Total War: SHOGUN 2

Total War: SHOGUN 2

Balanced Taxes
Qirn  [developer] Nov 4, 2022 @ 7:53pm
I want to re-rebalance the mod. Any feedback?
Hi folks -

I have playtested a bit more with this and have heard back from some folks about how this mod is working out for them as well. There are two issues that I would like to solve with an updated re-rebalancing of the tax rate:

1) With this mod, you don't see as big of a difference in per-turn income when you change tax rates as you do in vanilla. This makes changing tax rates less immediately impactful, which is sometimes less useful to a player (and at the very least, it's just less interesting).

2) This mod makes the game easier: Since tax rates in my mod are slightly higher than vanilla- and because it is now more rewarding to play a growth-focused "bread-basket" strategy, this means that it's easier to earn money than in vanilla.

I have come up with some new numbers that seek to maintain the benefits of the rebalancing mod while fixing these two problems. However, I want these kinds of updates to be rare and meaningful so I will be taking time to model a bunch of different tax numbers. But most importantly, I want to hear from folks who are using the mod if you'd be interested in these kinds of updates to the mod, or if you would prefer I leave the mod alone.

So far, the new numbers I've come up are less "flat" and more distributed, with minimal at 15% (compared to 10% in vanilla and 30% in version 1 of the mod), and with Normal, High, and Very High matching their vanilla tax rates (30%/40%/50% respectively, vs 40%/45%/50% in version 1 of the mod). Instead of "flattening" the tax rates higher up on the tax scale, I've accomplished the rebalancing in this version 2 update by increasing the growth boosts/penalties for each tax rate, with +140%/-90% on the extreme ends of the spectrum of Minimal/Very Hard respectively (vs. +85%/-90% in version 1), as well as a slightly increasing the static growth penalty/bonus as well.

This solves both problems: there is now a wider variation in per-turn income when you change tax rates, and the amount of income you're gaining is closer to vanilla (and even the growth-focused "breadbasket" strategy is somewhat nerfed from version 1 because although Minimal and Low taxes are providing you even more growth modifiers than the previous version of the mod, they are now also providing you less income due to a lower tax rate).

In my modeling so far, the impact of these changes to the tax rate means that it's no longer as consistent that each tax will be a meaningful strategic choice in your campaign: whether or not a specific tax rate can actually work out for you will be far more dependent on your economic strategy, and sometimes some tax rates (like "High" or "Low") will be always suboptimal for your economic strategy compared to other tax rates. In this update of the mod, a lower tax rate would become MUCH better and pays off much earlier if you are playing a very high growth economic strategy, and alternatively a higher tax rate also becomes much better if you are playing a low growth and/or high non-town wealth economic strategy.

So basically, with this update to the mod your economic strategy will influence your tax strategy a lot more; your income will be more closely aligned to vanilla; and you'll see bigger (more vanilla-like) jumps in your per-turn income whenever you change tax rates.

I won't make an update for at least a few days after this post to gather any feedback y'all have (and to give me time to tinker more with the exact numbers).
< >
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
diessa Nov 5, 2022 @ 4:47am 
I like that your tax rate would also be driven by the other sources of growth you develop. Would this change how you play the opening turns of a campaign?
Qirn  [developer] Nov 5, 2022 @ 2:28pm 
That's a good question - when I use my spreadsheets to model it, most starting situations would reward a Very High tax rate the best since the growth is not meaningful enough to pay off in the long run at the very start of the campaign. Here are some exceptions: Shimazu's starting province of Satsuma has an unusually how starting Town Wealth of 600 (instead of the typical 300). This incentivizes a lower tax rate, but the payoff is still so far in the future with your starting growth. However, if you were to go for growth intentionally (by building a market and, say, a Nanban Port and/or capturing the Nanban Port in Bungo), then tax rates between High and Low become more viable early on (and as you progress and focus more on growth, they get better). Osumi and Hyuga (the provinces you're most likely to take first as the Shimazu) do not have great fertility, either, which does further incentivize a lower tax rate strategy.

The Otomo start off with a Nanban Port, so they are already on their way to a growth-focused/low tax strategy.

On the flip side, the Hojo start off with a gold mine and not many easy ways to boost town wealth (they don't get the option to build a Nanban Port for a long while), so a Very High tax strategy is much better for them at the start to maximize the income from the gold mine.

But there's another element here apart from economy: your economic situation (mostly your growth rate) will determine whether or not a lower tax rate is even possibly viable, but the key thing is that no matter your economic situation lower tax rates only make you money down the road. So a very big element of going for a lower tax is whether or not you can wait for the payout. In a very high growth situation (such as an average 25+ growth across all provinces), that payout is much sooner, but it's still not immediate.

For that reason, you might also consider which clans can afford to wait around near the beginning of the campaign. Oda, Tokugawa, Takeda, Uesugi, Hattori, and basically all the clans in the center of Japan can't wait around. Turtling up with those clans is not usually a good idea- or even possible early on in the campaign: your focus is always on the next few turns (in my experience, anyway). With those clans, you only tend to turtle up mid-game right before realm divide. However some clans like the Shimazu, Date, Otomo, or Chosokabe are in starting situations where they can reach some easily-defensible border (or totally defensible island) where they are able to stop expansion fairly early on in the campaign and turtle up for a bit to build their economy and begin recruiting a better army than their starting army before they continue on (then turtle up again right before Realm Divide).

So a big factor might be which clans can reasonably afford to wait in the early game for a payoff.
Last edited by Qirn; Nov 5, 2022 @ 2:31pm
diessa Nov 5, 2022 @ 3:12pm 
Thanks for the analysis. Already high tax openings are typically needed because of the opportunity cost. One problem with the proposed change might be that further differentiating the rates would make it harder for some of the clans you mentioned to transition between different economic approaches. That might be totally fine. Although I do like the notion of having multiple viable options and ways to play the same clan, and I'm curious if the taxation policy could contribute to that even in the early-to-middle game. I don't know how possible that is, and you're right that start position will determine so much anyways.
Enigmatic Dec 27, 2022 @ 4:02pm 
Looking at the numbers. It's not balanced.
It's a straight buff to lower tax rates.

What you can do is reduce the income you receive. On the lower taxes increase it on higher tax rates.
iamthesrc Aug 18, 2024 @ 12:27pm 
I haven't used this mod much, however I presume that an overall increase to some upkeep or decrease to tax buffs would work? I think that a strong growth incentive might be better.
< >
Showing 1-5 of 5 comments
Per page: 1530 50