Taxing Planets

More options = less micromanagement

from GalCiv2 Forums
"A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure: New climate, recreational facilities - absolutely free." (Blimp ad from street scene in Blade Runner.)

Firstly, my apologies if this has been brought up elsewhere - I'm new to this forum and I know there are whole categories I haven't been able to find yet.

Allow me to briefly explain why I feel that players should have the option to set individual colonies' tax rates and how this could actually reduce micromanagement.

Every world in the game has its own strengths and weaknesses. I like the idea of the global tax rate and don't think it should be discarded. However, I do not like having to adjust my global tax rate every time I establish a new colony (and then re-adjusting and checking all of my morale levels once its entertainment net is built) or when one planet starts to get into morale trouble. It also seems just plain more realistic to allow different planets to be taxed at different levels; would you move your family to Mars without some kind of serious financial incentive?

A set of three options on the planet details screen would solve these problems, make it possible to get the most out of each colony, and actually reduce the amount of time you spend adjusting your global tax levels:
a) Set planetary tax to global level (default)
b) Adjust tax rate manually (displays a slider like the global one)
c) Auto adjust tax rate each turn to keep morale level at or above [input box]%

I would probably use c) exclusively. Knowing that I could count on at least a minimum morale level, that's one less thing I have to keep careful track of. Or, switching to option b), I could tax one colony to the max while defending it against attack, then reset to peacetime levels when the threat is gone, without disrupting every single planet in the empire and a tedious readjustment afterwards.

This sort of auto-adjuster option would be good for the global levels, too.
Taxes: "Auto adjust tax rate to keep the lowest planetary morale level in the empire at or above [input box]%"
Spending: "Auto adjust spending rate to keep the empire's income at or above [input box] bc"

Knowing that I could set spending to keep me out of deficit, or so that I would always have at least enough credits on hand to quickbuild a given ship type, would mean a lot fewer trips to the policy screen for me. I probably spend more time worrying about these things than most players, but with the defaults set to use the global levels, players who don't want to use it wouldn't have to.

One more point in favor of individual tax rates is that if you do micromanage your taxes in the early game, when every single bc counts and you only have a few planets to keep track of, you'll end up with a few more bc to spend when you need them most. Of course, so would all of the AI factions...
8,054 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"One more point in favor of individual tax rates is that if you do micromanage your taxes in the early game, when every single bc counts and you only have a few planets to keep track of, you'll end up with a few more bc to spend when you need them most. Of course, so would all of the AI factions... "

Actually that sounds like a good reason not too allow it. It adds forced micro to compete with the AI. Forced micro is evil.

Futher, what are these entertainment networks of which you speak? I don't think I've ever built one.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"what are these entertainment networks of which you speak? I don't think I've ever built one."

I meant the morale booster building - Entertainment Center? Sorry, posting from work, no game handy.

I agree that it sholdn't be forced. Perhaps the AI could benefit from it at levels above Normal, or maybe only at Genius and above. Or you could select whether or not the AI gets control over individual planet taxation, if you want to add a little more challenge without jumping the AI up an intelligence level.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The CPU Players already monitor and adjust their tax rates every turn to get the best resources/economy possible. Allowing players to auto-adjust per planet (or even just auto-adjusting the universal tax) would merely put them on even ground with the computer players. Neither would gain any real advantage that they didn't have before.

Well, there is the little thing about normal CPU getting 75% economy, but to be honest the CPU has crazy efficiency anyways.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like the idea of individually adjusting planetary tax rates... especially your multiple-choice settable options to do so. It would alleviate the small headache that micromanaging 40+ colonies in order to ensure that they're all happy tends to bring.

However, let me put on my "Devil's Advocate" hat, and play the realism simulator (since so many people here want more realism in the game):

-- Enter Troy McClure as narrator --

"Hello! I'm Troy McClure! You may remember me from such 4X space game analysis posts as, 'GalCiv II -- Is a Week REALLY a Good Measure of Time for This Game?', and 'Master of Orion III: What the @%&#?!'"

"Anyway, I'm here today to discuss the merits of individually taxing each planet in an empire. Let's look at a an example, shall we?"

