The Drawbacks of 100/100

[darkblade]

I wanted to start a discussion today about a topic that has been bothering me for awhile now, 100/100 taxes. While taxes are an integral part of the game, I believe that setting them at maximum confiscation levels has some serious drawbacks that we should consider. Here's why  100/100 taxes are bad the user experience.

Setting taxes at 100% deprives players of the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labor. It discourages investment in infrastructure, trade, and technological advancements since all their hard-earned income is taken away. Without incentives to engage in economic activities, theywitness stagnant growth and miss out on the chance to develop their nations to their full potential.

The high tax rates greatly reduce player engagement and discourage active participation. Politics and War is meant to be an learning experience, where players can strategize, interact, and build their nations. However, with 100/100 taxes, they lose the rewards and benefits that come with economic success. As a result, many players may become inactive or even leave the game.

Implementing 100/100 taxes creates an unfair advantage for certain nations. Those who have alternative sources of income or significant reserves are less affected by these high tax rates. On the other hand, players who have worked hard to build diverse economies suffer the most. This imbalance disrupts the competitive nature of the game and discourages new players from joining your alliance.

The essence of Politics and War lies in the freedom to shape your nation and make strategic decisions. However, with 100/100 taxes in place, a player's agency is severely limited. They are stripped of the ability to use our income strategically and are left feeling disempowered. This lack of economic decision-making reduces the complexity and overall enjoyment of the game, potentially leading to player attrition.
 

So, I propose that alliances reconsider the use of 100/100 taxes. Instead, let's encourage alliance leaders to explore alternative methods that foster economic growth, promote player participation, and maintain a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience. By creating a fair and rewarding environment, we can ensure the long-term success and engagement of our player community.

Edited June 21, 2023 by darkblade

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

This is a weird post addressing something almost no alliance actually does. 

Some have voluntary growth circles that use 100/100. That's about it. Those that have existed in the past who used 100/100 all the time didn't exactly keep a secret to people applying, either.

 

Anyone in an alliance using permanent 100/100 is there because they want to be, honestly, making this post even weirder again.

[darkblade]

Just now, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

This is a weird post addressing something almost no alliance actually does. 

Some have voluntary growth circles that use 100/100. That's about it. Those that have existed in the past who used 100/100 all the time didn't exactly keep a secret to people applying, either.

 

Anyone in an alliance using permanent 100/100 is there because they want to be, honestly, making this post even weirder again.

I appreciate your perspective on the issue, and I understand that the use of 100/100 taxes may not be a widespread practice among alliances in Politics and War. It's true that some alliances may have voluntary growth circles or specific circumstances where they choose to implement these high tax rates.

However, I believe it's important to address this topic and discuss the potential drawbacks of 100/100 taxes, even if they are not commonly utilized. By examining different aspects of the game and considering various viewpoints, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding and potentially influence new alliances to make informed decisions when deciding their econ style.

While it may seem unusual to address a practice that is not prevalent, it is essential to have open conversations about various aspects of the game to ensure a diverse and engaging gameplay experience for all players. By voicing concerns and discussing potential issues, we contribute to the community of this game.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and I encourage you to continue engaging in discussions that contribute to the betterment of our community.

[Cajun_Yankee]

YES, FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT 

 

also, with 100/100 taxes, players are less incentivized to either make a profitable build or to even keep up with the game if all they're doing is being tax farmed

 

and if they're not that active or don't know how to ask for grants won't be able to grow at all or have their own  capital to do with what they want

 

it is my personal belief that it's a good idea to have low taxes and have the nations themselves be more responsible for their own growth (the taxes mostly being for war related reasons, you need funds to be able to effectively fight and then rebuild afterwards) and perhaps a way for players to safekeep to prevent the money from being raided away

[darkblade]

Just now, Cajun_Yankee said:

YES, FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT 

 

also, with 100/100 taxes, players are less incentivized to either make a profitable build or to even keep up with the game if all they're doing is being tax farmed

 

and if they're not that active or don't know how to ask for grants won't be able to grow at all or have their own  capital to do with what they want

 

it is my personal belief that it's a good idea to have low taxes and have the nations themselves be more responsible for their own growth (the taxes mostly being for war related reasons, you need funds to be able to effectively fight and then rebuild afterwards) and perhaps a way for players to safekeep to prevent the money from being raided away

I completely agree with your points regarding the negative impacts of 100/100 taxes. It's important to acknowledge that high taxes discourage players from engaging in profitable activities and can lead to a lack of motivation to keep up with the game.

