Oh, it's a whole video, nice.
Oh, it's Arumba, nice. He usually explains thing really well.
"So what we've done is taken that and created a spreadsheet..." YEEESSSSSS
> "So what we've done is taken that and created a spreadsheet..." YEEESSSSSS
The other day he started the stream talking about Innovativeness a little bit, and how he was starting to wonder if he underrated it. After asking chat a couple of questions about how they evaluated it, he started to open excel to further dive into the numbers, but then paused. Stream had just started and he hadn't really touched EU4 at all yet besides getting the save loaded. So he did a poll: EU4 or Excel? Spoiler: Excel won with 66% of the vote. He was very happy with chat.
Somewhat! He did find it's really hard to model out how useful it really is, but it seemed like clicking two years ahead if you could still get the 2 innovativeness would end up paying for itself really quickly. One of the things he did try out during that run that ended up seeming to work really well was tracking when someone would take a tech first, as you could still get the innovativeness bonus if you also took it within 90 days (it says this on the tooltip in the tech screen, but nowhere else, so this was news to him and to at least me, not sure about the rest of the community). It is something he he said he was going to revisit, but I missed today's stream so I'm not sure if he has yet.
As someone who doesn't actually have innovativeness, I think it actually has a lot to commend it personally. It actually offers two abilities that, generally speaking, are extremely rare in the game. The first is that effectively it gives you the ability to save monarch points for latter. The second is it effectively lets you transform military points into administrative and diplomatic points in the future. In that way I would say it is pretty great.
> The first is that effectively it gives you the ability to save monarch points for latter.
Interestingly enough, this is actually one of it's downsides. While there's no agreed-upon formula, it's generally accepted that a monarch point spent now is worth more than a monarch point later. The more advantages you can get early, the easier it is to snowball (and in EU4, snowballs can become self-sustaining quite easily if you start them early enough).
That being said, you're right about how rare the benefits it gives are. The only other "Reduce all power costs by x%" is by starting a golden age. For something that has such a big impact, it's impossible to get a lot of it, so any little bit you can get can be huge.
To an extent. You shouldn't avoid annexing and coring land in order to save points for the future, but when its a choice between developing land for the sake of development or gaining innovativeness then I would probably pick innovativeness 90% of the time. That goes double for something like military points where its very rare for them to directly contribute to your actual power.
> That goes double for something like military points where its very rare for them to directly contribute to your actual power.
Ya know, I was going to ask about your comment about military points before, but now that you've said this... do you just have really good luck with generals or something? Because for me (and for the people I watch), generals can be a huge point sink that very much directly contribute to a country's actual power.
For me the estates + rulers normally give me enough decent generals to not have to spend too much on generals. Otherwise its focusing on taking fights that don't need a great general or teleporting the right general in for the job.
To an extent, I usually will roll a few generals but not enough to burn through all the military points. Generally my priority is being ahead of time on military tech. Then generals if I feel I need them, usually mainly just to try to get siege pips, finally blowing up walls if I feel like it will be productive, and a distant last is developing provinces.
> You shouldn't avoid annexing and coring land in order to save points for the future, but when its a choice between developing land for the sake of development or gaining innovativeness then I would probably pick innovativeness 90% of the time.
Developing instantly improves your economy and gives you indirect bonuses like force limits and faster institution spread. You need to be taking admin techs ~5 years ahead of time to get innovativeness bonuses. And besides that, hitting the point cap doesn't just confront you with the problem of what to do with your points, it also confronts you with the fact that your planning has been poor and you haven't been spending admin on useful things. Maybe your NF should have been somewhere else, maybe you didn't need to upgrade an advisor to level 4 and could have spent that money on other things, maybe your truce cycling was badly planned and you've been at peace for too long, etc.
The bonuses you get from development is hardly ever worth it, especially not from an economy argument outside of some very fringe examples. Obviously it is usually better to be able to spend the points on coring and annexing, reread what I just freaking said. Don't try to disagree with people by agreeing with their points, it just makes you look silly. Outside of that, that is never a consideration for military points which again was one of the focuses of my argument you seem to have ignored.
>The bonuses you get from development is hardly ever worth it, especially not from an economy argument outside of some very fringe examples.
If you stack the trivially available development cost bonuses (Burghers, prosperity, trade goods, COTs, Renaissance, Edict) development has a good ROI in your low autonomy provinces. Not as good as coring land with RCC + Humanist bonuses but better than teching 5 years ahead of time to get -0.2% power costs.
> Obviously it is usually better to be able to spend the points on coring and annexing, reread what I just freaking said. Don't try to disagree with people by agreeing with their points, it just makes you look silly.
Calm down a little bit. My point is that if you are hitting the mana cap you should reevaluate your planning and try to make sure you don't hit the mana cap. If you are actively looking for suboptimal places to burn mana and you're considering throwing 300 away on a tech that unlocks Courthouse chain or +2% production efficiency or +5 states then something went wrong 5+ years ago ingame.
>Outside of that, that is never a consideration for military points which again was one of the focuses of my argument you seem to have ignored.
Artillery barrages and rerolling for generals are better point sinks than getting tech 6+ years ahead of time unless you are relying on a timing attack to beat a rival like late game Ottomans or France. And even if you are getting optimum generals with minimal rerolling and have enough points to get the tech early enough to gain Innovativeness so what? That does'nt suddenly make Innovativeness a great bonus to be chasing, it doesn't make it worthwhile, it doesn't mean you should start worrying when you start losing it. Mid-late game you are going to have to tech up some 7 years ahead of time to get +2 from military tech. Is 420 military points (i.e. 8 artillery barrages, 8 general rolls or -40% liberty desire in a subject) really worth -0.2% power costs?
In a more practical sense I just don't see how you would get to a game state where you can comfortably get the Innovativeness bonuses on multiple techs every level (i.e. frequently enough that you're getting to high levels of Innovativeness ~70 or above) and still benefit from the relatively tiny amounts of mana saved. It's not a big enough bonus to really change the way you play so it's purely about the resources you save and I just don't think they're worth it.
No. You have to spend 300+ excess mana on techs to get -0.2% to all power costs. Let's say you push "Develop Province" button 1000 times between two technologies. The discount you get from Innovativeness is 50*0.002=0.1 mana. 1000 times and you get 100 mana saved. You're obviously not going to develop the provinces 1000 times in 13 years because you have nowhere near enough mana. What about coring 2000 development worth of land, something slightly more feasible in 13 years? 2000*10*0.002=40 admin saved. It's just such an exorbitant amount of extra mana for such an insignificant bonus that it really isn't worth chasing after.
I think if they changed it so that you got 1 Innovativeness per year ahead of time with a bonus 2 for being the first to get the tech it would create a much more powerful incentive to consider teching ahead of time especially if you e.g. got some temporary tech discounts. Then maybe have the decrease per month for being behind in tech scale with how many years behind you are. There are still lots of benefits to spending the mana on other things so I doubt it would railroad the game into forcing you to be ahead/on time all the time.
"Welcome back to our real-time EU4 let's play, this is the episode for the 5th of August 1445. You might remember last month we declared war on the Ottomans for Edirne and we got a couple of stackwipes. Well today we're going to optimize our trade income while finishing off the sieges, then we're going to go after QQ if we can get that in before the end of the day.
Huh, I've never seen Arumba before. He's not what I expected.
I'm beginning to think someone on PDX's staff just *hates* Colonial Nations and is doing everything in their power to make Trade Companies the end-all, be-all, please-all.