"'Planet A' is prospering and has a wealthy civilization that you've levied a tax rate of 45% on in order to increase empire spending. All is good (and I'm slated to play the side kick in the next McBain space wars film, there!) Anyway, 'Planet B' is then colonized. Since it takes some time to get things going, and to keep your people happy there, you've decided to lower that planets' tax rate to a meager 27% (to avoid the ugliness). The 'Empire Chronicle' reports to its citizenry "Tax Rates at All Time Low on Planet B". End result? Mass exodus of the Republicans on Planet A to Planet B, and Planet A then results in lower income."

OK, OK... it got a little less "Troy McClure" and a little more analogy there in the end, but you get the picture -- If I existed in a society such as this, I'd be on the first boat out of the over-taxed colony to the newer lower one. Can anyone say "Revoltionary USA"?

That silliness aside, I really do like your ideas. And, when it comes right down to it, I'd go with your "Option C" as well!
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I posted a not-so-detailed request for both planetary control of spending/taxes, and also about taxes based on desired approval rate. So, I agree completely with you!!! I BEG them to do this... PPPLLLLLLEEEEAAASSEEEE!!!

Thank you.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Vernholio, you wrote "End result? Mass exodus of the Republicans on Planet A to Planet B".

In this case, though, Planet B is a brand new colony, while Planet A has a high level of civilization and cultural sophistication. Moving from A to B would be like moving from L.A. to Tierra Del Fuego; it would mean abandoning a comfortable life for one of hardship and (for the average Joe & Jane Colonist, at least) hard work.

Also, it means leaving your family behind and losing your social status as you become 'a provincial'. To go back to Revolutionary USA: At the time of the Revolution, Lord Fairfax was the only British Peer living in the North American colonies. For the most part, people of substance stayed far away.

Who did go to the American colonies? Religious separatists, transported criminals, sailors, debtors, cattle thieves, and swindlers to name a few, along with plenty of other people who were promised land for the first time in their lives. Not a very attractive social scene for folks who have a good enough reason to stay where they are. (Yes, some of my ancestors came over then; they may have just been looking for land, but I don't know for sure.)

So, overall, I don't think individual planetary taxation is unrealistic. It might, though, give the AI a serious edge if the computer uses it but the player doesn't bother. It would have to be an all-or-nothing thing that the player can change in-game if s/he wants.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My main reason for wanting to be able to set tax rates for individual planets is to allow me to 'manage' morale and overall productivity. I have all these big heavily industrialized planets with morale in the 40s plus all these small planets with 80+ morale. My overall morale is in the low 60's and my net income is - just, normally - positive. So I can't ratchet up my overall productivity without going bankrupt because I can't raise taxes because some of my best planets already have horrible morale. Admittedly, this is only my second game and I badly underestimated the importance of economic improvements, especially leading to the morale and income improving stock markets. I am now 'retro-fitting' them on my big planets so I will cut my industrial capability on my factory worlds where I would prefer to do this by dropping the tax rate on these worlds, tax the smaller, happier worlds more to compensate and more so that I can ratchet up the productivity. But how productive can a population of 1.4 trillion be when 1.395 trillion aren't yet old enough to start school? Talk about a baby boom.

As bad as the implementation was in MOO3 (which i still occasionally play and enjoy), much of the design intent was superior to GalCiv2. This is a case in point as tweaking the local tax rate was the best way to deal with planetary unhappiness. Of course, the whole MOO3 economic model was even more incomprehensible to me than is the GalCiv2 model - which is not a model of clarity.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm amazed none of the "devil's advocates" have actually put out the most obvious arguement against taxing individual planets: Removing the requirement of entertainment centres.

Let's say I've got two planets - a 5 billion colonist industrial world and a 22+ billion colonist world I'm setting up for taxes and influence. The 5 billion one might normally require an entertainment centre - and those single tiles are valuable commodities if it's a low class planet - so I might simply set the tax low enough on that specific planet that I can keep it at 70-80 approval without needing an entertainment centre. It's not like I'm using it for cash or anything - that free tile lets me put down another factory to pump out extra ships.

On the other hand my "cash cow" world I can simply use all the tiles I want to create entertainment centres or whatnot while keeping the taxes just high enough so that they don't lose population each week.


As much as I'd love this feature, I think it would be a little unrealistic and the CPU players are likely the only ones paying close enough attention to abuse the feature to any useful extent.