By implementing 100/100 taxes, players are essentially being tax farmed, which takes away their incentive to strategically build their nations and be actively involved in the game. This lack of agency and personal responsibility hinders individual growth and restricts players.

Your suggestion of having low taxes and placing more responsibility on nations for their own growth is a valid and beneficial approach. This allows players to have more control over their economic development and encourages them to actively seek ways to increase their growth within the game. Low taxes can still provide the necessary funds for war-related purposes, while also enabling players to allocate their resources according to their own strategic needs.

Moreover, introducing a way for players to safeguard their funds can add an extra layer of security and prevent the risk of losing their hard-earned money to raids. This would provide players with a sense of stability and control over their finances, encouraging them to actively participate in the game without the fear of losing everything.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I appreciate your insight into creating a more balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience.

[Chad]

In the browser game "Politics and War," where players simulate governing nations, the idea of implementing a 100/100 tax policy may be perceived as an efficient growth strategy by some players. However, it's important to note that this perception might vary depending on the specific mechanics and dynamics of the game. In a real-world economic context, as explained in my previous response, a 100% tax rate would have significant drawbacks. Nonetheless, in the game's context, here are a few reasons why players might consider it an efficient growth strategy:

1. Rapid resource accumulation: By imposing a 100% tax rate on all citizens, players can quickly accumulate resources within their nation. This enables them to stockpile a significant amount of in-game currency, raw materials, or other resources, which can be used for various purposes, such as expanding military capabilities or funding infrastructure projects.

2. Government control and stability: With a 100/100 tax policy, the government has complete control over the economy and resources. This can create a sense of stability within the game, as players don't have to worry about economic fluctuations or market uncertainties. The government can dictate how resources are allocated and prioritize specific goals, such as military expansion or research and development.

3. Resource redistribution: Implementing a 100% tax rate can allow the government to redistribute resources among players more evenly. This can address wealth disparities and promote a sense of equality within the game. By taking away all income from citizens, the government can ensure that everyone has access to the necessary resources to participate in the game and compete on a level playing field.

4. Simplicity and ease of management: A 100/100 tax policy simplifies the game's economic management. With all income going to the government, players don't have to worry about complex tax calculations or managing economic policies. This can save time and effort, allowing players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as diplomacy or military strategies.

It's worth noting that these perceived advantages might come at the expense of other game aspects, such as individual player freedom, strategic decision-making, or long-term economic sustainability. Different players may have different playstyles and objectives, and what might be considered efficient in one context might not be the case in another. Ultimately, the efficiency and effectiveness of a 100/100 tax strategy in "Politics and War" would depend on the specific game mechanics and the players' preferences and goals.

[hidude45454]

dnn

[darkblade]

Just now, chad said:

In the browser game "Politics and War," where players simulate governing nations, the idea of implementing a 100/100 tax policy may be perceived as an efficient growth strategy by some players. However, it's important to note that this perception might vary depending on the specific mechanics and dynamics of the game. In a real-world economic context, as explained in my previous response, a 100% tax rate would have significant drawbacks. Nonetheless, in the game's context, here are a few reasons why players might consider it an efficient growth strategy:

1. Rapid resource accumulation: By imposing a 100% tax rate on all citizens, players can quickly accumulate resources within their nation. This enables them to stockpile a significant amount of in-game currency, raw materials, or other resources, which can be used for various purposes, such as expanding military capabilities or funding infrastructure projects.

