Re: Taxation system
Sun, 26 Jul 92 21:54:25 EDT

[original message edited for reply]

Carl Edman wrote:
>I agree that a taxation, province ruling system is necessary now
>after the recent changes, but I think that Russells implementation
>ideas are a little bit too complicated. Instead I suggest the
>following extremely simple and understandable system.

>1. Add a new command (or skill use) called RULE. Any stack leader may
>at any time RULE (or USE RULE) for any number of days.

This is an interesting approach. I kinda like it...

>2. When a stack leader issues a RULE command there is an automatic
>check whether any other unit in the same province is ruling right
>now. If there is automatic combat occurs between the current RULEr
>and the unit issuing the RULE command (and their respective stacks).
>The winner of the battle continues to RULE, the loser flees (and
>interupts his RULE).

I really DO NOT like this. It is too easy to accidentally attack someone
this way. I don't think trying to rule a region should be an intrinsically
hostile act. It MIGHT be but it ought not automatically be.

>3. At the end of each month the unit issuing the RULE command
>receives an amount of money depending on the population of the RULEd
>region. Ten times the number of work jobs in gold seems a reasonable
>starting point.

My idea was to allow the ruling party to "set [region] tax [rate]".
This tax would apply to all money earning or trading that take place
in the city. If you buy a sword, for instance, it would be marked up
by the tax rate. If you entertain, the appropriate percentage would
be taken out as taxation. If you work, again, an appropriate
percentage comes out. That way, unless the jobs were being worked,
you wouldn't get any money for them. An additional amount of income
would be based on the population of the city or town.


>a) This system can be refined by taking into account arguments to
>RULE like eg. taxation levels.

There are other things a ruler might want to do like set attitudes for
the region, etc. I think this is better handled via SETs.

>b) An alternative to 2. is to have RULE commands simply fail if there
>is another RULEr. A new RULEr would be expected to attack and remove
>the old RULEr by an explicit ATTACK if that is what he really wanted.
>This would prevent accidental attacks. The reason I'm not suggesting
>this is that it would allow a ruling faction to play all kinds of
>silly games of stealthy units quickly exchanging the RULErship among
>themselves which could allow such a faction to prevent even a much
>more powerful faction to take over for months (or even indefinitely).
>Hence auto-ATTACKs. If you want to be the RULEr of a province or
>depose an old one, be prepared to take risks.

I REALLY don't like the auto-attacks. I can just picture the first turn
when EVERYONE executes RULE at the same time leading to a bloodbath to
end all bloodbaths. It is just too hard to know who you are pissing off
and why. I had suggested simply applying the "first person stacked"
principle to region ownership although this has some big flaws.

>c) If you use the above algorithm to establish rulership all kinds of
>other things can be tied to it, but other people have suggested
>enough possibilities for that.


The idea of a RULE command is interesting but I would really like to
see a way around the auto-attack. At one point, I had an idea for a
"force" option on a variety of commands (such as "stack 3324 force")
which indicates you are willing to fight to execute the command.
Perhaps "rule 324 force" would do the trick. That way you have the
option of forcing the issue or not. Finally, there should be
appropriate messages in the turn report such as "XXX now rules YYY"
and *RULER* next to the name on the location reports.

John Morrow - Varian [856]

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links