Caribbean etc. islands

[Norrefeldt]

Re: Hard wroking slaves need salt.

Is the tax increase being used by the standard above? Norrefeldt is probably going to complain about these pop increases if he sees this. I personally like these kinds of things for colonies, but I'm concerned that a human will abuse pop increases of this size if this event triggers shortly after they get access to them. See they can put 100 colonists there and just wait briefly and then have it become a city for free. Perhaps in cirmustances like this a smaller increase in pop would be better for gameaplay, like 250 or so.

I saw it! IDLF just pointed out one possble exploit. I would be fine if you include in the event a part of that massive investment that made this possible. The B option ought to be less favourable, otherwise a player will just build up a TP here to collect the 125d. That way the event hardly improves a feeling for historical development.

 

[EUnderhill]

True enough

Not really. It can be done with one event per island. Very easy.

This is not a bad point, but I think it's secondary compared to the issues of attrition, recruitment etc.

What your basis for this statement? The problems Britain had with St Lucia? I'd argue the exact opposite - the income from the sugar islands was easily taken over by anyone who owned the islands and the income from those islands should in no way be affected by religion and culture. These islands changed hands very often.

It's really just 'wealth' that determines it isn't it? Anyway you're right, increased population will mean much bigger revolts, and even if you rationalize that as slave revolts it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Historically units that were assigned to the Caribbean simply disappeared. It should absolutely not be a wash fatalities of soldiers in this region were huge.

I disagree, but I admit it's debatable either way.

That's an interpretation of troop raising that I don't share. If it's simple means muster points whouldn't troops raised in colonies cost a lot more than troops raised at home (due to transportation costs)? And why shoudl richer provinces (based on tax value) be able to muster more troops from home than poorer ones? And why should ability to muster troops depend on the local culture? Surely the reasonable answer is that the tax value represents rural popualtions from whom you are recruiting. Makes much more sense. And it's not as if many troops were ever mustered in the Caribbean anyway.

As I see it it comes down to these arguments.
In favour of high tax values:
1) Keeps revolts sizes low (important point).
2) Much more aestherically pleasng than ahistorically huge populations (pretty important)
3) Shouldn't penalize naval powers (sort of important)
In favour of low tax values:
1) Discourages early colonization by Spain, making the AI's approach more sensible (very important)
2) Prevents recruitment of large armies in the Caribbean (pretty important)
3) Makes income (which historically is almost exclusively from sugar) depend on the 'right' things - independent of culture, religion and nationalism, highly dependent on sugar price and production efficiency. (pretty important)
4) Make attrition much closer to reality, where it was devastating in the Caribean (sort of important)

To me it's still pretty clear that the taxvalues ought to go down.

1 and 4. Will changing the climate/suitability in province.csv kill both birds with one stone?
2. We disagree conceptually on the nature of recruitment. If most people see it as you do, I will concede this. If the converse, I hope you will do likewise.
3. I am arguing this from a gameplay perspective to encourage vigorous defense, rather than conceding-now-taking-back-in-the next-war approach.

Anyways, thank you for the feedback.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

1 and 4. Will changing the climate/suitability in province.csv kill both birds with one stone?

No because it only affects armies that are over the province support limit.

2. We disagree conceptually on the nature of recruitment. If most people see it as you do, I will concede this. If the converse, I hope you will do likewise.

Yes. If conceptually, recruitment represents mustering troops from home then you're right. I just don't see how that interpretation is consistent with the way it works in the game.

3. I am arguing this from a gameplay perspective to encourage vigorous defense, rather than conceding-now-taking-back-in-the next-war approach.

But in real life no-one ever did the 'vigourous defense' thing. Well except the Spanish. It was always concede now, retake later.

 

[EUnderhill]

No because it only affects armies that are over the province support limit.

It would make it a harder cap though, right?

BTW, how would one script a pop-boost event, esp in light of the exploit mentioned by IDLF and not triggered by a TP? I would suggest having a naval and trade level requirement to keep it later-game, perhaps for Spain making it contigent on owning Zacatecas and Cuzco as well, to make sure they have their priorities in order.