2. Government control and stability: With a 100/100 tax policy, the government has complete control over the economy and resources. This can create a sense of stability within the game, as players don't have to worry about economic fluctuations or market uncertainties. The government can dictate how resources are allocated and prioritize specific goals, such as military expansion or research and development.

3. Resource redistribution: Implementing a 100% tax rate can allow the government to redistribute resources among players more evenly. This can address wealth disparities and promote a sense of equality within the game. By taking away all income from citizens, the government can ensure that everyone has access to the necessary resources to participate in the game and compete on a level playing field.

4. Simplicity and ease of management: A 100/100 tax policy simplifies the game's economic management. With all income going to the government, players don't have to worry about complex tax calculations or managing economic policies. This can save time and effort, allowing players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as diplomacy or military strategies.

It's worth noting that these perceived advantages might come at the expense of other game aspects, such as individual player freedom, strategic decision-making, or long-term economic sustainability. Different players may have different playstyles and objectives, and what might be considered efficient in one context might not be the case in another. Ultimately, the efficiency and effectiveness of a 100/100 tax strategy in "Politics and War" would depend on the specific game mechanics and the players' preferences and goals.

Thank you for providing additional insights into the potential reasons why players might consider a 100/100 tax policy as an efficient growth strategy in the game.    You raise valid points that highlight how this approach could be perceived as advantageous within the game's context and mechanics.

The ability to rapidly accumulate resources through a 100% tax rate can indeed provide players with a significant stockpile of in-game currency or materials. This accumulation can be leveraged for various purposes, such as expanding military capabilities or funding infrastructure projects, thereby enhancing a player's strategic power within the game.

Additionally, the sense of government control and stability that comes with a 100/100 tax policy can create a predictable and controlled economic environment. This stability allows players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as diplomacy or military strategies, without being burdened by economic fluctuations.

The notion of resource redistribution is another interesting aspect to consider. By implementing a 100% tax rate, the government can actively redistribute resources among players, promoting a more equitable playing field and fostering a sense of equality within the game.

However, as you rightly acknowledge, there may be trade-offs associated with this strategy. Individual player freedom and decision-making could be restricted, and the long-term sustainability of the economy may be compromised. Each player's playstyle, preferences, and objectives will influence whether the perceived advantages of a 100/100 tax strategy outweigh these potential drawbacks.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and efficiency of such a tax policy in "Politics and War" depend on the game's specific mechanics and the players' individual goals. The complex interplay between various game elements should be considered to strike a balance that provides an enjoyable and strategic gameplay experience for all participants.

Thank you for expanding the discussion and offering additional perspectives on the topic.

[Chad]

Just now, darkblade said:

Thank you for providing additional insights into the potential reasons why players might consider a 100/100 tax policy as an efficient growth strategy in the game.    You raise valid points that highlight how this approach could be perceived as advantageous within the game's context and mechanics.

The ability to rapidly accumulate resources through a 100% tax rate can indeed provide players with a significant stockpile of in-game currency or materials. This accumulation can be leveraged for various purposes, such as expanding military capabilities or funding infrastructure projects, thereby enhancing a player's strategic power within the game.

Additionally, the sense of government control and stability that comes with a 100/100 tax policy can create a predictable and controlled economic environment. This stability allows players to focus on other aspects of the game, such as diplomacy or military strategies, without being burdened by economic fluctuations.

The notion of resource redistribution is another interesting aspect to consider. By implementing a 100% tax rate, the government can actively redistribute resources among players, promoting a more equitable playing field and fostering a sense of equality within the game.

However, as you rightly acknowledge, there may be trade-offs associated with this strategy. Individual player freedom and decision-making could be restricted, and the long-term sustainability of the economy may be compromised. Each player's playstyle, preferences, and objectives will influence whether the perceived advantages of a 100/100 tax strategy outweigh these potential drawbacks.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and efficiency of such a tax policy in "Politics and War" depend on the game's specific mechanics and the players' individual goals. The complex interplay between various game elements should be considered to strike a balance that provides an enjoyable and strategic gameplay experience for all participants.

