I have come to the conclusion that in its current state, food harms the game much more than it helps. I'm sick of it. It should be fixed or removed.
Quote from: Indirik on February 25, 2013, 03:52:00 PM
I'm sick of it. It should be fixed or removed.
Can I vote for fixed?
I mean, I get where you're coming from, but many, many solutions have been proposed, and many accepted (automatic offers for example), only to be postponed to some later date. The concept behind food is sound.
Indirik, assuming that the two oft-mentioned changes (auto-sell orders and a checkbox to allow the Banker to control your region's food) are implemented, do you think there will still be serious problems with the system?
Auto-orders, both sell and buy, are required to make food functional. You can't do just one, as that would only fix half the problem.
A "let the banker deal with this crap" box would be great, and give bankers something to do. But as it is, the food system is a ten-ton anchor around the realm's neck, tying everyone to their realm, afraid to leave because then they won't be able to handle food problems.
I haven't seen many food problems in my realms, but they are a very small sample of the game's realms. I still think one of the easiest solutions would be to implement partial order fillings for purchasing/selling along with auto-offers.
From what I see in my Dwilight realm, it's more about finding where the large surplus is and then shuffling it into a central area for sales. My lord on the outskirts of the Farronite Republic is now seeing little offers being taken up at only 10 gold per 100 bushels, and gradually building a stockpile from neighboring realms and even a neighboring region of my realm. It is kind of weird, since the margrave of the capital complains about often paying more than 50g/100b....I pay 10/100 without even having to write a word. Maybe people just want to keep Hvrek passive.
Why don't you allow Lords to buy and sell food from their regions, without requiring them to be in their regions. The trades could be restricted by distance, however the restrictions would apply to the distance of the trades to the Lords' regions, not to the Lords themselves. This function could be done from the command page, always present, and you could still maintain the current system of character-location based trading on top of it, so that market places would still be useful for longer distance trading.
Also, remember that food exists to check cities from being self-sufficient. Cities already provide high amounts of gold, legions of troops and potent fortifications; the only thing stopping them from being all-important is the fact that food is required to maintain them. A realm of only cities, such as D'Hara, could not only exist, but even thrive, if the dependence on food were to be abolished. So it is an important balancing feature.
What food does not exist to do is provide traders with something to do. So, don't go about this thinking in terms of 'what can we do to give traders something to do.' Traders are an addition to the food system, they are meant to support it; they are not a fundamental pillar of it, it does not exist to support them.
Quote from: Kwanstein on February 25, 2013, 04:47:14 PM
What food does not exist to do is provide traders with something to do. So, don't go about this thinking in terms of 'what can we do to give traders something to do.' Traders are an addition to the food system, they are meant to support it; they are not a fundamental pillar of it, it does not exist to support them.
Actually, it's not one-sided in either direction. Traders and food/trade are interconnected. They support each other and at least in part exist for each other.
I think that part of the problem, though, is that the current food system has been designed so that traders are completely unnecessary.
This was considered a requirement for it to be usable—after all, there weren't enough traders to support a food system that required them, and thus if it had required them, there would have been widespread starvation and the sound of wails and gnashing of teeth from across the game.
This means that traders, at present, feel like a tacked-on afterthought.
The way I look at it, traders are necessary to the feature of food as priests are to religions. Does that mean they are a popular class? Not necessarily, but just like those who encourage friendly religions to preach simply to ward off hostile faiths, traders are needed to handle food.
I remember after the 3rd invasion of Beluaterra it was somewhat more common there to be a trader as everyone was rebuilding. In fact, I had a trader who was raking in enough money to support the majority of the realm's military, enabling him to more or less command what he sponsored in Plergoth. I still say that the biggest piece to make the trader class enjoyable was the black market. Even with the current system, some sort of version of the black market will enhance the gameplay for the class and the other characters involved with the food.
Not finding enough food on the open market to make profitable trades? Maybe your black market contacts allow you to sell spoiled food, outright steal the food from a region like it used to, or maybe it just lets you use a trade that was otherwise restricted to complete a broker.
As for other characters who may have troubles rounding up food, an experienced trader can help you in securing food. Maybe that trader can even swap out rotted food in the region they're stealing from so that it isn't always noticed right away.
The main thing is how would the black market work? To the region of the knight, bring back a caravan, or do it only when brokering deals so that you benefit from one side getting ripped off?
The food itself is a great commodity, but every discussion I see is about how to balance out the need for food as a mechanic versus the need for food to give something to do for the trader class. The food itself isn't what used to make the trader class interesting, but instead it was the actions and perks that went with it. At the same time, food is usually only complained about when people can't find enough of it. Re-completing the trader class with features more than the little it has now will improve both by giving mischievous opportunities and extra mobility to food. The current "perk" of the trading class, extra distance, is a joke anyways. All anyone with trade options has to do is move to a marketplace, which traders rely on already anyways.
I don't mean to be rude, but the revamp of the trade system just seemed kind of half-assed implemented just to accommodate food being shuffled some on a local basis without caravans/ox carts. It didn't really add much of anything, but it seems like it lost a lot.
Now we're on the subject, why does it take more than a week for a region that /has/ food to return to normal?
Maybe it's somewhat realistic but gameplay-wise it is terrible, especially as starving regions are often ones under TO. Keeping a new but starving region from rebelling is already enough of a chore without losing half your army in the process.
I don't know much about that part. My understanding is that starvation ending is related to how long starvation took place. Also, I thought troops got first crack at food, so how can an army starve? Lastly, I recall hearing that it is much easier to put down a rebellion by force, so masses of troops often involved in TO's should be able to help the region not rebel while courtier work and whatnot is done. Also, didn't the code not too long ago get a change to curb the effects of starvation/rebellion in newly acquired regions for a short while so you have a chance to get on top of things? If all of that is true, then it sounds like whatever scenario you describe is an unprepared army.
This has nothing to do with traders. If you want to talk about/whine about traders, go find/make a trader thread.
This is about how the food system is strangling the life out of people. The need for constant attention, constant micromanagement, and being tethered to marketplaces with a very short leash. About opening the marketplace and seeing a wall of "buy 10/sell 50" orders. (If there are even any sell orders all, and those are probably locked to the realm anyway.) About how your realm can't march to war without starving half your regions, unless you leave half your nobles home to shepherd buy/sell orders.
There is nothing that you can do with traders to fix the system. The only thing that can fix the system is the implementation of automation for both selling *and* buying.
Traders CAN ease a situation; however, in a circumstance as severe as what you describe it won't help much. Sounds like you'd have to wait until a good harvest, goad the enemy into coming to you, or acquire more rurals.
What did you do when Starcraft told you, "We require more vespene gas." Did you write Blizzard about how their resource structure was stupid?
es, our system could use some tweaking, that is definitely true. There are ways to work with it though, just not as good or as interesting as we all like.
Horrible, and completely unfitting analogy.
Eh, I was bored. On vacation and was thinking of a game to play to kill a couple of hours. I've narrowed it down to Rise of Nations, Civ 5, or try Crusader Kings 2 for the first time. Loading CK2 now.
I've been stuck in Golden Farrow for well over a month now (yes, I am not lying). I finally said !@#$ it, put up as many buy orders as I could manage up for 14 days, told my steward to take care of the food while I was gone (I don't know if he's even in the region or marching with the army, didn't care), and ran off as fast as my priest hours could carry me to some roleplay.
Something I think that is beneficial to everything, traders, lords, the food situation, is allowing lords to set up offers without being at a marketplace or their region. Not to be able to accept offers as they can't even see them, but simply to add to them.
The only problem I have experienced so far has been some ridiculous notion that my character should have to sell my food dirt cheap to the cities of his realm. Aside from that, I have had few problems. My character is only the lord of a food producing region and there is this infernal peace going on so I have yet to experience the full system. All I do is have my character post a bunch of food to sell at his price (He refuses to fill the ridiculously low buy offers posted by the dukes) and then goes about his business. He checks on stores before/during winter as well.
At the same time, I see how even my character's minimal food management requirements might get in the way of a good war. Not too excited about that possibility.
I'd like to harp in how this system really isn't very encouraging. The two options which Anaris outlined are very important towards making the system much improved.
Right now I am very lucky to have found a very very good steward for my 60k pop city. The steward makes between 1-5 food purchases/sales per day using my 4 granaries of space as his trading center for food to stockpile for the city and to sell if he sees a really good price. All I did was give him an estate sized equally to my own as Lord (which brings him about 300-350 gold a tax) and he manages the rest all his own.
Granted, this is a unique situation as I found a trader, made him steward of my city and gave him bonuses for doing good work, but it shouldn't have to be this hard.
Personally its a great situation for me right now, but before this it was annoying to manage it when I'm dealing with other things.
We desperately need auto-orders.
And a banker check-box.
In Terran we're discussing setting up rump-estates throughout the realm where Hireshmont, judge and a priest, so not with the army and always around the realm's outlying regions, can walk in, take an estate, get declared steward a few hours later, make a sale, then jump ship to the next rump-estate-rural.
We haven't gotten to the point yet where such estate-hopping is absolutely necessary... but we aren't far from it. Lords are basically permanently tied to their regions. Especially in realms that are short on nobles, you really have to keep a large number of nobles at home just to keep the food flowing.
So, basically, allowing you to post offers for your region no matter where you are would solve all the major problems except convenience? It would allow region lords to not be tethered to their region and all that, yes?
Quote from: Tom on February 26, 2013, 11:51:09 AM
So, basically, allowing you to post offers for your region no matter where you are would solve all the major problems except convenience? It would allow region lords to not be tethered to their region and all that, yes?
Not having to repost offers every two weeks is more important than not having to frequent your region or a marketplace to set them up.
The best option I found for Avamar (without stewards) preparing for war was order the Lords to build markets in every border region. It's hard in EC to have a single campaign for more than two weeks (14 days), time enough to return and begin to buy/sell food in any border region before reach the Capital for refit.
Maybe if we can extend the deadline for offers to twenty or thirty days, we can solve the problem. I doubt anyone will be a month away from his region or any region with a market. In fact, more than food problems, the criticism I always see is that Banker is a useless position since the first reforms. I liked being Banker in the past when there was something to do, but now it's just a regulatory service that anyone can do. It seems that the only advantage now is a chair inside the Council, but in quieter realms with little political activity, this isn't important at all.
There is nothing that Indirik, Anaris, or Vellos has said in this thread that I disagree with. How often can anyone make that claim?
