BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: Shizzle on May 31, 2011, 09:15:11 PM
-
Does anyone have any figures on the payoff? Like what is the cost-benefit ratio?
Thing is that I would like to invest in a Townsland region. However, my family wealth is at 1750. So I wonder if depositing 250 gold first, and doing an investment would gain me more money than just holding on to the 250 + next tax day...
PS: is investment money deducted from your family wealth or fromthe character's personal money?
-
Investment gold is taken from your family coffers.
When you make an investment, it will tell you what it thinks the payoff will be, but that's only a rough estimate and if you crank up the taxes, keep the lord and maybe a few others in residence to help keep region stats high, you can get some nice payoffs.
-
Also remember that the return is in the form of increased regional tax income, which is divvied out as normal to the regional knights, duchy share, etc. It does not go into the lord's pocket. So you personally may come out s=with less, but the net gain for the region should be positive if you manage the region well for the course of the investment.
-
Aha :) Great, thanks! ;D
-
Also, all of my last investments all predicted a lower outcome than the amount I had invested (ex: 240 gold increase with 250 gold spending). Good thing the main reason for the investments had more to do with food than anything else, in these cases... :/
-
Investments are usually to boost production to maximum for food and also to help other regions, usually not for profit (it rarely works that way), and if you get profit it's not a lot.
-
Investments are usually to boost production to maximum for food and also to help other regions, usually not for profit (it rarely works that way), and if you get profit it's not a lot.
So usually it's done in Rurals?
In Thalmarkin I saw an investment in the capital, making tax revenue triple (triple the gold income on the region summary page)
-
Some silly people think you can't make good money off of investments.
One of the primary uses of investments is to help a region recover from looting, and especially rurals for their food production, but I frequently invest in cities for the extra gold.
-
Some silly people think you can't make good money off of investments.
One of the primary uses of investments is to help a region recover from looting, and especially rurals for their food production, but I frequently invest in cities for the extra gold.
So what about townslands? Will they fall in between and essentially be useless to invest in? (seeing they don't produce as much gold as cities, and not as much food as rurals)
-
Any region can make a profit in an investment, with careful management. The type of region isn't that important.
Remember a few key factors:
- The higher the gold rating, the more expensive the investment. A rural may only cost 100 gold for an investment, while larger cities may require 400, 500, or even more gold.
- The higher the gold rating, the less of a percentage boost you get to production. A rural may get boosted to 220% or more, but a city will generally go to about 160%, or maybe less.
- The higher above the normal, sustainable value the production goes, the faster it falls off.
- If production does not go above the normal sustainable value, it will not fall. This can be used to rapidly recover a region from looting.
- Food production cannot go over 100%, regardless of how high production goes.
- Gold production can go over 100%.
And most importantly:
- This is all on the wiki! (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Family_Investment)
-
Sorry Indirik. I did look there first, but 'investment' didn't do the trick apparently.
Thanks!
-
It does now. :P
-
Any region can make a profit in an investment, with careful management. The type of region isn't that important.
Remember a few key factors:
- The higher the gold rating, the more expensive the investment. A rural may only cost 100 gold for an investment, while larger cities may require 400, 500, or even more gold.
- The higher the gold rating, the less of a percentage boost you get to production. A rural may get boosted to 220% or more, but a city will generally go to about 160%, or maybe less.
- The higher above the normal, sustainable value the production goes, the faster it falls off.
- If production does not go above the normal sustainable value, it will not fall. This can be used to rapidly recover a region from looting.
- Food production cannot go over 100%, regardless of how high production goes.
- Gold production can go over 100%.
And most importantly:
- This is all on the wiki! (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Family_Investment)
It seems I was misread. I never said they never produce profits. I used to usually get profits. I was just stating I was not getting any lately, out of the last 5 or so.
You invest wherever you want. If your goal is to boost production over 100%, cities are your best bet I'd say. If you just want to bring it to 100%, then depends on you.
I've invested in rurals and townslands with suboptimal production levels in order to increase their food output, to make sure I had a steady supply from them, while helping them out a little extra. I wouldn't have done it if their production was at 100%, though.
Speaking of which... WHY won't food production go over 100%?
-
It seems I was misread. I never said they never produce profits. I used to usually get profits. I was just stating I was not getting any lately, out of the last 5 or so.
You invest wherever you want. If your goal is to boost production over 100%, cities are your best bet I'd say. If you just want to bring it to 100%, then depends on you.
I've invested in rurals and townslands with suboptimal production levels in order to increase their food output, to make sure I had a steady supply from them, while helping them out a little extra. I wouldn't have done it if their production was at 100%, though.
Speaking of which... WHY won't food production go over 100%?
Because food is a resource. You can't just put more money in and get back more apples than exist in the world, maximum food production is just that, maximum food production.
-
Because food is a resource. You can't just put more money in and get back more apples than exist in the world, maximum food production is just that, maximum food production.