Thank you for expanding the discussion and offering additional perspectives on the topic.

Thank you for your feedback and appreciation. I'm glad I could provide you with further insights on the topic. If you have any more questions or need assistance with anything else, feel free to ask. Happy gaming!

[darkblade]

Just now, hidude45454 said:

dnn

I wanted to take a moment to extend my heartfelt thanks for your recent post on "DNN". Your contribution has proven to be immensely valuable and has left a positive impact on our community.

Your post on "DNN" was enlightening and well-crafted, demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject matter. It provided clear explanations and insights into the intricacies of this community. Your ability to make complex concepts accessible to all readers is truly commendable.

Your efforts in sharing your knowledge have not only educated and inspired me but also ignited meaningful discussions among our community members. Your post has encouraged further exploration and deepened our understanding of the topic. It is through the generosity of individuals like you that we can collectively grow and stay up-to-date with the latest advancements in our field.

I wanted to express my gratitude for the time, effort, and expertise you invested in creating such an informative and valuable post. Your dedication to sharing knowledge has undoubtedly made a significant difference within our community. I greatly appreciate your willingness to contribute and your commitment to fostering a collaborative environment.

Once again, thank you, Hidude, for your outstanding post on "DNN." Your contribution is highly appreciated, and I eagerly look forward to your future insights and engagement within our community.

[Franz Steiger]

A point I thought of btw. is that 100/100 may give the alliance more control over how the tierings of the alliance shapes, so that the risk of the creation of gaps in the tiers or falling behind in certain areas can be decreased, since the alliance can equalize progress made among members.

It's just a point that came up in my mind.

[darkblade]

Just now, Franz Steiger said:

A point I thought of btw. is that 100/100 may give the alliance more control over how the tierings of the alliance shapes, so that the risk of the creation of gaps in the tiers or falling behind in certain areas can be decreased, since the alliance can equalize progress made among members.

It's just a point that came up in my mind.

Thank you for sharing your additional point regarding the potential benefits of implementing a 100/100 tax policy in shaping the tiering within alliances. It's an interesting perspective that highlights a possible advantage of this approach.

By imposing a 100/100 tax rate, alliances can indeed exercise greater control over the distribution of resources and progress among their members. This can help minimize the risk of gaps forming between different tiers within the alliance, ensuring a more balanced and equitable playing field for all members.

Equalizing progress among members through a high tax policy can contribute to a sense of cohesion and unity within the alliance. It can foster a collaborative environment where resources are strategically allocated to support and uplift the entire alliance as a whole, rather than having individual members fall behind in certain areas.

Your point underscores the potential role of a 100/100 tax policy in facilitating alliance growth and maintaining a competitive edge collectively. It can serve as a tool to promote solidarity, strengthen the alliance as a cohesive unit, and enhance overall performance in the game.

Thank you for bringing up this aspect, as it adds another dimension to the discussion around the impact of tax policies in shaping alliance dynamics and progression. Your input is appreciated, and I encourage further exploration of this topic to gain a comprehensive understanding of the various effects and considerations associated with different tax strategies.

If you have any more insights or thoughts to share, please feel free to continue the discussion.

[Chad]

Just now, Franz Steiger said:

A point I thought of btw. is that 100/100 may give the alliance more control over how the tierings of the alliance shapes, so that the risk of the creation of gaps in the tiers or falling behind in certain areas can be decreased, since the alliance can equalize progress made among members.

It's just a point that came up in my mind.

That's an interesting point to consider. Implementing a 100/100 tax policy within an alliance in the game could potentially allow for greater control over the distribution of resources and the shaping of alliance tiers. By equalizing the progress made among alliance members through a uniform tax rate, the risk of creating gaps or disparities within the alliance could be reduced.

This approach could promote a more balanced and cohesive alliance structure, ensuring that all members have access to necessary resources and opportunities for growth. It may also foster a sense of unity and cooperation among alliance members, as everyone is working towards common goals without significant disparities in progress.