Recognizing the value (and intent) that food can provide in creating tension and redistributing wealth and power down the lower rungs of BM society, it wouldn't be doing any harm to make food as close to "set it and forget it" as possible. Things like automatic sell offers, where a region's granaries are opened to the duchy/realm/all comers at X price until Y threshold, and a button that allows the banker to manage the affairs at the risk of reduced profits for the regional liege, would go a long, long way to getting people out of a perpetually conservative mindset that stifles fun, creativity, and action. It's BattleMaster, after all. Not EurozoneBudgetMaster.
Being able to post from anywhere is a help, but by no means fixes it. It doesn't matter if there are lots of orders posted if no one is around to accept them.
But even beyond that, we shouldn't have to keep constantly posting orders to buy/sell food. We should be able to completely automate the food system. It's an ancillary part of the game that almost noe one really likes to do. Forcing people to do it, repetetively, is setting up a failure.
On a somewhat realted note, the "banker" position in Lyonesse is called Royal Scribe with duties not at all relating to food since there really isn't anything they can do.
Quote from: Tom on February 26, 2013, 11:51:09 AM
So, basically, allowing you to post offers for your region no matter where you are would solve all the major problems except convenience? It would allow region lords to not be tethered to their region and all that, yes?
That would help with mobility some: but dukes would still be trapped in their cities.
Auto orders are vital too. We've been harping on this for a looooong time. Is there a reason that makes auto-orders particularly difficult to code?
Auto-sell orders aren't particularly difficult.
Auto-buy orders are, because where does the money come from?
There's simply been a lack of dev time to code it these last few months. i.e. not much work is happening in general, not just with new features like auto-offers.
Quote from: Anaris on February 26, 2013, 08:14:45 PM
Auto-sell orders aren't particularly difficult.
Auto-buy orders are, because where does the money come from?
Then let's get auto-sell orders set up. That at least reduces the number of trapped nobles to lords/stewards of food-demanding regions only.
Couldn't we just set auto-buy orders to buy from tax revenues? That's how food used to work, as I recall.
Quote from: Vellos on February 26, 2013, 09:31:14 PM
Then let's get auto-sell orders set up. That at least reduces the number of trapped nobles to lords/stewards of food-demanding regions only.
On the slate for next month.
Quote
Couldn't we just set auto-buy orders to buy from tax revenues? That's how food used to work, as I recall.
Yes, and it caused a lot of problems, primarily relating to sending total tax revenues negative.
One thing that
might be possible is to allow auto-buy only if there's actually enough in the current tax pot to cover it, which would mean, basically, that auto-buy orders would not work right after tax day. And when there's a lot of militia. And when the region's been badly looted. Etc.
But we'd still have to examine that option and see if it looks like it will be exploitable or likely to cause other presently unforeseen problems.
Quote from: Anaris on February 26, 2013, 09:44:26 PM
Yes, and it caused a lot of problems, primarily relating to sending total tax revenues negative.
One thing that might be possible is to allow auto-buy only if there's actually enough in the current tax pot to cover it, which would mean, basically, that auto-buy orders would not work right after tax day. And when there's a lot of militia. And when the region's been badly looted. Etc.
But we'd still have to examine that option and see if it looks like it will be exploitable or likely to cause other presently unforeseen problems.
Why not just allow lords to "Fill" the auto-sell orders from anywhere, even if they aren't in their region? This would mean that while lords of cities and such would still have to import food manually, that they could do so even at the battlefront.
This isn't that much of a hassle in comparison to current standards, and if the auto-sell orders are in place, it shouldn't be difficult or time consuming either.
Another Alternative: Allow region lords to place gold in a region's "food purchase chest." The region lord can then set auto-buy orders. However, those orders are only filled if enough gold is present in the "chest" to fill the order. These "chests" could function similar to an army war chest. Except they are only for one region, and each region lord has to fill it for their own region. (I also think that should the region fall in a takoever, the chest contents remain available to the next region lord and cannot be removed OR are lost completely)
Create a "buy fund". The lord puts the gold in it upfront, and every tax collection, it sees if the gold left in the fund is lower than what the lord put in. If it is, it deduces a portion of the lord's income and puts it to the buy fund.
Result: Auto-buy, and the gold comes directly from the lord's pockets, and out of already-collected gold so no possible negative balances. Prefferably, but not necessary: allow the lord to modify the fund size by taking out or adding gold into it, make him able to set a maximum per tax (in $ and or %) income transfer (so that he's sure to have some left for weekly expenses like troops).
And why a meagre 14 day limit? Why not "1 season", or "1 year"?
Quote from: Chénier on February 26, 2013, 10:41:14 PM
Create a "buy fund". The lord puts the gold in it upfront, and every tax collection, it sees if the gold left in the fund is lower than what the lord put in. If it is, it deduces a portion of the lord's income and puts it to the buy fund.
Result: Auto-buy, and the gold comes directly from the lord's pockets, and out of already-collected gold so no possible negative balances. Prefferably, but not necessary: allow the lord to modify the fund size by taking out or adding gold into it, make him able to set a maximum per tax (in $ and or %) income transfer (so that he's sure to have some left for weekly expenses like troops).
And why a meagre 14 day limit? Why not "1 season", or "1 year"?
Did you read my message? That's essentially what I said.
I also think mine is better. No need to deal with taking from taxes in my version.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 26, 2013, 10:51:01 PM
Did you read my message? That's essentially what I said.
I also think mine is better. No need to deal with taking from taxes in my version.
I only read the first version, which was NOT an auto-buy, and assumed the second one was. Upon reading it, my assumption was correct. Your "no need to deal with taking taxes" is exactly the problem with your version: the lord still needs to manually handle the food purchases. And I really fail to see how putting gold in a buy chest is any different to just putting that gold directly for buy offers.
Quote from: Chénier on February 26, 2013, 10:54:53 PM
Your "no need to deal with taking taxes" is exactly the problem with your version: the lord still needs to manually handle the food purchases. And I really fail to see how putting gold in a buy chest is any different to just putting that gold directly for buy offers.
I'm sorry that a lord actually has to do SOMETHING. I mean they get so many perks, you'd think responsibilities come along with it.
Is it seriously that difficult to place 500 gold in a "chest" or "buy fund" and letting it purchase food for 3 months?
Wow....that was tough.
Dev's specifically commented on the issues inherent of dealing with tax related auto-buys. So, I gave a solution which doesn't involve it. I also pointed out how they can probably adapt current code from another portion of the game to pull it off.
Indeed, Lords should still be required to be GOOD Lords of their regions, however doing so should be made pretty simple and easy and available to do from just about anywhere.
That way, a region can still be neglected by its Lord and in this case you KNOW they are just being lazy or purposefully neglectful and you can work to remove them.
There are too many lordships for too few players, so no, I don't feel we should expect very much from them. Especially since most don't care about food, and many propose its outright removal from the game. They still have infrastructure and region stats to care about, which no one is proposing to automate.
Quote from: Chénier on February 26, 2013, 11:08:24 PM
There are too many lordships for too few players, so no, I don't feel we should expect very much from them. Especially since most don't care about food, and many propose its outright removal from the game. They still have infrastructure and region stats to care about, which no one is proposing to automate.
Region stats and infrastructure are automated for all intents and purposes. They are "one time" events.
Infrastructure: Most lordships have all needed infrastructure already in place. The exception is with newly taken regions in war. Which, under those circumstances, the build up of infrastructure is a one-time event, and is usually considered a "fun" part of being a lord. Therefore, Infrastructure = Perk (not responsibility)
Region Stats: These were suggested to be made easier. Thus, the new estate system was created. Region stats are now VERY easy to maintain. The only things that can drop them are based upon player actions at this point including: 1. Taxing your region too much (your fault), 2. Looting/takeover in war (your fault, stop losing your region to war), 3. Diplomat/Priest action (something which you can deal with). 4. Lack of Food (already being addressed in this thread) 5. Distance from capital (Also your fault. Either centralize your realm, or find a new realm with a closer capital if you don't want to deal with it, or lower your taxes: See 1)
So, Region stats are really not a problem.
In other words, Lordships are pretty much cake and all perks if you remove ALL responsibility inherent in the food system.
Quote from: Chénier on February 26, 2013, 11:08:24 PM
There are too many lordships for too few players, so no, I don't feel we should expect very much from them. Especially since most don't care about food, and many propose its outright removal from the game. They still have infrastructure and region stats to care about, which no one is proposing to automate.
No one said we should expect very much, just a bare minimum of effort to ensure your region is fed/can sell food. It's part of the job. Currently the part of the job hinders fun, but it could easily be made to where it doesn't That's what we're trying to get at.
And as far as region stats go... not really. Only time I've ever had to worry about a region stat these days is when/if the region is starving. If it's fed stats basically stay fine. At least in my experience.
Focusing on management detracts from the game.
What I'm proposing wouldn't make food move around by itself. There'd still need a seller to manually accept the transaction.
In my eyes, food should be reduced to a strict minimum of players' energies, otherwise we may as well scrap it to let players focus on other aspects of gameplay, aspects that are more fun for everyone.
Quote from: Chénier on February 26, 2013, 11:28:48 PM
Focusing on management detracts from the game.
What I'm proposing wouldn't make food move around by itself. There'd still need a seller to manually accept the transaction.
In my eyes, food should be reduced to a strict minimum of players' energies, otherwise we may as well scrap it to let players focus on other aspects of gameplay, aspects that are more fun for everyone.
Who are you to say that food management isn't a fun part of the game for a portion of the player base?
I already earlier in this thread cited a player who loves the food management portion of the game and does it exclusively as his character's only real actions in the game.
I personally think that all of the actual battle portions of "BM" are boring, and could play this game just as well without having them in the game at all or completely reformed. I play for the political portions, should we remove that as well?
I think a minimal amount of effort by the lord should be expected. The feudal system is built upon gaining BOTH responsibilities and benefits as you move up the hierarchy. Your proposal seems to be that you just want lords to be glorified knights.
We (the devs) appreciate pluralism in the game. We understand that some people—who are demonstrably an extreme minority—enjoy tinkering with the food system. Our first obligation is to the general player base. It has been demonstrated, time and again, that the vast majority of players are either apathetic toward or outright frustrated with the food system.
I welcome all comments to improve the food system.
I won't consider suggestions to make it less important. You see, food was probably THE most important resource before the modern age, with regular famines and all that happening. Feeding an army was the #1 logistics challenge of most ancient and middle-ages warlords.
Quote from: Solari on February 27, 2013, 12:06:58 AM
We (the devs) appreciate pluralism in the game. We understand that some people—who are demonstrably an extreme minority—enjoy tinkering with the food system. Our first obligation is to the general player base. It has been demonstrated, time and again, that the vast majority of players are either apathetic toward or outright frustrated with the food system.
