Tinto Talks #8 - 17th of April 2024

[Johan]

If control represents the influence of the state over the province, should it not be the difference between 100% and « currently » which goes to the state, then applied with the taxation ?

Where does all the extra money above « currently » (0.76-0.44 = 0.32) go if it goes neither to the crown or the estates. Do the 0.32 just vanish ?

Its not created at all.

 

[Johan]

@Johan View attachment 1118431

Should probably be "available for us to borrow."

thanks, used swenglish

 

[Johan]

Am I reading this right?: farmers in Kalmar produce LESS food than they consume? (excluding fancy +% benefits...)

the peasants produce less, as some of them work in mines

 

[Johan]

will resource richness vary from place to place? Like will a stone mine in one place be able to support more miners/produce more stone than a stone mine in a different place?

yes

 

[Johan]

So previously i understood control as how much of the province the crown can reach to tax. So on a province with low control your state can reach the port town, but can't reach the forest dwellers nearby who live essentially free from you and your taxmen, keeping their wealth to themselves.

The "potential" money is not taxable nor the estates gets it.. it currently goes straight into the rebel-funding pool for that locations potential rebels..

 

[Johan]

Is this diplomatic range different from simple vision?

yes

 

[Johan]

I wonder if this is implying that there will be further goods that are not extracted. You can't exactly say that cloth is extracted, after all, as it is a manufactured good. I dearly hope we will have manufactured goods available in a location too, and that it can coexist with extracted goods.

Cloth is not a raw material, and will be talked about next week

 

[Johan]

In terms how subject nations are shown in the map, will it look similar to CK3 (where you have to click on a country to see its vassals) or EU4 (where you can see all the nations and their vassals on the same map)?

closer to eu4

 

[Johan]

so is construction more like an edict where funding is provided to expand that type of infrastructure in an area or are these buildings built more directly by the player/crown

its a building you have started as a player.

 

[Johan]

If occupying a location that has a granary during a war can you loot the food stored in the granary? Or does it just increase the supply limit of an area.

we will talk about logistics in a later dd

 

[Johan]

Given that a population will either sell excess food to the broader market or buy from the broader market if it doesn't produce enough food for itself (or starve if there's no food to buy, presumably), how does population growth work? I would assume that a population would grow assuming it's not literally starving, but what are the factors of their growth in a given location?

growth, migration, promotion etc will be talked in a later dd

 

[Johan]

Sorry for harping on it, but in a previous DD you described control being mostly affected by the distance from the capital/communication distance. Why would nobles far away from the capital keep less of their income? Shouldn't they be more powerful?

they are not really part of the country or the estate if they are that far away.

 

[Johan]

You previously described that the uncollected taxes in a low-control state go effectively to "local strongmen" and the like. Is there any reason why those local strongmen aren't the pops belonging to the estates themselves? A robber baron is still a baron, after all.

yes, and they use it for themselves locally, which is just local minor stuff not simulated.. and the rebels use money to fund their secession

 

[Johan]

So even if I’m super tolerant toward their religion and culture, and they are super happy, 58% of the local wealth would still go funding the rebellion (or be wasted if there is not), just because the location is far from my capital ?
While the burghers / nobles / peasants (who should be the ones rebelling if unhappy) would not benefit either from this money ?

they would enrich themselves locally, and make their houses nicer etc.

 

[Johan]

So control does not means more tax straight to the state but through the estates first? Who can then be taxed at higher rates due to greater control? For example at 100% control the estates take in 0.75 of tax revenue which at a 40% avg rate gives the state 0.30 ducats?

yes

 

[Johan]

Is there a reason you went with 1 material provinces for Project Caesar? I thought Vic3's multiple ressource provinces were quite good.

Caesar has about 10-50 locations for where V3 has a single province.

 

[Johan]

Why do Christain nations have to pay interest on loans when the Church's dogma forbade ursury?

The dogma forbade a lot of things which were handily ignored whenever deemed necessary.

 

[Johan]

View attachment 1118441
Guys what if building ships requires lumber... O.O

yes it will.

 

[Johan]

A province with 0 control is like it is not part of the country therefore the estates of the province do not contribute to the country. Since the estate pool is “country level” it cannot get wealth from estates that don’t contribute. Basically I imagine that those estates are not controlled and not part of the country and will do their own things (potentially rebels?) that cannot be captured by the country’s estate wealth.

yes

 

[Johan]

So, going back to my Riga example.
- while under Riga state with 100% control (as the capital), 0% of the local wealth went on house decoration and 100% was split between the crown and the estates. The estates used it to fund buildings, commercial navies, expand trade, commercial ventures…
- the day after the Swedish / Russian conquest of Riga, because of distance from capital, controls drops to 42%. Local pops suddenly decide to spend 58% of their wealth into house decoration ?
- this « lost » money doesn’t enter the estate coffers anymore, and thus stops participating in the economic development of the province. Suddenly the estate lose 58% of their wealth ? In a previous TT, you said the estates would pursue their own agenda and use their money to increase their economy, but now they lost 58% of their ability to do so ? Which means less local castles for the nobles, less trade ships for the burghers, less farming infrastructure for the peasants…

yes, because they are now excpeted to be part of the Swedish estate, and not the russian estate any longer..