Regarding recruitment, to restate my previous point differently, which province can recruit more troops, the one with 20 tax, 1mp or the 20mp, 1 tax, EEE?

 

[unmerged(31425)]

BTW, how would one script a pop-boost event, esp in light of the exploit mentioned by IDLF and not triggered by a TP?

province religion, control, and ownership.

 

[EUnderhill]

province religion, control, and ownership.

Won't a single colonist do this, thus allowing the exploit, since the size of the pop boost was implied to be large enough to make up for lost tax revenue in the form of more sugar produced, thus being on the order of 10k or so. The idea behind my trigger was to make it non-sensical to not develop the colony to a city first anyways by making it happen later, with some strictures on the Spanish as well, if the outer isles are to be secondary for them.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Regarding recruitment, to restate my previous point differently, which province can recruit more troops, the one with 20 tax, 1mp or the 20mp, 1 tax, EEE?

Recruitment ability depends on adjusted tax value, is double for core provinces and doubled if a CC is present.

Manpower doesn't matter for that purpose

 

[EUnderhill]

Recruitment ability depends on adjusted tax value, is double for core provinces and doubled if a CC is present.

Manpower doesn't matter for that purpose

Once again my rhetorical question for IB gets answered . Any opinion, however?

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Won't a single colonist do this, thus allowing the exploit, since the size of the pop boost was implied to be large enough to make up for lost tax revenue in the form of more sugar produced, thus being on the order of 10k or so. The idea behind my trigger was to make it non-sensical to not develop the colony to a city first anyways by making it happen later, with some strictures on the Spanish as well, if the outer isles are to be secondary for them.

You're correct. Apparently I misunderstood your question. I was just pointing out how to trigger events for colonies not TPs.

The best solution I can think of is to make the pop increases small like 200 or 300. That way the benefit for waiting until an event to make it into city status is almost non-existent, since the last 300 pop or so required to make a colony into a city is pretty darn cheap, particularly for the provinces in question. And consequently would almost always be worth turning into cities asap so that baliffs could be put there asap, the exception being that the colony was only able to be colonized just shortly before the event. So abuse could be minimal. Besides giving pop increases of 1,000 to 5,000 may cause imbalance in proportion to other colonies in the region that were grabbed much earlier.

 

[EUnderhill]

You're correct. Apparently I misunderstood your question. I was just pointing out how to trigger events for colonies not TPs.

The best solution I can think of is to make the pop increases small like 200 or 300. That way the benefit for waiting until an event to make it into city status is almost non-existent, since the last 300 pop or so required to make a colony into a city is pretty darn cheap, particularly for the provinces in question. And consequently would almost always be worth turning into cities asap so that baliffs could be put there asap, the exception being that the colony was only able to be colonized just shortly before the event. So abuse could be minimal. Besides giving pop increases of 1,000 to 5,000 may cause imbalance in proportion to other colonies in the region that were grabbed much earlier.

Imbalance is the goal, in a way, so as to keep the same net, take-home value for the owner yet lowering the tax value to avoid some unwanted effects about which IB feels a bit more strongly than I do. Since tax value is involved, it is only when a city size is reached that difference is felt, and to compensate with a pop boost it must be big enough to cross a size-multiplier threshold. The question is how big an ahistorical boost is needed to get the proper historical net worth. Given my druthers I would leave well enough alone, but IB has some differing opinions and we're just trying out other solutions.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Imbalance is the goal, in a way, so as to keep the same net, take-home value for the owner yet lowering the tax value to avoid some unwanted effects about which IB feels a bit more strongly than I do. Since tax value is involved, it is only when a city size is reached that difference is felt, and to compensate with a pop boost it must be big enough to cross a size-multiplier threshold. The question is how big an ahistorical boost is needed to get the proper historical net worth. Given my druthers I would leave well enough alone, but IB has some differing opinions and we're just trying out other solutions.