Pretty much what he says. I never said food wasn't important or fun for anyone. But it isn't for most people. And honestly, making trade rely so much of people who don't give a damn makes it suck a lot more for those who do.
I like that there's trading to do. When there's trading to do, because I hate travelling the whole continent and only ever seeing 1-2 small realm-only sell offers.
QuoteIt has been demonstrated, time and again, that the vast majority of players are either apathetic toward or outright frustrated with the food system.
Did you ever actually poll the player base to come up with that conclusion? Because drawing conclusions from the anecdotes of some people complaining on this forum is a poor substitute. For one thing, people are always more vocal when it comes to complaining than they are otherwise. For another, I've only seen between ten and twenty people complaining about food anyway.
Personally, I enjoy food trading. I enjoy playing the market, attempting to maximise my profits. The only problem I have with this current system is that it chains Lords to their regions, unable to leave for fear of neglecting their food distribution duties. I think that enabling trade transactions regardless of character location would solve this problem entirely. I don't see the act of placing food offers as being cumbersome in the least, however I would welcome automation of it, so long as it still allowed willing players (such as myself) to continue manually managing buy and sell offers. I like Dante's proposal, as it is simple yet effective.
Quote from: Kwanstein on February 27, 2013, 01:09:23 AM
Did you ever actually poll the player base to come up with that conclusion? Because drawing conclusions from the anecdotes of some people complaining on this forum is a poor substitute. For one thing, people are always more vocal when it comes to complaining than they are otherwise. For another, I've only seen between ten and twenty people complaining about food anyway.
Personally, I enjoy food trading. I enjoy playing the market, attempting to maximise my profits. The only problem I have with this current system is that it chains Lords to their regions, unable to leave for fear of neglecting their food distribution duties. I think that enabling trade transactions regardless of character location would solve this problem entirely. I don't see the act of placing food offers as being cumbersome in the least, however I would welcome automation of it, so long as it still allowed willing players (such as myself) to continue manually managing buy and sell offers. I like Dante's proposal, as it is simple yet effective.
People who are harmed by the system are more likely to complain, not people who dislike it in general. Hence the problem: all of the rural lords who just don't give a damn. Which is the biggest problem with "there needs to be responsibilities for the rewards": the lords with the responsibilities don't feel the pain for their failures, it's the lords without the food surpluses that do.
I enjoy trade... as long as there's trading to be done. I don't enjoy seeing a bunch of the food rot because the rural lords don't care for profits and another chunk just getting shipped to NPCs to avoid their wrath, despite general reductions in food production and deletion of mass portion of the food stocks.
Then there's all these talks about forcing realms to get more traders... but who'd want to become a trader when there are no damn sell offers on the continent? You just walk and walk and walk and never do any actual trading.
Out of the six realms I've been a part of, only one suffered from starvation due to the neglect of region lords. That one realm suffered only briefly, and it was a realm where neglect ran rampant in all areas of gameplay, from trading to government to military, it was a very apathetic realm. So your claim is not something that I can sympathise with.
Quote from: Kwanstein on February 27, 2013, 01:33:57 AM
Out of the six realms I've been a part of, only one suffered from starvation due to the neglect of region lords. That one realm suffered only briefly, and it was a realm where neglect ran rampant in all areas of gameplay, from trading to government to military, it was a very apathetic realm. So your claim is not something that I can sympathise with.
"Due to neglect of region lords" would be the key words there. How many times was it because of drought?
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 27, 2013, 01:49:12 AM
"Due to neglect of region lords" would be the key words there. How many times was it because of drought?
Often?
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 01:00:41 AM
Feeding an army was the #1 logistics challenge of most ancient and middle-ages warlords.
Frankly, I'd rather make feeding regions significantly easier (or at least less trouble than it is now), and feeding armies slightly harder on average—but also create the ability for armies to march further from home without the need to return home every week, assuming the appropriate people can handle the logistics properly. (Some form of supply line, with a user-friendly implementation of creating and maintaining it, but make it a necessity if you're fighting far from home, and be possible to interrupt/attack/sever...)
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 02:14:35 AM
Frankly, I'd rather make feeding regions significantly easier (or at least less trouble than it is now), and feeding armies slightly harder on average—but also create the ability for armies to march further from home without the need to return home every week, assuming the appropriate people can handle the logistics properly. (Some form of supply line, with a user-friendly implementation of creating and maintaining it, but make it a necessity if you're fighting far from home, and be possible to interrupt/attack/sever...)
I don't think it was typical for Western European armies to make use of supply lines during the middle ages. I think they generally just commandeered supplies as they went. Could be wrong.
Quote"Due to neglect of region lords" would be the key words there. How many times was it because of drought?
Never.
I was extremely frustrated when the new trading system went in because it removed pretty much everything I did as a banker and a trader. Since then I've adapted, had to work more with Dukes/Duchess and adapted.
Perhaps Atamara is different but I have no issue buying and selling food outside of my Kingdom - perhaps my extreme range helps, but food availability isn't a big deal.
The only thing I really, really miss is the black market. I used to be able to stick food in a starving region without a Lord (just after a take over), which I can't do.
Anyways, just seems people are frustrated with other players hoarding food, and not the game mechanic itself.
I am in favor with auto-buy and auto-sell as it adds flexibility to the system.
D'Hara pretty much bears the brunt of every drought on Dwi, because droughts rarely make any realm starve, it just makes them unable to sell surpluses...
And food, as it is, barely ever matters as far as armies go, save for starving one of your own regions to inefficiently hurt an invading army.
My frustration with the system is the constant attention it requires. It shouldn't need that. Yes, food should eb important, I get that. But it shouldn't be a constant fight for the people that need the food to convince the people that have the food to sell it. They should want to sell it, to get the money.
Perhaps what we need is to make rural regions produce less gold, and thus give the lords more incentive to want to sell their food. That way their apathy toward selling their food would hit them in the wallet.
Quote from: Indirik on February 27, 2013, 02:57:36 AM
My frustration with the system is the constant attention it requires. It shouldn't need that. Yes, food should eb important, I get that. But it shouldn't be a constant fight for the people that need the food to convince the people that have the food to sell it. They should want to sell it, to get the money.
Perhaps what we need is to make rural regions produce less gold, and thus give the lords more incentive to want to sell their food. That way their apathy toward selling their food would hit them in the wallet.
+1
Except: we've talked before about penalizations. Do we want to make MORE penalties?
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 02:14:35 AM
Frankly, I'd rather make feeding regions significantly easier (or at least less trouble than it is now), and feeding armies slightly harder on average—but also create the ability for armies to march further from home without the need to return home every week, assuming the appropriate people can handle the logistics properly. (Some form of supply line, with a user-friendly implementation of creating and maintaining it, but make it a necessity if you're fighting far from home, and be possible to interrupt/attack/sever...)
Yes please.
Make food part of the military infrastructure, so that the "bureaucratic players" (me!) and the "military players" (very much not me) are playing the same game again.
I am against making rural lords dependent on selling their food to get a good income. Their knights don't receive that gold; they actually have a reason to charge high prices to city lords which is bad as gets away from the supply and demand aspect somewhat; and that helps give apathetic rural lords to sell but hurts everybody, not just the apathetic rural lords.
Quote from: Vellos on February 27, 2013, 03:15:36 AMExcept: we've talked before about penalizations. Do we want to make MORE penalties?
I understand what you're saying. But in a way, it's like Chenier said: If the people that have the food don't give a damn, and don't do anything, then there is *no* disadvantage to them. Particularly those regions which have high food production, as they also have high gold production. They don't sell their 600 bushels a week? Who cares? They also got 600 gold this week.
The advice normally handed out to deal with these people is to start fining, and then eventually banish them. Oh look, they got penalized.
The game used to be overly centralized, and the realm basically controlled everything. The rural lords had all their food taken, and got nothing for it. Then we went over the top the other way. Now the rural lords have all their gold, all their food, get more gold for their food, and have zero reason to sell it, or even pay attention to it. Unless they're feeling patriotic, or whatever.
What we need is a balance. The people that have the gold need to food. The people that have the food have to need the gold, or we're totally lopsided.
But even so, that's not my chief complaint about the food system. My problem with it is that it takes way too much time and effort. I shouldn't have to be looking at the marketplace several times a day hoping to find available offers. And I shouldn't have to keep on doing it every day, day after day, forever.
Quote from: Penchant on February 27, 2013, 03:24:07 AMI am against making rural lords dependent on selling their food to get a good income. Their knights don't receive that gold;
That can easily be changed.
Has the trading game really improved since we decentralized it all?
I know that this is the direction that's been taking since a while, but that doesn't mean it's the right one. Traders don't seem any more useful because of this (when they do seem useful, it's for other reasons). Heck, it almost makes them feel less useful, because they can't trade on behalf of the centralized food manager (banker) as well anymore, because there is not more centralized food manager.
I could understand giving the lords the power to prevent the banker from starving their regions, but the measures taken just go way beyond that.
And at least with automated offers, like back with the caravans, I could send 'em a bit everywhere and many would come back with food, because the lords only had to set offers once and often didn't remove the offers set by the previous lords. But now, every 14 days...? Sell offers are so rare...
Quote from: Chénier on February 27, 2013, 03:56:26 AM
Sell offers are so rare...
This statement is very narrow minded. It looks at one specific case on a continent. Here's the reason: The way that this system works is that it is highly likely that ONLY buy offers will be on the market, or ONLY sale offers will be on the market in the steady state long term. Quite simply if the rural lords are more engaged, then there will be more sell offers as city lords only need to fill the orders themselves and not place their own. If the city lords are more engaged there will be a lot of buy offers, and the rural lords can simply fill.
This is the obvious outcome of the current system if lords want to maximize their gold gain. They can cut out the middleman of a trader by doing so themselves. However, it takes more effort.
For instance, my experience with the system on Atamara was that there were never any buy offers in my area. Only sell offers. Which worked great because I'm lord of a city.
Each geographic trading area will tend towards one of the extremes after it has been in practice long term. (Current system)
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 01:00:41 AM
I welcome all comments to improve the food system.
I won't consider suggestions to make it less important. You see, food was probably THE most important resource before the modern age, with regular famines and all that happening. Feeding an army was the #1 logistics challenge of most ancient and middle-ages warlords.
Yes it was. Harassing your enemy's supply line was always important. Also, armies plundered conquered regions to replenish their food and supplies. Foraging was very important during the era. Maybe there should be a supply train for enemies to harass. It doesn't have to be fancy. Maybe bankers or generals can set up a supply line on the map or make a temporary building where you can store your food and equipment for a quick refit. Gold shouldn't be allowed to be stored to give the defending side time to prepare as well. At the moment, food doesn't play much role other than feeding regions. If it is going to stay like that it might as well be just automatic. It is causing nothing but annoyance for many.
