Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : DM B August 16, 2012, 09:38:50 PM
-
I'm not entirely satisfied with the way income is generated and distributed.
I think I'd like to see province levels generate somewhat more money that previously.
Primarily to give an incentive for keeping tax rates high - this is lost money if taxes are low (but prosperity high).
Currently it better to have less tax and high prosperity than high tax and average prosperity.
-
Is the intention for every holding type to benefit from the income/collection increase?
-
Err, why would high taxes be a good thing? All that taxes do is take money from producers and give it to consumers - moderate tax and high prosperity surely should be far more productive for the province as a whole than high tax and moderate prosperity?
The aim of a competent ruler is to levy low to moderate taxes while taxing the widest possible base with minimal corruption and wastage. A good ruler would then invest the surplus to generate future wealth but that was rare in medieval times. High taxes are the sign of a failed leadership or dire need and should be a temporary measure at best, likely only during times of war when the populace can be persuaded to pay due to the overall gains to be won or risk of loss if the ruler can't defend them.
What is the intention?
In mechanic terms high taxes act mainly used to create a larger gap between the income of rulers and other types of regents and discourage non-rulers from co-operating with law holders - if that's the aim then taxes are certainly one way of doing it, but if the aim is to increase income from province levels then it doesn't seem the way to go since at best it just shifts money around.
-
It's not a radical change: It is an adjustment.
I want it to be a real mechanical dilemma: Do I go for higher taxes now and gold right in the pocket, or can I live with a lower tax and in time manage a higher prosperity?
Currently there is no real reason - except I've stated that the Anuirean cultural norm is heavy taxes (severe is the emergency tax) - to have anything higher than Moderate taxes.
But if I slightly increase the income from direct province taxation a ruler/law holder (presumably with few other holding types to his name) would be tempted to keep taxes at a Heavy ('normal' level).
-
OK, I misunderstood your earlier comment about raising province level income (it's just law holder income you are referring to) and the name applied to the tax rate is throwing me - you are calling "heavy" what I'd call "moderate", it might be worth re-labelling the tiers because "fair" and "moderate" sound like the "normal" levels rather than being very light levels, that's only a problem for newbies though I guess.
In my mind a good ruler should be able to get both - levy moderate taxes and agree for support / gifts / etc from their domain regents - so both the income and the long term growth. Of course that assumes that everyone will work towards a common good ::)
On a mechanic side it will make existing agreements to low / no taxation more valuable so these might need to be re-considered as renegotiating with a temple (the usual beneficiary) can be a RP issue. That said it's a tweak not a leap from 40-50% so I don't see a big problem.
As a note, law holdings are already the "best" holdings - I'd suggest looking at their cost / action DC's as they can easily generate twice the income of any other holding type if tax rates hit the 40-50% range. Unless of course the aim is for everyone to fight over them!
On a RP side though, it makes severe tax seem more "normal" - if everyone is normally heavy then severe is the boeruine/etc type "normal" and severe is routine for anyone in a war (which is much of the time) with crippling then fairly common during times of duress. I note that it also appears a very heavy "norm" - tax rates of 10-20% were typical until the last couple of centuries, although that was based on income rather than surplus, it does however make expansion fairly irrelevant for non-rulers if the ruler creams off the bulk of any profits from the non-ruler's efforts - I'd expect the ruler to be expected to contribute towards any growth action by a local non-ruler since they will get the bulk of the benefit so non-ruler activity might reduce significantly unless they can grab law holdings.
-
I note that the "in game" version of heavy taxation bears no relation in % of GDP that we would expect in a modern heavy taxation regime, partly because a medieval society is less advanced in resource allocation/utilisation and because the mechanics of the period state do not allow for significant tax revenues in terms of production levels.
Andy - I also note that that is one political position; there are others too, depending where you fall in economic ideology :)
-
I note that the "in game" version of heavy taxation bears no relation in % of GDP that we would expect in a modern heavy taxation regime, partly because a medieval society is less advanced in resource allocation/utilisation and because the mechanics of the period state do not allow for significant tax revenues in terms of production levels.
