Improved trade tax

[Shadowood]

Didn't we just reduce the tax amount on citizens from 10 to 5 because it was causing too much of an influx in gc. So we turn around and say let's increase the taxes a nation gets on trade.

I believe CJ reduced Citizen Tax as Port Populations were a bit OP. I recall him saying that usually in the past the game "righted" itself and populations came back to "normalized" levels. However, MERC, came up with a plan to keep Populations high and capitalize on maxed population.

Now regardless if I agree with the "nerf" of Citizen Tax, I see a big value in what Haron has proposed. This game is build around SHIPS. Most of what happens in our world should be effected greatest by SHIPS.

Taxes, Influence, Populations, Warfare, Port Control, etc... should all have a SHIPS element to it.

So a big +1 to what Haron has purposed. It makes wanting to control a port all that much more enticing but it doesn't take anything away from merchants.

[DezNutz]

Maybe we should have it where it's controllable by the nation that issues it with a minimum tax of 1% and a maximum tax of 10%. Also having it where the player pays that amount on top of the base cost of the resources.

Maybe it could also have an impact on the development of a port like the lower the taxes the more people a transport immigrants brings to the port or the higher the tax in a non food port causes the daily increase/ decrease of population to decline and maybe go deeper into the negatives. but maybe have it in a food port where if the tax is 10% and the larger the stock of food the higher the population grows each day. This would cause the number of crates of food and other materials to be decreased by an insane amount to even be usable/ implementable.

maybe also the blockade feature could cause the tax rate for a short time afterward to to go up to replenish the cities gold supply (this would be taken by the game) as to reverse the consequences of the blockade on the port and reimburse the city and everything else to get it back up and running.

That's been previously discussed (minus the blockade points).

The problem with it being adjustable, is that there exists another problem that needs to be corrected first. Population limits. 2B population in a port is beyond unrealistic. Adjusting the population caps also creates a slew of other issues that would need to be addressed as the populations effect quite a few mechanics in game. This would not be close to even an easy implementation, which is why the Admins just reduced the tax amount.

[Sebena]

Didn't we just reduce the tax amount on citizens from 10 to 5 because it was causing too much of an influx in gc. So we turn around and say let's increase the taxes a nation gets on trade.

I believe CJ reduced Citizen Tax as Port Populations were a bit OP. I recall him saying that usually in the past the game "righted" itself and populations came back to "normalized" levels. However, MERC, came up with a plan to keep Populations high and capitalize on maxed population.

Now regardless if I agree with the "nerf" of Citizen Tax, I see a big value in what Haron has proposed. This game is build around SHIPS. Most of what happens in our world should be effected greatest by SHIPS.

Taxes, Influence, Populations, Warfare, Port Control, etc... should all have a SHIPS element to it.

So a big +1 to what Haron has purposed. It makes wanting to control a port all that much more enticing but it doesn't take anything away from merchants.

And yet ports are taken by voodoo and not ships. So if you want value ships voodoo shouldn't be in the game and yet it is and everythibg is done by voodoo.

[DezNutz]

Didn't we just reduce the tax amount on citizens from 10 to 5 because it was causing too much of an influx in gc. So we turn around and say let's increase the taxes a nation gets on trade.

I believe CJ reduced Citizen Tax as Port Populations were a bit OP. I recall him saying that usually in the past the game "righted" itself and populations came back to "normalized" levels. However, MERC, came up with a plan to keep Populations high and capitalize on maxed population.

Now regardless if I agree with the "nerf" of Citizen Tax, I see a big value in what Haron has proposed. This game is build around SHIPS. Most of what happens in our world should be effected greatest by SHIPS.

Taxes, Influence, Populations, Warfare, Port Control, etc... should all have a SHIPS element to it.

So a big +1 to what Haron has purposed. It makes wanting to control a port all that much more enticing but it doesn't take anything away from merchants.

The port populations were causing an excessive increase in gold coin being introduced into the game. If it was solely a population issue, the admins would have just cut the population by X% at each port, so they were under the new cap. They chose to just cut the tax rate instead as it was quite easier to implement and eased the complaints that came about wasted voodoo.

Choosing to increase the trade tax rate re-introduces a similar problem.

[Shadowood]

Didn't we just reduce the tax amount on citizens from 10 to 5 because it was causing too much of an influx in gc. So we turn around and say let's increase the taxes a nation gets on trade.

I believe CJ reduced Citizen Tax as Port Populations were a bit OP. I recall him saying that usually in the past the game "righted" itself and populations came back to "normalized" levels. However, MERC, came up with a plan to keep Populations high and capitalize on maxed population.

Now regardless if I agree with the "nerf" of Citizen Tax, I see a big value in what Haron has proposed. This game is build around SHIPS. Most of what happens in our world should be effected greatest by SHIPS.

Taxes, Influence, Populations, Warfare, Port Control, etc... should all have a SHIPS element to it.

So a big +1 to what Haron has purposed. It makes wanting to control a port all that much more enticing but it doesn't take anything away from merchants.

The port populations were causing an excessive increase in gold coin being introduced into the game. If it was solely a population issue, the admins would have just cut the population by X% at each port, so they were under the new cap. They chose to just cut the tax rate instead as it was quite easier to implement and eased the complaints that came about wasted voodoo.

Choosing to increase the trade tax rate re-introduces a similar problem.

Not if Blockades are active. Blockades are the "righting of the ship". If a port is making to much money, someone will Blockade it for a piece of the pie. Again back to SHIPS being the focus of the game.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Cutting the tax rate was a crude and rather blunt response : the nations which had not forced their populations up to those high levels had their income halved too, just to modify the effects of those nations which had done so. Just so the ones who caused the issue wouldnt have the benefits of all that voodoo that was used totally nullified : a % population cut followed by a hard cap on numbers would have been much fairer but what do we know.

[DezNutz]

The port populations were causing an excessive increase in gold coin being introduced into the game. If it was solely a population issue, the admins would have just cut the population by X% at each port, so they were under the new cap. They chose to just cut the tax rate instead as it was quite easier to implement and eased the complaints that came about wasted voodoo.

Choosing to increase the trade tax rate re-introduces a similar problem.

Not if Blockades are active. Blockades are the "righting of the ship". If a port is making to much money, someone will Blockade it for a piece of the pie. Again back to SHIPS being the focus of the game.

So you are going to blockade 21 ports simultaneously? What was the calculation made, about 3M in tax revenue per port at 10%? That's 63M a day being introduced, and there are down-time periods after a port has been blockaded where they can't be blockaded again (48 hours). So 48 hours after a blockade is finished, another can be started, which has a 24 hour grace period to get ready and another 24 hours for the battle before the 72 hour blockade can be initiated. That's 96 hours of pay me some money for 72 hours of lost revenue.


Additionally, it isn't like that money isn't be produced, the TAX revenue would be diverted to the blockaders, thus the problem still exists.

[Shadowood]

That is unrealistic to block 21. But perhaps a group could block 2 or 3 of a nation they are warring with. And Blockades aren't just about the money.

[DezNutz]

That is unrealistic to block 21. But perhaps a group could block 2 or 3 of a nation they are warring with. And Blockades aren't just about the money.

Isn't that the whole point of this suggestion.

[Shadowood]

That is unrealistic to block 21. But perhaps a group could block 2 or 3 of a nation they are warring with. And Blockades aren't just about the money.

Isn't that the whole point of this suggestion.

The point of the suggestion is to make Defending more appealing.