Quote from: Azerax on February 27, 2013, 02:30:12 AM
I was extremely frustrated when the new trading system went in because it removed pretty much everything I did as a banker and a trader. Since then I've adapted, had to work more with Dukes/Duchess and adapted.
Perhaps Atamara is different but I have no issue buying and selling food outside of my Kingdom - perhaps my extreme range helps, but food availability isn't a big deal.
The only thing I really, really miss is the black market. I used to be able to stick food in a starving region without a Lord (just after a take over), which I can't do.
Anyways, just seems people are frustrated with other players hoarding food, and not the game mechanic itself.
I am in favor with auto-buy and auto-sell as it adds flexibility to the system.
Atamara is probably different, especially since it does not have seasons like Dwilight and Far East.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 27, 2013, 04:03:59 AM
This statement is very narrow minded. It looks at one specific case on a continent. Here's the reason: The way that this system works is that it is highly likely that ONLY buy offers will be on the market, or ONLY sale offers will be on the market in the steady state long term. Quite simply if the rural lords are more engaged, then there will be more sell offers as city lords only need to fill the orders themselves and not place their own. If the city lords are more engaged there will be a lot of buy offers, and the rural lords can simply fill.
This is the obvious outcome of the current system if lords want to maximize their gold gain. They can cut out the middleman of a trader by doing so themselves. However, it takes more effort.
For instance, my experience with the system on Atamara was that there were never any buy offers in my area. Only sell offers. Which worked great because I'm lord of a city.
Each geographic trading area will tend towards one of the extremes after it has been in practice long term. (Current system)
Which is why lords should be able to post offers anywhere. This problem need not exist if they could lords/stewards can post offers regardless of where they are. A main reason of this is because the lord already has to travel to a marketplace to place an offer, so if someone already has your complementing offer posted why make one and wait for a trader instead of just doing the deal now. You saying it takes extra effort is actually false. They are just wasting effort if they don't do what you are saying. They already have to go to a marketplace.
Quote from: Indirik on February 27, 2013, 02:57:36 AM
My frustration with the system is the constant attention it requires. It shouldn't need that. Yes, food should eb important, I get that. But it shouldn't be a constant fight for the people that need the food to convince the people that have the food to sell it. They should want to sell it, to get the money.
Perhaps what we need is to make rural regions produce less gold, and thus give the lords more incentive to want to sell their food. That way their apathy toward selling their food would hit them in the wallet.
I On one hand, this makes sense. On the other hand I am unsure this would do a rural Lord any favors. What about the realm that has made it illegal for lords to sell food outside the realm and push the lords into selling food for really cheap prices? When my character became a region lord of a rural, I was looking forward to bringing in extra income via food. Then I found that the existing food culture made it difficult to turn much of a profit without putting the lordship at risk. I have been slowly working on changing this but it is taking time.
I think this is a two fold problem. If you want to drop rural lords income, you also need to consider the 'food belongs to the realm so just give it to me' problem...
What's the price you want them to pay? What's the price they want to pay?
Here is how I could see the suggestions made thus far working together:
- Allow lords to set auto sell orders from anywhere. Unless one is at a market, however, they can not see what buy/sell offers are currently out and about. An auto sell offer would look like "Keep XX bushels and sell all extra at XX gold per Bushel to Anyone|Kingdom|Duchy|Region". Only allow one auto sell order. After setting an auto sell order a sell offer will appear for AVAILABLE_FOOD - AMMOUNT_TO_SAVE on the market matching the parameters provided. Once AVAILABLE_FOOD - AMMOUNT_TO_SAVE == 0, the sell offer will disappear. Like with other offers, the extra food is taken from the granery and placed on the market.
- Allow lords to set auto buy offers from anywhere. Once again, seeing market trends is not possible unless at a market. Something like "Buy food at XX per bushel from Anyone|Kingdom|Duchy|Region until the granaries contain XXX bushels". Only allow one auto buy order. Then add a region Food Fund. Region lords must pump money into it. This can be done within the region or at a bank. All auto bought food would be paid for out of this fund. The buy offers would be limited based on food needed and money available. If an auto buy order is present and gold is present in the Food Fund a buy offer is placed on the market to purchase the lesser of GOLD_FUND / GOLD_PER_BUSHEL or AMMOUNT_TO_BUY - AVAILABLE_FOOD bushels of food at the rates specified in the buy order. Once GOLD_FUND / GOLD_PER_BUSHEL < 1 or AMMOUNT_TO_BUY - AVAILABLE_FOOD < 1, the buy offer will disappear. Gold can not be removed from the Food Fund if an auto buy order is in place.
- Allow buy and sell orders to be partially filled. Auto offers will always be for maximum values and will seldom match up. Therefore allow a lord/trader to buy or sell some of an offer.
That is my proposal. Probably a few problems with it but there it is.
Quote from: Penchant on February 27, 2013, 05:42:50 AM
What's the price you want them to pay? What's the price they want to pay?
I want as much gold as I can manage to get. They want to spend 20 gold per 100 bushels. So I refuse to full their buy offers and post my own sell offers. They can take it or leave it. I plan on working on other avenues that will hopefully help in changing the trend but that is my start. In the past, however, I have always had to fight against a "Come on, you should be happy to give our cities all the food they want for free. After all, you do not want to gouge your fellow nobles do you?" mentality in a few of countries. Hell, as a Duke in Barcs, I had to fight against several nobles just to pay the rural lords a fair amount for the food they gave me. What about those rich bastards gouging the guy with the poor income???
What's the price you have been posting for your sell offers?
I have started at 35gold per 100. I am making sales so not too many complaints. I still want to see the 'keep it in the kingdom' policy relaxed and to see other rural lords do more than fill orders for a measly 20 gold per 100 bushels. All in time I hope.
My main concern is that if you cut rural lord's income they will have a hard time getting the money they need. Not all countries are cool with a free market. I like the idea as cutting income will certainly give motivation to sell but it could make it doesn't help if the realm pushes a 20 gold per 100 bushels agenda. Sure, we have the power to enact change and all that, but how many region lords will even care to try. Might as well stay the knight of a city, get more money and not worry about it. Then who sells the food?
Quote from: Unwin on February 27, 2013, 11:55:14 AM
My main concern is that if you cut rural lord's income they will have a hard time getting the money they need. Not all countries are cool with a free market. I like the idea as cutting income will certainly give motivation to sell but it could make it doesn't help if the realm pushes a 20 gold per 100 bushels agenda. Sure, we have the power to enact change and all that, but how many region lords will even care to try. Might as well stay the knight of a city, get more money and not worry about it. Then who sells the food?
Which is why food is important. It decentralizes the realm by giving leverage to more people. It doesn't forbid centralize realms either, but it forces centralizers to actually work to enforce their rule and not rely on "It's always been that way, for the good of the realm!".
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 27, 2013, 04:03:59 AM
This statement is very narrow minded. It looks at one specific case on a continent. Here's the reason: The way that this system works is that it is highly likely that ONLY buy offers will be on the market, or ONLY sale offers will be on the market in the steady state long term. Quite simply if the rural lords are more engaged, then there will be more sell offers as city lords only need to fill the orders themselves and not place their own. If the city lords are more engaged there will be a lot of buy offers, and the rural lords can simply fill.
This is the obvious outcome of the current system if lords want to maximize their gold gain. They can cut out the middleman of a trader by doing so themselves. However, it takes more effort.
For instance, my experience with the system on Atamara was that there were never any buy offers in my area. Only sell offers. Which worked great because I'm lord of a city.
Each geographic trading area will tend towards one of the extremes after it has been in practice long term. (Current system)
In any case, there's still none of one type of offer, though a lack of buy offers is better as you know that some people will be manually doing the purchases anyways and you can set up your sell offers in consequence.
In any case, I found trade much more enjoyable back when everything was automated, and had much more success trading, both in food surplus and deficit realms on different continents.
I believe we can solve the food issues without compromising the existing system with two fairly simple changes:
One, allow lords to create (but not accept) trade postings while away. This way they do not have to stay at home, but to complete a trade it needs either someone staying at home or a trader. The whole realm could be away on a war with a few traders back home brokering all the trade deals the lords post.
Two, allow lords to post future trades. In addition to an end date, you can also give them a start date. For simplicity, one to four weeks in the future. That way, you can deal with food once a month and be done with it.
This would allow for the usual recipe of making things less hassle but if you invest the time to micro-manage, there's a small advantage in it. And it would still require intentional actions instead of automation and "not my problem".
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM
For simplicity, one to four weeks in the future.
Does it really make it so much simpler to limit it to four weeks? I understand the need not to make it infinite, but why not make it 12 weeks or 1 BM year?
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM
This would allow for the usual recipe of making things less hassle but if you invest the time to micro-manage, there's a small advantage in it. And it would still require intentional actions instead of automation and "not my problem".
I think part of the problem, Tom, is that a lot of rural Lords consider it to be "not their problem."
They don't care about selling their food. They don't even want to put in effort once a month. They want to be able to tell their region, "Sell all the food over 200 bushels in the granary for 20 gold per hundred" once, then leave it forever.
And because of the current noble:region ratio, we can't reasonably say at the moment, "Well, they accepted the Lordship, they need to accept the duties that come with it."
They'd rather just say "screw it" and let the food rot and the cities starve, because it doesn't affect them in any way.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
They don't care about selling their food. They don't even want to put in effort once a month. They want to be able to tell their region, "Sell all the food over 200 bushels in the granary for 20 gold per hundred" once, then leave it forever.
Future trades could take care of that similarly to auto-trade. "Put 100 bushels on the market every week" and be done with it for a long time, unless something happens to your region to make your average surplus change significantly. I just wish "a long time" would be more than once a month.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 01:40:15 PM
Future trades could take care of that similarly to auto-trade. "Put 100 bushels on the market every week" and be done with it for a long time, unless something happens to your region to make your average surplus change significantly. I just wish "a long time" would be more than once a month.
And then a drought hits and your region puts its last 100 bushels on the market? It needs to be "above X threshold".
I can understand that the caravans were awful code, and that it's desired that it work more at the lord's level than at the region level now... but I have not seen one soul say "aye, thank god offers now never last more than 14 days, gosh I hated it when we could set it and forget it forever". While I see the rest of the changes as being rather neutral (the system is different, but neither better nor worse), the inability to set it and forget it I definitely consider to be a downgrade.
Being able to set offers in advance doesn't fix the problem. It still requires one to create a spam of offers, and it still limits one to the reserves (be it gold or food) one has on hand at any given time. It just makes things less bad than they are now, but not as good as they used to be.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
And because of the current noble:region ratio, we can't reasonably say at the moment, "Well, they accepted the Lordship, they need to accept the duties that come with it."