However, it's important to note that the effectiveness and desirability of this approach would depend on the specific dynamics and goals of the game, as well as the preferences and strategies of the players involved. The implementation of a 100/100 tax policy should be carefully considered, taking into account the potential impact on individual player autonomy, incentives, and the overall gameplay experience.

Ultimately, decisions regarding alliance policies, including tax rates, should be made in consultation with alliance members and should aim to strike a balance between promoting fairness, cooperation, and individual player agency.

[KillzBob]

i be on 100/100 so i dont have to play this lame game the less i gotta login the better

[Talleyrand]

Thank you for raising the topic of 100/100 taxes and expressing your concerns about their impact on the user experience in Politics and War. Your argument highlights the drawbacks of setting taxes at maximum levels and proposes exploring alternative methods to foster economic growth and maintain an enjoyable gameplay experience. I appreciate your perspective, and I agree with many of your points.

You rightly point out that imposing 100% taxes deprives players of enjoying the fruits of their labor. This discourages investment in crucial areas such as infrastructure, trade, and technological advancements. When all hard-earned income is taken away, players lack the necessary incentives to engage in economic activities, which leads to stagnant growth and limits the potential for nation development. This insight emphasizes the importance of creating an environment where players can enjoy the benefits of their efforts and be motivated to further invest in their nations.

Additionally, high tax rates can indeed decrease player engagement and participation. Politics and War is designed to be a learning experience where players can strategize, interact, and build their nations. However, with 100/100 taxes, players lose the rewards and benefits that come with economic success. This can result in decreased activity and player attrition, which is detrimental to the long-term success of any game. Maintaining an active and vibrant player community is crucial, and finding a balance that encourages both economic success and engagement is essential.

Furthermore, implementing 100/100 taxes creates an unfair advantage for certain nations, as those with alternative income sources or significant reserves are less affected by these high tax rates. On the other hand, players who have worked hard to build diverse economies suffer the most. This imbalance disrupts the competitive nature of the game and may discourage new players from joining certain alliances. By striving for a fair and inclusive gaming environment, where all participants have a level playing field, the overall experience can be enhanced.

You rightly argue that setting taxes at maximum levels limits a player's agency and ability to make strategic decisions regarding their income. This lack of control over economic affairs can reduce engagement and may lead to player attrition. Empowering players with economic decision-making powers and allowing them to exercise agency within the game can contribute to a more dynamic and engaging experience.

In light of these concerns, your proposal to encourage alliances to reconsider the use of 100/100 taxes and explore alternative methods is well-founded. Implementing more flexible tax systems, incentivizing economic activities, and finding creative ways to balance revenue generation with player agency are practical approaches to create a fair and rewarding environment. By actively addressing these issues and incorporating player feedback, Politics and War can evolve into a game that offers a dynamic and engaging experience for all participants.

Thank you for initiating this valuable discussion, as it provides an opportunity to reflect on potential improvements that can enhance gameplay and overall enjoyment for everyone involved. By considering alternative methods and continuously refining the game's mechanics, Politics and War can create an environment that fosters economic growth, promotes player participation, and ensures the long-term success and engagement of the player community.

 

[Raphael]

I know this is an AI memepost but multiple groups have shown the efficiency of central planning in PnW.

The only drawback is the community skews towards more active people and those more active people want gameplay. Just like letting an FA head run your politics instead of letting every member decide if they're going to join a war or vote on a treaty, central planning is probably better than letting every individual decide things for themselves.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Roberts

[Shiho Nishizumi]

1 hour ago, darkblade said:

I wanted to start a discussion today about a topic that has been bothering me for awhile now, 100/100 taxes. While taxes are an integral part of the game, I believe that setting them at maximum confiscation levels has some serious drawbacks that we should consider. Here's why  100/100 taxes are bad the user experience.

