I Hate Food

[Psyche]

Apparently some margraves don't want to spend the time on their cities to get them to that point.   I've never found it hard to run a maximum tax rate when I want, but I know it will cost some time sitting in a region.  Normally, I would have a character that's in my most boring realm just try to rake in as much family wealth as possible to substitute the lack of anything exciting going on.

[Indirik]

I did not say I get more than the lord of Golden Farrow gets. I said I get more than Kwanstein feels would be fair for the lord of Golden Farrow to get. I don't know what the lord of Golden Farrow actually gets, so I don't know if I get more or less.

[vonGenf]

I did not say I get more than the lord of Golden Farrow gets. I said I get more than Kwanstein feels would be fair for the lord of Golden Farrow to get. I don't know what the lord of Golden Farrow actually gets, so I don't know if I get more or less.

All else being equal, both Golden Farrow and Libidizedd are going to pretty rich regions whatever the case. But it's entirely possible that due to food prices the Lord of Libidizedd will end up richer than the Lords of Golden Farrow. There is nothing wrong with that; that just makes Libidizedd a more desirable city to be Lord of.

I agree with you that some places should be fabulously rich, but it's also very possible that those places are not the most obvious ones. A very large city, for example, could seem rich but end up so expensive to feed that it ends up poorer. That's fine.

[Dante Silverfire]

The places you want to be lord of is a region like Strahan on Atamara. 20k pop Rural. 550 gold 600 food. Beastly.

If you're a duke, that's the region you want.

[Indirik]

Which is exactly what should not happen. As a powerful duke, you should want the big city to be yours, not the pig-farming rural.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-ton of gold as a result? How about you try to feed 50,000 people...

[vonGenf]

I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-ton of gold as a result? How about you try to feed 50,000 people...

It's not how it works. Not all regions are equal. It's very possible that Golden Farrow is a large but poor city that can barely feed itself.

[Gustav Kuriga]

It's not how it works. Not all regions are equal. It's very possible that Golden Farrow is a large but poor city that can barely feed itself.

I have the third highest economy in Dwilight. The only ones higher are Darfix and Giask, and that's because they can hold an exponentially greater population (over 90k for Giask).

[Dante Silverfire]

I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-ton of gold as a result? How about you try to feed 50,000 people...

Well, it is possible that Golden Farrow is just a badly designed city or whatever. Higher population shouldn't inherently result in more gold. (See India/China today). It's all about efficiency. So, this argument can have merit depending upon the circumstances:

It's not how it works. Not all regions are equal. It's very possible that Golden Farrow is a large but poor city that can barely feed itself.

I have the third highest economy in Dwilight. The only ones higher are Darfix and Giask, and that's because they can hold an exponentially greater population (over 90k for Giask).

Granted, I'm right there with you. Barad Falas has the 3rd best economy on Atamara, and currently produces the 2nd most gold due to one of the cities with a higher production missing 15k from its max population. (I'm feeding 60k population at this point, and my gold value pretty much mirrors Golden Farrow)

[Kwanstein]

I've explained this already, that Golden Farrow could make a metric !@#$-ton of gold if it was run more efficiently. But that's besides the point, it is only brought up because the goal posts keep on being moved on me. My previous example was merely meant to demonstrate how a Lord, even a very generous one, could turn a profit while running a city, even one as populated as Golden Farrow. It was meant to rebuke the idea that city Lords could be losing gold due to having to buy too much food. My example demonstrated how even a less efficient city could earn a tidy profit. It was not meant to demonstrate how much Golden Farrow really is making, or what it's potential is. Those things were not being discussed, and are besides the point.

Now that that's cleared up, responding to Indrik. If there is a less populated city making more than Golden Farrow, it could mean a number of things. The most likely case is that the Lord of the less populated city is simply running things more efficiently. But, it could also be owed to how gold production and population are scaled. Perhaps they are scaled such that the gold/population ratio becomes exponentially smaller the higher the population it goes, to a point where added population begins to cost more than it produces. Logically, it could not indicate a problem with the food system, as we know that in most, if not all cases, population produces more gold than it could consume in food, even if the food was priced at it's maximum value.

[Indirik]

When determining the income potential of cities, you have to ignore things like "running it more efficiently", or any other such things. If you start trying to take that into account you'll never get anywhere. To analyze, compare, and adjust things you have to consider baseline cases, with all variables held constant across both examples.

[Dante Silverfire]

When determining the income potential of cities, you have to ignore things like "running it more efficiently", or any other such things. If you start trying to take that into account you'll never get anywhere. To analyze, compare, and adjust things you have to consider baseline cases, with all variables held constant across both examples.

My comment at least wasn't referring to "running it more efficiently" but that a city might have an inherent inefficiency that makes its population less productive per peasant than other cities if they had the same population.

[^ban^]

My comment at least wasn't referring to "running it more efficiently" but that a city might have an inherent inefficiency that makes its population less productive per peasant than other cities if they had the same population.

The only way that could happen is if the region's base gold value is uncommonly low.

[Foundation]

We're getting off track. My point is that the food system is not broken if auto-sell and auto-buy offers are implemented. That is all. If someone can sum up arguments of both sides for and against this point, it will actually be a meaningful discussion.

===

Who gets more gold is a topic for a different discussion, one where all factors are taken into consideration. I do not believe that with the new duke hierarchy separation, a margrave should inherently get 4-5 times income than a rural lord (3 * 350 = 1050 ~ 5 * 200). More responsibilities, definitely, tons more gold, why? Council members don't get gold matching their responsibilities. In the new hierarchy a margrave gets taxed by the duke just the same, and usually has more knights under his command, and has various benefits like militia protecting his city and it being important to protect in a war.

So what if he only gets twice as much net income as a lord after food sales? The gold is now being distributed differently, in a way that benefits knights and dukes. That gold comes from somewhere - i.e. lords and margraves' pockets.

[Indirik]

Twice as much *after* food sales would be fine, so long as you consider food sales on *both* sides. A lord of a rural that produces an excess of 400 food a week could stand to make an extra 160 gold selling at 40/100. And that gold goes straight into the lord's pocket, tax-free.