Well if you're just using the pop to increase the value of sugar then why not just make more refineries via historical events. After all they are undermade in the game anyways and are the sole increasers of the value of sugar across the board. Giving certain islands disproportionately large populations to deal with this problem doesn't seem like a very good solution to me. It makes these pops look awkward compared to other nearby province popluations.

 

[EUnderhill]

Well if you're just using the pop to increase the value of sugar then why not just make more refineries via historical events. After all they are undermade in the game anyways and are the sole increasers of the value of sugar across the board. Giving certain islands disproportionately large populations to deal with this problem doesn't seem like a very good solution to me. It makes these pops look awkward compared to other nearby province popluations.

First of all, my position is leave well enough alone regarding the tax values. Secondly, the goal of this compromise is not to raise the overall price of sugar, but to raise the amount of sugar produced by particular islands through a pop boost so that the gain from producing more sugar, trade in a CoT from the sugar and the increase in tolls gives a zero-sum when matched with a tax value reduction. Free refineries would not really address the specific problem and would introduce their own set of unintended consequences. I am of the mind that the islands in question are among the most valuable properties per acre, and given that they cost the same in stablilty and tech cost and fortification given the small size, the value should be tweaked a bit higher to get the right net effect. You may discover that I am actually a bit deterministic in a "geography=destiny" sort of way. I'm just not at all sold on the notion that eighty years into the game the same sperm will meet the same egg on the same day. Remember that I go all the way back to the board game where each monarch was checked for death periodically, and the successor had stats rolled up on the spot. The historical monarchs were an option in the addendum. Just helping you know from where I come on some issues.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

First of all, my position is leave well enough alone regarding the tax values.

If they are left alone than this leaves imbalance in new world provinces, because many Brazilian and Southern US provinces had more agriculture over all. Tax doesn't just represent tax on sugar production. It represents all forms of agriculture and animal husbandry and there are many provinces with tax values lower than 6 that were undoubtedly much bigger producers in this. So why should they get to keep an ahistorically high tax value?

Secondly, the goal of this compromise is not to raise the overall price of sugar, but to raise the amount of sugar produced by particular islands through a pop boost so that the gain from producing more sugar, trade in a CoT from the sugar and the increase in tolls gives a zero-sum when matched with a tax value reduction. Free refineries would not really address the specific problem and would introduce their own set of unintended consequences.

I'm assuming that you are completely unaware that refineries increase the value of sugar, because otherwise your argument here makes no sense. What problems would additional refineries produce?

I am of the mind that the islands in question are among the most valuable properties per acre, and given that they cost the same in stablilty and tech cost and fortification given the small size, the value should be tweaked a bit higher to get the right net effect.

But the mainland provinces have so much more land. And it's not just quality that counts here. Quantity counts too. Fortifications vs land size should be irrelevant.I don't see how your points here are valid. What difference does all of this make?

You may discover that I am actually a bit deterministic in a "geography=destiny" sort of way.

Then why are you promoting changes that will cause ahistorically high populations in these islands?

I'm just not at all sold on the notion that eighty years into the game the same sperm will meet the same egg on the same day. Remember that I go all the way back to the board game where each monarch was checked for death periodically, and the successor had stats rolled up on the spot. The historical monarchs were an option in the addendum. Just helping you know from where I come on some issues.

I don't understand your point in this last part. What is it?

 

[EUnderhill]

If they are left alone than this leaves imbalance in new world provinces, because many Brazilian and Southern US provinces had more agriculture over all. Tax doesn't just represent tax on sugar production. It represents all forms of agriculture and animal husbandry and there are many provinces with tax values lower than 6 that were undoubtedly much bigger producers in this. So why should they get to keep an ahistorically high tax value?
I'm assuming that you are completely unaware that refineries increase the value of sugar, because otherwise your argument here makes no sense. What problems would additional refineries produce?
But the mainland provinces have so much more land. And it's not just quality that counts here. Quantity counts too. Fortifications vs land size should be irrelevant.I don't see how your points here are valid. What difference does all of this make?
Then why are you promoting changes that will cause ahistorically high populations in these islands?

I don't understand your point in this last part. What is it?