That might be true, but one could argue that after an investment, people would more readily sell the stocks they still have at home :) It's kind of simplistic to think all the food produced goes into the warehouses of a region anyway. Looking at it from a medieval perspective, I think the food in the Lord's warehouse consists of a percentage of the total production in a region, given to him by the peasants in exchange for the protection the Lord provides :) (I don't know the right terminlogy in english, so excuse me the unorthodox way of putting it ;) )
-
I think the actual answer is gameplay balance. If investing could produce over 100% food, then you can essentially turn gold into food. Which would rather drastically alter gameplay (ask Dominic how much that would change D'hara's situation, for instance).
Now, I'm personally in favour of making food more plentiful, but I hate the food game with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, so that's not terribly representative.
-
Well, I like the food game ;) I was merely wondering if there was any IG explanation to counter my argument.
-
That might be true, but one could argue that after an investment, people would more readily sell the stocks they still have at home :) It's kind of simplistic to think all the food produced goes into the warehouses of a region anyway. Looking at it from a medieval perspective, I think the food in the Lord's warehouse consists of a percentage of the total production in a region, given to him by the peasants in exchange for the protection the Lord provides :) (I don't know the right terminlogy in english, so excuse me the unorthodox way of putting it ;) )
Do note that investments go into the region, to increase production and thus a portion of the produce is taken by the regional government. Food is taken as a portion of the produce, not stocks at home. You're right, the portion is taken out of total production, and you can't increase total production of a resource by throwing money at it.
-
Because food is a resource. You can't just put more money in and get back more apples than exist in the world, maximum food production is just that, maximum food production.
That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).
-
Maybe the BM translation is that maximum food production represents quite literally the maximum production capacity of the region. Yes, it makes no sense by real world standards because using Medieval agricultural technology and the crops of their time period, we would not be able to attain anywhere near the saturation point (excuse my lack of technical terms. I did consider attending an agricultural college, but decided not to, so I no longer have the same knowledge I once prepared for my interviews). So why can we attain maximum food production for the region in BM? I guess it's so we don't have an additional layer of numbers to calculate, and it might be so people don't get discouraged for never reaching 100%.
And yes, 100% does make a big difference, even from 99%, for some players.
-
Maybe the BM translation is that maximum food production represents quite literally the maximum production capacity of the region.
It would be more correct to say that maximum food production represents the maximum production capacity of the region based on the agricultural techniques known at the time.
-
By the way, is food production dependent on population? (for a given production, of course)
-
Kind of. It's linked in some way to the production %, but with the modifier of season and the harvest rating.
-
By the way, is food production dependent on population? (for a given production, of course)
Food production is not directly influenced by population in a given region, but a population lower than max limits your normal maximum production. So, for a given production percentage, it does not matter what population the region has.
-
That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).
No, you are being silly and absurd. Read what the others have written, and you will understand what I mean in the correct light. 100% is the maximum attainable production, this is the last time I will say this.
-
That's just silly, absurd. More gold, = better irrigation to prevent drought, better silos to prevent rot, better tools to plow or to harvest, etc, etc. If you invest in agriculture in real life, you definitely WILL increase production. We aren't talking about wild blueberry picking here (and even then).
It is assumed that at 100% production ever conceivable boost to food production is in play. Food is well protected against rot and vermin, all possible farm land is being utilised as has sufficient water etc to be producing the maximum food content. Basically without a farming technological advance, 100% represents the absolute best possible farming practise and production for that region. That's the fun of %, the value depends entirely on the criteria of judgement.
-
Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.
However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.
-
Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.
However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.
It is rare in any economy that the marginal return will practically reach zero. The marginal returns are poor enough far before this point to make it prudent to continue to invest to the zero point. Much better to do something like invest in an army and take over some more land or something :)
-
Dominic is correct in noting that, even in the medieval period, it is conceivable that gold could be "turned into" food. Sure, the marginal returns will decline, but the idea that the feudal economy ever had marginal returns below zero seems rather untenable.
However, in terms of game mechanics, it makes total sense to restrict the effect on food production. Otherwise, it would be conceivable to support a city (like Paisly) almost exclusively from, say, a townsland and a small rural (Chesland and Maeotis), and that is evidently not how the game is intended to work.
Investing in Maeotis would never produce enough for all our cities, and would cost so much I doubt it'd be a real alternative to imports. We'd do it for sure, though, at least now and then, but it wouldn't cut our requirements for imports.
No, you are being silly and absurd. Read what the others have written, and you will understand what I mean in the correct light. 100% is the maximum attainable production, this is the last time I will say this.
Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc. That they did not have the technical knowledge we have nowadays does not mean that everyone had access to the latest technology of the days either, some could not afford better tools or did not have access to training for better methods, for whatever reason. Dump enough cash, and people will be able to afford better tools or training, that's just how the world works. And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms? It'd be way more realistic if investments in rural increased production % less considerably, but that this allowed for higher food production levels. If rural lords had more power over their food production, they might be more tempted to make a trade out of it, instead of shipping it all out for free as most do.