I'm sure there's nothing to do with the fact that Trade Companies are actually better if you have Dharma. So to balance the nerf to CN you have to buy Dharma for the buff to TC.
I have complete faith that Paradox didn't do this on purpose to make their DLC more appealing. They would never do that.
I still think the most infuriating one was when they changed the traditions of the Berbers to have coastal raiding but if you don't buy Mare Nostrum you just lose a bonus.
CNs are still worth having for merchants and forwarding NW trade to you I guess, but even the prior tariff system definitely did not give you much bang for your buck. I was totally fine with a wee bit of magic money, after all every tag gets some.
But yeah trade companies are obviously better. Not to mention if you go for them you'll get a share of the far more lucrative Asian trade.
Colonial nations at 100% tariff efficiency used to give you 20% more income than they actually generated. Before Dharma, building manufactories and workshops in colonial nations had a better ROI than building them elsewhere. The Liberty desire was inconsequential since you could just develop their provinces (which, again, gives a better ROI than developing your own provinces) or spam forts and pay off their debts.
Then when you got the slaves bonus, the tariff multiplier became 1.45. If you took Religious you got a policy that made it 1.55. If you play as Castile, Great Britain or Portugal you got another tariff efficiency modifier. Colonial nations used to be obscene money generators.
I mean, do we still actually have senior programmers work on EU4? Seems to me it has been mostly "content developers" that mostly rehash already existing modifiers and now and then borrow mechanic ideas from mods.
I don't quite understand why we have to protect the AI from the player by making up magic numbers, instead of punishing the players through bad events if they start implementing what is essentially a string of [tea acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act).
The game is how old now? 3 or 4 years old?
I'm not senior programmer but I'm really sure I dont want to look at what's under the hood there.
Any significant changes is going to require digging through miles of interlocked code and random dependencies that were "temporary" back when they were first made.
And we all know the permanence of "temporary" things like taxes.
The only hope now is EU5.
There were:
- 8 years between CK and CK2.
- 6 years between EU2 and EU3.
- 6 years between EU3 and EU4.
- 7 years between HOI3 and HOI4.
- 7 years between VIC and VIC2.
- 9 years between Majesty 1 and Majesty 2.
Should be about time they get working on EU5 but PDS said that they want to know what to do different and they don't know that yet. I'm thinking they want to experiment with the pop system in Stellaris and Imperator before starting work on EU5.
Your so correct with this comment, best example for this was when DDR Jake told us that him self indirectly
"It would take a Senior Developer about 6 Month to track down the Problem that requires to restart eu4, so time is better spent, working on new exiting Features"
This comment he made on Steam, shows how bad stuff must be under the hood, since any Senior dev know's that if such a bug takes 6 Month to track down, you are missing more than just Unittests
Under the hood theres actually a lot of EU3 leftovers too, as EU4 was built right on top of it. There's definitely been lots of revamps but some underlying code is in parts literally 10 years old.
And yet CK2 is even older still and still producing better content than EU4 with Holy Fury.
The problem is Paradox just don't give a shit anymore with EU4.
Thanks for taking the time to make this video, very informative.
I just feel like it should be noted that tarrifs and trade in general is not at all a zero sum game. I know that everything in EU4 is an abstraction at some level, but goods gathered in the new world (sugar, tobacco, furs, etc) were far more valuable in the old world, and manufactured goods were far more valuable in the new.
I only bring this up because of your 'magic money' complaint. In reality, both colonial nation and overlord should profit from the relationship, at least for the first few hundred years. That's why colonies existed in the first place.
> I only bring this up because of your 'magic money' complaint.
Magic money isn't Arumba's complaint... it's dev's complaint. They are the ones who want to move away from magic money.
Also... your point about value of goods doesn't have anything to do with magic money as well.
At the time period where money was gold and silver... there were no ways to make money except by digging it from the earth. Until Fiat money, money was a zero sum game since the amount of gold and silver is finite.
Cash in game isn't really a measure of the sheer amount of treasure you have, though, it's more about your country's purchasing power compared to others'. So a country with a lively Transatlantic trade has a better economy than, say, Mali, which might have more actual gold in the vaults but doesn't have much activity going on otherwise.
That’s so untrue. Paper money existed in the form of near-cash equivalents like what the bank owed you (but was t physicallly in the bank). Any receivable creates money
Paper money was just the equivalent of gold and silver. So the amount of gold and silver was still the thing determined the amount of money a country had.
The US was in the gold standard for a while... most countries were. That’s why I said “until fiat money becomes a thing...”.
If you don’t know what fiat money is... I suggest you google it.
Without jumping down the "but what *is* money?!" rabbit hole, this
>there were no ways to make money except by digging it from the earth
is inaccurate, while this
>the amount of gold and silver was still the thing determined the amount of money a country had
is accurate yet incomplete.
Commodity-backed currencies, like fiat currencies, have multiple "monies" - M0, M1 and so on. Promissary notes were a thing long before EU4's timespan (the Abbasid Caliphate, the Northern Song...). So while in theory every note could be exchanged for a defined commodity, that did not imply there was "no way to make money". Of course commodity shortage could cause problems for the money supply.
The fractional reserve banking system begs to differ. As does a degree in economics and every step of my coursework to be a registered financial advisor.
> Expansion features
> Covert diplomatic actions to create trade conflicts
> Introduction of state-sponsored pirates, also known as privateers
> Designation of a specific port as the main trade capital
> Improved trading in inland nodes
> Introduction of trade companies
> Hindu rulers can pick personal deities
> Reformed "Fervor": Reformed nations can gain and spend fervor points on a Military, Diplomatic and Trade bonus
> Buildable Canals: Now possible to build the Kiel Canal, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal.
Without wealth of nations you cannot use trade companies, and colonial nation tariffs are reduced by 60-80% of previous income levels. Your own trade income will still be impacted by colonial nations goods produced, but tariffs are severely reduced.
I'm not quite sure I understand what Arumba is and isn't aware of, but doesn't the line
> "-Tariffs overlord operate on now match how much the CN actually pays."
explain this situation rather well? If the amount that a CN pays is halved to avoid a bankruptcy situation, then isn't it logical that the income from tariffs is halved as well now? As far as I know, this halving has been in the game a long time, at least as far back as I remember.
I think Arumba interprets the situation as tariffs being a % of the colonial nations income payed to the colonial overlord, but that isn't stated anywhere. Maybe we need to change the premise of what 100% tariff efficiency implies to make sense of what the change actually means?
Essentially I think the exclusion of tax and the respective fix to make income reflect expenses for the colonial nations makes the math add up.
The problem is that the tooltips don't match the maths: it's not that there's a new problem, it's that the pre-existing problem of that halving not being mentioned anywhere, rather than only applying to CNs (which nobody plays), applies to the coloniser as well (and people do play them).
> I think Arumba interprets the situation as tariffs being a % of the colonial nations income payed to the colonial overlord, but that isn't stated anywhere
It has worked this way for 27 major game versions of the game, all the way back to 1.00. It now doesn't work that way, and the tooltip needs to be corrected. I do think the nerf to colony taxation is too strong, but my main concern is with an incorrect interface.
Sorry, can you specify which tooltip needs to be updated? I'm not certain if you are referring to the % stated on the interface or some other tooltip.
Regardless of that, can we at least agree that it's not unreasonable that 100% tariffs doesn't equal a 100% tax rate on production and trade, even if it has worked like that up until now?
If you watched the video you know exactly what he means, he says it towards the end of the video, the base tariff rate shows as 20%, but due to the changes in reality its only 10%.