I looked at the last few centuries because those are the earliest that I have reliable figures for, times long past medieval of course. In general though, as I think we both agree, a wealthier society can endure more taxation and waste (classing military power and political pomp as "waste" which is of course an extremely modern perspective :D ) which puts rates lower as a proportion of income for society as a whole in medieval times. Tax as a percentage of margin (i.e. income after subsistence level) is more debatable, as obviously in some times some castes have had no significant retained margin.
There is of course the question of "what is tax" in medieval times with (amongst many many others) fees for milling (with a legal monopoly for the lord) service of 'x' days, fines for low-quality ale & sex out of wedlock, etc, etc - the various lordlings took a "nibble every edge of the pie" approach rather than the modern position of going for one big slice in cash but I think that a simplistic "whatever the lord gets" is the optimal definition for our purposes.
Andy - I also note that that is one political position; there are others too, depending where you fall in economic ideology :)
It may be subject to political debate, but it's not actually a political position - political systems fiddle at the edges and with definitions but at the most basic if people gain nothing from their labours then on average they are less productive (taking account of any expenditure on people required to "encourage" their activity), the political systems claiming to have fixed this "problem" tend to have failed quite spectacularly over the long term.
-
Possible solution:
- Ideal provincial income remains the same (i.e. the square of the province level, assaumng max holding levels and no other modifiers). So a province 5 will be worth 25 Gbs/turn.
- Province/holding income is based on a divisor of 6, rather than 5. So each holding level will generate a little less income.
- Currently each of province, manor, temple, guild, trade generats an equal amount of income. Under the new scheme the province counts double.
- Taxes are reduced; heavy tax now claims on 30% (istead of 40%). Other rates changed accordingly; light only collects 5%, fair 10%, moderate 20%, and so on.
The net result is that province taxation becomes slightly more valuable (since they count double, they are now worth 2/6 of the province rather then 1/5). Holding rulers are not penalized: Net income is almost identical (small variations only, tenths of gold bars max).
The math is a little more complicated (not much) but it's handled by the P&H anyway, so no problem there.
Updating the P&H is also easy since we have moved to the new standarized format (thank Sarimie!).
No more money is generated.
Comments appreciated!
-
I'de made a small spreadsheet that shows the old vs. new values.
You can even play around with the divisor and tax rates.
-
I like what you are trying to do here. Conceptually it seems like a nice improvement.
-
I think so too :)
A side-effect is a somewhat greater 'income loss' (I've no better term for it) in that the untaxed part of the province income is lost:
Previously it would be 1/5 provincial income * 0,60 (for heavy taxes). Now it is 2/6 * 0,7 for (heavy taxes).
Law holdings also become slightly less good a generating income:
30% of 6/6 is 10% less than 40% of 5/5!
Which A) should encourage the law holder to keep up taxes and B) slightly reduce the power of the slightly over-powered law holding.
All in all I'm liking it, but I'm still considering the ramifications.
ATM I'm convinced it's a move in the right direction, but I'm not 100% sure this is the correct implementation or if the actual tax and income figures are the right ones.
-
Effectively a 10% global hit to income.
I think l would take a very close look at realms like Diemed and Roesone and ensure that the 10% hit, in combination with their existing no-taxation schemes, doesn't make the realms too difficult to play.
-
30% of 4/6 vs. 40% 3/5
Not so bad perhaps?
-
Diemed example:
4/6 = .6666667 * 30% = .2
3/5 = .6 * 40% = .24
The scheme confers about 17% less income.
Roesone example:
5/6 = .833333333 * 30% = .25
4/5 = .8 * 40% = .32
This is about 23% less.
-
Yes, that was my point (however badly written): Diemed suffers LESS than a domain without tax exception.