If you are arguing that 100% is the maximum food production in-game at this time, though, then you are just pointing out the totally obvious thing that served as the basis of my critic.
-
Investing in Maeotis would never produce enough for all our cities, and would cost so much I doubt it'd be a real alternative to imports. We'd do it for sure, though, at least now and then, but it wouldn't cut our requirements for imports.
Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc. That they did not have the technical knowledge we have nowadays does not mean that everyone had access to the latest technology of the days either, some could not afford better tools or did not have access to training for better methods, for whatever reason. Dump enough cash, and people will be able to afford better tools or training, that's just how the world works. And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms? It'd be way more realistic if investments in rural increased production % less considerably, but that this allowed for higher food production levels. If rural lords had more power over their food production, they might be more tempted to make a trade out of it, instead of shipping it all out for free as most do.
If you are arguing that 100% is the maximum food production in-game at this time, though, then you are just pointing out the totally obvious thing that served as the basis of my critic.
If we are able to invest in radical new technology to improve our rural, then the gain from investment would be permanent though. If we then continue the line of thinking that there exist no maximum limit to food production (thanks for solving world hunger by the way) then we can constantly improve our regions to the point were they can provide the required food. Sure diminished returns would make that very expensive but if you take a very long term approach, or can't source food for import then people may well want to throw cash into making super rurals.
The thing we were trying to point out is that for the purpose of the game, rural technology is stagnate and can't be advanced further within the time frame, and in abstract terms everyone is assumed to have access to the best possible practise at 100%. Perhaps Tom would consider changing this, I'm not sure its ever been brought up.
-
(thanks for solving world hunger by the way)
World hunger is not dependant on the amount of food produced ...
-
And honestly, what the hell are people investing in to manage to make a small rural region's income double, without increasing food production, when everyone there is working on farms?
Inflation.
-
World hunger is not dependant on the amount of food produced ...
I'll mark things with sarcasm quotes next time, thanks.
-
Others are clearly as ignorant as yourself when suggesting that any patch of land has a theoretical maximum production capacity. There is no theoretical maximum production capacity, *especially* not in agriculture. You can always develop more productive breeds, invent better fertilizers, discover better crop management, etc.
Ooook.... First of all, you will probably remember from secondary school biology that for any population of living beings there is a carrying capacity above which the species begins to even out in population. This applies to all living things, and even if you didn't like botany (don't blame you, I didn't like it either), you'd still know that plants, even domesticated (er, are they actually called domesticated?) ones, also must fit within the constraints of a particular region's carrying capacity. The scope can change, whether it be a patch of arable land in a given location, or whether we are talking about Earth's biosphere's maximum capacity.
There is a maximum. How is this achieved? Well for one thing, growing too many crops together will place a strain on nutrients. There's one of your limiting factors. Can you come up with enough nutrients in the soil to support all those crops? The mere decomposition of crops does not yield anywhere near a 100% efficient recycling system. Sure, you can improve this ratio, and even get near saturation on your field.
Then comes your second limiting factor: space. You are aware that all matter occupies space (yeah, let's stick to very basic science please) and your crops are no different. Even if you manage to grow them on atop the other, their roots will still need space to impact into the soil and receive nutrients, and, just so you know, plants do respire as well. Cramping together would mean some plants might not have the proper gas exchange, and in terms of the light cycle, some plants might never get any sunlight, thus killing them because they don't have the means to conduct photosynthesis. Since the vast majority of food crop are dedicated photoautotrophs, that means they cannot synthesize their energy source without light.
Third, we have to consider our maximum scope. Even if we can make the entire Earth's surface arable, and somehow we learn how to create floating farms in the atmosphere, we cannot grow anything in the molten layers beneath the crust, and we cannot grow in the vacuum of space. If you want to talk about extraterrestrial agriculture, then unfortunately you are outside your desired realism, because BM takes place on the surface of whatever planet or world upon which it takes place. So we are limited ultimately by how much space we have in our potential "system".
I'm sure there are a number of further limiting factors that would make a carrying capacity have an actual practical limit, such that, short of figuring out how to get around the laws of our universe, we cannot further increase crop yield. Quick examples would be disease, pests, workforce, climate.
-
Ooook.... First of all, you will probably remember from secondary school biology that for any population of living beings there is a carrying capacity above which the species begins to even out in population. This applies to all living things, and even if you didn't like botany (don't blame you, I didn't like it either), you'd still know that plants, even domesticated (er, are they actually called domesticated?) ones, also must fit within the constraints of a particular region's carrying capacity. The scope can change, whether it be a patch of arable land in a given location, or whether we are talking about Earth's biosphere's maximum capacity.