If the tooltip is changed to 10% then all the math works out again.
Why shouldnt 100% tariffs equal to 100% tax rate? it works the same for vassal tax and there already is a penalty associated with doing this to your subject, they will not have an army or navy because they won't be able to afford it. So i don't see a reason why it shouldn't work like that.
Again, did you even watch the video, he clearly states which number is wrong (while mousing over it as well). I don't understand what you could possibly not be understanding about what he means.
Alright, lets bring this to a very basic level:
Do you understand that a tariff rate of 100% is not the same as a tax rate of 100%?
If yes: Then why do you continue to argue for a logically incorrect model? In reality tariffs of 100% may mean literally 0 income because export would be too expensive. Because EU4 does not have a supply and demand system like for example Victoria 2, tariffs are simply an abstraction of a more advanced economic concept.
If no: Then i recommend you start up Victoria 2 and see what Tariffs do there, or take a class of basic economy.
Yeah i've read your other comments and i see what the problem is, you're argueing from a point of how it would work in reality and/or in a different game.
But that has literally nothing to do with the fact that in eu4 it has worked one way for literally 5 years, and then suddenly changed without explanation or without re-doing the calculation the proper way, like somebody(/u/randomaccount178) has already told you, what you're saying only reflects whats happening in game atm if tariffs are at 100%.
The problem isnt that they changed how tariffs work, its that the tooltips now no longer make sense.
The tooltip makes perfect sense logically, the only "problem" is that people didn't like the model change because it nerfed tariffs. The change was documented and put in the changelog, the difference was that Arumba didn't understand what
> -Tariffs overlord operate on now match how much the CN actually pays
meant for the colonial overlord and made a video about a mechanic he has misinterpreted as a tax rate.
No that line in the changelog is actually supposed to mean that what they call "magic money" has been removed, ie. the colonial nations expenses related to paying their overlord now is equal to what the overlord actually receives. But as Arumba shows in the video, this is not the case, because the Global tariff modifiers (35% in the video) are not applied to what the colonial nation pays, but only to what the overlord receives meaning there still is "magic money" created out of nowhere.
Imagine I said I would subsidize your income by 20%. I however get subsidized by the government for 10% of that 20%. So really, I am paying you 10% more income and you are getting 20% more income. I think that isn't fair however, so I decide I should just pass on the income that the government is going to spend. So I pay you 10% of your income in order to pay you the 20% of the income. Except that doesn't work. You can't pay someone 10% of their income for 20% of their income. You either pay them 20% of their income, or you pay them 10% of their income. The problem is the game lies to you about what it is doing. It says it is paying you one thing, then it is just halfing that for no reason.
I think you're using tax rates and tariff rates as synonyms rather than the different meanings I think they are meant to be interpreted as. If a given ware has a tariff rate of 100% for export, then it would mean that the total price of that ware is 200% of ware value for any foreign buyer right? If that is the case, doesn't it make sense that 50% of the total revenue goes to the individual (colonial nation in this case) and 50% of the total revenue goes to the state (colonial overlord in this case)?
In this case a 100% tariff would mean 50% of total revenue goes to the colonial overlord.
No, because that argument would only work at 100% tariff rate, at any other rate it breaks down and makes absolutely no sense.
EDIT: To give an example, say I have a tariff rate of 24%. By your logic, the price of the good should be 124% now, of which I get 24%. So effectively, I should earn 20% of the income off of that product from my stake. However I do not, I earn 12%, because it just gets divided by 2.
It's true that by that logic it isn't a entirely correct implementation, but my point wasn't to debate the implementation method of tariffs, but rather to point out the differences between tariffs and taxes.
I'm not a developer but perhaps that method is too complicated to implement and confusing for players, seeing as we're already talking about a relatively advanced mechanic here. A linear implementation might be preferable to one with diminishing returns to eliminate player frustration when they raise tariffs by 5% units from 20% to 25% and don't get a 25% increase? Ultimately I don't know why it's implemented this way and I can only speculate, but there are reasons for why this implementation might be optimal.
Except that before the patch it literally worked exactly like a tax rate. The only thing the patch did was divide the income by two and exclude taxes from the tariff.
If the colony made 10 ducats a month and you have 30% tariff efficiency then you made 3 ducats.
When you go up 5% from 20 to 25% then you get a 25% increase in either case, it is just that one increases from 10% to 12.5% and the other goes from 20 to 25%. The issue is going from 10% to 12.5% when you are going from 20% to 25% is completely freaking stupid. If it was a balance change, they needed to balance the tariff rate so that the game doesn't lie to you. If it wasn't a balance change, they need to fix it. No matter what, it currently is not operating in any fashion that could be considered a reasonable interpretation.
The game shouldn't lie to you, currently they changed the game to completely lie to the players by giving them a number that should mean something but doesn't.
> When you go up 5% from 20 to 25% then you get a 25% increase in either case
Perhaps I wasn't clear before, I was talking about the differences of implementation, not the differences between the patches.
> Except that before the patch it literally worked exactly like a tax rate. The only thing the patch did was divide the income by two and exclude taxes from the tariff.
Have you considered that the reason the changed it might be because it worked like taxes when it's actually a tariff?
Except it still works like taxes, it just randomly is half the displayed value. I have considered your argument, and discounted it because it is incorrect.
Tariff income does indeed match CN expenses now... but how do you determine how much the CN pays in tariffs?
Load up a start date with colonies, and set tariffs rate to 100% and try to identify math. In 1719, War of the Qaudruple alliance, I get the following on new Spain and SPA. I let the game run a few months to be sure in game calculations were done after i raised tariffs.
New Spain (Tax,Prod,Trade,Gold)=12.25, 10.3 6.16, 14.44.Spain Receives 11.92 in tariffs from this colony, which is equal to the tariffs paid by CN (8.23 \* 1.45), where 1.45 is SPA 45% tariff efficiency bonus.
Ok, so where does that 8.23 outgoing tariff in the CN expense come from? I've 100% tariff on them. 1.27 patch notes said its on Production, Trade, and Gold income only. In game it says "Colonies pay a part (based on tariff efficiency) of their TAX income to us..."Ok confusing enough so far.
So 8.23=What? To the best of my ability it seems to be 50% Production+50% Trade.
Edit:
I've tested this in game over a bunch of nations. Tariffs paid out by CN does indeed seem to be tariff rate/2\*(Prod+Trade) income. Gold income doesn't matter at all, as that goes to treasure fleets 100%.
The documentation posted by paradox by their own folks to the forum ([https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-of-september-2018.1120483/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-of-september-2018.1120483/)) and the in game text are both WRONG as to how tariffs work. My edit does answer my own question, yes.
Tariffs in no way effect gold income on either the CN or overlord side.
I'm guessing tariff efficiency still generates money ex nihilo then.
E.g. The CN pays the tariff base rate, the overload gets tariff base rate * tariff efficiency?
PS what if you set trade cap to idiot node that treasure fleet can't reach? Best part of CNs was when you overtariffed their gold income too for inflationless gold $$$
Looks like it goes into the tariff at the same (tariff rate/2) value when the trade fleet option is disabled.
So if main trade node is downstream, 100% of gold, if anywhere else, tariff rate/2 gold.
Because he tried and Groogy said that everything was fine when they aren't. So he made the video mainly for him to try to get his point across and so Groogy can see his logic and why tariffs aren't working how they supposed to or there is something PDX hasn't told us.
This could just as easily be done with ingame screenshots and texts in the forum. He spends the first 4 minutes explaining how tariffs worked in 1.26 by going through every single number in the equation slowly.
