Author Topic: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11  (Read 3716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11
« on: October 17, 2011, 04:35:08 pm »
+12
This is part two of my improving tade, as part 1 was slightly flawed in believing the current system to be a tad better than I have realized it was. The primary problem being that trade goods are an arbitrary size only selling at the value in x town, not taking into consideration what was the production value of the item.

The second part is, that I know chadz wanted to implement resources to construct weapons, but as this is a greater project I will outline my idea for what can then be improved and built upon.

1) Trade goods. How you are supposed to make money.

Each trade good is divided into three categories:
a) Food
b) Tools
c) Luxury items.

We still have three kind of habitats (With villages further subdivided into 3 categories) with different patterns for consumption:

Villages that produce food, require many tools but little food. Almost no luxury items.
Villages that produce tools require much food, but few tools. Almost no luxury items.
Villages that produce luxury items require both food and tools. No need for luxury items.

Castles produces tools but needs food and luxury items.

Cities produce luxury items but need lots of food, tools and different luxury items.

Each of these habitats can be oversupplied so a player cannot of ever keep using the same trade route as you constantly have to watch our supply does not overtake demand.

The ratio of villages producing what is quite simple. 1 luxury good producing village per city. 1 tool producing village per castle. Rest does food.

2) Weapons

Weapons production works as before.

3) Transport

A player with no recruits can carry 4 tradegoods.
Each recruit can carry 2 tradegoods.
Each recruit can have a equus africanus asinus carrying an extra 4 trade goods
Each horse can carry 2 tradegoods as well as speed bonus.

4) How to expand on this platform

In time instead of producing "food" a village can produce apples and they can be in low or high demand around the world. Same goes for tools. Tools can easily be swapped for resources used in later weapon crafting system.

Recruits should consume Food not gold.

Owners of fiefs get a small percentage of tax for each inhabitant.

Number of inhabitants increase if the fief is well supplied in its demands (pop growth also improves defense).

Kingrimms suggestions:
(click to show/hide)

A very important point why this system is better for game balance than the current:

With the current system the cheapest villages to produce trade goods in are the most valuable.
The stronger clans will be able to take those villages leaving weaker clans to work in more expensive villages or not at all.
This only serves to increase the gap between the strongest and the weakest clans hence is opposite of what you would like to achieve with game balance.
With the system I suggest large clans will be able to maintain strong villages, but smaller clans working together could create wealth as well and be better able to share this wealth.

With the current system because of the extreme difference in production costs strong clans will only get stronger. We're talking as much as 10-15 gold more per hour per member.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 03:34:41 pm by Aemaelius »
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline Plaksteris

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 29
  • Infamy: 15
  • cRPG Player
  • I Potato love.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Latvian Potato Empire
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2011, 05:08:43 pm »
0
Damn, if this comes true cRPG will be the best strategy empire building shit ever!
I Potato Wanna Be.

Offline Jarlek

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1173
  • Infamy: 307
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The walking wiki
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Jarlek_The_Blue, Jarla, Jarlen, Jarler, Jarlec, Jarled OH GOD ALL THESE ALTS
  • IRC nick: Jarlek
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2011, 07:07:16 pm »
0
I like all of your suggestions.
This game isn't about being skillful as much as its about saying things in general chat that enrage people who then go to murder you but in their rage they make dumb mistakes which gets them killed.
In memory of Jarlek_zeh_Blue, ruler of Ilvia

Offline Panoply

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 113
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Aristeia, Panoply, Pistachio
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2011, 07:15:41 pm »
0
I like the idea, and have been thinking along similar lines. The current economy works in a really wonky way.

I feel that the core of the problem is that there is no demand for the generic goods, but that this could be solved by inducing demand in fiefs, as you've suggested with your tools/food/luxury system. The basic idea is that each village has a determined demand function of various goods and this determines the sell value that you get for those goods. I previously mentioned that to make this idea workable, you'd have to reduce the variety of different kinds of goods, because if each fief produces a unique good, it might be difficult to implement a plausible demand function for each village.

Your tools/food/luxury system is not a bad way to deal with this issue. You could still have unique goods, as long as they fall into more manageable categories.