In the end, the only thing taxes represent are the income that is affected by stability, culture, religion, etc, give inflation-free cash every year and become a decreasing proportion of total income as the game goes on. Any coincidence with actual land taxes collected is an accident. The mean what you want them to mean in order to get the desired game effect.

The effect that I want, given that despite smaller size they cost the same to stabilze as larger provinces and do likewise with tech costs, and can not be scaled down though modding, is to give them the historically appropriate relative worth to their owner. Since I believe that their costs are ahistorically high, making their benefits ahistorically high is the proper offset. I would have no issue at all with lowering the tax values if the stability and tech costs could be lowered as well.

I am well aware that refineries increase the trade value of sugar. That is precisely why I do not want to use this method because it raises the value for everyone. I want to keep the price of sugar to go down by a small percent. I want the amount of sugar produced by these specific islands to rise by a greater percent, if it is decided to lower the tax values. More refineries might not be bad, but to put them in places they ought not be to solve this problem is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.

Quantity should count, but unfortunately the game engine does not always recognize that, and one unavoidable fiction begets another.

Why do I promote an ahistorical population? Because the population is what production and manpower multiplier is to be used - any connection to actual population is once again purely coincidental.

BTW rereading the thread should show the side that I am actually arguing, preferring lower pop and higher tax, but taking into consideration the points raised by IB I am in search of a solution that answers his concerns well as mine in the best way possible.

Regarding my last point, I do not believe a player should know in 1419 how good his monarch or leaders will be eighty years hence, ie the characteristics of people born in the game era should be as indeterminate as possible.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I'm assuming that you are completely unaware that refineries increase the value of sugar, because otherwise your argument here makes no sense. What problems would additional refineries produce?

Well this just shows that you haven't read the posts in this thread. Please pay more attention.

Then why are you promoting changes that will cause ahistorically high populations in these islands?

He's not. I am.
And the reason is because sugar production in the rest of the world was marginally profitable at best. Sugar production on the Caribbean islands and in Brazil was incredibly lucrative. There are only a few ways we can make the game work like this. As I see it they are:
1) Get rid of all sugar that is not in Brazil or the Caribbean. IMHO not a bad option, but someone will invariably come along and say how sugar was by far the most important production of province x.
2) Give the Caribbean islands (and I suppose Brazil) what I consider to be wildly ahistorical taxvalues. Not an awful solution I admit.
3) Jack up the populations of Brazil and Caribbean sugar cities so that they get a lot more sugar production than any other sugar province. This ought to be accompanied by a drop in the value of sugar, although it is possible that the increased supply will accomplish that goal anyway. This is what I've been advocating on this thread.

All of these are problematic, and the issue of the exploit is a very important one. I think option 1 might be the bets choice. Any thoughts?

 

[unmerged(31425)]

He's not. I am.
And the reason is because sugar production in the rest of the world was marginally profitable at best. Sugar production on the Caribbean islands and in Brazil was incredibly lucrative. There are only a few ways we can make the game work like this. As I see it they are:

Sugar production in Jakarta was vert proftibable. Sugar production on Sao Tome was for some time too. The sugar in Colombo has been removed already. This leaves Ciskei, Maritius, and Bourbon. I can't answer for Ciskei, but Bourbon and Mauritius definitely grew sugar.

1) Get rid of all sugar that is not in Brazil or the Caribbean. IMHO not a bad option, but someone will invariably come along and say how sugar was by far the most important production of province x.

The innability for the engine to fully replicate the economics of a given region is no excuse to mutliate the economics of another nor to misrepresent another.

2) Give the Caribbean islands (and I suppose Brazil) what I consider to be wildly ahistorical taxvalues. Not an awful solution I admit.

Since this is also inacurate, how does it realy help? It's just trading one innacuracy for another.

3) Jack up the populations of Brazil and Caribbean sugar cities so that they get a lot more sugar production than any other sugar province. This ought to be accompanied by a drop in the value of sugar, although it is possible that the increased supply will accomplish that goal anyway. This is what I've been advocating on this thread.

