Why the hell do I still get..

**nodey** · September 06, 2007, 06:14 PM

.."poor with taxes" trait when garrisoning a castle?
I mean do these guys take any feedback into consideration before releasing these expansions and so called patches?

I mean i'm no expert but modders on this board has already fixed many of the issues with the game including charges and the above mentioned. CA's apparent unwillingness to take opinions into account is only surpassed by one other crew in the world and thats george w bush and co.

At least playtest the damned thing before releasing.

**The Walrus** · September 06, 2007, 06:22 PM

This is actually intentional. If you have low taxes or normal your governor gets negative traits. Thats why its important to have high and highest taxes in town. Now castles can't get to this so its important to either not govern them or have someone crappy govern them.

It makes sense, as the larger the taxes the more money the dude has to administrate

**nodey** · September 06, 2007, 06:26 PM

Actually, sense is the last thing it makes.

If the castles taxes is not to be governed, then the character should not get the trait for not governing them properly.

**Grimmy** · September 06, 2007, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by nodey

Actually, sense is the last thing it makes.

If the castles taxes is not to be governed, then the character should not get the trait for not governing them properly.

I am also not a particular fan of this line of anti-traits and how they are acquired, but....

The way I've come to look at it is like this:

That General, being in a castle, spends his days and nights, exclusively dealing with matters of military import. He gets little to no experience in dealing with civil affairs.

How the money gets there is someone else's problem, not his. Therefore, he becomes dismissive and negligent in overseeing such issues.

**nodey** · September 06, 2007, 08:59 PM

No matter how you twist and turn it, the general can not alter the tax, so he shouldnt even be held responsible.

I guess if you're too busy spamming out new unpolished products a la sims style you don't give 2 cents about the details, and especially so with a fanbase that is completely in the smog. Apparently.

To fix these issues in a patch goes under the supporting your product category, a concept practically ignored by CA. I bet if they didn't have an expansion in the work we wouldnt even have seen this so called patch.

**Admiral Nelson** · September 06, 2007, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by nodey

To fix these issues in a patch goes under the supporting your product category, a concept practically ignored by CA. I bet if they didn't have an expansion in the work we wouldnt even have seen this so called patch.

Don't be so harsh on CA. CA is not responsible for rushing the product, Sega is.

In any case, Kingdoms isn't, and wasn't ever, advertised as a patch to M2TW, only an expansion...

**Schwertmeister** · September 06, 2007, 07:22 PM

shoot, since RTW I'm trying to keep taxes low and people happy! I also thought high taxes would make the governors corrupt... now I know I was wrong.

**the_mango55** · September 06, 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Schwertmeister

shoot, since RTW I'm trying to keep taxes low and people happy! I also thought high taxes would make the governors corrupt... now I know I was wrong.

I find low taxes are the worst thing for a city, unless it is absolutely necessary to grow the city fast.

It makes them a little happier in the short term, but it brings in less money, and grows the city faster than you can make happiness buildings, so eventually the squalor will pass the breaking point and start rioting.

**TanOrpheus** · September 07, 2007, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by nodey

.."poor with taxes" trait when garrisoning a castle?
I mean do these guys take any feedback into consideration before releasing these expansions and so called patches?

I mean i'm no expert but modders on this board has already fixed many of the issues with the game including charges and the above mentioned. CA's apparent unwillingness to take opinions into account is only surpassed by one other crew in the world and thats george w bush and co.

At least playtest the damned thing before releasing.

One persons opinion of something being wrong won't make them change the game. This is such a minor change I am surprised you even started the topic.

**nodey** · September 07, 2007, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by TanOrpheus

One persons opinion of something being wrong won't make them change the game. This is such a minor change I am surprised you even started the topic.

I dont think you understand the fundamental consequenses this might have on our and future generations. Let me explain.

It's not one persons opinion, it's a bug that needs to be adressed but isnt because too few fans care about useless things like, i dont know...reason and logic.

Whats they do care about though is arguing for the sake of argument, instead of saying "jeez nodey you're absolutely right, why the hell isnt CA fixing this stuff already, i mean i do give a ***** once it happens to me so maybe its time i got my head out of the sand".

So you see, this is a matter of comprehending simple logic, something that is essential to the survival of our species. Change the world today, understand my post.
Thank you.

**Sol Invictus** · September 07, 2007, 08:32 AM

Reason and logic are overated.

If CA seems unwilling to fix major and obvious problems, I think we can forget about them really digging into other less glaring issues.

**TanOrpheus** · September 07, 2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by nodey

why the hell isnt CA fixing this stuff already, i mean i do give a ***** once it happens to me so maybe its time i got my head out of the sand".

If it aint 'broke', I aint gonna ask CA to 'fix' it

**nodey** · September 07, 2007, 08:53 AM

Some of the stuff that needs fixing has been there from 1.0, i don't want to depress you or anything but its more than traits.

**That Darn Satan!** · September 07, 2007, 11:39 AM

The rationale for the anti-trait here makes perfect sense to me ...

If there has been one single thread on this topic and already a handful of people chime in to say it doesn't seem broken, then it's probably not such a problem. Anyway ... sufficiently realistic or not, it's just one of the rules to the game that this happens. The developers wanted to apply traits and anti-traits to generals and came up with a list of which ones would be applied when. It's all arbitrary, quite abstract and as believable as medieval units on one edge of the battlefield being in constant realtime communication with their fellows on the other edge. Why can't my brilliant warchief improvise an amphibious nighttime assault with a small fleet of captured civilian fishing boats? It's not in the rules. He also can't initiate diplomacy because the rules state only his underlings can do that. He can't invite the enemy general over to a turkey dinner and have him and his entire retinue killed, because the rules state that only assassins can pull underhanded stuff like this. We do best to accept the rules for the abstract mechanical things they are, and enjoy the game.

**nodey** · September 07, 2007, 01:45 PM

You do make a good point, but not on the topic at hand. Although your advice is well intended i don't think your examples apply here.

You're talking about not getting anything you want, i'm talking about a flawed logic. You could have flying boats in medieval and the random retard would say it's cool, and as long as the random retard is in majority CA won't do a thing. Yes i know i'm taking it out of proportion but that seems to be a nessesity to get my point across.

Never the less, this whole discussion is not about one anti-trait, its about all the little bugs that CA just don't take the time to correct. And a majority of the fans seem so over their heads about the next installment that they forget about demanding support for the product they just bought.

So if you think i'm overreacting imagine how annoyed i'd be if i had actually bought the game.