They'd rather just say "screw it" and let the food rot and the cities starve, because it doesn't affect them in any way.
Indeed, 'cause often that'd basically mean not having a lord for that rural region, and thus losing it. And even if you manage to get them replaced, there's no guarantee the other guy will do any better.
Were the food surpluses on Dwilight really that much of a bad thing? That they needed to be decimated, and the surplus production radically reduced? Hoarded just had more rot, but at least those willing to give a damn put reasonable amounts on the market.
Quote from: Chénier on February 27, 2013, 01:59:26 PM
And then a drought hits and your region puts its last 100 bushels on the market? It needs to be "above X threshold".
I think it's reasonable to require Lords to suddenly revisit their trade arrangements when a drought (or looting) occurs. The problem with the current system is in big part that you need to take care of it constantly even when nothing particular is occurring, which becomes tedious because there is really no judgment involved. Create a system where player input is required only when something has changed and you will ensure that players will need to think about their actions before pressing the buttons, and no one will complain that that's tedious.
The system really needs some way to automate things. There is no reason that a simple enough way to do that can't be found. Yes, food should be important. But it's an ancillary part of the game that should not, under normal circumstances, require much, if any, effort.
While the "future offers" may make the system slightly more bearable, they are in no way a fix. They are a band-aid. I don't understand why there is so much resistance to allowing for the automation of posting orders. It will still require manual action to actually fill the orders.
I liked the old system where we had "auto-transfers". This could have some changes with higher limits and a kind of contract. A Lord have an oath with his Duke and it's interesting to have a "contract" where every month or every season a certain amount can be sold since there is gold available for transfer. This can be done in RP? Yes, it can along the game mechanics.
And we have to find new jobs for the Banker, because control food is out of his office with the system we have now. They're useless. He cannot enforce anything without a good Judge to punish the Lords. Despite some special options, the Dukes have the same options to control food. Now the Banker is just a beautiful ornament to put in your Council.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 02:06:23 PM
I think it's reasonable to require Lords to suddenly revisit their trade arrangements when a drought (or looting) occurs. The problem with the current system is in big part that you need to take care of it constantly even when nothing particular is occurring, which becomes tedious because there is really no judgment involved. Create a system where player input is required only when something has changed and you will ensure that players will need to think about their actions before pressing the buttons, and no one will complain that that's tedious.
I don't. They'll simply not bother with selling to avoid the risks. I've seen people stockpile ridiculous amounts (and thus waste a lot) out of fear of droughts, in realms where it never will be an issue.
No one is arguing that trade should do itself. All the automation that is requested is so that trade only require one party to be actively involved in trading, instead of both parties. Back during the days of caravans, people still needed to manually send them out. But at least the lords could set an automatic offer to sell/buy all over X at Y price. Which is the main thing people are requesting.
Because, let's face it: what does food bring to this game? Not much, aside from a wealth redistribution from rural regions to city regions (leaving all other non-rural non-city region in relative poverty). A rare few exceptional realms require imports, which helps stimulate interaction, aye. But not to much if there's no sellers to interact with. Not to mention that the food precarity forces a relative peaceful diplomacy in order not to alienate too many food sources. So in the cases where food is in imbalance, it doesn't create conflict, it creates friendship. Because food is too important to go to war over, it's much more effective to befriend food sources than to risk your whole realm to scavenge a handful of bushels from an enemy.
And if food was of great importance for the logistics of the days, that's not how it is emulated in BM. Provisions emulate that for sea travel, but the amount of food that troops take in comparison to region population is so small that it could easily run in a system apart from it.
Quote from: Chénier on February 27, 2013, 02:34:15 PM
I don't. They'll simply not bother with selling to avoid the risks. I've seen people stockpile ridiculous amounts (and thus waste a lot) out of fear of droughts, in realms where it never will be an issue.
I don't have a problem with people stockpiling insane amounts for IC reasons. The cities will starve for those IC reasons. It's all good.
The problem is when people stockpile food not for IC reasons, but because they've done all that could be done with food and get bored.
Quote from: Indirik on February 27, 2013, 02:57:36 AM
My frustration with the system is the constant attention it requires. It shouldn't need that. Yes, food should eb important, I get that. But it shouldn't be a constant fight for the people that need the food to convince the people that have the food to sell it. They should want to sell it, to get the money.
Perhaps what we need is to make rural regions produce less gold, and thus give the lords more incentive to want to sell their food. That way their apathy toward selling their food would hit them in the wallet.
So, this issue is the amount of micro managing it takes. I just stocked up 30 days worth of food for Hawthorne, it took building another granary and buying food at 50 gold per, but it was easy.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 27, 2013, 04:45:41 AM
Atamara is probably different, especially since it does not have seasons like Dwilight and Far East.
Ah ha! Good to know - thanks!
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 01:27:34 PM
I believe we can solve the food issues without compromising the existing system with two fairly simple changes:
One, allow lords to create (but not accept) trade postings while away. This way they do not have to stay at home, but to complete a trade it needs either someone staying at home or a trader. The whole realm could be away on a war with a few traders back home brokering all the trade deals the lords post.
Two, allow lords to post future trades. In addition to an end date, you can also give them a start date. For simplicity, one to four weeks in the future. That way, you can deal with food once a month and be done with it.
This would allow for the usual recipe of making things less hassle but if you invest the time to micro-manage, there's a small advantage in it. And it would still require intentional actions instead of automation and "not my problem".
If they have the option for how many weeks an order will remain - wouldn't they most likely pick the longest duration possible? It's in their favor to do so.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
I think part of the problem, Tom, is that a lot of rural Lords consider it to be "not their problem."
They don't care about selling their food. They don't even want to put in effort once a month. They want to be able to tell their region, "Sell all the food over 200 bushels in the granary for 20 gold per hundred" once, then leave it forever.
And because of the current noble:region ratio, we can't reasonably say at the moment, "Well, they accepted the Lordship, they need to accept the duties that come with it."
They'd rather just say "screw it" and let the food rot and the cities starve, because it doesn't affect them in any way.
This just points to a player issue, not a mechanics issue. Have the Treasurer issue an order, have the Judge fine them for failing to follow said order.
Food should be a set-it-and-forget-it sort of system until something goes wrong(drought, looting, what ever). Anything more and it just forces unpleasant duties on people who come to play a game for fun. The old system with carts was like this. Why can't the new system be?
Tom said food was a major part of the logistics of war during middle ages and that may be so, but this is yet another time when realism does not make for a more fun game. The way starvation is handled these days is another one. Though this is just me assuming a fun game is the actual goal here..
Quote from: Azerax on February 27, 2013, 02:47:08 PM
This just points to a player issue, not a mechanics issue. Have the Treasurer issue an order, have the Judge fine them for failing to follow said order.
Ah, yes, dismissing the problems with our current player culture with, "So fine them."
Really? You think it's just that easy?
First of all, you need a Judge willing to fine for this. Second of all, you need a realm that's unwilling to protest a Judge out of office for it. Third of all, you need Lords whose problem is primarily, "I would rather actively hoard than post offers," rather than, "I can never remember to post offers, and I'm rarely near a marketplace anyway, since I'm in the army that's marching 2 weeks to war."
The current system is a UX nightmare. Dismissing that out of hand with a suggestion to, essentially, punish the users for the bad design is
completely the wrong approach.
An assumption that everyone's making is that a critical number of realms are starving due to inept Lords never bothering to sell their food. I'm guessing that this problem is exaggerated and that if we actually compiled a list of realms that this is happening in, we'd find that it is a very minor problem.
So how about listing all of the realms that are starving, accompanied by a short blurb explaining why they are starving.
Out of the six realms I've played in, I can list none that starved due to inept rural Lords.
Quote from: Kwanstein on February 27, 2013, 04:02:24 PM
An assumption that everyone's making is that a critical number of realms are starving due to inept Lords never bothering to sell their food. I'm guessing that this problem is exaggerated and that if we actually compiled a list of realms that this is happening in, we'd find that it is a very minor problem.
So how about listing all of the realms that are starving, accompanied by a short blurb explaining why they are starving.
Out of the six realms I've played in, I can list none that starved due to inept rural Lords.
No; I don't believe anyone's making that assumption at all.
The problem is not so much that it's crippling realms by starving them. The problem is twofold: first, that it is causing many characters to have to stay either at or close to home in order to ensure that the appropriate orders are posted in a timely fashion (thus reducing the number of people available to go to war), and second, that largely because of this, the system itself is frustrating and should not require so much manual effort.
Quote from: Kwanstein on February 27, 2013, 04:02:24 PM
An assumption that everyone's making is that a critical number of realms are starving due to inept Lords never bothering to sell their food. I'm guessing that this problem is exaggerated and that if we actually compiled a list of realms that this is happening in, we'd find that it is a very minor problem.
Very few realms are starving because starvation is devastating and everybody knows what to do to avoid it.
However, what this involves is making certain you are able to come back to a market place every week. This makes war difficult and ultimately leads to a less entertaining game.
The problem is not that realms starve. The problem is that the play style that leads to realms not starving is less entertaining than it could be.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
I think part of the problem, Tom, is that a lot of rural Lords consider it to be "not their problem."
They'd rather just say "screw it" and let the food rot and the cities starve, because it doesn't affect them in any way.
Should city lords then MAKE it the problem of the rural lords?
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 27, 2013, 04:46:28 PM
Should city lords then MAKE it the problem of the rural lords?
Yes. This is exactly the kind of interaction food brings.
But once again, the current solution is to force the rural lords to be at a market place on a regular basis, which is not fun. That's the issue. With things like auto-orders the city lords can forcefully make it the problem of the rural lord
once, and if they succeed at it then they are set. They don't have to do it again every week.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 04:56:07 PM
Yes. This is exactly the kind of interaction food brings.
While it is an interaction, in most cases it is not a welcome, or beneficial interaction. It is one in which neither side desires to engage. Forcing it accomplishes nothing useful from a player standpoint.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 04:56:07 PM
Yes. This is exactly the kind of interaction food brings.
But once again, the current solution is to force the rural lords to be at a market place on a regular basis, which is not fun. That's the issue. With things like auto-orders the city lords can forcefully make it the problem of the rural lord once, and if they succeed at it then they are set. They don't have to do it again every week.
To add to what Indirik says, there's a good deal of evidence that this kind of forced intra-realm conflict is what has been losing us players.