On the other hand, it might be interesting to have a "Curve" sort of taxation - an automatic tax setting that lowers taxes slightly in places where approval ratings are low, and heightens them where approval ratings are high.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
transported criminals, sailors, debtors, cattle thieves, and swindlers to name a few


Hey... you just named half of our current political leaders! Anyway, it was more of a "tongue-in-cheek" observation than anything else -- I'd just come out of a thread that was complaining about the realism factor in the game. So, what I've learned is that the posters in this thread are more concerned about gameplay than realism (which is where I hang my hat as well).

As this forum has proven more times than not, there are a lot of VERY educated people playing this game and posting to these forums (not to mention putting me in my place when I try to be weakly sarcastic! It's a welcome change to the 13 year-olds that would have "pwned" me if I went up against them in FEAR or WoW). BTW, what in the hell does "pwned" mean?!?

Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
TheLoneKnight, I haven't had the game for very long, so I don't know that much yet about how closely balanced these things are. Giving your post some thought, though, has made me wonder how much impact one more factory, research center, etc. on, say, half of your planets would have on game balance.

A single structure does not generate an enormous amount of production, though it would make a difference in the long run for both the player and the AI. It seems that in the initial land rush, the AI factions tend to grab more planets than I do, which would give them an extra edge under the planetary tax rate system. So my question at this point is, how much of an edge? And would that even out as I become a better player?

If that means that small worlds can do without an entertainment center, I don't see that as making a giant difference if both the AI and the player are managing taxes on a per-planet basis. What I am advocating is an "opt-in" option, so players would presumably know what they are doing if they turn it on. A set of global options on the overall economy screen, similar to the ones I was originally talking about on the planet detail screen, might also be a good idea; both to serve as a reminder that taxes are being managed locally and to set global preferences for the local taxes, cutting down micromanagement even further.

As for setting up a "cash cow" planet, I looked around to find out how much we get from taxes. This is from a reply to a post (Link) made today: "Assuming no bonuses 100 million people produce 1 BC at 100% tax rate. So at 50% tax 1 BILLION people would produce 5 BCs."

Assuming that this is correct: With your example of a 22 billion-colonist planet, let's say you can get your tax rate up to 79%. That's 7.9 bc per billion colonists, rounded down to 7 bc (I can't find the reference, but I believe GCII rounds everythig down). So you would have 22 * 7 = 154 bc per turn in taxes, or 176 bc if you can get the tax rate above 79%. That would seem to make a fairly slender cow, considering that this population buildup leaves very little room for production, research, or other pursuits. I don't see this as a balance breaker at all.

To touch just briefly on the realism factor again: On a barren, industrial hole like Mars, I would expect that financial incentives like low taxes would have to be offered by the government to encourage people and corporations to stay there. The small population doesn't really need an entertainment complex the size of a small continent. There is plenty of room for a Sun dome, a GravBall arena, holo suites, etc. in the original colony. On the Fantasy Island "cash cow" resort world, however, I would expect taxes to be pretty high - the government wants to encourage tourism, but also would want to put up a big financial barrier to keep average people from moving there permanently.

There may be a better way to implement some or all of this and make it more intuitive - I really haven't had the game long enough to say for sure. However, I am frustrated by the flat tax system and would like the chance to have more say in my economy. An interesting twist on this might be that if your party loses control of the government, you default to the flat tax system.

Vernholio, my sarcasm meter must be busted, sorry if I seemed to be overdoing it! I work with people who expect you to defend your position thoroughly. As for "pwned", it basically means "dominated"; I think it comes from an old computer game. (You weren't being sarcastic again, were you?) As for those darn kids, I just yell at them to get off my lawn.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But how productive can a population of 1.4 trillion be when 1.395 trillion aren't yet old enough to start school? Talk about a baby boom.


I think your population is based on adults paying taxes. That means the inderaged are no counted. BTW, isn't it a little unrealistic that the population grows ten or more per cert in one year?
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As for those darn kids, I just yell at them to get off my lawn.


...and if their damn ball rolls into my yard one more time, I'm keeping it!!
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Marshal, the planet I was referring to would likely have farming bonuses - lord knows those bloody tiles are common enough - and you didn't include any economic structures in with your math. +20% per tile can certainly add up with your base cash level is 150-170.

Even if it didn't have farming tile bonuses, you could easily get 22 bill from a couple of mid-to-high level farms tiles. The only thing that would really suck up the tile useage would be happiness. If you can alter tax per planet you can always find that one perfect balance to keep the people happy while making a killing.

That's not including the tourism that large numbers of people bring.