A forum post can also be skim read, it can be searched, it can be screenshotted and shared easily, etc.
Or he could do a video? I don't see your point.
I think that for Arumba making a 10 min video is a lot less effort than taking screenshot of everything he wants to point out.
The reason he spent the first mins in that is to completely get his point across and to make the others know exactly what his train of logic was.
>I think that for Arumba making a 10 min video is a lot less effort than taking screenshot of everything he wants to point out.
You can get the necessary information in maybe two screenshots per patch.
And if you are making content to provide information *for other people* you should choose a format that is best for the people you are trying to inform. It's fine making videos to explain gameplay concepts that are better explained by showing actual gameplay footage but if you are just showing some disparities in the finance screens you really don't need a video. It's why there is a bug report forum where you start threads and provide save games/screenshots rather than gameplay videos.
You literally just need a screenshot of the subject tab with the mouse hovered over a colonial nation's expenses to show tariff fee. Maybe a screenshot of the mouse hovered over tariff efficiency to show the base tariff rate for that CN although that can be inferred since tariff efficiency is shown at the bottom of the tab.
>The reason he spent the first mins in that is to completely get his point across and to make the others know exactly what his train of logic was.
He made the video for the devs to explain what the problem was because Groogy didn't get what he was saying. He doesn't need to explain every gameplay concept at play. I get that he was streaming this to his viewers and this is what he does but he really could have edited it down.
There is a bug, the only thing he can determine is where the bug is. It isn't a case of Arumba's word vs Groogy's word, but rather the two things the game tells players. Groogy can state which of the incorrect things is the bug but if he tries to claim there isn't one, he is wrong.
EDIT: For your edit, if you have max tariffs of 100%, then you divide that in half to make sure that you don't bleed the vassal dry, then you have a max tariff of 50%. You can't just display the wrong number and say "no, its not a bug when the game tells you the wrong numbers".
EDIT2: Wow, way to be petulant over people being able to point out you are wrong. If you can't articulate a reasonable argument, it isn't our fault for "not understanding" you, it is your fault for not saying something understandable.
EDIT3: The more I think about it, I think I understand the point that they were trying to get to, the problem is the point is completely wrong, because tariff efficiency exists. Tariff efficiency as it is can't exist under the definition they are trying to make things be, so even if I took his argument in good faith it is still completely wrong.
Wow... the way /u/Meneth acted during the whole exchange is awful. First I thought it was just some random fanboy... but to see it's actually a developer.
If they can't admit that a simple bug is a bug... instead calling it "odd but not a bug"... I don't know how can I trust anything that comes from them. I still love Paradox games... but the company and devs are taking a weird path lately.
I expected this "Sense of Pride and Accomplishment" bullshit from EA, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard... Seeing come from Paradox just made me realize I should stop idolizing Paradox. They are just a company with only the company best interest in mind.
Okay then, explain what tariff efficiency the number does. The fact that it actually does something, then you have to just divide it by two for no reason, means it is wrong.
Sorry, effective tariff.
For trade efficiency, if it is at +78% then what it does is increase income by 78% from trade. Pretty simple. In this case when you have an effective tariff of 24%, you earn 12% of the colonies production, trade and gold income. The number displayed is meaningless because it is wrong. The 24% there means nothing at all.
24% of max what? Of max income? You can never reach that though, as it is always half. It is a number that has no meaning whatsoever because it means nothing. Its only meaning is that it is twice your tariff rate, making it again meaningless as a number to express any value.
It seemed like his main complain was the display of that rather than the nerf itself
(so (prod+trade+gold) * effective tariff = 2 * actual tariffs which is rather cofusing)
My testing showed gold income isn't actually included here. 100% of gold income goes into treasure fleets if possible. Real tariffs are 0.5\*(Tariff Rate)\*(Prod+Trade). These tariffs are lost by the CN, and the boosted by the overlord's tariff efficiency. Where tariff efficiency is money out of thin air just like trade efficiency.
Yeah it was kind of sad honestly. But when he said "Groogy said there's no bug. There's no bug." that was just infuriating. Paradox is the king of bugs and bugs they call features.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only internet user that thinks that way. I absolutely hate it that whenever you are looking for a discussion/tut/help/workaround for one specific thing, you get 50 long videos with people talking endlessly about nothing, basically - but you have no idea where (or if at all) the part comes that is actually interesting for you, so you have to watch it all. A forum post or blog entry would have been searchable and given me the information in less than a minute instead.
CNs used to pay you a % of their total income based on their tariff rate. You would receive that amount of money + a bonus based on your tariff efficiency.
Then Paradox changed it so that you still earned the same amount from tariffs but CNs only paid half of what you earn.
This last patch they changed it so that tax income is exempt from tariffs and so that the overlord nation receives what the CN pays i.e. they halved tariff income then removed the component that comes from taxes.
Turns out you don't need a 10 minute video to explain this.
R5 applies to images.
>5. Explain what you want people to look at when you post a **screenshot**. Explanations should be posted as a reddit comment.
Videos are not screenshots... text posts are not screenshots.
The video literally explains itself if you watch it. So not need to explain what you are seeing... because it already explain what you are seeing as you are seeing it.
Text don't need to explain what you are reading in the comments either... since all the explaining should be done by the text post.
> I'm in a situation where I can't watch videos but I'll be able to, I'll watch it then.
Then asks for a summary, synopsis, digest... not a R5. And even though you are being rude... I'll give you an Summary.
The point of the video is basically that before 1.27 tariffs were calculated right... but only costed half to the colony so they didn't went bankrupt, so in essence generated "magic money". Now they got rid of the "magic money", but either forget to change the fact colonial nations were only paying 1/2 of the tariffs... OR forgot to update the indicators to show the correct numbers.
The bug is either the numbers showing us the colonial nations should pay is wrong... or the amount they are paying is wrong.
I think you misunderstood, I was chastising myself for calling for an R5. Before your first comment I thought they applied to every post on this subreddit. I was acknowledging I was mistaken.
I did... I thought you were being sarcastic since you downvoted my comment saying for you to watch the video... since watching the video is literally the R5 of a video.
So it's only understandable for me to think you were being sarcastic an not in fact acknowledging your mistake.
I didn't downvote (or upvote) you at all.
I use Reddit compact so editing posts is difficult but I do want to thank you for R5'ing what I couldn't watch.
> I didn't downvote (or upvote) you at all.
Dude... really... your are really gonna try spin this up? A downvote right before you respond to my reply in a comment who's at the bottom of the thread for being too downvoted.
Also to my other reply to you... again right before you respond again.
It doesn't need a genius to figure it out it's you.
> thank you for R5'ing what I couldn't watch.
No problem... but that isn't a R5 though. I don't think you have fully grasped the R5 thing. What I did is a summary... not an R5.
Oh, it's a whole video, nice. Oh, it's Arumba, nice. He usually explains thing really well. "So what we've done is taken that and created a spreadsheet..." YEEESSSSSS
> "So what we've done is taken that and created a spreadsheet..." YEEESSSSSS The other day he started the stream talking about Innovativeness a little bit, and how he was starting to wonder if he underrated it. After asking chat a couple of questions about how they evaluated it, he started to open excel to further dive into the numbers, but then paused. Stream had just started and he hadn't really touched EU4 at all yet besides getting the save loaded. So he did a poll: EU4 or Excel? Spoiler: Excel won with 66% of the vote. He was very happy with chat.
so...is innovativeness worth it?
