Muslim Reganomics

[Doug-Thompson]

Starting in the early period, it's worth noting that many Islamic territories are dirt poor.

There's not much point to having very high taxes in Arabia, for instance.

So it seems to me than manually setting your taxes to very low spares a Muslim player from the need for so many garrison troops . Having smaller garrisons means more troops for attacking.

Conquering a province that is not in the desert will raise income much more than raising taxes on poor provinces.

Muslims can attack because they don't get Play nice warnings from the Pope. By the time the Catholic factions organize crusades, Islamic factions will have counquered much of the southern map. They can also have a nice trade network in the works.

[some_totalwar_dude]

But there are also players who like to win in GA mode or play with Iron man rules like never attack somebody exept when being attackt (like i do).

This makes it much more challeging.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (some_totalwar_dude @ June 10 2003,12:12)]But there are also players who like to win in GA mode or play with Iron man rules like never attack somebody exept when being attackt (like i do).

This makes it much more challeging.

Personal preferences are important. I like attacking and a fast game. Maybe that will become boring soon, but it hasn't yet.

[Crash]

I agree completely. I always set the taxes for Arabia to very low, since the difference between the very high and very low settings are so small, it's not worth the risk of a rebellion to set it to very high. A rebellion in Arabia could be troublesome since it is usually very far from the frontiers where the bulk of my armies would be stationed.

I have not played a Catholic faction yet precisely because I don't like the interference from the Pope. A nice trade network is crucial for the Muslim factions because many of their provinces are so poor. If Antioch and Egypt are built up with high with ports, merchants, and farms, the money will flow...

[Doug-Thompson]

Having the Pope in a wargame is like bringing your mom along on a date.

[some_totalwar_dude]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ June 10 2003,19:24)]Personal preferences are important. I like attacking and a fast game. Maybe that will become boring soon, but it hasn't yet.

GAH, you still can have fun with MTW whatever you do.

I nead Ironman rules to make it challeging/fun

(not that I'm saying your a bad player)

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (some_totalwar_dude @ June 10 2003,14:17)](not that I'm saying your a bad player)

Ah, but if you had said that you'd be right.

Even a newcomer can win the game on normal by being aggressive against the AI. I wonder if that doesn't count against the Muslim civs with some players.

Muslim factions are best for early attacking, it seems. Many players seem to prefer a more deliberate, thoughtful style of play -- and knights.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Crash @ June 10 2003,12:39)]If Antioch and Egypt are built up with high with ports, merchants, and farms, the money will flow...

Yes, Antioch especially is a cash cow. Catholic fans will point to Venice and Flanders, but the trade in the Med is easier to establish and defend. At least it seems that way to me.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ June 10 2003,18:49)]Having the Pope in a wargame is like bringing your mom along on a date.

Yes he is a bit of a killjoy...

Sadly in Medieval Times Popes did control the Rise and Fall of Christian rulers, so having him excluded would leave a large hole in the game.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 10 2003,16:19)]Sadly in Medieval Times Popes did control the Rise and Fall of Christian rulers, so having him excluded would leave a large hole in the game.

I can't argue with that -- but can play Muslims

Is there a difference in heirs, also? It seems that a Muslim rulers -- who could have multiple wives, I suppose -- have less trouble having enough heirs than Catholic kings.

[Warmongerer]

Why even bother to have a set tax rate (i.e. always having Arabia on Very Low)? Why not just play the smart way and try to gouge every last florin possible out of a province wihtout inciting revolt? If you can make 20-30 extra florins by setting taxes to Very High and still keep the populace loyal, why not do it? The excess you gain adds up over the years, and you never know when it will come in handy.

[Crash]

If you can make 20-30 extra florins by setting taxes to Very High and still keep the populace loyal, why not do it?

Good point, if you can afford it why not? The answer is mathematical. Add up the cost and maintenance of the garrison troops in Arabia, then add up the difference between the very low and very high tax rate and multiply by the number of years you expect to hold the Arabia before you win the game. You also have multiply the maintenance cost of the garrison units by the same number of years.

I don't have the exact figures available to me at this moment, but I would guess that the maintenance cost of one or two garrison units equals the difference between the very low and very high tax rates in Arabia.

Forgive if I'm wrong on the numbers.

[Warmongerer]

I can see where you might draw that conclusion from my post, Crash, but I never meant to imply that extra garrison forces should be utilized. All I meant was that it would be good economic sense to make the most out of a province instead of just taxing as little as possible to maintain loyalty that could still be maintained under higher taxation. In other words, make the most with what you have.

[el_slapper]

I didn't know it was called ironman rules, but that's nearly what I'm doing. Other than an obvious first war(England vs France, Almo vs Spain), I nearly never attack my neighbours, rather focusing on empire building. They always end up at war, so why be the bad man?