Thanks for the feedback btw: This overall loss of income is not something I'm, entirely happy with.
Alternative schemes:
- Holding income unchanged. Province income doubled (effectively 6/5 income). Results in richer domains.
- Holding income reduced. Province income increased even more (effectively 7/6 income). Domains are nearly unaffected.
-
I haven't looked at the numbers. But as I see it there are several ways you could adress the problem.
1) Adjust taxation and collection to hurt a lawholder who runs a no tax strategy.
2) Decrease the income modifier for prosperity.
3) Negative events. (More money in the hands of the general population = people flock there to steal/rob/trick them)
4) Take the negative events a step further and just implement a flat 50% waste score for the extra income gained from lowering taxes below heavy. (setting taxes to 0 would then give each non taxed holding a 'virtual tax' of 15% if heavy taxes is 30%)
Comments?
-
An off-piste query, why is income from law holdings gained from taxing the organised and powerful (holdings) but not from disorganised rabble (empty domain slots in a province) causing the "lost income" problem?
To reduce the changes necessary, I'd suggest giving law holdings - or simply provinces themselves - income based on level rather than collection from other holdings to reflect "basic income" from everyone organised or not.
This effectively creates a new holding type for gold-income purposes, but you can avoid increasing overall province income by scaling down all holdings.
The existing tax percentages then remain unchanged (although they don't tax the new "basic income") but you get an income shift from domains to realms as desired (sob).
-
An off-piste query, why is income from law holdings gained from taxing the organised and powerful (holdings) but not from disorganised rabble (empty domain slots in a province) causing the "lost income" problem?
To reduce the changes necessary, I'd suggest giving law holdings - or simply provinces themselves - income based on level rather than collection from other holdings to reflect "basic income" from everyone organised or not.
This effectively creates a new holding type for gold-income purposes, but you can avoid increasing overall province income by scaling down all holdings.
The existing tax percentages then remain unchanged (although they don't tax the new "basic income") but you get an income shift from domains to realms as desired (sob).
Without the interdependence between holding levels and law income, law holders are unshackled to completely ignore domains, imo.
-
Basic premises:
1. Provinces generate taxable income independent of existing holdings.
a) Provinces must generate MORE taxable income than they do today.
b) Excess provincial income is 'lost' (i.e. it belongs to the 'people') so taxation is the only way to get hold of it
c) Income is based upon province level squared times a multiplier (old version = 0,2).
2. Holdings generate income (except sources).
a) They represent valuable activites within the province, above and beyond stuff baked into the province level.
b) Keep in mind that vacant holding slots really aren't that common; most province will be filled, not neccesarily to capacity, but nearly so most of the time.
3. Increasing the total volume of gold available to domains is not acceptable; it will disrutp too many other things.
4. Law holdings must not become MORE powerful.
-
What about something like this:
Income generated by a provinces is doubled. Whenever taxes are set to Heavy or higher, all non-law holdings are considered to have a virtual Fort (1) against any actions by province law holders. Holdings will lose this benefit, if a province for a period of 8 consequative turns, has a taxation less than 'heavy'.
Anuirean domains that consistentally have less than heavy taxation will suffer stability penalties.
-
Basic premises:
1. Provinces generate taxable income independent of existing holdings.
a) Provinces must generate MORE taxable income than they do today.
b) Excess provincial income is 'lost' (i.e. it belongs to the 'people') so taxation is the only way to get hold of it
c) Income is based upon province level squared times a multiplier (old version = 0,2).
This sounds like re-creating the old income from province rules in BR and scaling domain holdings. The only issue I have with it is it assumes 100% rule of a province by one person - how do you deal with more than one province ruler (i.e. Duke, Count, chief of the allied goblin villages) where the "rulership" of, say, a L7 province might split 2/3/2 or Morcosoer situations where the goblin population is being slaughtered by the "rulers" of the land so doesn't see them as rulers at all?
