:
+5% Production
Lord: 456*.74*.14*7 * .40 * .83 * 1.1 = 120
1 Knight: 456*.74*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 109

Lord has 40% Estate, Knight 1 has 40% Estate, Knight 2 has 20% Estate:
+5% Production (10% total boost)
Lord: 456*.79*.14*7 * .40 * .83 * 1.1 = 129
1 Knight: 456*.79*.14*7 * .40 * .83 = 117
2 Knight: 456*.79*.14*7 * .20 * 1 = 70
Here you can see that the lord has gained a small boost to their income simply for ensuring that 100% of their land is a part of one estate or another. This last proposal is my favorite of the three.

In summation, this would consist of:

* Do not allow lords to collect the income from empty estated or wild lands as no one is there to collect taxes
* Increase region production by 5% for each KNIGHT that has an estate due to the increased region efficiency gained from having an additional caretaker within the region
    * It might be a good ides to hide this bonus to productivity or treat it as a separate bonus that applies to total region income so it does not dirty up the region stats
* Increase the lords income by 1% for every 10% of their region that is a part of an estate due to the increased coverage of the regional government
    * Again, I would hide this information and not combine it with efficiency to keep all the details clear

[Kai]

It seems like you are trying to make a situation where a knight with 10% and the lord with 20% makes the lord more money than just taking 30% for himself. But this makes no sense if all you do is divide the land. If you want to make estates and stuff a big part of the game you have to make regions deteriorate without knights. However, if you make sheer numbers of nobles have significant enough benefits that lords actually care about them, then, as we saw in the policing/production estate system, drops in population are ruinous. If you don't want to make estates a big part of the game, then you have to go back to full realm communism.

I don't think middle of the road systems can work very well at all. In the current system, the lord hands out largesse unilaterally and receives only lip service in turn.

The root of the issue is that systems which give large production bonuses for knights result in a large value purely for character numbers, whereas in the battle part of the game, a single character can command a widely varying amount of force depending mostly on gold. Two characters with 20 men each are given only a small bonus compared to 1 commanding 40. The estate system has to follow suit and therefore lords are given almost unilateral power. Therefore, the gold producing and gold destroying parts of the game are contradictory.

I have always supported the return of communism. Without gold the number of fun decisions in the game, especially for new players, is very small. Making the gold supply dependent on a few guys who have open estates who may all be giant dicks has been terrible.

[Eldargard]

It seems like you are trying to make a situation where a knight with 10% and the lord with 20% makes the lord more money than just taking 30% for himself. But this makes no sense if all you do is divide the land.

I do not really know what you are saying here so I can not say if I am trying to do this or not. With this proposal, I am simply trying to ensure that, if estate sizes remain the same, taking on new knights boosts the income of everyone already holding an estate in the region and to encourage lords to have empty estates instead of wildlands. Nothing more and nothing less.

The problem at the moment is that If I am lord of Region X with no knights, I more gold than if I has a knight. The region as a whole will produce more than it did before, but my share as lord just dropped. The only way around this is to tax your knights at 50% and never make your estate smaller.

[Eldargard]

The only way around this is to tax your knights at 50% and never make your estate smaller.

After thinking this over, I realized that this is not even true unless you ensure that the knights estate has an efficiency of 100%.

[Constantine]

I do not see the need to incentivise lords to fill their estates with knights because, well, lords don't really have a say in the matter.
Knights just stroll in on their own accord and pick an estate.
Never saw a lord deny a knight an estate either.
Thus what we really need to do is to incentives knights to stay within their lord's province instead of seeking to become landed nobility themselves.

[Eldargard]

There is plenty of that already. An estate in a city (or another wealthy region) often pays more than the lordship of a rural/mountain/woodland region. I know that most of my characters have taken pay drops when leaving their estate to take up a lordship.

Beyond that, I can not imagine a sensible way of encouraging knights to not become lords when the opportunity presents itself. I am not saying there is none but I can't think of any.