Offline SPQR

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 121
  • Infamy: 19
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: CSA
  • Game nicks: CSA_Gen_Robert_E_Leet
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2011, 07:19:10 pm »
0
I like these ideas.
"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow to fondle it." - Robert E Leet

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline PhantomZero

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 384
  • Infamy: 53
  • cRPG Player
  • I'm going to need you playing at 6AM on Saturday..
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BIRD CLAN
  • Game nicks: POSTMASTER_PHANTOM0_OF_BIRD
  • IRC nick: PhantomZero
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2011, 04:45:01 am »
0
Number of inhabitants increase if the fief is well supplied in its demands (pop growth also improves defense).

I would also suggest that if a village hits a certain cap in population, spare population can be sent to cities within the faction, or castles.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline FRANK_THE_TANK

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1312
  • Infamy: 339
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
  • FluckCucker
    • View Profile
  • Faction: A Free and proud Peasant of Fisdnar!!!
  • Game nicks: FRANK_THE_TANK
  • IRC nick: Sippy sip
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2011, 02:18:00 am »
0
I like it, but it may make it too complicated with out some kind of trade over view so you can see with ease where a decent place to go sell would be. Otherwise you could wander the map for days trying to find some where to off your shit at a profit.

Another point would be that luxury items could accrue greater value over distance than other items.

The first step in any trade route has always been luxury items because they often can stand long slow journeys. Hence why the silk route is called the silk route, the first items traded were silks and spices.

That way food is a good short distance profit maker, reliable always in demand. Tools are good mid distance and best sold to places in need, like sieged cities to make weapons blah blah blah and Luxury items are the things you drag from one end of the map to the other. Offing them in the largest, richest cities.
Fammi un pompino!

I think I have ball cancer in my right nut :(
Good news everybody! It's not nut cancer :)
Bad news everybody, I got dumped :(

Offline Jarlek

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1173
  • Infamy: 307
  • cRPG Player Sir White Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The walking wiki
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Jarlek_The_Blue, Jarla, Jarlen, Jarler, Jarlec, Jarled OH GOD ALL THESE ALTS
  • IRC nick: Jarlek
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2011, 02:23:38 am »
0
I like it, but it may make it too complicated with out some kind of trade over view so you can see with ease where a decent place to go sell would be. Otherwise you could wander the map for days trying to find some where to off your shit at a profit.

Bolded part is part of the point. Trading is gambling/information gathering/planning. Not "ooh I can magically sense that that place will give me loads of gold!" That would be silly.

Another point would be that luxury items could accrue greater value over distance than other items.

The first step in any trade route has always been luxury items because they often can stand long slow journeys. Hence why the silk route is called the silk route, the first items traded were silks and spices.

Goods already get a bonus if you move them far away...
Although the "degrading" for certain kinds of wares could be cool, WHEN those items does anything else than being generic trade goods.

That way food is a good short distance profit maker, reliable always in demand. Tools are good mid distance and best sold to places in need, like sieged cities to make weapons blah blah blah and Luxury items are the things you drag from one end of the map to the other. Offing them in the largest, richest cities.
Sounds good.
This game isn't about being skillful as much as its about saying things in general chat that enrage people who then go to murder you but in their rage they make dumb mistakes which gets them killed.
In memory of Jarlek_zeh_Blue, ruler of Ilvia

Offline Panoply

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 113
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Aristeia, Panoply, Pistachio
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2011, 04:32:00 am »
0
In some way, the degree to which a fief's needs are met by trade goods could influence the recruit and crafting rate. That is, if a village's food demand is not being met, maybe it could be penalized by a lower recruitment rate, whereas if it has its demand met, then it has a higher recruitment rate. Similarly for tools, except with respect to crafting efficiency.

Not sure how luxuries might factor in, perhaps it could be related to prosperity, or just remain a generally high profit margin good.

Offline FRANK_THE_TANK

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1312
  • Infamy: 339
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
  • FluckCucker
    • View Profile
  • Faction: A Free and proud Peasant of Fisdnar!!!
  • Game nicks: FRANK_THE_TANK
  • IRC nick: Sippy sip
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2011, 11:12:30 am »
0
Bolded part is part of the point. Trading is gambling/information gathering/planning. Not "ooh I can magically sense that that place will give me loads of gold!" That would be silly.

In the real world you can get some information about supply and demand well ahead of walking hundreds of kilometers to flog something.