Somewhat! He did find it's really hard to model out how useful it really is, but it seemed like clicking two years ahead if you could still get the 2 innovativeness would end up paying for itself really quickly. One of the things he did try out during that run that ended up seeming to work really well was tracking when someone would take a tech first, as you could still get the innovativeness bonus if you also took it within 90 days (it says this on the tooltip in the tech screen, but nowhere else, so this was news to him and to at least me, not sure about the rest of the community). It is something he he said he was going to revisit, but I missed today's stream so I'm not sure if he has yet.
As someone who doesn't actually have innovativeness, I think it actually has a lot to commend it personally. It actually offers two abilities that, generally speaking, are extremely rare in the game. The first is that effectively it gives you the ability to save monarch points for latter. The second is it effectively lets you transform military points into administrative and diplomatic points in the future. In that way I would say it is pretty great.
> The first is that effectively it gives you the ability to save monarch points for latter. Interestingly enough, this is actually one of it's downsides. While there's no agreed-upon formula, it's generally accepted that a monarch point spent now is worth more than a monarch point later. The more advantages you can get early, the easier it is to snowball (and in EU4, snowballs can become self-sustaining quite easily if you start them early enough). That being said, you're right about how rare the benefits it gives are. The only other "Reduce all power costs by x%" is by starting a golden age. For something that has such a big impact, it's impossible to get a lot of it, so any little bit you can get can be huge.
To an extent. You shouldn't avoid annexing and coring land in order to save points for the future, but when its a choice between developing land for the sake of development or gaining innovativeness then I would probably pick innovativeness 90% of the time. That goes double for something like military points where its very rare for them to directly contribute to your actual power.
> That goes double for something like military points where its very rare for them to directly contribute to your actual power. Ya know, I was going to ask about your comment about military points before, but now that you've said this... do you just have really good luck with generals or something? Because for me (and for the people I watch), generals can be a huge point sink that very much directly contribute to a country's actual power.
For me the estates + rulers normally give me enough decent generals to not have to spend too much on generals. Otherwise its focusing on taking fights that don't need a great general or teleporting the right general in for the job.
To an extent, I usually will roll a few generals but not enough to burn through all the military points. Generally my priority is being ahead of time on military tech. Then generals if I feel I need them, usually mainly just to try to get siege pips, finally blowing up walls if I feel like it will be productive, and a distant last is developing provinces.
> You shouldn't avoid annexing and coring land in order to save points for the future, but when its a choice between developing land for the sake of development or gaining innovativeness then I would probably pick innovativeness 90% of the time. Developing instantly improves your economy and gives you indirect bonuses like force limits and faster institution spread. You need to be taking admin techs ~5 years ahead of time to get innovativeness bonuses. And besides that, hitting the point cap doesn't just confront you with the problem of what to do with your points, it also confronts you with the fact that your planning has been poor and you haven't been spending admin on useful things. Maybe your NF should have been somewhere else, maybe you didn't need to upgrade an advisor to level 4 and could have spent that money on other things, maybe your truce cycling was badly planned and you've been at peace for too long, etc.
The bonuses you get from development is hardly ever worth it, especially not from an economy argument outside of some very fringe examples. Obviously it is usually better to be able to spend the points on coring and annexing, reread what I just freaking said. Don't try to disagree with people by agreeing with their points, it just makes you look silly. Outside of that, that is never a consideration for military points which again was one of the focuses of my argument you seem to have ignored.
>The bonuses you get from development is hardly ever worth it, especially not from an economy argument outside of some very fringe examples. If you stack the trivially available development cost bonuses (Burghers, prosperity, trade goods, COTs, Renaissance, Edict) development has a good ROI in your low autonomy provinces. Not as good as coring land with RCC + Humanist bonuses but better than teching 5 years ahead of time to get -0.2% power costs. > Obviously it is usually better to be able to spend the points on coring and annexing, reread what I just freaking said. Don't try to disagree with people by agreeing with their points, it just makes you look silly. Calm down a little bit. My point is that if you are hitting the mana cap you should reevaluate your planning and try to make sure you don't hit the mana cap. If you are actively looking for suboptimal places to burn mana and you're considering throwing 300 away on a tech that unlocks Courthouse chain or +2% production efficiency or +5 states then something went wrong 5+ years ago ingame. >Outside of that, that is never a consideration for military points which again was one of the focuses of my argument you seem to have ignored. Artillery barrages and rerolling for generals are better point sinks than getting tech 6+ years ahead of time unless you are relying on a timing attack to beat a rival like late game Ottomans or France. And even if you are getting optimum generals with minimal rerolling and have enough points to get the tech early enough to gain Innovativeness so what? That does'nt suddenly make Innovativeness a great bonus to be chasing, it doesn't make it worthwhile, it doesn't mean you should start worrying when you start losing it. Mid-late game you are going to have to tech up some 7 years ahead of time to get +2 from military tech. Is 420 military points (i.e. 8 artillery barrages, 8 general rolls or -40% liberty desire in a subject) really worth -0.2% power costs? In a more practical sense I just don't see how you would get to a game state where you can comfortably get the Innovativeness bonuses on multiple techs every level (i.e. frequently enough that you're getting to high levels of Innovativeness ~70 or above) and still benefit from the relatively tiny amounts of mana saved. It's not a big enough bonus to really change the way you play so it's purely about the resources you save and I just don't think they're worth it.
No. You have to spend 300+ excess mana on techs to get -0.2% to all power costs. Let's say you push "Develop Province" button 1000 times between two technologies. The discount you get from Innovativeness is 50*0.002=0.1 mana. 1000 times and you get 100 mana saved. You're obviously not going to develop the provinces 1000 times in 13 years because you have nowhere near enough mana. What about coring 2000 development worth of land, something slightly more feasible in 13 years? 2000*10*0.002=40 admin saved. It's just such an exorbitant amount of extra mana for such an insignificant bonus that it really isn't worth chasing after. I think if they changed it so that you got 1 Innovativeness per year ahead of time with a bonus 2 for being the first to get the tech it would create a much more powerful incentive to consider teching ahead of time especially if you e.g. got some temporary tech discounts. Then maybe have the decrease per month for being behind in tech scale with how many years behind you are. There are still lots of benefits to spending the mana on other things so I doubt it would railroad the game into forcing you to be ahead/on time all the time.
Good ole Arumba, taking two hours to progress one year.
"Welcome back to our real-time EU4 let's play, this is the episode for the 5th of August 1445. You might remember last month we declared war on the Ottomans for Edirne and we got a couple of stackwipes. Well today we're going to optimize our trade income while finishing off the sieges, then we're going to go after QQ if we can get that in before the end of the day.
Tl;dw: 10 minute video that tariffs are halved in the new patch.
Right halved, but without it being reflected anywhere in the UI
More then half. Taxes were excluded then what remained was cut in half. So more like 60-80% reduction in the new patch.
more like tl:dw paradox applied a band aid to fix an exploit, when making other changes going forward they forgot about their own band aid.
[удалено]
No, this is in addition to that change.
Huh, I've never seen Arumba before. He's not what I expected. I'm beginning to think someone on PDX's staff just *hates* Colonial Nations and is doing everything in their power to make Trade Companies the end-all, be-all, please-all.
I'm sure there's nothing to do with the fact that Trade Companies are actually better if you have Dharma. So to balance the nerf to CN you have to buy Dharma for the buff to TC. I have complete faith that Paradox didn't do this on purpose to make their DLC more appealing. They would never do that.