Lastly, it sounded like the dev team was looking for a way to accomplish their goal of making knights a financial benefit to the lord (not just to the region and realm). They are pretty strapped for time so I figured I could try my had at finding a formula that might deliver what they were looking for. After all, implementing a formula might be less work than creating a formula then implementing it!

[Constantine]

There is plenty of that already. An estate in a city (or another wealthy region) often pays more than the lordship of a rural/mountain/woodland region. I know that most of my characters have taken pay drops when leaving their estate to take up a lordship.

I'm not sure what you need excess wealth for as a knight. Sending it to your family?
Being a landed lord on the other hand opens a lot of new venues for you even if your income suffers. Then again, lords of poorer provinces always receive additional funding from the metropolis.
So why be a knight if you can become a lord?

Beyond that, I can not imagine a sensible way of encouraging knights to not become lords when the opportunity presents itself. I am not saying there is none but I can't think of any.

If you incentivise lords to hoard knights instead of incentivising knights to maintain knightly status, you are basically screwing knights over.
I would hate to see a situation where a Duke refuses to land his knight just because he wants to maximize his profit even if there are lordless regions available.
On the other hand, if knights have real incentives to choose knightly status over lordship (like being able to do some fun stuff lords aren't able to do), lords themselves won't even need additional encouragement.

[Eldargard]

I'm not sure what you need excess wealth for as a knight. Sending it to your family?
Being a landed lord on the other hand opens a lot of new venues for you even if your income suffers. Then again, lords of poorer provinces always receive additional funding from the metropolis.

So why be a knight if you can become a lord? If you incentivise lords to hoard knights instead of incentivising knights to maintain knightly status, you are basically screwing knights over.
I would hate to see a situation where a Duke refuses to land his knight just because he wants to maximize his profit even if there are lordless regions available.
On the other hand, if knights have real incentives to choose knightly status over lordship (like being able to do some fun stuff lords aren't able to do), lords themselves won't even need additional encouragement.

Why would a knight want excess wealth? Training at the academy, developing a stronger unit, buying magic items, sending it home. Lots of reasons. Simply put, if you have more gold you can do more stuff and I am certain that income is a serious consideration for people when choosing estates/lordships. It is not always the case, but Lordships are not always a clear step up and not every knight will rush into every lordship. Honestly, I think that lordship should be sought after and that the game has a fairly decent balance as it is. At the same time, this is not really core to this discussion in my opinion.

Also, it is not about incentivising Lords to hoard knights. It is about making it so the act of taking on a knight does don't hurt he lord financially and financially benefits everyone in the region, knight or lord, in some small way. At the same time, I see no reason why it would be a bad thing for a lord to value their knights.

I agree we should try to find more ways to make being a knight more fun. I do not, however, see how the dev's proposed goals are bad for the game or prevents changes that would make the game more fun for knights. I admit that my suggested implementation might not be perfect.  I must be missing something here...

[De-Legro]

I'm not sure what you need excess wealth for as a knight. Sending it to your family?
Being a landed lord on the other hand opens a lot of new venues for you even if your income suffers. Then again, lords of poorer provinces always receive additional funding from the metropolis.
So why be a knight if you can become a lord?If you incentivise lords to hoard knights instead of incentivising knights to maintain knightly status, you are basically screwing knights over.
I would hate to see a situation where a Duke refuses to land his knight just because he wants to maximize his profit even if there are lordless regions available.
On the other hand, if knights have real incentives to choose knightly status over lordship (like being able to do some fun stuff lords aren't able to do), lords themselves won't even need additional encouragement.

Perhaps so they don't have to lower themselves to the level of peasantry and constantly beg for gold in order to maintain a unit in wartime?

[Eldargard]

Perhaps so they don't have to lower themselves to the level of peasantry and constantly beg for gold in order to maintain a unit in wartime?

This! This has always been a pet peeve of mine...

Granted, this suggestion does little to change this but this was not really my goal when putting this together.

[pcw27]

Sorry if I'm late to the party. But has the idea of letting knights set the tax rates on their estates been floated?