BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Naidraug on February 26, 2013, 08:34:11 PM
-
Title: Royal chest and granary
Summary: Add an option for the ruler to set aside a % of gold from crown taxes on a royal chest. This chest would be similar to the army chest and can be accessed by the Banker to buy food to send to realm regions in need, give to lords to improve regions.
Details: An option on the realm taxes menu would be added to ask the ruler how much of the gold would go to the royal treasury.
On the Command menu for the Banker add options to buy food with gold from the treasure or send to a specific lord.
Benefits: This would add more depth to the Banker role of the realm, giving him more to do and more ways to help administrate the realm.
From the ruler point of view: A change in ruler would still mean that the realm has a good amount of gold for emergencies instead of just adding excess gold to a ruler's family.
He could order the banker and finance improvements on the realm, increasing productivity, allow the banker to buy food from other realms and/or traders to send to regions during starvation on the realm.
The feature would also increase on the Medieval atmosphere where the king usually had granaries and royal treasures that could be used to help the realm in times of need.
Possible Exploits: A rich realm hoarding the excess gold for war times and the banker could remove the gold from treasure to send to his own family.
A way around this would be to allow only the gold from the treasury to be used to buy food directly to a region with a deficit on production and instead of sending the gold to nobles he would invest directly on the region with authorization from the ruler(same system used to sign treaties). And to add an limit of the gold that can be kept inside the treasure.
No personal contact would be made with the gold and it would remain there to be used by the realm.
I hope I was able to make this clear enough without complicating it.
-
I feel like this has been suggested before. I like it, but am fairly certain there are reasons it has not happened.
-
rejected before.
we have been moving AWAY from totally centralized realms for many years now, not TOWARDS them.
-
I couldn't find anything related here or on the wiki that's is why i posted.
Is this open for discussion or is a big final no?
I don't see this as centralization tool, and the feature can be work to prevent that.
But if this is final I´m ok with it.
-
It's not final in the "over my dead body" sense, but you need to show a real gameplay advantage and I don't see one from what's been posted so far.
-
wouldn't a centralized realm depend on the government type? In a Monarchy, a royal granary would make sense, in a democracy, not so much.
-
wouldn't a centralized realm depend on the government type? In a Monarchy, a royal granary would make sense, in a democracy, not so much.
No, in general the game is moving away from centralizing the realm as it can make characters irrelevant if the banker or some other leader just does everything.
-
No, in general the game is moving away from centralizing the realm as it can make characters irrelevant if the banker or some other leader just does everything.
So, instead, we make the banker or some other leader irrelevant?
-
Pertty much. :)
They retain their communication and leadership roles, just execution is delegated.
-
authority is delegated, so you end up with responsibility without authority.
-
Yeah, because if you have responsibility and authority, why have anyone else at all?
If the general could just move the army's units rather than tell marshals to order the army to move, it's somewhat pointless, no?
-
authority is delegated, so you end up with responsibility without authority.
Well here is the issue, people listen to the General despite having any power to punish you because he has authority over you because of a hierarchy. The devs say that the general has no buttons to enforce things so why isn't the banker able to do that/that's your characters fault not ours, but the general is put in a position stating he has authority because of hierarchy and thus people listen to him meanwhile the banker is not considered to actually have any authority, just a responsibility, so people listen to the banker if they feel like it.
-
Yes, but if you and option that allows the banker to invest in some regions to help productivity and has a way to purchase food from another realm, this would help on the fun factor for the banker, and give more sense to food agreements that realms still sign.
-
Yeah, because if you have responsibility and authority, why have anyone else at all?
If the general could just move the army's units rather than tell marshals to order the army to move, it's somewhat pointless, no?
The General has the responsibility to govern the army and the authority to issue orders to be followed. Having a button does not give authority, it's clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
The leaders roles and responsibilities are well defined, as is the General and Judge. The banker, not so much because they have no authority over their area of responsibility. Anyway, I know this is a lost argument, so back to the granary.
It was very common for rulers to tax food production and store it in case of famine or drought. Egypt is a very good example of this, they would store years worth of grain to be prepared for a bad crop.
-
So would food be taxed like gold? 5% to 50%? Knight to lord to duke to crown?
As a duke I would like this, as a lord I would not. The only power lords have over dukes is food. Although now with the dukes not necessarily being lords of cities it might not be as polarizing (in some realms).
-
So would food be taxed like gold? 5% to 50%? Knight to lord to duke to crown?
As a duke I would like this, as a lord I would not. The only power lords have over dukes is food. Although now with the dukes not necessarily being lords of cities it might not be as polarizing (in some realms).
At max I would say 10% and that is pushing it by a lot.
-
So would food be taxed like gold? 5% to 50%? Knight to lord to duke to crown?
As a duke I would like this, as a lord I would not. The only power lords have over dukes is food. Although now with the dukes not necessarily being lords of cities it might not be as polarizing (in some realms).
I was not thinking on taxing food.
It would be more like:
Royal taxes - Ruler able to set 5%-50% on a "royal chest"
The banker can use the gold from the royal chest to:
1- Buy food and put it on the royal granary (giving a bigger impact and importance to the trade realm agreements)
2- Invest in a region of the realm
3- Loan gold to other realms
With the royal granary the banker can:
1- Send the food to a starving region, that has no lord.
