Industry and Wealth

[Wahsteve]

Ok, so I started a new game as the Ottomans and did some number crunching. I added up the region wealth (the # under the city card with gold next to it) of all the starting regions and came to approx. 12,000 gold. However, the sum total of trade, taxes and "other" was in the area of 8,000. My question then is what the heck does industry and region wealth actually DO if all I'm getting revenue from is taxation and trade. Is this a bug, or am I missing something here? Help me plz!

[Husar]

The higher your region wealth, the higher your tax since the tax is a percentage of the region wealth(possibly divided into upper and lower class somehow) I guess.

[Prussian to the Iron]

this seems odd..........

perhaps the above post is correct, and all region wealth does is determine the tax revenue (i believe max taxes churns out approx. 44% tax rate)

perhaps it is a bug. i'll test it out tonight and see what i come up with.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Your wealth is your GNP aka your national income. That income is taxed. If your total wealth is 100,000 and your tax rate is 30% then your income from taxes is 30,000. Added to that is your income from trade and the other category (the 3,000).

[nafod]

this seems odd..........

perhaps the above post is correct, and all region wealth does is determine the tax revenue (i believe max taxes churns out approx. 44% tax rate)

perhaps it is a bug. i'll test it out tonight and see what i come up with.

Also note that higher taxe rates applied to the upper class will decrease wealth resulting in that 44% pulling from a smaller and smaller base.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Also note that higher taxe rates applied to the upper class will decrease wealth resulting in that 44% pulling from a smaller and smaller base.

ah, yes. the eternal question:

let region wealth grow so you can tax it more efficiently later on?

or

tax now and worry about growth later?


the obvious solution to this is to use a smaller tax for the rich and a higher for the poor, while using ministers who give bonuses to lower class happiness.

[Servius]

Alphose got it. If you double-click on a region capital, you'll see the total Region Wealth, which matches the numbers in gold you mentioned. That region wealth is taxed, and you get the tax revenue.

The Region Wealth for each region is the sum of multiple sources of taxable income. Industry is one of them. It's the property value of all your Smiths (metal + cloth). Mine value is counted seperately. So is the value of trade goods produced (you make money on them twice, once as property value that is taxed, and later as trade revenue when your nation sells them to trade partners). Farm value is another seperate source of property value. Lastly, there is a "region wealth" portion of Region Wealth. I know that sounds confusing, but you can see the icon looks like a little house. The region wealth portion of Region Wealth is what goes up when you build roads. It also grows by a certain percentage (shown below Region Wealth) based on how heavily you tax the upper class. This about it like the way houses tend to appreciate (go up) in value over time.

I've build an Excel-based econ tool that includes all this info and helps you know which construction project is the most efficient use of your money. PM me if you'd like me to send you the link to download it.

Lastly, to John-117's post, you shouldn't necessarily raise taxes on the poor. Doing so slows population growth. Pop growth leads to the founding of addtional towns, which you can then turn to industrial, religious, or scientific pursuits. I think population may also affect region wealth, and thus, tax value. It may also be a partial driver of trade values.

On tax policy, I tend to leave the rich taxes in the middle (3 on a 1-5 scale) and set poor tax rates at 2 on a 1-5 scale. For the regions that still have villages that can grow into towns, you'll see that setting the poor tax rate from 3 to 2 makes a big impact on how soon the next town will appear. But moving it from 2 to 1 doesn't make that big a difference. Thus, I think 2 is the optimal point usually.

[jsberry]

Servius' idea is OK but what I do sometimes is divide my regions into regions I tax (wealthy ones that won't grow, like Austria) and regions that I grow (like Hungary, which has little income but it grows towns quickly). I'll then set taxes on middle and exempt the growing regions completely. When they're to the point where the next town is a long time away, I'll tax them.

[Papewaio]

the obvious solution to this is to use a smaller tax for the rich and a higher for the poor, while using ministers who give bonuses to lower class happiness.

That is stage 2.

Stage 1, minimal tax to the lower class. Proceed to stage 2 when no more villages are available.:book:

[Prussian to the Iron]

That is stage 2.