If you can't trust the Lords of your food-producing regions to provide their food at a reasonable price to the starving cities, that destroys the "team" feeling. Similarly if you can't trust the Lords of the cities not to bring troops in to loot the food straight out of the regions. (And yes, I know that's not currently possible.)
Askileon and Giask have both suffered starvation as a direct result of lords being lazy. This stopped being a regular occurrence only after I put forward immense effort to see these lords punished, but so far as I can tell, they (and most of LN's other lords) still don't want to be responsible for selling food, and the same is true in BoM.
What a great, constructive thread this is becoming. Several good points have been made concerning what can/should be expected of a rural liege. Something to keep in mind is that frequently what should be expected and what people are actually willing to do aren't the same thing. Wherever possible, it's best to take the path of least resistance. This is (at least for me) the philosophy behind the complaint that food is vitally important and a bitch to get working reliably.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 05:02:57 PM
To add to what Indirik says, there's a good deal of evidence that this kind of forced intra-realm conflict is what has been losing us players.
There's nothing forced about it. If you want to ship your food to cities for 1 gold per 100 bushel, then you do it and that's it.
The forced part is only there because you have to do it
every week. Automatic orders would take care of that. Cities would only starve if the automatic orders are willfully removed, and I don't see a problem with that.
Quote from: ^ban^ on February 27, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
Askileon and Giask have both suffered starvation as a direct result of lords being lazy. This stopped being a regular occurrence only after I put forward immense effort to see these lords punished, but so far as I can tell, they (and most of LN's other lords) still don't want to be responsible for selling food, and the same is true in BoM.
Because the question about the scope of this problem has come up, it's worth pointing out that the personal examples being presented are done so largely for the ease with which they can be related to the overall problem. One of the side-effects of working on the dev team is the "30,000 foot" view you get of the game. It reinforces just how similar realms are across continents, and how there are quite a few problems endemic to everywhere. Maybe not all the time, but they do pop up.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 05:15:06 PMThere's nothing forced about it. If you want to ship your food to cities for 1 gold per 100 bushel, then you do it and that's it.
Unless you don't want to deal with it at all. You can't "do it once", you have to keep doing it, over and over and over again. And if you stop doing it, then game forces a negative interaction between players: "Do this or else". If the selling lord was actually doing this intentionally, then fine. But most of the time it's a scenario where neither the seller or the buyer actually want to deal with it, and just want to move on and do things they actually *want* to do. This is what I meant by forcing a negative interaction. It's something that neither of the two wants to do, something that the game could easily do for them, and for which there is no good reason that it can't be automated.
QuoteCities would only starve if the automatic orders are willfully removed, and I don't see a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with that, either. If the lords want to gang together and purposely starve the city, that's a valid interaction.
Let's nail down the scale of this issue. Can we get some stats on how many regions are currently starving vs how many are not, across all islands?
How many regions are starving is irrelevant. It's the amount of effort, on a repetitive basis, that is required to keep them from starving.
Quote from: Indirik on February 27, 2013, 06:20:16 PM
Unless you don't want to deal with it at all. You can't "do it once", you have to keep doing it, over and over and over again. And if you stop doing it, then game forces a negative interaction between players: "Do this or else". If the selling lord was actually doing this intentionally, then fine. But most of the time it's a scenario where neither the seller or the buyer actually want to deal with it, and just want to move on and do things they actually *want* to do. This is what I meant by forcing a negative interaction. It's something that neither of the two wants to do, something that the game could easily do for them, and for which there is no good reason that it can't be automated.
I don't have a problem with that, either. If the lords want to gang together and purposely starve the city, that's a valid interaction.
I must have expressed myself badly. I fully agree with what you said.
Quote from: Indirik on February 27, 2013, 06:25:03 PM
How many regions are starving is irrelevant. It's the amount of effort, on a repetitive basis, that is required to keep them from starving.
I see that you can keep orders on the market for 14 days. Would a valid stop-gap measure be upping this amount to 30 days immediately? This would off-load some of the stress while dev is done on the new market related features. (Though, I don't see a single task done every 14 days to be one of great effort.)
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
No; I don't believe anyone's making that assumption at all.
The problem is not so much that it's crippling realms by starving them. The problem is twofold: first, that it is causing many characters to have to stay either at or close to home in order to ensure that the appropriate orders are posted in a timely fashion (thus reducing the number of people available to go to war), and second, that largely because of this, the system itself is frustrating and should not require so much manual effort.
I was only responding to Chenier's claims that food should be removed outright, which he supported with the aforementioned assumption. I don't see any reason against food automation and/or selling food remotely.
Quote from: Azerax on February 27, 2013, 06:44:22 PM
I see that you can keep orders on the market for 14 days. Would a valid stop-gap measure be upping this amount to 30 days immediately? This would off-load some of the stress while dev is done on the new market related features. (Though, I don't see a single task done every 14 days to be one of great effort.)
No, it wouldn't be helpful.
Food is not produced a month at a time. It is produced in small amounts a day at a time.
It would be helpful, as a band-aid measure, from the *buyer'* side of the equation. It would allow the spamming of more orders to the marketplace, allowing there to be a greater interval between postings.
I don't have much to add from a player POV. Food is semi-tedious in most realms I'm in, very tedious in one - depends how active the lords are. Right, everybody else said that already.
Some historical perspective. I leave whether or not it's useful to this discussion up to you.
Even a third or fourth son in a noble family would not personally oversee bushels of food being moved from point A to point B. Direct involvement in commerce was considered beneath the nobility, though it still happened - sometimes hypocritically, where the King of France would declare that peddling wine was not the province of the nobility, chiefly so that he could take control of the wine business himself. Otherwise, trade was for burghers, not nobles. One reason why guys with jobs like 'master of coin' are usually influential nerds that nobody likes (see Game of Thrones). They spend their time doing !@#$ that big burly warriors don't understand or care about.
So if a nobleman got involved in trade, chances are it was in something sexy. Lots of money involved or else somehow important enough to warrant his attention. So while a nobleman might not order 100 bushels of grain moved in carts from one town to another, he might cut a deal between kingdoms to buy a whole heck of a lot of food as an equalizing factor if you had famine in country A and feast in country B. Or it'd be something like the wool trade. Clergymen and landed nobleman alike got in on this action, usually in the forms of sponsoring market fairs of which they would take a cut.
What has any of this got to do with BM? The way things are now, not much. We don't have a trade system - we have a food system, and there is little parallel with any historical context because there is no siege system. So I would take a step back and ask what the function of the food system is: if that function is limited in scope to providing tension and symbiosis between rural and city regions, then what we have now is a good step in that direction and will be better with some of the solutions already underway.
But particularly with respect to the 'trader' class, what we have now doesn't have much bearing on trade. You'd want to look at trade routes, multiple wares, and tolls if you were interested in something like that. Particularly as one of the harder parts - a functioning market - is already done.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 27, 2013, 01:33:30 PM
Does it really make it so much simpler to limit it to four weeks? I understand the need not to make it infinite, but why not make it 12 weeks or 1 BM year?
Because I WANT you to stay in contact with the food situation in your realm. And if setting up a few orders once a month is too much to ask for, maybe you shouldn't be a region lord?
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
They'd rather just say "screw it" and let the food rot and the cities starve, because it doesn't affect them in any way.
I don't see anything wrong with letting realms die that can't motivate their members to put in a tiny bit of effort. I'm all for making it a very small effort, but I'm against making it zero and fully-automatic.
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 08:20:01 PM
I don't see anything wrong with letting realms die that can't motivate their members to put in a tiny bit of effort. I'm all for making it a very small effort, but I'm against making it zero and fully-automatic.
I see a false dichotomy here.
Yes, obviously, if the Lords of the realm are totally apathetic and refuse to get off their butts and
ever do anything with food, the realm should have major problems. (I would note that it's unlikely that the realm would die even in this situation unless they're in a serious war at the same time. They'll just have some seriously annoying starvation issues in the cities they can't get enough food to. The rurals, in particular, will all be just fine no matter how much food is rotting in their storehouses.)
But a) as has been repeatedly stated here, the problem isn't so much that Lords
aren't moving food, it's that they find moving food
dead boring and it's killing their enjoyment of the game, and b) even in those cases where Lords are, in fact, refusing to move food, it's almost never at a level that's likely to cause even a single city to go rogue. It's just enough to cause frustration and anger. And most of that frustration and anger is at the system, which is attempting to force a level of engagement that just isn't there.
And finally, Tom, you seem to have forgotten one major point in all this: Lords are no longer the respected and valued members of realms that they used to be. Lords are
nearly half of every realm on every continent. No continent currently has even 3 nobles per non-rogue region. This means that if Lord Goodfornothing wants to sit around doing nothing with his region, there's a very good chance that the realm's choices are either put up with it, or lose the region entirely.
Realms very rarely have a choice these days between "good candidate" and "bad candidate" for a Lordship. They have "whoever says he's willing to try". So complaining that players aren't doing it right, and they should be happy with a system that demands they do things they find "not-fun"....yeah, that's a recipe for no more BattleMaster.
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 08:20:01 PM
I don't see anything wrong with letting realms die that can't motivate their members to put in a tiny bit of effort. I'm all for making it a very small effort, but I'm against making it zero and fully-automatic.
Back with the caravans, it still required a minimum of effort, because food didn't move itself. But it was possible to be able to both set auto-buy and auto-sell offers.
Aside from the suggestion of removing food altogether, that's pretty much all that has been asked. Nobody is asking for trade to do itself, we are just asking that it only requires one person actively interested in it (usually the buyer), and not two people (as the seller usually has no direct penalties from failing to sell).
Quote from: Chénier on February 28, 2013, 12:23:55 AM
Back with the caravans, it still required a minimum of effort, because food didn't move itself. But it was possible to be able to both set auto-buy and auto-sell offers.
Aside from the suggestion of removing food altogether, that's pretty much all that has been asked. Nobody is asking for trade to do itself, we are just asking that it only requires one person actively interested in it (usually the buyer), and not two people (as the seller usually has no direct penalties from failing to sell).
Actually auto-offers for both does not even require either party to be interested if you have a trader. I like to refer to this situation as a trader's paradise.
Quote from: Penchant on February 28, 2013, 12:32:29 AM
Actually auto-offers for both does not even require either party to be interested if you have a trader. I like to refer to this situation as a trader's paradise.
Right, I hadn't thought of that, but the point remains: only need 1 interested party, instead of two or three.
Quote from: Chénier on February 28, 2013, 12:36:27 AM
Right, I hadn't thought of that, but the point remains: only need 1 interested party, instead of two or three.
That is true.
Quote from: Anaris on February 27, 2013, 08:44:34 PM
I see a false dichotomy here.