There is a maximum. How is this achieved? Well for one thing, growing too many crops together will place a strain on nutrients. There's one of your limiting factors. Can you come up with enough nutrients in the soil to support all those crops? The mere decomposition of crops does not yield anywhere near a 100% efficient recycling system. Sure, you can improve this ratio, and even get near saturation on your field.
Then comes your second limiting factor: space. You are aware that all matter occupies space (yeah, let's stick to very basic science please) and your crops are no different. Even if you manage to grow them on atop the other, their roots will still need space to impact into the soil and receive nutrients, and, just so you know, plants do respire as well. Cramping together would mean some plants might not have the proper gas exchange, and in terms of the light cycle, some plants might never get any sunlight, thus killing them because they don't have the means to conduct photosynthesis. Since the vast majority of food crop are dedicated photoautotrophs, that means they cannot synthesize their energy source without light.
Third, we have to consider our maximum scope. Even if we can make the entire Earth's surface arable, and somehow we learn how to create floating farms in the atmosphere, we cannot grow anything in the molten layers beneath the crust, and we cannot grow in the vacuum of space. If you want to talk about extraterrestrial agriculture, then unfortunately you are outside your desired realism, because BM takes place on the surface of whatever planet or world upon which it takes place. So we are limited ultimately by how much space we have in our potential "system".
I'm sure there are a number of further limiting factors that would make a carrying capacity have an actual practical limit, such that, short of figuring out how to get around the laws of our universe, we cannot further increase crop yield. Quick examples would be disease, pests, workforce, climate.
Water is a common one, sure you can irrigate, but then you need to get the irrigation water from somewhere, eventually you run into either the limit of water achievable in the area. The effects of really large scale desalination and other methods are not really known at this time.
-
Wow, Chenier, have fun arguing with yourself.
-
If we are able to invest in radical new technology to improve our rural, then the gain from investment would be permanent though. If we then continue the line of thinking that there exist no maximum limit to food production (thanks for solving world hunger by the way) then we can constantly improve our regions to the point were they can provide the required food. Sure diminished returns would make that very expensive but if you take a very long term approach, or can't source food for import then people may well want to throw cash into making super rurals.
The thing we were trying to point out is that for the purpose of the game, rural technology is stagnate and can't be advanced further within the time frame, and in abstract terms everyone is assumed to have access to the best possible practise at 100%. Perhaps Tom would consider changing this, I'm not sure its ever been brought up.
You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.
If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.
An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.
You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.
Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.
-
You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.
If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.
An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.
You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.
Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.
My family are predominately farmers, so while I can see where you are coming from, most of us rural folk accept that there must be some sort of limit to things like water/space/required gases and nutriments. While we have advanced fertilizers in the past, there is no reason to expect that there is ALWAYS a more efficient form of fertilize to develop or that the the world has infinite capacity to produce that fertiliser or water for that matter. While a single farm or group could conviceably continue the trend as you describe, it would more then likely be at the expense of other agricultural areas, as you acquire their supply of water and nutrient supplements. By the way, the world already produces enough food to solve world hunger, the issue is actually two fold
- Rich western nations spend a proportionally larger amount of useful land on products that produce lower energy/nutrient outcomes, such as meat
- Many nations destroy produce/store it or otherwise deny its movement onto the markets in order to preserve a market price point that they want to sell at.
A smaller effect is the over eating that is prevalent in our western world. All those extra calories that expand our bellies, potentially come at the cost of food that could have fed the starving.
[/list]
-
You guys clearly don't understand the history or technical of agriculture all too much. Production can *always* be increased, but that doesn't mean that the marginal cost following the investments required to increase production are actually worth it. The more you invest, the lower the reward/$, especially at the bigger amounts.
If all rural fields were run like our western fields are, then hell yea, you'd say goodbye to world hunger. However, our insanely-subsidized agriculture is EXPENSIVE AS HELL. Why doesn't a crop field in rural Mexico yield as much as one owned by a big company in the states? It's not because the technology doesn't exist, it's because that mexican farmer can't afford it.
An investment is like buying a tractor. If the extra income you make on selling the extra products this tractor will allow you to produce doesn't equal the amount you paid on the tractor, then you won't be investing in new tractors for long and your old ones will rust and degrade. This is precisely how in-game investments are handled: production is increased to higher levels because of a one-time spending, but if that investment isn't recurring then production eventually returns to normal levels.
You can always have more efficient systems, regardless of available technology at your era, because the normal farm doesn't have access to infinite resources (quite the opposite, really). Your argument about plants is invalid. So what if x tomato plant has a maximum capacity of y pounds per year? Be creative and cross it with other species. You might be surprised by the outcome. You think all these specialized high-production breeds and species occurred naturally? Farmers did crossing experiments for millenniums to always come up with better and better species. With proper founding, one could afford to either do these experiments himself, or pay himself a trip and a few seeds from people who did it themselves. Need more water? The more cash you have, the more pipes you can afford to bring it from farther away, if needed. Need more nutrients? The more cash you have, the more you can import fertilizers from elsewhere.
