cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: Tristan on October 17, 2011, 04:35:08 pm

Title: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11
Post by: Tristan on October 17, 2011, 04:35:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Plaksteris on October 17, 2011, 05:08:43 pm
Damn, if this comes true cRPG will be the best strategy empire building shit ever!
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Jarlek on October 17, 2011, 07:07:16 pm
I like all of your suggestions.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Panoply on October 17, 2011, 07:15:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: SPQR on October 17, 2011, 07:19:10 pm
I like these ideas.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: PhantomZero on October 18, 2011, 04:45:01 am
Quote from: Aemaelius on October 17, 2011, 04:35:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on October 19, 2011, 02:18:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Jarlek on October 19, 2011, 02:23:38 am
Quote from: dangah on October 19, 2011, 02:18:00 am
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.

Quote from: dangah on October 19, 2011, 02:18:00 am
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.

Quote from: dangah on October 19, 2011, 02:18:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Panoply on October 19, 2011, 04:32:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on October 19, 2011, 11:12:30 am
Quote from: Zapper on October 19, 2011, 02:23:38 am
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: RandomDude on October 19, 2011, 01:39:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Tomas on October 19, 2011, 05:02:34 pm
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
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Tristan on October 19, 2011, 05:12:59 pm
Quote from: Tomas on October 19, 2011, 05:02:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: PhantomZero on October 19, 2011, 05:21:39 pm
Quote from: Tomas on October 19, 2011, 05:02:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Dehitay on October 19, 2011, 05:27:58 pm
Quote from: PhantomZero on October 19, 2011, 05:21:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: PhantomZero on October 19, 2011, 05:34:12 pm
Quote from: Dehitay on October 19, 2011, 05:27:58 pm
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.

Yes and in Transport Tycoon this would be "Operating Costs" or upkeep consumed by the trains, the costs of purchasing the trains and track, you are missing the point.

The further the destination the more money and that is all that really matters in generating revenue.

If that helps you understand.

Yes making it at 3 and then selling it for 25 is a great deal, but making it and 3 and then selling it for 95 is even better!
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: ManOfWar on October 19, 2011, 05:40:48 pm
Quote from: PhantomZero on October 19, 2011, 05:34:12 pm
Yes and in Transport Tycoon this would be "Operating Costs" or upkeep consumed by the trains, the costs of purchasing the trains and track, you are missing the point.

The further the destination the more money and that is all that really matters in generating revenue.

If that helps you understand.

Yes making it at 3 and then selling it for 25 is a great deal, but making it and 3 and then selling it for 95 is even better!

Gotta love that my old friend(far away goods)  bonus
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: chadz on October 19, 2011, 06:12:30 pm
Man transport tycoon was so awesome
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Erasmas on October 19, 2011, 06:14:35 pm
I truly LOL'ed
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Tristan on October 19, 2011, 08:56:56 pm
Quote from: chadz on October 19, 2011, 06:12:30 pm
Man transport tycoon was so awesome

Hey, I am gonna be a jerk and interpret that as if you actually liked my suggestion.

Woot!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Turboflex on October 19, 2011, 10:29:08 pm
that F.A.G. bonus is a risky activity with some serious downsides, especially when unprotected.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on October 20, 2011, 10:41:23 am
Indeed
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: LLJK_Simonslays on October 20, 2011, 11:47:41 pm
Quote from: Turboflex on October 19, 2011, 10:29:08 pm
that F.A.G. bonus is a risky activity with some serious downsides, especially when unprotected.

Not if you already have aides (to help you move the goods)
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Thomek on October 21, 2011, 02:38:08 am
transport tycoon and now OpenTTD is awesome of course..

But I always found the economy totally unsatisfying as it was always too easy to get a good surplus. The challenge was rather to build an interesting train network..
Of course, there were no wars to waste money on.

But a marketplace in every city would be interesting.. Would open up for hardcore trading and cartels. How hard would it be to code? :-D

Lot's of empires throughout history were based on trading and hustling others with a lesser understanding. It is the reason the nation of Netherlands exists today i.ex..

Give us some interesting tools to play with chadzius!

edit:
chadz:
"Could items be put on a market in villages and such?
I am coding a towncenter as we speak. It will be only available in towns. You can put goods and/or equipment up for sale. People can buy from the stack, either some or all items. The money will be saved in the towns bank and can be recovered when you re-visit the town."
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: kinngrimm on October 22, 2011, 05:23:14 am
In addition to the OP's system, to encourage players to trade and make it easy for every one of the players and the faction,
add a gold pool named "Treasure Chest"

So you make some goods or gear, go to a place and sell them go back and forth or anywhere the player wants to go for a trade.
Any one who sells anything puts his gold automaticly into the Treasure Chest.

Then he can craft trade goods again. When he crafts gear he takes gold out of that Treasure chest. This in combination perhaps with a set amount of gear to be produced, he stops crafting when that amount is reached.
Buying gear to equip armies in addition to the crafted gear can only be done f.e. by rank 7+

This way all members have more to do and are free to do it on their own without the need of a massive organizational overhead and factions are still able to plan with the gold at hand in the Treasure Chest.

---------------
also i'd like to see that the efficency to produce a product goes down when the goods needed for them are not reaching a needed limit. Players who are working there would reduce the goods but not or not so much the efficency directly.
Prices should still have prosperity influence but also when demand is high(less efficency, many players working there, no goods coming in) then the price should go up. When the village is with constant support of goods(stockpile?) and therefor there is a high efficency, the price for the goods mainly needed there to be sold should go down.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Tristan on October 24, 2011, 03:59:57 pm
A sort of "corp wallet" would make sense and lower micromanagement a great deal. However your suggestion might be a bit too automated. Maybe there is a combination?

@Current strat:

It's really an issue that the most valuable villages in current strat is the poorest. You can always find a rich place to sell the goods, but finding the valuable poor villages is where the fight will be. Who doesn't want to own a dirt poor village that can produce goods at 3 gold. Those poor guys make your rich.

Strat paradox?

Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better.
Post by: Tristan on October 24, 2011, 06:26:04 pm
No one else got anything to add?
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11
Post by: Tristan on November 07, 2011, 03:35:56 pm
Updated OP with another point.
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11
Post by: Bjarky on November 07, 2011, 09:01:47 pm
yes, we're getting somewhere, i'm starting to like this  :D
Title: Re: Rethinking trade, so it might work a bit better. *updated 7/11
Post by: Tristan on November 13, 2011, 01:42:36 am
b

u

m

p