Yes, obviously, if the Lords of the realm are totally apathetic and refuse to get off their butts and ever do anything with food, the realm should have major problems. (I would note that it's unlikely that the realm would die even in this situation unless they're in a serious war at the same time. They'll just have some seriously annoying starvation issues in the cities they can't get enough food to. The rurals, in particular, will all be just fine no matter how much food is rotting in their storehouses.)
But a) as has been repeatedly stated here, the problem isn't so much that Lords aren't moving food, it's that they find moving food dead boring and it's killing their enjoyment of the game, and b) even in those cases where Lords are, in fact, refusing to move food, it's almost never at a level that's likely to cause even a single city to go rogue. It's just enough to cause frustration and anger. And most of that frustration and anger is at the system, which is attempting to force a level of engagement that just isn't there.
And finally, Tom, you seem to have forgotten one major point in all this: Lords are no longer the respected and valued members of realms that they used to be. Lords are nearly half of every realm on every continent. No continent currently has even 3 nobles per non-rogue region. This means that if Lord Goodfornothing wants to sit around doing nothing with his region, there's a very good chance that the realm's choices are either put up with it, or lose the region entirely.
Realms very rarely have a choice these days between "good candidate" and "bad candidate" for a Lordship. They have "whoever says he's willing to try". So complaining that players aren't doing it right, and they should be happy with a system that demands they do things they find "not-fun"....yeah, that's a recipe for no more BattleMaster.
insert segue into player density here
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 08:20:01 PM
I don't see anything wrong with letting realms die that can't motivate their members to put in a tiny bit of effort. I'm all for making it a very small effort, but I'm against making it zero and fully-automatic.
Thing is, I do not see permanent auto offers bringing effort to zero. Simple fact is that those offers have to be set up and there will be times where they need to be changed. Beyond that, what I suggested only creates offers automatically. Someone still need to go in and click the BUY or SELL button. The only automation is getting it to market reliably. Additionally, in my proposal, any food buyers still need to keep their Food Fund stocked. Yet another piece of engagement. Depending on how the realm is set up buyers still need to click the buy button to fill the auto sell offers, or sellers need to click sell button to fill auto buy offers. The only way to offload the work from the lords is to have a trader or two do the buying or selling. Plus, should the economic situation change, the auto sell or auto buy orders will need to be updated or the region/realm will suffer negatively. The orders will require some maintenance.
So I am not really sure how auto buy and auto sell orders as I presented earlier, really take away all effort. It simply reduces the effort needed to get food on the market. If combined with capable traders, it has the potential to reduce the effort of lords to a healthy minimum but it dose not reduce the effort to nothing in my opinion!
With Traders (Lowest Effort Option):
Food producing lords set an auto-sell order that brings excess food to market and is done until that order needs updating.
Food buying lords set an auto buy order that brings food to market, continually stocks the Food Fund and is done until the order of Fund needs updating.
Traders of the realm do all the Buying and Selling on the lords behalf while they go off and kill things. (Go partial Buy and Sells!)
No Traders (Heavy Buyer Effort):
Food producing lords set an auto-sell order that brings excess food to market and is done until that order needs updating.
Food buying lords regularly check market and click the buy button as needed. (Go partial Buy and Sells!)
Food producing lords go off and kill things with food buying lords joining in as possible.
No Traders (Heavy Seller Effort):
Food buying lords set an auto buy order that brings food to market, continually stocks the Food Fund and is done until the order of Fund needs updating.
Food selling lords regularly check the market and click the sell button as needed. (Go partial Buy and Sells!)
Food buying lords go off and kill things with food selling lords joining in as possible.
Traders of the realm do all the Buying and Selling on the lords behalf while they go off and kill things. (Go partial Buy and Sells!)
The option I presented does NOT remove effort completely. It reduces effort and frees up some or all region lords to fight. It gives HUGE value to traders within a realm. I am sure there are downsides too but I am in the business of selling my idea right now so I will not go there!
Quote from: Tom on February 27, 2013, 08:16:27 PM
Because I WANT you to stay in contact with the food situation in your realm. And if setting up a few orders once a month is too much to ask for, maybe you shouldn't be a region lord?
Imagine you're doing something fun, like fighting a war.
Then you have to abandon the front lines, trek back to a city with a market,
to do the exact same thing you had already done a month before. There is absolutely nothing new in the situation. You have already decided you would do this, it is settled, nobody has any interest in changing anything. You just need to stop doing whatever new and fun thing you were doing and go do the unfun old thing.
Over and over and over again. Every month. It's like paying your rent.
Staying in contact is a good thing, but this isn't staying in contact. This is robot-work.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 28, 2013, 10:33:21 AM
Imagine you're doing something fun, like fighting a war.
Then you have to abandon the front lines, trek back to a city with a market, to do the exact same thing you had already done a month before.
Did you miss where I talked about enabling remote access to home markets?
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Did you miss where I talked about enabling remote access to home markets?
Right, I replied to the second part without considering the first part. Sorry. There's just many ideas flying around, I tend to answer one at a time, but you had indeed grouped them.
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
Did you miss where I talked about enabling remote access to home markets?
OK; so then the selling Lords don't have to go home and put up their market offers.
But Lords of food-consuming regions are still functionally unable to go to war, because they'll still have to go home to a market to accept the sell orders.
Quote from: Anaris on February 28, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
But Lords of food-consuming regions are still functionally unable to go to war, because they'll still have to go home to a market to accept the sell orders.
I understand they could put buy offers remotely.
Someone will have to be home at some point, it could be the city lord or steward, the rural lord or steward or a trader. This gives a lot more leeway than what exists.
Yes, traders will actually have something to do then. -_-
Quote from: Anaris on February 28, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
OK; so then the selling Lords don't have to go home and put up their market offers.
But Lords of food-consuming regions are still functionally unable to go to war, because they'll still have to go home to a market to accept the sell orders.
Uh, no?
They could put up buy orders.
There's usually someone back home who can then complete those orders. Or you have traders - domestic or foreign.
It might not solve the problem under all imaginable circumstances, but it would solve most of the problem under most conditions.
Quote from: Anaris on February 28, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
OK; so then the selling Lords don't have to go home and put up their market offers.
But Lords of food-consuming regions are still functionally unable to go to war, because they'll still have to go home to a market to accept the sell orders.
Not entirely true, it just requires a bit of planning. I just spent the better part of 3 years fighting a war, and being away from my starving region. When I had to refit and my region was low on food, I made the trek back there, built a 2nd granary put up multiple 100 open buy offers at 50 which got filled pretty quick. It delayed my return by a couple days, once every couple months. Seemed to work ok.
Quote from: Tom on February 28, 2013, 05:18:30 PM
Uh, no?
They could put up buy orders.
There's usually someone back home who can then complete those orders. Or you have traders - domestic or foreign.
It might not solve the problem under all imaginable circumstances, but it would solve most of the problem under most conditions.
Trading really, really, really, really is not as profitable as you seem to think it is, Tom. Prices are either matched exactly or there is extremely minor profit: on the order of 2 to 5 bushels per 100 brokered. Also I think brokering isn't properly increasing skill, so I guess I'll look into that...
If you don't have a realm wide set limit on food prices, why would food be not profitable? There should be more than enough incentive for lords to put up offers if they can do so remotely. All margraves have to do is put up corresponding buy offers remotely.
Because lords want to charge extortionately high food prices. The system let's them charge up to 50, so they feel they should be paid 50. Sales outside the realm on Dwilight are pretty much exclusively done at a rate of 50/100, or very close to that. And to get that requires some kind of inter-realm agreement.
On EC, I do occasionally see some open sales, but very rarely for under 30/100, mostly nearer to 40/100. But people won't pay any higher than 20-25/100.
Like I was saying before, gold is so plentiful that lords have little or no incentive to sell, except for patriotism or a desire to help the realm. This is especially true for lords of high food regions, because they are also high gold regions, too.
Quote from: ^ban^ on February 28, 2013, 09:09:11 PM
Trading really, really, really, really is not as profitable as you seem to think it is, Tom. Prices are either matched exactly or there is extremely minor profit: on the order of 2 to 5 bushels per 100 brokered. Also I think brokering isn't properly increasing skill, so I guess I'll look into that...
I agree - I think I've actually lost money on tradnig and brokering. Now, this is not a game issue, just Lords who won't pay a better price for food, and my own issue about letting them starve.
Now, as a duke of a city, I pay top dollar, so someone is making money.
Quote from: Indirik on February 28, 2013, 10:17:21 PM
Because lords want to charge extortionately high food prices. The system let's them charge up to 50, so they feel they should be paid 50. Sales outside the realm on Dwilight are pretty much exclusively done at a rate of 50/100, or very close to that. And to get that requires some kind of inter-realm agreement.
On EC, I do occasionally see some open sales, but very rarely for under 30/100, mostly nearer to 40/100. But people won't pay any higher than 20-25/100.
Like I was saying before, gold is so plentiful that lords have little or no incentive to sell, except for patriotism or a desire to help the realm. This is especially true for lords of high food regions, because they are also high gold regions, too.
50 is
not extortion nor is it too high. On Atamara when food prices weren't capped, I constantly bought around 55-60 from one realm and sold at 60-70 in another. It's the Margraves who think that because they have a city, they deserve the food either free or basically free for 10-20, who are complaining.
If gold is so abundant, why aren't all buy offers everywhere 50/100 all the time? I don't think "lack of incentive" is the problem here. It's the prejudice that "Lords and filthy rich and hate doing anything so they deserve nothing" attitude that almost all Margraves/Dukes have.
As Scott said, if a Margraves post as many 50/100 buy offers as they need food and then go away and then repeat when they're filled,
then they have a right to complain the system is broken.
Quote from: Foundation on February 28, 2013, 10:45:52 PM
50 is not extortion nor is it too high. On Atamara when food prices weren't capped, I constantly bought around 55-60 from one realm and sold at 60-70 in another. It's the Margraves who think that because they have a city, they deserve the food either free or basically free for 10-20, who are complaining.
If gold is so abundant, why aren't all buy offers everywhere 50/100 all the time? I don't think "lack of incentive" is the problem here. It's the prejudice that "Lords and filthy rich and hate doing anything so they deserve nothing" attitude that almost all Margraves/Dukes have.
As Scott said, if a Margraves post as many 50/100 buy offers as they need food and then go away and then repeat when they're filled, then they have a right to complain the system is broken.
Except I do I
DO put out 50/100 buy offers. ALL. THE. TIME. And they don't get filled. So I feel I do have a right to complain.
Lords charge what dukes are willing to pay. On Atamara, there's a large food surplus in my area. Due to the surplus, it's rare to find a duke who's willing to pay the maximum fee. As a result, Lords have to adjust their rates accordingly and their food is usually sold at around 30/100.