I'm sorry I just don't see the neccesity in wrecking balance in the game to portray balance. If any of the regions in question are to be misrepresented historically, if this is indeed unavoidable, then it should be the Carribean. Might I remind the posters in this thread that one of the primary reasons for my starting this discussion is the abuse of the Carribean's easteren islands. The best colonial strategy in the game is to go straight for them. This is becasue they are so so cheap to colonize and have high value both in commodity and tax. They are the best investment in the game. From a purely economic perspective there is no better strategy period than to colonize all the eastern Carribean islands asap. This lead to abuse by humans, who when playing Portugal go straight for them instead of Africa and Brazil. Spain will grab all of them before taking anything else. And anybody playing France or Britain will do the same thing. Making events that make them even more valuable will not stop abuse in colonizing them. This means that their current setup gives humans a big advantage over AIs. What I'm trying to do is make various strategies for human players more equally viable and at the same time reduce the enormous gap between human and AI colonizing efficiency and profitability.

Can the Carribean be represented economically perfectly in the game? Of course not. So we go with the best historical/gameplay solution and that is to cut the tax value of the eastern islands. Your proposals in this post Isaac won't solve the problem.

And my comment on the refineries wasn't because I hadn't read his posts, it was because his argument didn't make sense.

 

[Twoflower]

I concur entirely with IDLF. In order to make sugar provinces as profitable as they were after a certain time, the value of sugar should be increased and the provinces where sugar production was not as important as in the Caribbean should get a different good. If sugar production by itself would be highly profitable, ahistorical increases of the tax value or the population won't be needed.
Nobody can argue that the small Caribbean islands are far too profitable in the early stages of the colonial era and that therefore every smart player will have them as one of his primary targets for colonization - while historically they were almost ignored until sugar production had become more attractive. The AGCEEP should definitely not discourage historical behaviour, and that's what it does with these high tax values.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Sugar production in Jakarta was vert proftibable. Sugar production on Sao Tome was for some time too. The sugar in Colombo has been removed already. This leaves Ciskei, Maritius, and Bourbon. I can't answer for Ciskei, but Bourbon and Mauritius definitely grew sugar.
The innability for the engine to fully replicate the economics of a given region is no excuse to mutliate the economics of another nor to misrepresent another.

Fine they grew sugar. Were they anything like as valuable as the Caribbean and Brazil? As far as I know the answer is no. For sure this is the case for the Azores, Sao Tome, and Crete. I strongly suspect it's also true for Jakarta and Ciskei along with the Philipino province and it's certainly true for all the mainland Caribbean provinces.

I'm sorry I just don't see the neccesity in wrecking balance in the game to portray balance. If any of the regions in question are to be misrepresented historically, if this is indeed unavoidable, then it should be the Carribean.

But you're arguing against the current situation, which certainly misrepresents the Caribbean. I don't get it.

Might I remind the posters in this thread that one of the primary reasons for my starting this discussion is the abuse of the Carribean's easteren islands. The best colonial strategy in the game is to go straight for them. This is becasue they are so so cheap to colonize and have high value both in commodity and tax. They are the best investment in the game. From a purely economic perspective there is no better strategy period than to colonize all the eastern Carribean islands asap. This lead to abuse by humans, who when playing Portugal go straight for them instead of Africa and Brazil. Spain will grab all of them before taking anything else. And anybody playing France or Britain will do the same thing. Making events that make them even more valuable will not stop abuse in colonizing them. This means that their current setup gives humans a big advantage over AIs. What I'm trying to do is make various strategies for human players more equally viable and at the same time reduce the enormous gap between human and AI colonizing efficiency and profitability.

Can the Carribean be represented economically perfectly in the game? Of course not. So we go with the best historical/gameplay solution and that is to cut the tax value of the eastern islands. Your proposals in this post Isaac won't solve the problem.

But to have Crete, Sao Tome, and the rest be just as valuable as Jamaica in the 18th century is absurd, and provides incentives that are just as perverse as those currently provided by the Caribbean islands.