Production will always grow with the more investment you make. As you go towards infinite investment, it will get closer and closer to a Z value, but it will never reach it. As such, one can keep investing to always increase their production, as nobody has infinite resources to spend. There is a clear difference between this and "we can raise food production to infinite", which you seem to believe I'm saying.
My understanding stops a secondary level biology, but to me your arguments sound a lot like Moore's law. Just because in the past we have developed technology or new high production species, it does not inherently follow that their is some infinite amount of similar improvements that will always result in increased production.
-
My family are predominately farmers, so while I can see where you are coming from, most of us rural folk accept that there must be some sort of limit to things like water/space/required gases and nutriments. While we have advanced fertilizers in the past, there is no reason to expect that there is ALWAYS a more efficient form of fertilize to develop or that the the world has infinite capacity to produce that fertiliser or water for that matter. While a single farm or group could conviceably continue the trend as you describe, it would more then likely be at the expense of other agricultural areas, as you acquire their supply of water and nutrient supplements. By the way, the world already produces enough food to solve world hunger, the issue is actually two fold
- Rich western nations spend a proportionally larger amount of useful land on products that produce lower energy/nutrient outcomes, such as meat
- Many nations destroy produce/store it or otherwise deny its movement onto the markets in order to preserve a market price point that they want to sell at.
A smaller effect is the over eating that is prevalent in our western world. All those extra calories that expand our bellies, potentially come at the cost of food that could have fed the starving.
[/list]
Not all lands are equally inhabited. As far as the economy is concerned, there's no problem with draining uninhabited lands to supply the inhabited ones. I'm not making a moral statement, nor saying anything about feeding the earth's modern or future population. Nor am I saying investments should triple a region's food productions.
All I am saying is that the argument that it is not realistic that a temporary increase in funding (an investment) would result in a temporary increase in productivity (more food being produced) is completely fallacious. It would most certainly be realistic that food production could go over 100%. Just as realistic as investments increasing gold output, really. Some people don't think it would make sense for production of food to ever rise above 100%. That normal production *is* the maximum possible production, and that no amount of investments could increase this. That's just not how the world works.
And the limit you speak of is financial, not theoretical. It's not realistic to invest past a certain point, because the reward becomes negative. You could still do it, and seek to improve production as much as possible, but you'd just go bankrupt before seeing exactly how far you can take it. Financial limits are movable, and so things you'd consider past the limit today may not be tomorrow, just as many things they considered past that limit before are now the norm.
-
Not all lands are equally inhabited. As far as the economy is concerned, there's no problem with draining uninhabited lands to supply the inhabited ones. I'm not making a moral statement, nor saying anything about feeding the earth's modern or future population. Nor am I saying investments should triple a region's food productions.
All I am saying is that the argument that it is not realistic that a temporary increase in funding (an investment) would result in a temporary increase in productivity (more food being produced) is completely fallacious. It would most certainly be realistic that food production could go over 100%. Just as realistic as investments increasing gold output, really. Some people don't think it would make sense for production of food to ever rise above 100%. That normal production *is* the maximum possible production, and that no amount of investments could increase this. That's just not how the world works.
And the limit you speak of is financial, not theoretical. It's not realistic to invest past a certain point, because the reward becomes negative. You could still do it, and seek to improve production as much as possible, but you'd just go bankrupt before seeing exactly how far you can take it. Financial limits are movable, and so things you'd consider past the limit today may not be tomorrow, just as many things they considered past that limit before are now the norm.
Like I said, it all hinges on their being some area or under utlised resource somewhere else that can be aquired for your use. If you remove all financial restrictions, then eventually even those resources will be fully allocated.
No where in the game does it suggest that 100% is "normal production" that I know of, so it is just as reasonable to assume that it is maximum. The fact that we are mostly obsessed with making our regions run at this level doesn't mean it is normal level.
With regards to temporary increases in a field production capacity, I have had some experience with that. The methods we used gave a few years increase, after which the production capacity dropped below previous norms and we had to spend yet more money to repair the "damage" or fatigue that was caused. Doesn't happen in all cases, but there are reasons that farmers do things like rotate crops and let field lie fallow from time to time.[/list]
-
Like I said, it all hinges on their being some area or under utlised resource somewhere else that can be aquired for your use. If you remove all financial restrictions, then eventually even those resources will be fully allocated.
No where in the game does it suggest that 100% is "normal production" that I know of, so it is just as reasonable to assume that it is maximum. The fact that we are mostly obsessed with making our regions run at this level doesn't mean it is normal level.
With regards to temporary increases in a field production capacity, I have had some experience with that. The methods we used gave a few years increase, after which the production capacity dropped below previous norms and we had to spend yet more money to repair the "damage" or fatigue that was caused. Doesn't happen in all cases, but there are reasons that farmers do things like rotate crops and let field lie fallow from time to time.[/list]
The BM universe, just like the real world, doesn't work in a context where economic restrictions are lifted.
