Industry Quadrupler Mod

[Bones1 96]

Originally posted by: Peorth So we can conclude that occupancy actually doesn't figure into the taxation income computation. However, the issue of building value versus land value still remains. At this point, I'm still inclined to believe it's BV.quote>

 

Yes, I believe that building value is the one that determines the taxes that are paid, and land value has nothing to do with it. (I confident enough from my observations that I feel no need to verify it by a test).

Land value seems only to play a part when the simulator is deciding what to build.

e.g., I've noticed that one of the reasons why sometimes zones don't develop is that

1) Land value is too high for low-wealth sims to build, despite high demand.

2) Desirability isn't high enough to overcome (1).

3) Desireability and/or demand isn't high enough for richer sims to build.

I can usually break that deadlock by doing one of two things:

1) Plop trees over the undeveloped zones. This causes a short-term (a few months) spike in desirability, which often causes building to start. Usually, middle or high wealth builds in this case, if demand is present.

2) Plop a coal plant next to the undeveloped zones. This sounds like a bad thing, but actually it lowers the land value enough that low-wealth sims start to build. After they've built up the area, I can bulldoze the coal plant.

[Keiran Halcyon 0]

I'd be more inclined to use the trees. God-mode trees are free; coal power plants are not.

Anyway, I nevr claimed that the Prima Guide was gospel. In fact, I think I powted in another thread that it, like all strategy guides, is prone to errors. However, given the amount of info in it that is correct (in particular, the development stage thresholds), I'm inclined to think that the Prima people had a fair amount of insider information when writing the guide. Errors often creep in because that insider info is pre-release, and the release version and patches (and RH) tend to make changes that are not reflected in the guide. Some of this is reflected in the RH addendum to the guide, but obviously there are some things that are wrong.

In regards to the discussion at hand, the guide discusses tax revenue in rather vague terms, leading me to believe that their insider information was vague to begin with. I.e., Maxis tells Prima "We're envisioning basing tax revinue on X, Y, and Z, but we haven't nailed down the formulas yet." Prima writes what they wrote, and only later does Maxis determine that X is going to be dropped from the formula entirely.

I would be interested in seeing some tests done with industrial zones, in particular, under various conditions of alteration (building value, building jobs, etc.). I am no modder, though.