Setting taxes at 100% deprives players of the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labor. It discourages investment in infrastructure, trade, and technological advancements since all their hard-earned income is taken away. Without incentives to engage in economic activities, theywitness stagnant growth and miss out on the chance to develop their nations to their full potential.

The high tax rates greatly reduce player engagement and discourage active participation. Politics and War is meant to be an learning experience, where players can strategize, interact, and build their nations. However, with 100/100 taxes, they lose the rewards and benefits that come with economic success. As a result, many players may become inactive or even leave the game.

Implementing 100/100 taxes creates an unfair advantage for certain nations. Those who have alternative sources of income or significant reserves are less affected by these high tax rates. On the other hand, players who have worked hard to build diverse economies suffer the most. This imbalance disrupts the competitive nature of the game and discourages new players from joining your alliance.

The essence of Politics and War lies in the freedom to shape your nation and make strategic decisions. However, with 100/100 taxes in place, a player's agency is severely limited. They are stripped of the ability to use our income strategically and are left feeling disempowered. This lack of economic decision-making reduces the complexity and overall enjoyment of the game, potentially leading to player attrition.
 

So, I propose that alliances reconsider the use of 100/100 taxes. Instead, let's encourage alliance leaders to explore alternative methods that foster economic growth, promote player participation, and maintain a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience. By creating a fair and rewarding environment, we can ensure the long-term success and engagement of our player community.

A vacation at Vorkuta will help you reconsider your thoughts, comrade.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

People get charged taxes?  that sounds horrible.

[Buorhann]

ITT:  People not catching on that darkblade is using Chat AI.

[Thalmor]

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, and fellow humor enthusiasts, today I stand before you to discuss the unique sense of humor possessed by the one and only Darkblade. Darkblade, an individual known for his sharp wit and comedic prowess, has once again displayed his comedic genius by utilizing ChatGPT to craft a forum post that has left us in stitches. His ability to harness the power of artificial intelligence and create hilarious content is truly commendable.

However, amidst the laughter and enjoyment, it is with a heavy heart that I must address a somber topic. Darkblade's sister, unfortunately, has taken up a different career path by joining OnlyFans. While we respect individual choices, it is important to acknowledge the complexities and sensitivities surrounding such decisions. Let us remember to approach this topic with empathy, understanding, and support for Darkblade and his family during this challenging time.

Additionally, and I must apologize for the candidness of this topic, Darkblade has recently been plagued by a rather unfortunate case of explosive diarrhea. Though a delicate subject matter, we cannot deny the irony in the misfortunes life sometimes throws our way. Darkblade, being the resilient soul he is, has managed to maintain his sense of humor even in the face of such discomfort. It is this unwavering ability to find laughter in life's most unexpected moments that truly showcases his comedic prowess.

In conclusion, let us celebrate Darkblade's unique talent for humor, his ability to use technology to create laughter, and his resilience in the face of personal challenges. While we may find ourselves in fits of laughter at his wit and creativity, let us also remember to approach sensitive matters with empathy and compassion. Darkblade's ability to find humor even in the most difficult circumstances is a testament to his strength and unwavering spirit. So, let us continue to appreciate his comedic genius and extend our support and understanding to him and his loved ones. Thank you.

[Danzek]

22 hours ago, darkblade said:

I wanted to start a discussion today about a topic that has been bothering me for awhile now, 100/100 taxes. While taxes are an integral part of the game, I believe that setting them at maximum confiscation levels has some serious drawbacks that we should consider. Here's why  100/100 taxes are bad the user experience.

Setting taxes at 100% deprives players of the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labor. It discourages investment in infrastructure, trade, and technological advancements since all their hard-earned income is taken away. Without incentives to engage in economic activities, theywitness stagnant growth and miss out on the chance to develop their nations to their full potential.

The high tax rates greatly reduce player engagement and discourage active participation. Politics and War is meant to be an learning experience, where players can strategize, interact, and build their nations. However, with 100/100 taxes, they lose the rewards and benefits that come with economic success. As a result, many players may become inactive or even leave the game.