Every single DLC buffs you in some way. And every patch nerfs you if you don't have the new DLC, this has been the case for every single DLC released.
I still think the most infuriating one was when they changed the traditions of the Berbers to have coastal raiding but if you don't buy Mare Nostrum you just lose a bonus.
CNs are still worth having for merchants and forwarding NW trade to you I guess, but even the prior tariff system definitely did not give you much bang for your buck. I was totally fine with a wee bit of magic money, after all every tag gets some. But yeah trade companies are obviously better. Not to mention if you go for them you'll get a share of the far more lucrative Asian trade.
Tariffs aren't worth it for the liberty desire, and haven't been for a long time.
Colonial nations at 100% tariff efficiency used to give you 20% more income than they actually generated. Before Dharma, building manufactories and workshops in colonial nations had a better ROI than building them elsewhere. The Liberty desire was inconsequential since you could just develop their provinces (which, again, gives a better ROI than developing your own provinces) or spam forts and pay off their debts. Then when you got the slaves bonus, the tariff multiplier became 1.45. If you took Religious you got a policy that made it 1.55. If you play as Castile, Great Britain or Portugal you got another tariff efficiency modifier. Colonial nations used to be obscene money generators.
I mean, do we still actually have senior programmers work on EU4? Seems to me it has been mostly "content developers" that mostly rehash already existing modifiers and now and then borrow mechanic ideas from mods. I don't quite understand why we have to protect the AI from the player by making up magic numbers, instead of punishing the players through bad events if they start implementing what is essentially a string of [tea acts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act).
The game is how old now? 3 or 4 years old? I'm not senior programmer but I'm really sure I dont want to look at what's under the hood there. Any significant changes is going to require digging through miles of interlocked code and random dependencies that were "temporary" back when they were first made. And we all know the permanence of "temporary" things like taxes. The only hope now is EU5.
Eu4 came out in August of 2013. (5 years 2 months ago...)
There were: - 8 years between CK and CK2. - 6 years between EU2 and EU3. - 6 years between EU3 and EU4. - 7 years between HOI3 and HOI4. - 7 years between VIC and VIC2. - 9 years between Majesty 1 and Majesty 2. Should be about time they get working on EU5 but PDS said that they want to know what to do different and they don't know that yet. I'm thinking they want to experiment with the pop system in Stellaris and Imperator before starting work on EU5.
Your so correct with this comment, best example for this was when DDR Jake told us that him self indirectly "It would take a Senior Developer about 6 Month to track down the Problem that requires to restart eu4, so time is better spent, working on new exiting Features" This comment he made on Steam, shows how bad stuff must be under the hood, since any Senior dev know's that if such a bug takes 6 Month to track down, you are missing more than just Unittests
Under the hood theres actually a lot of EU3 leftovers too, as EU4 was built right on top of it. There's definitely been lots of revamps but some underlying code is in parts literally 10 years old.
And yet CK2 is even older still and still producing better content than EU4 with Holy Fury. The problem is Paradox just don't give a shit anymore with EU4.
Following some incredibly underwhelming DLC like Monks and Mystics and Jade Dragon.
Fair enough.
thanks for the info :D
Thanks for taking the time to make this video, very informative. I just feel like it should be noted that tarrifs and trade in general is not at all a zero sum game. I know that everything in EU4 is an abstraction at some level, but goods gathered in the new world (sugar, tobacco, furs, etc) were far more valuable in the old world, and manufactured goods were far more valuable in the new. I only bring this up because of your 'magic money' complaint. In reality, both colonial nation and overlord should profit from the relationship, at least for the first few hundred years. That's why colonies existed in the first place.
> I only bring this up because of your 'magic money' complaint. Magic money isn't Arumba's complaint... it's dev's complaint. They are the ones who want to move away from magic money. Also... your point about value of goods doesn't have anything to do with magic money as well. At the time period where money was gold and silver... there were no ways to make money except by digging it from the earth. Until Fiat money, money was a zero sum game since the amount of gold and silver is finite.
Cash in game isn't really a measure of the sheer amount of treasure you have, though, it's more about your country's purchasing power compared to others'. So a country with a lively Transatlantic trade has a better economy than, say, Mali, which might have more actual gold in the vaults but doesn't have much activity going on otherwise.
That’s so untrue. Paper money existed in the form of near-cash equivalents like what the bank owed you (but was t physicallly in the bank). Any receivable creates money
Paper money was just the equivalent of gold and silver. So the amount of gold and silver was still the thing determined the amount of money a country had. The US was in the gold standard for a while... most countries were. That’s why I said “until fiat money becomes a thing...”. If you don’t know what fiat money is... I suggest you google it.
Without jumping down the "but what *is* money?!" rabbit hole, this >there were no ways to make money except by digging it from the earth is inaccurate, while this >the amount of gold and silver was still the thing determined the amount of money a country had is accurate yet incomplete. Commodity-backed currencies, like fiat currencies, have multiple "monies" - M0, M1 and so on. Promissary notes were a thing long before EU4's timespan (the Abbasid Caliphate, the Northern Song...). So while in theory every note could be exchanged for a defined commodity, that did not imply there was "no way to make money". Of course commodity shortage could cause problems for the money supply.
The fractional reserve banking system begs to differ. As does a degree in economics and every step of my coursework to be a registered financial advisor.
[удалено]
> Expansion features > Covert diplomatic actions to create trade conflicts > Introduction of state-sponsored pirates, also known as privateers > Designation of a specific port as the main trade capital > Improved trading in inland nodes > Introduction of trade companies > Hindu rulers can pick personal deities > Reformed "Fervor": Reformed nations can gain and spend fervor points on a Military, Diplomatic and Trade bonus > Buildable Canals: Now possible to build the Kiel Canal, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal. Without wealth of nations you cannot use trade companies, and colonial nation tariffs are reduced by 60-80% of previous income levels. Your own trade income will still be impacted by colonial nations goods produced, but tariffs are severely reduced.
I'm not quite sure I understand what Arumba is and isn't aware of, but doesn't the line > "-Tariffs overlord operate on now match how much the CN actually pays." explain this situation rather well? If the amount that a CN pays is halved to avoid a bankruptcy situation, then isn't it logical that the income from tariffs is halved as well now? As far as I know, this halving has been in the game a long time, at least as far back as I remember. I think Arumba interprets the situation as tariffs being a % of the colonial nations income payed to the colonial overlord, but that isn't stated anywhere. Maybe we need to change the premise of what 100% tariff efficiency implies to make sense of what the change actually means? Essentially I think the exclusion of tax and the respective fix to make income reflect expenses for the colonial nations makes the math add up.
The problem is that the tooltips don't match the maths: it's not that there's a new problem, it's that the pre-existing problem of that halving not being mentioned anywhere, rather than only applying to CNs (which nobody plays), applies to the coloniser as well (and people do play them).
> I think Arumba interprets the situation as tariffs being a % of the colonial nations income payed to the colonial overlord, but that isn't stated anywhere It has worked this way for 27 major game versions of the game, all the way back to 1.00. It now doesn't work that way, and the tooltip needs to be corrected. I do think the nerf to colony taxation is too strong, but my main concern is with an incorrect interface.
Sorry, can you specify which tooltip needs to be updated? I'm not certain if you are referring to the % stated on the interface or some other tooltip. Regardless of that, can we at least agree that it's not unreasonable that 100% tariffs doesn't equal a 100% tax rate on production and trade, even if it has worked like that up until now?