Also, 100% is normal, because it's generally rather easy to get. Only poorly managed or otherwise unfortunate regions cap below 100%.
And finally, not all investments are good investments. It's often hard to tell before it's too late. That's why some investments result in less added wealth that it cost to do it.
Lowering the production % growth of investment in rurals and making it so food production isn't capped at 100% would be fully realistic and add interesting options to realm and region management. It would allow the trading game to develop even greater, as mercantile lords would have active means of increasing their outputs. If the average investment resulted in a 0 loss by selling at the 75th (or higher, 90th? 95th?) percentile market price, I think we'd have a balance encouraging people to involve themselves in trade, without being forced to.
-
The BM universe, just like the real world, doesn't work in a context where economic restrictions are lifted.
Also, 100% is normal, because it's generally rather easy to get. Only poorly managed or otherwise unfortunate regions cap below 100%.
And finally, not all investments are good investments. It's often hard to tell before it's too late. That's why some investments result in less added wealth that it cost to do it.
Lowering the production % growth of investment in rurals and making it so food production isn't capped at 100% would be fully realistic and add interesting options to realm and region management. It would allow the trading game to develop even greater, as mercantile lords would have active means of increasing their outputs. If the average investment resulted in a 0 loss by selling at the 75th (or higher, 90th? 95th?) percentile market price, I think we'd have a balance encouraging people to involve themselves in trade, without being forced to.
I believe that is actually part of the new estate plan. "Normal" food production will be below 100%. Adding knights to your region can improve food production over "Normal". So if you have no knights, production will settle at some level below 100%, instead of just collapsing like now[/list]
-
I think that Chénier is actually advocating a "research" element to the game, where an investment leads to a permanent increase in productivity.
That would be neat, but would mainly help regions that are well-sheltered from invading armies. My region of Raviel, for example.
-
Even so, there would have to be a limit on how much bonus research can do. Let's assume even that we could achieve Singularity in BM. You still have a limit as defined by the limits of your Universe. At the most basic level, you cannot create energy out of nothing, and for a succession of systems, you can at best achieve a net zero loss of energy (You won't in the real world, by the way. You'll lose energy, big time.)
So let's say that sure, we move agriculture into the age of Vinge's vision. Mind you we'd apparently still use swords and bows by then. But even then there is a cap on what we can do, simply because we're bound by the constraints of the Universe. Now, on the other hand, if you want to get around that and in fact say that we can increase production to no maximum and let the numbers go up to infinity because the counting numbers do that anyway, then what's the explanation for that? You better know how to get around current constraints on mass-energy conversion, loss of energy in consecutive processes, basically, you'd have to understand how to rewrite thermodynamics in order to achieve something that can come close to this theoretical "always increasing".
If you're trying to say something else, then use a better term. Saying "no maximum" is really wrong.
And I am aware that we could place a maximum that would never be reached within a normal human lifespan anyway. But just the theoretical thought is bothersome because that makes on wonder what the heck kind of agricultural sorcery is being done that lets them produce more bushels of food than would actually fit given the area of the continent. It is possible, although very difficult, to calculate the area of the continent, by the way.
-
I think that Chénier is actually advocating a "research" element to the game, where an investment leads to a permanent increase in productivity.
That would be neat, but would mainly help regions that are well-sheltered from invading armies. My region of Raviel, for example.
Not really, I don't think permanent boosts would be in any way balanced (unless they work like other buildings and can be looted and have upkeep? could work too I guess...)
I just had in my mind stuff like paying to have massive irrigation pipelines built, or new fancy mills and the like, which would deteriorate because of use and production would therefore return to normal after a short time like it does now. Mind you, agricultural infrastructure sounds like a good way to go ahead with this too, and could be rather interesting. Right now, building warehouses are our only options.
-
So I'm going to say something possibly more controversial than usual.
With this talk about more agriculture detail, or religion refinements, I think this is distracting to the game. I think it harms it more than bring good. There is a certain balance for features, and I think we're going to an extreme.
If these features help people find this game more interesting. The current atmosphere feels a lot like we're trying to cram too many things into a single game. It may not necessarily work as a whole.
Don't believe me? Well, how many new players stay on now? Why do they stay? Now, for the veterans, why did you stay?
For me, it was interaction. It had nothing to do with features and I couldn't have cared less how realistic the religions or battles were. It was all about talking to other people. It was unique for its setting and lore. The features were a nice embellishment, but by no means did they make the game for me.
I think I am far from alone in thinking this.
-
Indeed. If I want to micromanage my food supply, I'll go play some other game. I stuck around in BM because it was relatively simple at the time I started playing. I don't want to play a game that semi-forces me to whip up spreadsheets to keep up with others.