And my comment on the refineries wasn't because I hadn't read his posts, it was because his argument didn't make sense.

Huh? His argument was:

Secondly, the goal of this compromise is not to raise the overall price of sugar, but to raise the amount of sugar produced by particular islands through a pop boost so that the gain from producing more sugar, trade in a CoT from the sugar and the increase in tolls gives a zero-sum when matched with a tax value reduction. Free refineries would not really address the specific problem and would introduce their own set of unintended consequences.

Which makes perfect sense - refineries increase the overall value of sugar and therefore the income from all sugar provinces, not the income from the few sugar provinces that dominated production and earned gobs of money. If you can't make sense of a simple argument like this you're either not paying attention or you're just plain stupid. I certainly don't think you're stupid, so I chose to assume the former.

 

[EUnderhill]

and the provinces where sugar production was not as important as in the Caribbean should get a different good. QUOTE]


But that wouldn't be historical.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Fine they grew sugar. Were they anything like as valuable as the Caribbean and Brazil? As far as I know the answer is no. For sure this is the case for the Azores, Sao Tome, and Crete. I strongly suspect it's also true for Jakarta and Ciskei along with the Philipino province and it's certainly true for all the mainland Caribbean provinces.

I suspect that some of them were, but this is as much unbacked conjecturuing as your suspiscion. Either way the biggest point your not facing is that changing these other provinces into something other than sugar means your creating less historical accuracy elsewhere. I see no reason to do this. We certainly don't need to. The engine has limitations and we have to work within them.

Besides the Carribean still retains a corner on sugar production as it simply has more sugar provinces than any other region. This isn't being threatened. I've noticed the tendancy for people to overinflate the importance of the particular region or country they are working on in this mod and then become blindsided by the fact that their proposals are out of whack with the rest of the game.

But you're arguing against the current situation, which certainly misrepresents the Caribbean. I don't get it.

Because making these provinces have disprportiontately large populations is imbalanced compared to other provinces, specifically in the nearby area, like all the mainland provinces in the Carribean and the western Carribean islands, who have stunted growth rates as it is. If the eastern Carribean islands are colonized after the western ones, thye wind up shortening this gap due to their faster growth rate. This is much better balancewise than making them dwarf the west islands in pop.

But to have Crete, Sao Tome, and the rest be just as valuable as Jamaica in the 18th century is absurd, and provides incentives that are just as perverse as those currently provided by the Caribbean islands.

Yes but this type of absurdity is inherent in the game engine. Are you going to re-work all the other provinces in the game by the same logic? Because if you do I think you may wind up with a net decrease in historical accuracy not an increase.

Huh? His argument was:

Which makes perfect sense - refineries increase the overall value of sugar and therefore the income from all sugar provinces, not the income from the few sugar provinces that dominated production and earned gobs of money. If you can't make sense of a simple argument like this you're either not paying attention or you're just plain stupid. I certainly don't think you're stupid, so I chose to assume the former.

I don't think your stupid either Isaac but you are the one not paying attention. Look at the posts in question a second time. The one your criticizing me for not paying attention to came after my comment in question, not before it.

It may be worthwhile for me to point out something here. As many of you may not be aware. Sugar is actually not one of the more valuable commodities late game. It has a base value of 16 which is the 2nd highest in the game. However it almost never reaches 200% demand like many of the other commodities. Late game it winds up being ranked in the middle not near the top in value. This is because it has only 1 modifier and that is refineries. Refineries especially in the AGCEEP tend to be undermade by AIs. So really we humans are the only ones that make sugar hit high value and this only if we do a deliberate mass refinery strategy.

This particular strategy isn't as viable as it used to be either. Unless we have many sugar provinces it's rarely more profitable to make mass refineries with recent patches, because the cost desparity increases between manufactories the more we make the same one type over and over. When this spread reaches say 1,000 ducats, it's hard to justify making another refinery rather than a different kind of manufactory. Consequently we rarely have high sugar values late game. I'm saying this to raise the question of whether or not it is desireable to have more events giving refineries to compensate for this and make sugar worth closer to it's historic value late game or not?