Stage 1, minimal tax to the lower class. Proceed to stage 2 when no more villages are available.:book:

not if you are trying to get a solid economy and win 40 regions before 1799.

even without any taxes, villages still sometimes take 20 turns to develop! that means 20 turns of no income watsoever from any developing regions.

just think of it like this:

building X produces 1,000 a turn. with a tax rate of 30 percent, you will make 300 a turn off the taxes. which means that you will have, lets say, -75 to town wealth growth per turn. that means that you can make 300 on turn 1, then town income is reduced to 925, giving you 277 on turn 2, then town income is reduced to 850, making 255 on turn 3. so you just made 832 dollars as opposed to 0. make that into al the towns in a given region, and you now have a large amount of lost money.

[al Roumi]

This might help:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=117672

To grow your population and 'pop' the towns, it's as important to research agricultural techs and develop your farms as it is to run with low taxes.

Focusing on agricultural research in the early game is vital for states without much opportunity to trade (Prussia, Austria, Poland, Russia). It's more important for them than others simply because they don't really have an option of alternative income, but even GB, France, Spain & Marathas benefit from such a focus as farming is the only (non-trade) instantly available source of income to them too.

Personally, I only focus on Iron & textile research once I've done 75-80% of farming techs or when a significant number of towns have appeared that can be turned into industrial sites.

[anweRU]

not if you are trying to get a solid economy and win 40 regions before 1799.


Huh? So by your reasoning I shouldn't be winning at least 50 regions by 1740 using 3 for rich & 1 tax for poor, which I regularly do?

Keep the tax rate lowest on the poor, and in the middle for the rich.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Huh? So by your reasoning I shouldn't be winning at least 50 regions by 1740 using 3 for rich & 1 tax for poor, which I regularly do?

no. when you blitz/steamroll everyone early/ early-mid game, economy doesnt matter. so, by my reasoning, a fair and non-blitzer with a large country(like russia) who focuses only on town growth, will fail. all those factories dont count for $**& if you have barely any taxes.

[al Roumi]

no. when you blitz/steamroll everyone early/ early-mid game, economy doesnt matter.

:dizzy2: Er, how exactly does your economy "not matter" early-mid game, let alone at any stage of the game? You can't do anything until you've got a decent income from your economy.


so, by my reasoning, a fair and non-blitzer with a large country(like russia) who focuses only on town growth, will fail. all those factories dont count for $**& if you have barely any taxes.

Not sure what you mean by this. It's not like a game would last long at all if you were to play with *no* taxes anywhere (except maybe a UP campaign). But so what?

Russia IS a hard campaign to play, economicaly speaking, compared to a UP or GB campaign.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, farms and factories contribute to your "town wealth" (GNI or Gross National Income is the closest real analogy), a cake from which you take a slice every turn as tax income. You have to grow the cake for your slice to get bigger, as such it's fair to say that tax income is not quite as clear a mechanism to tweak as trade, where you instantly see the benefits of plonking another Indiaman on a trade node.

[Prussian to the Iron]

:dizzy2: Er, how exactly does your economy "not matter" early-mid game, let alone at any stage of the game? You can't do anything until you've got a decent income from your economy.


i meant people wo blitz. you know, build up an army and just attack everyone on turn 3? yah, they dont have to worry because the taxes from the new regions will be more than enough to support an army.



Not sure what you mean by this. It's not like a game would last long at all if you were to play with *no* taxes anywhere (except maybe a UP campaign). But so what?

Russia IS a hard campaign to play, economicaly speaking, compared to a UP or GB campaign.


the point is that most regions are developed enough to not have to worry about growing towns. i suppose minor or smaller factions (like sweden) could have to worry about growing towns, but going too many turns with little tax income is not a good thing to do.

[Papewaio]

I'm playing Russia on VH/VH.

I'm purposely not relying on trade as my main income source. Sure I take it when I can get it and I still upgrade Furs whenever possible too. But my aim is to be able to grow my economy even if all trade routes are exhausted.

As for blitzing, I'm trying a very slow expansion. Economy 9 years then in year 10 start a war with a nation to completion.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I am trying the more role-playing method now, though its conflictying with my 'kick ass of everyone around you' attitude.

i think i might give brandenburg to PL for one of their eastern provinces, or maybe to the ottomans. i'd give it to prussia, but even with west prussia and silesia, i don't want powerhouses in the middle of several important trade partners.