I'm not saying you get a 100% crystal ball/clear information table about where everything is every where. But it would be cool if you could go to a city and tap into the global trade network and get rough estimates for demand.

As in;
Ergellon Castle has Very High tools demand because faction x is at war or it is under siege.
Barryye has not seen a luxury goods caravan from the north in years, demand for northern timber crafts is very high.

Kind of like what you get in SP. But the longer you do it the more detail you get and the more cities and castles you can see. Also it lets you see things like what areas produce luxury x and tool x.

------------------------------------------------

And yes, the northerns are wood whittling hill billy bums.
Fammi un pompino!

I think I have ball cancer in my right nut :(
Good news everybody! It's not nut cancer :)
Bad news everybody, I got dumped :(

Offline RandomDude

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 431
  • Infamy: 43
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • I play now! but I suck =(
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: RandomDude
  • IRC nick: RandomDude
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2011, 01:39:43 pm »
0
Recruits should cost gold and food, not just 1 or the other imo. A lack of one or the other should cause desertions.

Im not sure how complicated the trading side of things should get. A lot of people are already trying to get to grips with the simple system we have now.

It's easy for someone to learn 1 new thing at a time but for someone new to strategus I think it would be a pain for them to get into.

If there were fixed resources on the world map, with a villages/castles/towns productions and trade capabilities defined by those i think that would be simpler.

If you want access to iron, you need to take over a fief that has access to iron. If that village is controlled by another faction... well it's either try to trade or war.

Similarly if a faction has lots of iron but cant feed its troops/population bcos of lack of food, they must trade or fight for it (or starve and become an easy target).

I think some simple economics like that would be easy to understand but also drama-inducing.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 01:41:24 pm by RandomDude »

Offline Tomas

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 718
  • Infamy: 217
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • Fallen Brigade Website
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Tomas
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2011, 05:02:34 pm »
+1
I think we are in danger of overcomplicating Strat and turning it into Transport Tycoon.

A simplified version of what is written above would be.

1)  Villages produce food according to their efficiency (no more prosperity).  Castles and Towns buy food.  The price you get for food in a castle or town depends on the population of that castle/town and the amount of food sold in that castle/town over the previous week.  There is no distance modifier on food and when you transport food it will decay over time so in fact you won't want to transport it too far.

2)  Castles don't produce anything and are for recruiting troops.  Castle efficiency should be much higher than now so that you can still craft equipment there.

3)  Town's produce luxury goods that are different in every town.  You can only sell luxury goods in other town's and the price you get is dependant on the distance you travel only.  This means you will want to transport your luxury goods as far as possible but the further you go the greater the risk of being attacked or raided.

I think that would work quite well to be honest

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2011, 05:12:59 pm »
0
I think we are in danger of overcomplicating Strat and turning it into Transport Tycoon.

Well in my opinion what I wrote op is actually more simple than the current system, because it is more logical.
The current system has quite a few quirks that makes in unintuitive. My trade idea resemble pretty much how you would expect a world to function and is not too far away what is known from native.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline PhantomZero

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 384
  • Infamy: 53
  • cRPG Player
  • I'm going to need you playing at 6AM on Saturday..
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BIRD CLAN
  • Game nicks: POSTMASTER_PHANTOM0_OF_BIRD
  • IRC nick: PhantomZero
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2011, 05:21:39 pm »
0
I think we are in danger of overcomplicating Strat and turning it into Transport Tycoon.

It already is Transport Tycoon.

Take trade goods with frivolous names and no real use, and ship them as far away as you can as fast as you can for the most money, the further the destination the more money and that is all that really matters.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Dehitay

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 121
  • Infamy: 48
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2011, 05:27:58 pm »
0
It already is Transport Tycoon.

Take trade goods with frivolous names and no real use, and ship them as far away as you can as fast as you can for the most money, the further the destination the more money and that is all that really matters.
Nope, cost is quite important, too
If you craft 25 gold good, it's going to cost you 13 gold to make it. If you sell it at a village with only a 5 gold item, even if you go from one extreme of the map to the other, it would sell for 23 gold. I don't know how long it would take to get from Kulum from Bariyye, but I can tell you such a trip would be a huge waste of time since if the situation was reversed and the two towns were right next to each other, you could craft for 3 gold and sell for 25 without even having a faraway goods bonus.