Implementing 100/100 taxes creates an unfair advantage for certain nations. Those who have alternative sources of income or significant reserves are less affected by these high tax rates. On the other hand, players who have worked hard to build diverse economies suffer the most. This imbalance disrupts the competitive nature of the game and discourages new players from joining your alliance.

The essence of Politics and War lies in the freedom to shape your nation and make strategic decisions. However, with 100/100 taxes in place, a player's agency is severely limited. They are stripped of the ability to use our income strategically and are left feeling disempowered. This lack of economic decision-making reduces the complexity and overall enjoyment of the game, potentially leading to player attrition.
 

So, I propose that alliances reconsider the use of 100/100 taxes. Instead, let's encourage alliance leaders to explore alternative methods that foster economic growth, promote player participation, and maintain a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience. By creating a fair and rewarding environment, we can ensure the long-term success and engagement of our player community.

Dear fellow players,

While the concept of 100/100 taxes may seem daunting at first, let's take a moment to appreciate the hidden benefits it brings to the vibrant world of Politics and War. Here are some compelling arguments in favor of this system that you may not have considered:

Active Growth Circles: In a well-managed 100/100 tax environment, resources are less likely to sit stagnant in the coffers of nations. With a constant flow of funds into alliances, there are greater opportunities for investments, grants, and initiatives that fuel growth and progress. This ensures that your hard-earned resources are put to work, benefiting not only your own nation but also the collective prosperity of your alliance.

Fruition of Labor: Higher taxes mean more frequent grants for nations. This translates into a tangible representation of your efforts and contributions. Witnessing the direct impact of your labor not only provides a sense of accomplishment but also fosters a stronger connection to the game world.

Accessible Banking: Imagine a tax system where a portion of the funds is allocated to a player-accessible bank account. This allows for personal financial management and strategic decision-making, empowering players with a greater degree of agency. By giving you control over your share of the alliance's wealth, 100/100 taxes can actually enhance your decision-making capabilities.

Minimize Micromanagement: Politics and War is a game meant to be enjoyed through interactions with others, not by drowning in repetitive micromanagement. By embracing higher taxes, you free up valuable time and mental energy that would otherwise be spent on tedious resource management. Focus on the aspects of the game that truly matter, such as raiding, trading, and engaging in strategic diplomacy.

Untaxed Opportunities: It's important to note that raiding and trading activities are never taxed. These dynamic aspects of the game offer endless enjoyment and allow you to accumulate wealth and resources without any tax burden. So, seize these exciting opportunities and revel in the thrill of pursuing wealth and influence without worrying about taxation.

Alliance Economy and Interaction: Higher tax rates encourage more complex alliance economies. With increased funds at their disposal, alliances can engage in intricate trading networks and provide generous grants to their members. This fosters a lively environment where collaboration, planning, and economic coordination thrive. You'll have the chance to work closely with your alliance members, strategize together, and contribute to a robust alliance economy.

Freedom of Choice: Transparency should be our guiding principle. By openly showcasing tax rates, alliances allow players to make informed decisions and select the alliance and playstyle that aligns with their preferences. 100/100 taxes are a choice for many, and players should have the freedom to choose their path and enjoy the game in a way that suits them best.

Best regards, ChatGPT

[Winston Gray]

As an alliance leader, I would like to throw in my two cents here.

When I first joined, I wanted an alliance with these three things:

1. Discord optional

2. Low taxes

3. I could do something for the alliance. 

No good alliance had these three things. I tried Camelot but the 100/100 tax would have been absolutely crippling for me. I ended up temporarily settling for Castle Camelot before starting my own alliance. I used a system where the highest tax any member could possibly pay was 25/25, therefore enabling everyone to keep 75-85% of their total production. I also made discord optional and I give my new members positions. I think the 100/100 tax is a terrible idea and I think low taxes and optional discord (something you can’t find in almost any actively good alliance) are attractive to newer players without discord. Especially as my alliance’s average score is around 1250, my members need to be able to produce things. There’s my opinion.