Industry and Wealth

[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.

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]

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.