[anweRU]

i meant people wo blitz. you know, build up an army and just attack everyone on turn 3? yah, they dont have to worry because the taxes from the new regions will be more than enough to support an army.

It depends on where you are doing your expansion. It might work in parts of Europe, but post 1.2 your tax income is more likely to go down for several turns when you begin a blitz.

Again, for a long term game, I don't see why you would want to strangle your town growth. New towns = new industries = more tax income.

[Prussian to the Iron]

please refer to my previous post:



building X produces 1,000 a turn. with a tax rate of 30 percent, you will make 300 a turn off the taxes. which means that you will have, lets say, -75 to town wealth growth per turn. that means that you can make 300 on turn 1, then town income is reduced to 925, giving you 277 on turn 2, then town income is reduced to 850, making 255 on turn 3. so you just made 832 dollars as opposed to 0. make that into al the towns in a given region, and you now have a large amount of lost money.


and i checked the other day; max taxes only give a -15 growth a turn. so its even more $$$

[anweRU]

I think you are confusing the "town wealth" component of the region with industrial production. In your example above, the industrial building that produces 1000 gp will always give you 1000 gp (unless you have some of the techs that increase industrial output). It is the bonus "town wealth" that will not increase, and worse decrease. In long games, town wealth can eventually outpace the actual industrial output in the region.

Also, I still would keep the upper class tax at 3 and lower class tax at 1. You will eventually reap the benefits in a long game, by having more tax income than the AI, especially as the AI currently has a place-of-worship fixation.

[al Roumi]

If it were possible anweRU, i would +rep you for that! :D

[Prussian to the Iron]

lets agree to disagree.

in m now-abandoned marathas campaign (i own all of america from florida down, portugal, sweden, denmark, norway, all of india, and morocco in 1810) i am making upwards of 50,000 a turn, due to my tax settings.

India- 5(highest) Upper classes
4 Middle classes

America- 4 Upper Classes
4 Middle Classes

Europe- 5 Upper Classes
3 Middle Classes

and i have been like this the entire game. now you tell me that is not a stable economy.

[Zarky]

Anyone else noticed that Town Wealth can't drop below 0?
So in theory you always have minium income which is given to you by the farms, factories etc... in the region.
Often the town wealth growth per turn is extremely small in the beginning of your game so that it might be better to just tax nobility harshly until you can get yourself decent amount of +wealth per turn from research and such.

[al Roumi]

lets agree to disagree.

in m now-abandoned marathas campaign (i own all of america from florida down, portugal, sweden, denmark, norway, all of india, and morocco in 1810) i am making upwards of 50,000 a turn, due to my tax settings.

and i have been like this the entire game. now you tell me that is not a stable economy.

Firstly, "stable" is kind of missing the point for Tax income in ETW. Trade income is the main area of possible instability (due to raiding, blockading, trade partner's loss of territory etc).

50,000 in tax income per turn isn't much IMHO. It's possible with half the regions you hold in half the time you've played.

To go back a step, the most improtant thing with tax rate is to set it to a level where your economy is still growing. You can see whether it is or not by the little arrow in front of the region capital wealth figure on the campaign map. If it's red and pointing down, your tax rate is so high it's causing your economy to shrink. If the arrow is green and pointing up, your tax rate is low enough to allow economic growth.

The more economic growth you allow your regions to make, the more tax revenue you will have.

If you've ever seen those red arrows next to your region capitol wealth figure, you know you are taxing too much. However, if even with the slider at max you are seing a green arrow then it's arguably ok to be running with that high rate, you are just trading short term income for less longer term income.

[Zarky]

In short: Low is less but will be more, high is more but will be less, it's the eternal question will you either make money early to conquer more lands for more money or will you make less regions be worth more.
Both are good I think, but conquering more will always force you to give other nations gifts (I seem to blitz way too much leaving myself always hostile to all but allies, protectocrates and useless nations).

[Prussian to the Iron]

Firstly, "stable" is kind of missing the point for Tax income in ETW. Trade income is the main area of possible instability (due to raiding, blockading, trade partner's loss of territory etc).

50,000 in tax income per turn isn't much IMHO. It's possible with half the regions you hold in half the time you've played.