The splitting problem is why I suggesting beefing law holdings - law ownership generally equates to rulership.
4. Law holdings must not become MORE powerful.
I'd thought that shifting power to law holders was the plan, sorry.
The social "I am the ruler, I am the law" policy does create a deterrant protecting law for rulers, but it's permeable (as HA proves) so there is a risk of "I must have it" with law holdings. One option of course is to make law holdings cost more to re-create the same income:cost analysis as for other holding types, or two make 2 law holdings per province level and
Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear. Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.
-
Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear. Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.
I think you are mis-reading it. Currently, a law holding draws income from 5 potential sources: manors, temples, guilds, trade and province.
-
Alan: I wasn't dissasociating law from the domain holdings, merely avoiding giving the province level itself income by adding income to the law holding - the existing tie to holdings would have been retained, my apologies for being unclear. Also, unless I'm mis-reading it (quite possible) the P&H shows that there is currently <no> income from provinces - currently you only appear to get income from holdings.
I think you are mis-reading it. Currently, a law holding draws income from 5 potential sources: manors, temples, guilds, trade and province.
Graciously put sir, column R was hidden if the sheets I was looking at and when I deleted province taxation (col S) nothing happened so I assumed that it had been cut out of the law income calculation and was simply a redundant leftover.
Looking more closely at the formula, law holdings are picking up the enhanced province level directly (col R), multiplying it by law level over 5 and then modifying the result for prosperity - completely bypassing the province taxation calculation itself in column S which in turn looks to be calculating the post-law income from the province but is in fact apparently completely redundant - it doesn't appear feed into the regent income totals so "1b" below would appear already in effect albthough that contradicts the province squared comment as that requires province taxation to be included for total province income to be the swuare of province level at average prosperity.
If however Col S is not going to feed into income - and 1b suggests that it won't - then law holdings will have to generate the extra income desired for rulers, which directly conflicts with point 4 - there doesn't appear to be another route for the province ruler to get more income other than via law holdings.
I'm probably too tired to figure out the plan, as if the plan is to give more income to rulers (1a) then it has to either come from the province taxation in column S that is currently lost (barred under 1b), or via law holding collections (barred under 4). I'm also getting confused between what is proposed and what is changing as most of the proposals made appear to be effective already, and I'm not sure what is meant by "province taxation" in various comments - the income directly from the province level in col S, or the law holding claim thereon.
I can't help but feel that the best way to get 1a, while keeping 3 and 4, is to dump 1b in the skip. To pump "4" you could exempt province taxation from law holding collection leaving the province ruler pumped up at the expense of law regents with no impact on other domains. If the aim is to drop domain income while pumping law holders then it would be simpler to raise the tax rate percentages then change divisors.
-
Hey, B, maybe simply having law holdings draw more of the province income will work? Say, 30% + Taxation level? While there is a concept behind the lost income, it doesn't really play much of a game roll. Nothing else would need to be changed...
-
Ok, to better flesh that idea out:
Leave the divisor and taxation levels the same.
Modify how income on the provincial source is taxed.
Taxation Level/Holding Tax%/Province Tax%
None/0%/0%
Light/10%/10%
Fair/20%/20%
Moderate/30%/30%
Heavy/40%/60%
Severe/50%/75%
Crippling/60%/90%
Total/80%/100%
Unrest/0%/0%
With this scaling, there is a real cost, but not an unbalancing cost per se, particular when you consider that the gain is very short-term, but the damage is prospertiy is real/long-term.
-
Ok, to better flesh that idea out:
Leave the divisor and taxation levels the same.
Modify how income on the provincial source is taxed.
Taxation Level/Holding Tax%/Province Tax%
None/0%/0%
Light/10%/10%
Fair/20%/20%
Moderate/30%/30%
Heavy/40%/60%
Severe/50%/75%
Crippling/60%/90%
Total/80%/100%
Unrest/0%/0%
With this scaling, there is a real cost, but not an unbalancing cost per se, particular when you consider that the gain is very short-term, but the damage is prospertiy is real/long-term.
