Hey people,

So, at the start of the campaign I assigned a health and wealth level to all areas on the map, which helps me determine taxes, among other things. However, for you guys this mechanic was entirely nebulous, since you didn't actually know what those values were.

So, in order to create a bit more clarity, I've added a vague description of each location's health and wealth levels, which you'll be able to find by clicking on the colored dots on the map. Note that these values have changed since the start of the campaign, since you attacked, defended, invested and despoiled these areas.

I'm also thinking of implementing a mechanic where locations earn lower taxes if the health level is much higher than the wealth level (since it has loads of people and hardly any money to feed them), and vice versa (since such a location would consist of a small but very wealthy population). That, of course, would mean I'd need an incentive for you lot to not go around slaughtering your own population, since less people means relatively higher taxes...

What we could do is have taxes based on health (as we have right now), but assign a penalty if wealth falls below a certain level (and a bonus if it rises above another level). Sounds ok?

Anyway, any feedback on whether making the health/wealth levels vaguely known is greatly appreciated, as are any thoughts on the bonus/penalty to taxes!

Another way to do it would be using a formula that took both into account. Something like [Base Value]x[Population]x[Wealth]=[Gold from taxes/tribute] would allow you to do the same thing, but keep things simpler from a rules perspective.

I like the sound of it. it makes sense, as you say, that if theres a high population but no wealth people are starving.

Although it could be interesting if there was a separate project or building to increase population. It seems like most of the current stuff focuses a bit more on increasing wealth, and population rises slower.

Investment basically increases the health of an area, so that's your way of increasing population.

I thought about doing wealth x health, but that basically makes one of the two redundant... After all why multiply two factors when you can have just one? Unless I'm not getting your meaning?

Unfortunately, I think you're going to run into that problem or making one basically irrelevant without adding something or changing how you calculate wealth. You could try something like this:
([population mod]x[population])+([wealth mod]x[wealth])=[tax income]

but that decouples the population from the wealth. Unless you do something like wealth is a scale centered on 0 being a breakeven point or something like that.

Maybe instead of wealth being separate, why not do something like this. Projects that raise wealth now raise a third stat, per capita. Projects that raise population still do that. Wealth is simply population times per capita. Raiding deals damage to per capita which can go negative, and if you have it set up so that [raid spoils]=[raid modifier]^[per capita] then raiding a place multiple times without giving it time to recover results in lower gains, and makes affluent locations very lucrative targets.

I knew I should've paid more attention to economics back in high school ...

Thanks for the suggestion- unfortunately, I think your first sentence hits the nail right on the head- I'll need to make some changes to how wealth works, both in how it affects players and how players can affect it. Right now it is just sorta there, without really adding much beyond fluff- although I will say that it is a fun way for the greenskins to determine how much they've wrecked a location .

By the way, I also added a line to the warroom, which gives you a rough idea of how strong your armies are right now. Hope that gives you a little bit more insight, and adds another dimension to the game!

Well, in this iteration of the campaign mechanics health is pretty irrelevant other than as a modifier for wealth. While it is probably too late right now it may be worth looking into using it as some kind of victory point modifier? Basically it represents how many people (and how happy they are) in the territory controlled by a faction. The more successful a colony is the more VPs it generates, at least for a faction that wants to colonise. On the other side of the coin factions, like the greenskins, would benefit VPs from reducing populations. This would allow for more faction specific goals and playstyles.

You could even take it further and create different populations so the make up of populations allows different projects or developments, such as enslaving a captured population if your faction's population is in the majority, more VPs for having a purely Dwarven colony or if it is mixed you unlock the ability to create a innovation hub which would allow for better and more trade and so on. This is of course much more complicated...

I also think that population should affect wealth but maybe there should be balancing bonuses for factions that are less likely to want to take care of a population...

Wazoo

Quick note since I'm not near a computer- the strength indicator is incorrect. For some reason it is displaying the lowest possible value rather than the actual value. I will fix this asap- sorry for the inconvenience! Probably a typo somewhere, should be easy enough to fix.

Ok, should be fixed now. Again, sorry for the confusion! If you notice anything odd please contact me!

Also, when you look at a location your faction owns, you should see a list of all the buildings that have been build there .

(note that this only includes the standard buildings, not the custom buildings)