1) how does stable economy and tax income not coincide? they are completely intwined.

2) 50,000 not in tax income, in overall income. the reason i have that much income (which doesnt matter because i am just adding it to the several-hundred-thousands I already have) is because i like to keep full stacks on standby, rather than disband and re-recruit them.

[Papewaio]

You have 3 main sources of wealth.

A basic 3000 purse that you get no matter what.
Town income which is essentially what your economy does and you have full control of that.
Trade income which is dependent on you have resources and the rest of the worlds demand for the goods. Not only can you not control part of the trade income equation it is not stable. Why? Because it can be easily blockaded.

So if you can grow your town income you are not dependent on foreign oil reserves err trade routes for income.

[resonantblue]

1) how does stable economy and tax income not coincide? they are completely intwined.

2) 50,000 not in tax income, in overall income. the reason i have that much income (which doesnt matter because i am just adding it to the several-hundred-thousands I already have) is because i like to keep full stacks on standby, rather than disband and re-recruit them.

just FYI, if you grow your regions dilligently you can get 50,000 overall income (eg wealth) from a couple of regions. if you own half the world and that's your overall income late game that should be an indication more than anything else that you have a short-term economic outlook. of course it works against the AI, but then beating the AI is like beating up an infant.

[Xipe Totec]

The type of government is crucial also in determining how much you can tax and also grow town wealth. E.g. in my current Prussia campaign I set up a revolution after Frederick died in order to benefit from increased town wealth growth and trade route growth. However, I found that I actually made much less income as a republic due to the difficulty of setting taxes above the lowest level, and still needed garrisons to maintain order. I was struggling post-revolution to maintain the necessary armies, being at war with Russia, Poland and Austria. I was totally regretting my revolution and had a crummy set of ministers with major unpopularity. In all my previous campaigns I enjoyed seeing the tyrant guillotined or axed and kept a republic through to the end of the game.

This time I cooked up a counter-revolution and set up a constitutional monarchy. Paradise! The people were suddenly really happy to be surrounded by factories, pay exorbitant taxes and needed no repressive garrisons. They also didn't need religious or pleasure buildings except where I had universities, so they could be replaced by more factories. I found myself jacking up the nobility's taxes to pay for factory upgrades as it was obvious that bigger and better industries would boost town wealth growth far more than low taxes. I suddenly found myself able to afford enough armies to crush all my enemies, and send two stacks off to conquer the empire of the U.P. who declared war on me out of the blue, and whack the pirates in the Carribbean who were nicking my ivory.

Of course you need the technology to benefit from factory upgrading. With absolute monarchy or republic the happiness hit from industry is a killer. In my opinion the big earners in the game are plantations and factories. The bonus factories give to town wealth growth is huge. Enlightenment techs also give a big boost to town wealth growth, especially the last two tiers. :beam:

Early game I like to keep lower class taxes as low as feasible. More towns means more wealth or much needed happy buildings. Once you have grown all the towns you can tax the granny out of the poor sods with no problems. Industry upgrades and armed forces are not cheap so I like to clobber the upper class twits as well. The extra money you make will more than compensate for the loss of town wealth growth from the higher taxation, in building upgrades and armies to conquer new lands.

[al Roumi]

You have 3 main sources of wealth.

A basic 3000 purse that you get no matter what.
Town income which is essentially what your economy does and you have full control of that.
Trade income which is dependent on you have resources and the rest of the worlds demand for the goods. Not only can you not control part of the trade income equation it is not stable. Why? Because it can be easily blockaded.

So if you can grow your town income you are not dependent on foreign oil reserves err trade routes for income.

If I may correct the honourable Papewaio, thats Tax income rather than Town income.

And John117, the wealth contributed by industrial towns is not affected by supply or demand in the same way as trade is. As such, your tax income isn't as vulnerable to "international relations" as trade is.

The instabilities that tax income is prone to are physical damage to your farms, towns and ports by: raiding by armies, damage by rakes, or damage from discontent (i.e revolt or revolution).

These are by and large, rarer occurances than piracy, blockades (IMO especially of my trade partners), the fluctuation of market prices and trade partners' loss of ports & territories.

[Papewaio]

Tax income is based on town income so it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. As far as stability is concerned, obviously the amount is different.