A possible solution.
-
I'm wondering if the answer isn't to effectively get rid of "province income/province taxation" completely (whichever term is used for it) and pump up Manor holdings to maintain overall income - at the moment law holdings are being pumped and they are generally seen as "the best" holding type. As manor holdings are generally held by "the rulers" that retains the link between land and income while not pumping law holdings yet more (although they would get more law claims from manor holdings that gain should be balanced by the lack of claims on province income/taxation.
That method takes as a base assumption that between them law and manor holdings represent all the income that is gained from the land and people, with "waste" occuring only when the holdings are not filled, although in a way it does detract from the "RoE is different" feel as effectively manor income is then simply the old province income albeit potentially split between different lords.
That leaves rulers with law/manor (both strong holdings), guilds with guild/trade holdings, with temples then the potential poor relation of the three - although RP and spell power compensates to a degree and many temples have at least some manors. Overall the discrepancy between the holding types shouldn't be too bad although source holders still get shorted.
-
Interresting idea - but it breaks with one of the basic premises:
Taxation should not be absolutely dependent on holdings.
But: I'll think about it some more. Maybe other models have different but still viable solutions.
-
You could always add a holding type for provinces themselves, splitting the province itself into levels held by the relevant regents, with some levels "unclaimable" to reflect the level of wastage that you want - possibly based on race, alignment, and long-term prosperity / great events (i.e. "your abject failure in this endeavour leads to 1 unclaimable level in province X for a generation" sort of thing allowing you to fine tune as required).
Tweaking divisors or exempting these "province holdings" from law claims would shift income to the province holder away from existing holdings which seems to be the plan - the law claim exemption being preferable in my view as law holdings are somewhat butch although as most province holding regents would likely be law regents also this might not have a great effect beyond slightly weakening the "mine all mine" syndrome that afflicts some law holders.
You could say that these province levels can only be reduced or transferred via investiture or pillaging to make them feel "special" and connect them particularly tightly to "the people" - and possibly move the "raise levies" ability from manors over to them (moving it from law to manor changed the balance of power in some realms between ruler and vassals).
-
Province levels were already 'split' off into manors, so I'd rather not tamper any more with that aspect.
-
Current draft:
- Tax rates drop by 10% (or to 5% for the lowest rate)
- Holdings generate hld lvl x prov lvl/5 (same as before)
- Provinces generate prov lvl squared/2 (2,5 times more than before)
End result is:
- Holding owners are enhanced; they get a little more back from their holdings (10% more in fact).
- Guilders get the biggest increase since they control 2 holding types (but this is offset somewhat by the new influence rules which yiou haven't seen yet).
- Law rulers collect almost exactly the same amount they did before, but they are now less dependent on holdings. Even if most holding are wiped out the province will still generate collectable income.
- There are several premutations; i.e. places like Diemed actually profits a bit under this scheme.
Overall I'm rather pleased. Each holding type seems useful. Provinces can 'stand on their own'.
The real loser here is Sources.
-
One way to boost sources without increasing the total income in a province is to add a third income type - say "mebhaighl points" or "MP", these could be used to sustain a source-based court, substitute for GB in realm spells and source actions, substitute for RP in spells, etc but not converted to GB or otherwise used to interact with non-source holdings.
That would leave the source holders with "income" so that they weren't totally dependent on other regents (good and bad points), but doesn't work too well for mixed domains (although I suppose you could say that MP stacked with GB for court purposes on any court actions relating to realm spells and source holdings/ley-lines).
Otherwise I'd suggest reducing the RP cost of spells - though that would likely benefit temple domains (although as I seem to spend my RP on spells which help other people I'm not sure if that's a bad thing!)
-
Because magic now requires a lot of gold I'm looking at reducing RP costs somewhat for spells. But it's too early to say exactly how that will turn out.