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Warmongerer @ June 10 2003,16:52)]Why not just play the smart way and try to gouge every last florin possible out of a province wihtout inciting revolt?

I'd rather gouge every last florin out of somebody else's province, if possible.

This is an economy of force issue more than a pure economic one. Say that Player A squeezes 40 more florins out of a province by leaving a garrison of 100 peasants in Cordoba. Player B, however, takes those 100 peasants with him to Castile. There those peasants make his early invasion of Castile an acceptable risk.

Player A has 40 more florins. Player B has Castile, and has taken that province away from the Spanish. Who's better off?

===========

Of course, things aren't that simple. For instance, it is perfectly possible to take the peasant unit out of Cordoba and keep the taxes high because another army of yours is going forward into Cordoba from Grenada.

Open up a campaign as the Almohads. On the first turn, Cordoba should produce 321 florins at 103% loyalty with a garrison of 100 peasants. (Appointing a governor with good acumen raises all the revenue figures).

Taking the taxes all the way down to very low reduces income to 193 florins -- 128 florins less. However, loyalty goes up to 137 percent. even with no garrison at all. That's a 34 percent gain, not counting the garrison.

A province with 103% loyalty is on the brink of revolt. Famine or flood will push it over. So another 100 peasants are needed for the garrison. That's 100 florins in one turn, plus 37 florins a turn for upkeep, while the base loyalty of the province continues to erode from the high taxes. And one less unit available for the field army. Much of the Almohad's very limited troop production capability is wasted producing another garrison unit.

Now that's a rich province. Clearly, squeezing Cyrencia isn't worth the expense.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Setting the taxes to very high is not without setbacks. The loyalty of your generals will go down very fast and all your governors will get bad vices (mainly related to being a bunch of fat slobs). Maybe in the end the extra florins will compensate for this but rather play nice to my people. Hmmm not too nice, my taxes are set to normal.

[Warmongerer]

...and all your governors will get bad vices (mainly related to being a bunch of fat slobs).

I wondered why all of my generals were hedonists Makes sense, I guess. But why couldn't they just be greedy and have the populace hate them instead of getting fat and weak?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Warmongerer @ June 12 2003,04:12)]...and all your governors will get bad vices (mainly related to being a bunch of fat slobs).

I wondered why all of my generals were hedonists Makes sense, I guess. But why couldn't they just be greedy and have the populace hate them instead of getting fat and weak?

that happens as well... mainly in trading provinces, you get a lot of Governors who are Dominant traders or Outlaws, or they may be a bunch of Art Lovers.

But really it depends.

I like to keep my taxes at Normal, but on occasion I will drop them to Low and Very Low if needs be.

The only provinces that would have higher Taxation would be my primery trading provinces such as Antioch, Constantinople, Flanders, etc But those taxes only get raised when I need money fast through my overseas trade.

[Dîn-Heru]

Governors getting bad vices seem to have something to do with the size of the empire, ie the larger the empire is, the larger the possibility of them getting income reduceing vices. And they seem to get them faster than you can give the titles away.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Dîn-Heru @ June 12 2003,13:44)]Governors getting bad vices seem to have something to do with the size of the empire, ie the larger the empire is, the larger the possibility of them getting income reduceing vices.

And they seem to get them faster than you can give the titles away.

Simple probability may account for some of that -- large empire = more provinces = more governors = more chances for one to develop a vice. Also, some governors of rich provinces in a big empire are going to be further away from the king -- which also encourages corruption.

However, I have to wonder whether susceptibility to corruption is tied to how much tax revenue a province generates -- whatever it's tax rate.

True, highly taxed provinces obviously generate more money than slightly taxed ones. However, I'd bet a governor of a rich province like Constantinople is more likely to become corrupt. More florins are flowing through his province on a very low tax setting than flow through most provinces on very high settings.

==============

And another thing: Do tax rates effect trade? Does trade grow faster in provinces with low tax rates than in provinces with high ones?

[Leet Eriksson]

speaking of muslim economy,its historically correct at the beggining of the game they are sh*t poor,egypt has its own revolts to take care of and the turks are just a bunch of tribes.the almohads were probably the only ones with a standing economy,but it still has spain to contend with.

[Crash]

Speaking of Reagonomics, looks like the economic model in MTW favors a highly progressive tax rate. Very low taxes on the poor provinces because it's not worth the the risk rebellions, and very high taxes on rich provinces where it's worth it to garrison them. That's fair...

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (some_totalwar_dude @ June 10 2003,14:17)]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ June 10 2003,19:24)]Personal preferences are important. I like attacking and a fast game. Maybe that will become boring soon, but it hasn't yet.

GAH, you still can have fun with MTW whatever you do.

I nead Ironman rules to make it challeging/fun

(not that I'm saying your a bad player)

Ironman as never load a game? I really don't think that it makes the game more fun. I never load, but I never loose either