-
I must say I like the complexity! Every day I can learn something new.
Besides, if you don't care about food, don't be a banker. If you don't care about food and you're a Lord, appoint a steward.
-
I /do/ care about food. I've used it as a weapon with great success. I just don't care about this game's growing tendency to make the food game an exclusive game for the accountants and bean counters amongst us.
-
I /do/ care about food. I've used it as a weapon with great success. I just don't care about this game's growing tendency to make the food game an exclusive game for the accountants and bean counters amongst us.
We're honestly not trying to. We just need to get some more defaults, automatic stuff, and helpful abstractions in place, and not all of that is easy :-\
-
So I'm going to say something possibly more controversial than usual.
With this talk about more agriculture detail, or religion refinements, I think this is distracting to the game. I think it harms it more than bring good. There is a certain balance for features, and I think we're going to an extreme.
If these features help people find this game more interesting. The current atmosphere feels a lot like we're trying to cram too many things into a single game. It may not necessarily work as a whole.
Don't believe me? Well, how many new players stay on now? Why do they stay? Now, for the veterans, why did you stay?
For me, it was interaction. It had nothing to do with features and I couldn't have cared less how realistic the religions or battles were. It was all about talking to other people. It was unique for its setting and lore. The features were a nice embellishment, but by no means did they make the game for me.
I think I am far from alone in thinking this.
What drives people away is forced micro-management, like the estates.
What I propose is optional micro-management. I don't hear anyone quit because bureaucrats allow region stats to be higher than they otherwise would be. Or because of how one can increase scout or caravan production by building more of their buildings, or how finding the right numbers to host a successful and profitable tournament can be tricky. This is because these things aren't required to continue playing the game. Lords aren't forced to build RCs, why would they be forced to build better agricultural infrastructure? The way I see it, they grant more opportunities to people, while not penalizing those who couldn't care less for them. This is not the type of feature that drives people away, those are rather along the lines of estates and treaty friction.
-
We're honestly not trying to. We just need to get some more defaults, automatic stuff, and helpful abstractions in place, and not all of that is easy :-\
I ended up phrasing that a little differently than intended. Wasn't aimed at the developers as much as it was at the people who keep asking for more and more options to be piled onto the already quite complex food game.
-
What drives people away is forced micro-management, like the estates.
What I propose is optional micro-management.
This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to move towards.
However, there's a problem with it.
What you and I and the game consider "optional micro-management," many rulers will consider necessary, and they'll then force their subordinates to do it, because, naturally, they have to have their regions' stats as high as possible all the time!
So even if the game doesn't make it "forced micro-management," the players are likely to. :-\ >:(
-
This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to move towards.
However, there's a problem with it.
What you and I and the game consider "optional micro-management," many rulers will consider necessary, and they'll then force their subordinates to do it, because, naturally, they have to have their regions' stats as high as possible all the time!
So even if the game doesn't make it "forced micro-management," the players are likely to. :-\ >:(
I understand the fear for this fully. But I don't believe we need to concern ourselves all that much with it, as I don't believe people are that insane on micro-management. I often see incentives to do the little things, but I don't see punishment for neglecting to do them. As such, I don't see punishments for not having one's estates enlarged to a maximum (while I do see incentives for it), I don't see lords punished for not having enough RCs or big enough walls (though I do see support to build them), I don't see people being punished for not switching to courtier class if there are some stat problems (mind you, it's an IR, but I occasionally do see some courtiers being rewarded because of the tasks they accomplish), etc.
The micro-management problems are more related as to what people do, and not what they build, from my experience. Would you agree with this observation? As long as the boosts are balanced (with an upkeep that requires the region lord to actually sell food to not have the new infrastructure act as a big drain on his gold), in other words that they require a little work to actually be worth it, I don't think it'll be a huge concern. Dukes who want their rurals to produce more will simply send the lords the compensations for it and take care of all the planning themselves.
-
Chenier, lead by example then. Let's say we integrate this. Are you really willing to prove a point that even you, who championed this feature, would in fact show everyone how optional it is by exercising the option not to use it?
-
Chenier, lead by example then. Let's say we integrate this. Are you really willing to prove a point that even you, who championed this feature, would in fact show everyone how optional it is by exercising the option not to use it?
Uh, no? I said balanced in a way that people who don't care for it won't need it. I clearly care for food production, and already am spending significant effort on the issue and dumping a good share of my city's gold on it. Could you imagine that if the lords' caravans were still a feature request, I'd show my support for having them and proving lords won't be forced to use them by promising not to use them myself? No, caravans are a huge support, and hell yes I use them, even if it means I'm dumping a lot of gold on risky ventures that take a very long time to pay off, and as such have to frequently pay attention to make sure I have enough of them on the field all the time. Same applies for means to boost food production, I'll spend the time and effort to maximize the use whatever's available. In D'Hara, at least, I probably wouldn't bother on BT if the new feature is well balanced, because there ain't much trade on BT to make any such investment really worth it.