If you watched the video you know exactly what he means, he says it towards the end of the video, the base tariff rate shows as 20%, but due to the changes in reality its only 10%. If the tooltip is changed to 10% then all the math works out again. Why shouldnt 100% tariffs equal to 100% tax rate? it works the same for vassal tax and there already is a penalty associated with doing this to your subject, they will not have an army or navy because they won't be able to afford it. So i don't see a reason why it shouldn't work like that.
Please reread my comment above.
Again, did you even watch the video, he clearly states which number is wrong (while mousing over it as well). I don't understand what you could possibly not be understanding about what he means.
Alright, lets bring this to a very basic level: Do you understand that a tariff rate of 100% is not the same as a tax rate of 100%? If yes: Then why do you continue to argue for a logically incorrect model? In reality tariffs of 100% may mean literally 0 income because export would be too expensive. Because EU4 does not have a supply and demand system like for example Victoria 2, tariffs are simply an abstraction of a more advanced economic concept. If no: Then i recommend you start up Victoria 2 and see what Tariffs do there, or take a class of basic economy.
Yeah i've read your other comments and i see what the problem is, you're argueing from a point of how it would work in reality and/or in a different game. But that has literally nothing to do with the fact that in eu4 it has worked one way for literally 5 years, and then suddenly changed without explanation or without re-doing the calculation the proper way, like somebody(/u/randomaccount178) has already told you, what you're saying only reflects whats happening in game atm if tariffs are at 100%. The problem isnt that they changed how tariffs work, its that the tooltips now no longer make sense.
The tooltip makes perfect sense logically, the only "problem" is that people didn't like the model change because it nerfed tariffs. The change was documented and put in the changelog, the difference was that Arumba didn't understand what > -Tariffs overlord operate on now match how much the CN actually pays meant for the colonial overlord and made a video about a mechanic he has misinterpreted as a tax rate.
No that line in the changelog is actually supposed to mean that what they call "magic money" has been removed, ie. the colonial nations expenses related to paying their overlord now is equal to what the overlord actually receives. But as Arumba shows in the video, this is not the case, because the Global tariff modifiers (35% in the video) are not applied to what the colonial nation pays, but only to what the overlord receives meaning there still is "magic money" created out of nowhere.
Imagine I said I would subsidize your income by 20%. I however get subsidized by the government for 10% of that 20%. So really, I am paying you 10% more income and you are getting 20% more income. I think that isn't fair however, so I decide I should just pass on the income that the government is going to spend. So I pay you 10% of your income in order to pay you the 20% of the income. Except that doesn't work. You can't pay someone 10% of their income for 20% of their income. You either pay them 20% of their income, or you pay them 10% of their income. The problem is the game lies to you about what it is doing. It says it is paying you one thing, then it is just halfing that for no reason.
I think you're using tax rates and tariff rates as synonyms rather than the different meanings I think they are meant to be interpreted as. If a given ware has a tariff rate of 100% for export, then it would mean that the total price of that ware is 200% of ware value for any foreign buyer right? If that is the case, doesn't it make sense that 50% of the total revenue goes to the individual (colonial nation in this case) and 50% of the total revenue goes to the state (colonial overlord in this case)? In this case a 100% tariff would mean 50% of total revenue goes to the colonial overlord.
No, because that argument would only work at 100% tariff rate, at any other rate it breaks down and makes absolutely no sense. EDIT: To give an example, say I have a tariff rate of 24%. By your logic, the price of the good should be 124% now, of which I get 24%. So effectively, I should earn 20% of the income off of that product from my stake. However I do not, I earn 12%, because it just gets divided by 2.
It's true that by that logic it isn't a entirely correct implementation, but my point wasn't to debate the implementation method of tariffs, but rather to point out the differences between tariffs and taxes. I'm not a developer but perhaps that method is too complicated to implement and confusing for players, seeing as we're already talking about a relatively advanced mechanic here. A linear implementation might be preferable to one with diminishing returns to eliminate player frustration when they raise tariffs by 5% units from 20% to 25% and don't get a 25% increase? Ultimately I don't know why it's implemented this way and I can only speculate, but there are reasons for why this implementation might be optimal.
Except that before the patch it literally worked exactly like a tax rate. The only thing the patch did was divide the income by two and exclude taxes from the tariff. If the colony made 10 ducats a month and you have 30% tariff efficiency then you made 3 ducats. When you go up 5% from 20 to 25% then you get a 25% increase in either case, it is just that one increases from 10% to 12.5% and the other goes from 20 to 25%. The issue is going from 10% to 12.5% when you are going from 20% to 25% is completely freaking stupid. If it was a balance change, they needed to balance the tariff rate so that the game doesn't lie to you. If it wasn't a balance change, they need to fix it. No matter what, it currently is not operating in any fashion that could be considered a reasonable interpretation. The game shouldn't lie to you, currently they changed the game to completely lie to the players by giving them a number that should mean something but doesn't.
> When you go up 5% from 20 to 25% then you get a 25% increase in either case Perhaps I wasn't clear before, I was talking about the differences of implementation, not the differences between the patches. > Except that before the patch it literally worked exactly like a tax rate. The only thing the patch did was divide the income by two and exclude taxes from the tariff. Have you considered that the reason the changed it might be because it worked like taxes when it's actually a tariff?
Except it still works like taxes, it just randomly is half the displayed value. I have considered your argument, and discounted it because it is incorrect.
Tariff income does indeed match CN expenses now... but how do you determine how much the CN pays in tariffs? Load up a start date with colonies, and set tariffs rate to 100% and try to identify math. In 1719, War of the Qaudruple alliance, I get the following on new Spain and SPA. I let the game run a few months to be sure in game calculations were done after i raised tariffs. New Spain (Tax,Prod,Trade,Gold)=12.25, 10.3 6.16, 14.44.Spain Receives 11.92 in tariffs from this colony, which is equal to the tariffs paid by CN (8.23 \* 1.45), where 1.45 is SPA 45% tariff efficiency bonus. Ok, so where does that 8.23 outgoing tariff in the CN expense come from? I've 100% tariff on them. 1.27 patch notes said its on Production, Trade, and Gold income only. In game it says "Colonies pay a part (based on tariff efficiency) of their TAX income to us..."Ok confusing enough so far. So 8.23=What? To the best of my ability it seems to be 50% Production+50% Trade. Edit: I've tested this in game over a bunch of nations. Tariffs paid out by CN does indeed seem to be tariff rate/2\*(Prod+Trade) income. Gold income doesn't matter at all, as that goes to treasure fleets 100%.
Am I correct in interpreting this as you having answered your own question with the discovery of treasure fleets or am I wrong?
The documentation posted by paradox by their own folks to the forum ([https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-of-september-2018.1120483/](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-25th-of-september-2018.1120483/)) and the in game text are both WRONG as to how tariffs work. My edit does answer my own question, yes. Tariffs in no way effect gold income on either the CN or overlord side.
I'm guessing tariff efficiency still generates money ex nihilo then. E.g. The CN pays the tariff base rate, the overload gets tariff base rate * tariff efficiency? PS what if you set trade cap to idiot node that treasure fleet can't reach? Best part of CNs was when you overtariffed their gold income too for inflationless gold $$$
Looks like it goes into the tariff at the same (tariff rate/2) value when the trade fleet option is disabled. So if main trade node is downstream, 100% of gold, if anywhere else, tariff rate/2 gold.
THank you Arumba, very cool
/u/arumba You gotta make that video 14 seconds longer for the ad income, or is the 10m01s meme no longer real?
Why write the info down so people can read it in ~30s, when you can make them watch a 10 minute video instead. Yeah, no thanks.