No lords or dukes would lose food, and it would help the management of the realm.
-
I think this would go along nicely with the new "let banker deal with my food" checkbox that lords are getting.
-
I think this would go along nicely with the new "let banker deal with my food" checkbox that lords are getting.
I would say quite the opposite. If the banker can take care of a region, the banker can just use one of the regions he is taking care of as the royal granary.
-
I would say quite the opposite. If the banker can take care of a region, the banker can just use one of the regions he is taking care of as the royal granary.
That opens up the possibility of a lord-banker creating a buy offer from his region for 50 gold, and then paying for it with the taxes of the region receiving the food, and then selling the food back to his region for 20 gold, repeat.
-
That opens up the possibility of a lord-banker creating a buy offer from his region for 50 gold, and then paying for it with the taxes of the region receiving the food, and then selling the food back to his region for 20 gold, repeat.
No one has ever said the banker gets to use the regions taxes. I am pretty sure he still pays out of pocket considering there has been 0 mention of allowing the banker to use regions taxes to pay for it in all the postings on it so far.
-
I would say it would be nice to either have a treasury that the banker can access or let the ruler set aside gold from the royal income to pay the council members.
-
I would say it would be nice to either have a treasury that the banker can access or let the ruler set aside gold from the royal income to pay the council members.
I am against that. The only way I would be for it is if all council members could be paid by the ruler, but I am against singling out one position for pay.
-
Why not just send bonds?
-
Why not just send bonds?
Requires being at a bank, and a few other reasons.
-
Why not just skip the whole tax system, give the ruler all the tax gold, and let them pass out whatever they want to whoever they want?
-
Why not just skip the whole tax system, give the ruler all the tax gold, and let them pass out whatever they want to whoever they want?
I am suggesting for realm council only, no need to act like its an idiotic request. Whats wrong with allowing ruler to send a percentage of their income to council members? The old tax system had it and I never understood why it was removed. The realm council is not made up of civil servants but people working a very powerful position that deserves compensation.
-
I was talking to Foundation... your post just got in the way. :)
-
I am against that. The only way I would be for it is if all council members could be paid by the ruler, but I am against singling out one position for pay.
My request, while not stated clearly, was for all council members to get paid some set amount by the ruler. I do think that each should be adjusted independently though. So the Ruler would be able to give gold to the general and banker and not the Judge (or any other combo).
-
My request, while not stated clearly, was for all council members to get paid some set amount by the ruler. I do think that each should be adjusted independently though. So the Ruler would be able to give gold to the general and banker and not the Judge (or any other combo).
Sounds good except it has to be a set percentage, not an actual amount.
-
I was talking to Foundation... your post just got in the way. :)
Gasp, and here I thought you agreed with me! :P
-
Sometimes, but not this time. ;)
-
Whats wrong with allowing ruler to send a percentage of their income to council members? The old tax system had it and I never understood why it was removed.
Neither do I in fact. Anyone know why it was removed?
-
Neither do I in fact. Anyone know why it was removed?
Well, for one thing, the tax system has changed about 375 times since then.
...For another, in most of the intermediate incarnations, in most realms, the Ruler ended up being pretty darn poor. If he split his income to the rest of the Council, he'd have practically nothing.
-
Except that now the ruler can just crank up taxes and make as much as he wants. (Or the realm will allow him to get away with.)
-
Sounds good except it has to be a set percentage, not an actual amount.
Ok, so apparently I need to work on being clearer. By set amount, I meant set percentage.
-
Well, for one thing, the tax system has changed about 375 times since then.
...For another, in most of the intermediate incarnations, in most realms, the Ruler ended up being pretty darn poor. If he split his income to the rest of the Council, he'd have practically nothing.
If you give the ruler control with no minimum, he simply not pay them if he doesn't want to because it lessens his income too much, though I don't know of any realms that the ruler makes less than 300 gold a week.
-
300 with 50 to each council member is only 150, not even a city knight's level. -_-
-
Raise taxes!
-
Raise taxes!
Or decide they don't all deserve money! Or rotate who gets what each week!
-
Rotating is the same as just decreasing to insignificance, like 10 gold per week. :P
-
Rotating is the same as just decreasing to insignificance, like 10 gold per week. :P
Its not the same, though they would likely get just as much gold.
-
I would just be selective on who gets a portion. The banker only needs some if he is able to buy for regions. The general only needs any if he is seen as a battle front leader and so needs a larger unit than his estate can afford. I can't actually think of any reason for the judge to get any, other than prestige for having the position.
So it all depends on how the realm functions.
-
Its not the same, though they would likely get just as much gold.
That's just pedantic arguing. We are talking about gold amounts, are we not?
-
That's just pedantic arguing. We are talking about gold amounts, are we not?
Its not the same because 10 gold a week is pretty useless, but 50 gold when i actually need it can be of value. I don't see that as pedantic. Yes, it might come out to similar amounts, but the larger amount at once give actual usefulness unlike only giving 10-20.
-
Its not the same because 10 gold a week is pretty useless, but 50 gold when i actually need it can be of value. I don't see that as pedantic. Yes, it might come out to similar amounts, but the larger amount at once give actual usefulness unlike only giving 10-20.
Because you can't save the gold for when you will need it?