Will lowering taxes boost the economical growth in a city/province?

[Stoferr]

I remember back in the days of Empire TW, I used to lower my taxes as much a possible, this would increase the economical growth of my regions and thus increase the 'worth' of them, in the the long run. Does anyone knows if this still works in Rome II? I know that lowering your taxes improves your population growth, but how about economical?

In fact I don't see any indications of towns having economical values at all, does this mean that there is no rich or poor provinces? That all are the same except for whichever buildings you choose to build there?

[Langer Kerl]

In fact I don't see any indications of towns having economical values at all, does this mean that there is no rich or poor provinces? That all are the same except for whichever buildings you choose to build there?

As far as I know, yes. Wealth seems to be only related to buildings that give wealth + X, so any province can become rich as long as there are enough economical buildings. Or drastically decrease value if those buildings are removed. In my campaign the revenue value of a pronvince has remained stable over in-game decades as long as no new building was errected. Poor barbarian villages like in Rome or rich cities like the Italien ones in Medieval seem to be gone; there isnt much to set regions apart besides location and the occasional ressource.


Growth seems to be population only, and I am not even sure if a higher populace increases tax income or if it is only useful for unlocking more building slots.

[bzhou]

Growth is used only for building slots.

The only conceivable effect I can think of is growth actually contributing to the hidden population that slaves make a % of, allowing you more slaves for an equivalent unrest, though this is highly unlikely. Also, the growth bonuses (-1/0/0/0/+1[?]) are so negligible in the presence of other factors that I just bump my taxes up whenever possible.

[krisslanza]

Taxes only influence the Growth and Unrest. The actual value of the towns are now tied to their exact buildings, and an innate natural value.
While this isn't as realistic, it prevents the problem of the AI overtaxing everything all the time, and running every province's wealth into the dirt when you got to capturing it.

[Stoferr]

Well, thats really disappointing, I wanted to exclude taxes in my home region to turn it into an economical stronghold, but that seems to be impossible now, unless I deliberately keep the buildings in all other provinces less developed...

[krisslanza]

Well, thats really disappointing, I wanted to exclude taxes in my home region to turn it into an economical stronghold, but that seems to be impossible now, unless I deliberately keep the buildings in all other provinces less developed...

Well this isn't entirely as bad as you make it sound. Some regions are naturally more "rich" then others innate, but mainly some regions are simply larger. For example, a 4 settlement province is going to be more economically valuable then one with only two. Also, most of the economic buildings are from the capital, but for the minor settlements it's going to largely depend on the resources they produce - if any.

Economic growth might be gone, but you can certainly still do what you want without purposely "gimping" other regions. Some are just richer then others because they actually contain valuable goods.

[Slaists]

Yup, there is no "economic growth" in this game: not how it was represented in S2 and Empire. The only growth is population which becomes pointless as soon as all building slots in a province are open.