-
Alright, here's a more clearer point:
Just how far do you want it to go before you're satisfied?
Sure, let's say we add in stuff like canals, and harvesting machines (as in simple machines, non-electrical. I hope the word "machine" hasn't been too distorted in our minds), and maybe let's even put in a husbandry program to teach the farmers how Mendelian genetics work many centuries before Mendel comes around. Ah, but wait! We have to consider that some regions have more than just plain old farming as its industry. Why should agriculture have all the attention! I say that logging, and hunting, and fishing, and mining, and stoneworking, and jewel crafting, all are just as worthy of attention!
Especially for places like mountains. What're you investing in when you make the investment then? The two sqaure meter patch of "farmland" in your estate's backyard? No, I say we invest in a mine!
Now let's make sure our mining is as well thought out as our farming, because we wouldn't like to be too heavily favoring a certain region type, would we? That would unbalance the game! So for mines, we can say we develop better drills, stabler shafts, better freight transport, among other things.
Then for forest regions, we can't forget logging! We need to have better woodcutting devices, better ways of transporting felled trees, methods to prevent insects and disease from killing them, more efficient processing of wood to remove leaves and bark, etc.
Fishing? It's not like farming at all! We need to allow the lord to have the option for better nets, or bigger boats, or more ports.
And you know what? All the aforementioned options should be different choices, with different effects on the production, and all decay at different rates due to different factors.
You probably think this is an extreme illustration, but I consider it a fair treatment of the other potential resource sectors. You can't just go on to invest and improve only agriculture, because the fact is, it's not just agriculture that is being affected when you invest. Food is only half of the picture. The other half has to do with the non-sustenance industries. Treat them with attention too, but how much are you willing to go such that first you would have features that you think are useful, and second, have balance in how much detail you have?
-
Alright, here's a more clearer point:
Just how far do you want it to go before you're satisfied?
Sure, let's say we add in stuff like canals, and harvesting machines (as in simple machines, non-electrical. I hope the word "machine" hasn't been too distorted in our minds), and maybe let's even put in a husbandry program to teach the farmers how Mendelian genetics work many centuries before Mendel comes around. Ah, but wait! We have to consider that some regions have more than just plain old farming as its industry. Why should agriculture have all the attention! I say that logging, and hunting, and fishing, and mining, and stoneworking, and jewel crafting, all are just as worthy of attention!
Especially for places like mountains. What're you investing in when you make the investment then? The two sqaure meter patch of "farmland" in your estate's backyard? No, I say we invest in a mine!
Now let's make sure our mining is as well thought out as our farming, because we wouldn't like to be too heavily favoring a certain region type, would we? That would unbalance the game! So for mines, we can say we develop better drills, stabler shafts, better freight transport, among other things.
Then for forest regions, we can't forget logging! We need to have better woodcutting devices, better ways of transporting felled trees, methods to prevent insects and disease from killing them, more efficient processing of wood to remove leaves and bark, etc.
Fishing? It's not like farming at all! We need to allow the lord to have the option for better nets, or bigger boats, or more ports.
And you know what? All the aforementioned options should be different choices, with different effects on the production, and all decay at different rates due to different factors.
You probably think this is an extreme illustration, but I consider it a fair treatment of the other potential resource sectors. You can't just go on to invest and improve only agriculture, because the fact is, it's not just agriculture that is being affected when you invest. Food is only half of the picture. The other half has to do with the non-sustenance industries. Treat them with attention too, but how much are you willing to go such that first you would have features that you think are useful, and second, have balance in how much detail you have?
Hence why my main suggestion was just to make generic investments increase production in rurals by lesser amounts, but to have the food production cap removed. That way, to each his interpretation of what that investment actually is.
The complexity level is up to the devs. Removing the food production cap is of relatively little complexity. But there are desires to make the trading game generally more complex, by adding all kinds of resources: metal, wood, etc. It was also suggested to implement fishing as functioning differently than harvesting. Honestly, I like the trading game. It makes people interact with each other. It promotes cooperation and conflict all at the same time. And the more complex it becomes, the more opportunities there can be. And so I wouldn't mind specialized buildings to help farmlands, fishing, mining, and lumber, as long as their cost and upkeep make it balanced. But to what point do we want this aspect of the game to be complex? I don't know. It's hard to say what the impacts of the planned new economy system will be, and complexification would best be done after we get to experience it a little, rather than have massive new complex changes applied overnight. I'm confident that if it were just for food, and that it was a single building that could only be built in rurals and townslands and that had no consideration over what type of food collection was done, it *could* be implemented in a balanced way that does not impose micro-management on those who aren't interested, simply because rurals and pretty much everywhere on every continent. The same can't yet be said for the new economy goods, but I just like the overall idea of being able to build infrastructure to improve production, just as we can build new RCs or improve existing ones to increase soldier output.