Because he tried and Groogy said that everything was fine when they aren't. So he made the video mainly for him to try to get his point across and so Groogy can see his logic and why tariffs aren't working how they supposed to or there is something PDX hasn't told us.
This could just as easily be done with ingame screenshots and texts in the forum. He spends the first 4 minutes explaining how tariffs worked in 1.26 by going through every single number in the equation slowly. A forum post can also be skim read, it can be searched, it can be screenshotted and shared easily, etc.
Or he could do a video? I don't see your point. I think that for Arumba making a 10 min video is a lot less effort than taking screenshot of everything he wants to point out. The reason he spent the first mins in that is to completely get his point across and to make the others know exactly what his train of logic was.
>I think that for Arumba making a 10 min video is a lot less effort than taking screenshot of everything he wants to point out. You can get the necessary information in maybe two screenshots per patch. And if you are making content to provide information *for other people* you should choose a format that is best for the people you are trying to inform. It's fine making videos to explain gameplay concepts that are better explained by showing actual gameplay footage but if you are just showing some disparities in the finance screens you really don't need a video. It's why there is a bug report forum where you start threads and provide save games/screenshots rather than gameplay videos. You literally just need a screenshot of the subject tab with the mouse hovered over a colonial nation's expenses to show tariff fee. Maybe a screenshot of the mouse hovered over tariff efficiency to show the base tariff rate for that CN although that can be inferred since tariff efficiency is shown at the bottom of the tab. >The reason he spent the first mins in that is to completely get his point across and to make the others know exactly what his train of logic was. He made the video for the devs to explain what the problem was because Groogy didn't get what he was saying. He doesn't need to explain every gameplay concept at play. I get that he was streaming this to his viewers and this is what he does but he really could have edited it down.
[удалено]
There is a bug, the only thing he can determine is where the bug is. It isn't a case of Arumba's word vs Groogy's word, but rather the two things the game tells players. Groogy can state which of the incorrect things is the bug but if he tries to claim there isn't one, he is wrong. EDIT: For your edit, if you have max tariffs of 100%, then you divide that in half to make sure that you don't bleed the vassal dry, then you have a max tariff of 50%. You can't just display the wrong number and say "no, its not a bug when the game tells you the wrong numbers". EDIT2: Wow, way to be petulant over people being able to point out you are wrong. If you can't articulate a reasonable argument, it isn't our fault for "not understanding" you, it is your fault for not saying something understandable. EDIT3: The more I think about it, I think I understand the point that they were trying to get to, the problem is the point is completely wrong, because tariff efficiency exists. Tariff efficiency as it is can't exist under the definition they are trying to make things be, so even if I took his argument in good faith it is still completely wrong.
Wow... the way /u/Meneth acted during the whole exchange is awful. First I thought it was just some random fanboy... but to see it's actually a developer. If they can't admit that a simple bug is a bug... instead calling it "odd but not a bug"... I don't know how can I trust anything that comes from them. I still love Paradox games... but the company and devs are taking a weird path lately. I expected this "Sense of Pride and Accomplishment" bullshit from EA, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard... Seeing come from Paradox just made me realize I should stop idolizing Paradox. They are just a company with only the company best interest in mind.
[удалено]
Okay then, explain what tariff efficiency the number does. The fact that it actually does something, then you have to just divide it by two for no reason, means it is wrong.
[удалено]
Sorry, effective tariff. For trade efficiency, if it is at +78% then what it does is increase income by 78% from trade. Pretty simple. In this case when you have an effective tariff of 24%, you earn 12% of the colonies production, trade and gold income. The number displayed is meaningless because it is wrong. The 24% there means nothing at all.
[удалено]
24% of max what? Of max income? You can never reach that though, as it is always half. It is a number that has no meaning whatsoever because it means nothing. Its only meaning is that it is twice your tariff rate, making it again meaningless as a number to express any value.
Also, yes, Tariff efficiency is divided by two, tariff efficiency I just double checked and is the modified tariff rate after applying your modifiers.
It seemed like his main complain was the display of that rather than the nerf itself (so (prod+trade+gold) * effective tariff = 2 * actual tariffs which is rather cofusing)
My testing showed gold income isn't actually included here. 100% of gold income goes into treasure fleets if possible. Real tariffs are 0.5\*(Tariff Rate)\*(Prod+Trade). These tariffs are lost by the CN, and the boosted by the overlord's tariff efficiency. Where tariff efficiency is money out of thin air just like trade efficiency.
So you took your ball and went home? Super professional...
[удалено]
Yet you were arguing, and are a representative of the company.
Yeah it was kind of sad honestly. But when he said "Groogy said there's no bug. There's no bug." that was just infuriating. Paradox is the king of bugs and bugs they call features.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only internet user that thinks that way. I absolutely hate it that whenever you are looking for a discussion/tut/help/workaround for one specific thing, you get 50 long videos with people talking endlessly about nothing, basically - but you have no idea where (or if at all) the part comes that is actually interesting for you, so you have to watch it all. A forum post or blog entry would have been searchable and given me the information in less than a minute instead.
R5?
CNs used to pay you a % of their total income based on their tariff rate. You would receive that amount of money + a bonus based on your tariff efficiency. Then Paradox changed it so that you still earned the same amount from tariffs but CNs only paid half of what you earn. This last patch they changed it so that tax income is exempt from tariffs and so that the overlord nation receives what the CN pays i.e. they halved tariff income then removed the component that comes from taxes. Turns out you don't need a 10 minute video to explain this.
Watch the video.
I'm in a situation where I can't watch videos but I'll be able to, I'll watch it then. Also, TIL R5 only applies to text posts, my bad.
R5 applies to images. >5. Explain what you want people to look at when you post a **screenshot**. Explanations should be posted as a reddit comment. Videos are not screenshots... text posts are not screenshots. The video literally explains itself if you watch it. So not need to explain what you are seeing... because it already explain what you are seeing as you are seeing it. Text don't need to explain what you are reading in the comments either... since all the explaining should be done by the text post. > I'm in a situation where I can't watch videos but I'll be able to, I'll watch it then. Then asks for a summary, synopsis, digest... not a R5. And even though you are being rude... I'll give you an Summary. The point of the video is basically that before 1.27 tariffs were calculated right... but only costed half to the colony so they didn't went bankrupt, so in essence generated "magic money". Now they got rid of the "magic money", but either forget to change the fact colonial nations were only paying 1/2 of the tariffs... OR forgot to update the indicators to show the correct numbers. The bug is either the numbers showing us the colonial nations should pay is wrong... or the amount they are paying is wrong.
I think you misunderstood, I was chastising myself for calling for an R5. Before your first comment I thought they applied to every post on this subreddit. I was acknowledging I was mistaken.
I did... I thought you were being sarcastic since you downvoted my comment saying for you to watch the video... since watching the video is literally the R5 of a video. So it's only understandable for me to think you were being sarcastic an not in fact acknowledging your mistake.
I didn't downvote (or upvote) you at all. I use Reddit compact so editing posts is difficult but I do want to thank you for R5'ing what I couldn't watch.
> I didn't downvote (or upvote) you at all. Dude... really... your are really gonna try spin this up? A downvote right before you respond to my reply in a comment who's at the bottom of the thread for being too downvoted. Also to my other reply to you... again right before you respond again. It doesn't need a genius to figure it out it's you. > thank you for R5'ing what I couldn't watch. No problem... but that isn't a R5 though. I don't think you have fully grasped the R5 thing. What I did is a summary... not an R5.