Dwilight is another matter. My realm on that continent has a very slim surplus, and there's steep competition for food from neighbouring realms. Consequently, it's easy to find offers for 50/100, and only generous Lords are willing to sell for less.
It's the law of supply and demand which drives food prices. 50/100 isn't extortionate at all, in fact I consider it a very moderate price. I could easily see desperate Lords willing to pay 75/100, or even, in extreme cases, 100/100. Those would be extortionate prices, but 50/100 is basically just a middle ground, it's suitable for realms that are in need of food, but not necessarily in dire straights. I actually think that the maximum price should be raised, as that would make trading more dynamic as well as provide more incentive for Lords to participate in it. I'm unsure of why the cap is so low to begin with.
Probably because you would never be able to feed Golden Farrow if prices were so high. Not if you planned on doing anything else with the gold...
I remember brankrupting Paisly, and it did not require prices of 50 gold per bushel, but more an average of around 35 I think, 40 tops.
Having food so expensive that cities can't financially feed themselves even if they wanted to doesn't add anything to the game, other than a ton of frustration.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 28, 2013, 11:28:59 PM
Except I do I DO put out 50/100 buy offers. ALL. THE. TIME. And they don't get filled. So I feel I do have a right to complain.
You certainly do, but I doubt many others can say the same. :)
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 28, 2013, 11:31:37 PM
Probably because you would never be able to feed Golden Farrow if prices were so high. Not if you planned on doing anything else with the gold...
True, if food costs so much due to the area you're in not producing enough of a surplus, why should you expect to be able to spend that additional gold from the additional population on anything else?
It's the law of marginal utility. If you want your city to get to full population, you
will increase demand for food and thus drive up prices. It's nothing unnatural if you hit a point where you can't afford to increase the population of a large city.
Quote from: Chénier on February 28, 2013, 11:58:29 PM
I remember brankrupting Paisly, and it did not require prices of 50 gold per bushel, but more an average of around 35 I think, 40 tops.
Having food so expensive that cities can't financially feed themselves even if they wanted to doesn't add anything to the game, other than a ton of frustration.
Last time I calculated an average city on AT produces at around 70-80 gold/100 bushels. It was a couple of years ago and might have changed somewhat after the population rebalance, but can't be that much worse... Can you give actual data on Paisly?
It's not like I really have a choice in the matter. Either I keep it fed, and it grows in population regardless of my wishes (wishing I could force additional growth in population to emigrate elsewhere), or I let it starve, and the city stats plummet, and I go back to where we started, low population and little gold. To start the cycle all over again. IF it doesn't go rogue before I can get food to stop the starvation after the population has dropped.
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 12:02:29 AM
Last time I calculated an average city on AT produces at around 70-80 gold/100 bushels. It was a couple of years ago and might have changed somewhat after the population rebalance, but can't be that much worse... Can you give actual data on Paisly?
No, I can't. And values changed since then, so I couldn't re-run it even if I wanted to.
There's infrastructure upkeep to consider too. And rot.
But to answer your question, as i said, I can't rerun the numbers for you and say why it happened, just that it did. And that I wasn't paying max price.
Also, I gotta say that I really dislike how granaries break apart due to low production, now... I like that we can build more, but cities need a lot of peasants to feed before production is high enough to prevent granaries from breaking apart. Which resulsts in lots of rot. And thus more expenses, for food that the cities don't produce much gold to buy with to begin with.
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 12:02:29 AM
Last time I calculated an average city on AT produces at around 70-80 gold/100 bushels. It was a couple of years ago and might have changed somewhat after the population rebalance, but can't be that much worse... Can you give actual data on Paisly?
Atamara is not a good comparison to Dwilight.
One: it doesn't have seasons.
Two: It wasn't rebalanced to produce less food in order to "fix" the "problem" of select regions storing too much food. (just as an aside, there was an IC group that was actively working to hoard food in multiple regions that was based in Morek. I know at least one of the members who admitted it to me, but would rather not say who without his permission)
Three: It can basically defined as one large landmass. Dwilight is made up of two main continent-size landmasses, a subcontinent (where the Grand Duchy of Fissoa is, along with half of Luria Nova), a large island (where Madina once was), and two other small islands (the D'haran island and the one controlled by Astrum). The two main landmasses are separated by a large body of water, effectively preventing much direct trade between the two. Two mountain chains, one near astrum, and one where Swordfell is, split parts of the main landmasses off from each other via their lack of food producing, further reducing trade between food rich and food poor areas. Morek, the breadbasket of the eastern landmass, is separated from the south by this chain of mountains. Iashalur, located in the area with the most rurals on the western landmass, is also separated from much of the rest of the continent, Astrum being the only other realm near enough to benefit from their trade regularly. The eastern and western landmasses rarely trade on a large scale with each other, at least from what I have seen.
On Atamara, my city Lord/Duke refused to purchase food for anything more than 30 gold/100 bushels. By doing so over a large portion of time, and being the largest food consumer in the area, I forced prices down to that level in my area.
I would frequently purchase food off of the market at the price of 20-30 gold/100 bushels. A common price that I purchased at was 25 gold/100 bushels. VERY common. All of those food purchases come from outside of my realm. Some are allies, some were neutral, some were at peace with me.
Recently, I've had a steward handle all of my food purchases. We had an agreement where I would pay him 30 gold for every 100 bushels he purchased for my city regardless of the price that he bought the food for. (Sent to him through private gold shipments on a bi-weekly basis). I'm fairly sure he commonly turned a profit on these trades. Not all the time. Sometimes he would buy for 30 gold/100 bushels or once or twice at 35, but never higher.
I'm in the very center of the continent though, so perhaps I have access to the largest variety of markets, so I always get a good deal. With a 60k pop city I certainly make plenty of food purchases.
Food rot isn't as much of a concern to continents without seasons, too... On Dwi, you are forced to have exceptionally large reserves before winter arrives, to survive the season. And much of it rots regardless of how many granaries you build.
I did the math in the other thread, the only way Golden Farrow should be losing gold is if there's some massive expenses or inefficient taxation going on. How much militia is there and what are the tax rates (both the region tax as well as the vessel tax)?
Oh yea, and militia too, let's not forget those.
It's NORMAL for a city to have militia...
Quote from: Chénier on March 01, 2013, 01:44:14 AM
Food rot isn't as much of a concern to continents without seasons, too... On Dwi, you are forced to have exceptionally large reserves before winter arrives, to survive the season. And much of it rots regardless of how many granaries you build.
Um... Seasons are MUCH easier now than they were.
Winter used to be DEVASTATING on Dwilight. You'd have like 3 weeks of no harvests or half harvests or whatever it was. This was just pure death. At least now, you're not simply dead when winter comes. You just prioritize and plan some. Before, if you didn't have it saved, you literally had no recourse. Everything shut down.
Plus, this thread is in the GD forum, not the Dwilight Forum. Therefore, opinions on all continents is important.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on March 01, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
Um... Seasons are MUCH easier now than they were.
Winter used to be DEVASTATING on Dwilight. You'd have like 3 weeks of no harvests or half harvests or whatever it was. This was just pure death. At least now, you're not simply dead when winter comes. You just prioritize and plan some. Before, if you didn't have it saved, you literally had no recourse. Everything shut down.
Plus, this thread is in the GD forum, not the Dwilight Forum. Therefore, opinions on all continents is important.
Yea, but back then, thousands of bushels had not been arbitrarily deleted and food production globally reduced either.
I don't get what the huge aversion to food surpluses are... cities will always need to buy food no matter how much of it overwhelms the market. You've got your interaction right there. In a buyer-biased market, there will be maximum food sales and there will still be room for negotiations as rural lords try to turn rotten food into scraps of profits and margraves attempt to minimize their food expenses. Everybody wins. Rural lords still make more gold than the lords of badlands, mountains, and woodlands, cities aren't constantly starving, and margraves don't have to spend so much of their time trying to find any deals whatsoever to meet the bare minimum their regions need.
A seller-biased market just brings a ton of frustration, forces a ton of people to stay at home to avoid starvation or to minimize its penalties, cripples cities and therefore realms' abilities to wage war, and creates an even bigger gap between rurals and woodlands/badlands/mountains.
For Beluaterra, at least in Fronen, there seems to be a general surplus and we have supplies to last a while. I believe it is due at least in part to which regions were lost permanently. The continent lost a disproportionate number of cities & townslands compared to other regions.
I'm not a trader but there are usually a number of sale offers sitting on the market. Prices seem low (between 20 and 25 gold with some less than that) due to the abundance of food in regions so rural lords have an incentive to reduce prices to try to get cities to buy before it rots.
The balance on BT has been literally blown away. It cannot be used as an example for any other island. The number of coastal cities that were sunk was phenomenal. Once the island returns to full production, BT will produce times more food than it consumes.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 04:50:39 AM
The balance on BT has been literally blown away. It cannot be used as an example for any other island. The number of coastal cities that were sunk was phenomenal. Once the island returns to full production, BT will produce times more food than it consumes.
Yeah I agree. I wasn't trying to use it as an example for other islands except maybe as a contrast. The island already produces many times what is needed to feed everyone and is perhaps the test case for what happens in markets where an excess is produced. There are no realms with a deficit. Fronen had a brief deficit back in Dec when we had a drought but with months of excess food it wasn't an issue.
Chenier, the calculation was done for cities, doesn't matter which continent it's on, cities have similar stats.
Sure, you can argue all you want that additional gold generated by additional population must go somewhere else. When it comes down to it, you're expecting to do everything with a city when it is in an area with a low access to supplies of surplus food as when it is in an area with tons of surplus food.
By the way, by data I meant population, food consumption, production, gold values, tax rates, that kind of thing. Surely that data cannot be lost?
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 01, 2013, 12:06:43 AM
It's not like I really have a choice in the matter. Either I keep it fed, and it grows in population regardless of my wishes (wishing I could force additional growth in population to emigrate elsewhere), or I let it starve, and the city stats plummet, and I go back to where we started, low population and little gold. To start the cycle all over again. IF it doesn't go rogue before I can get food to stop the starvation after the population has dropped.
This is a real concern. If it were possible to keep a city at a lower population without regularly going into starvation and degrading your infrastructure, then food would not be so much of a problem.
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Chenier, the calculation was done for cities, doesn't matter which continent it's on, cities have similar stats.
Sure, you can argue all you want that additional gold generated by additional population must go somewhere else. When it comes down to it, you're expecting to do everything with a city when it is in an area with a low access to supplies of surplus food as when it is in an area with tons of surplus food.
I dunno, Foundation. Your argument that some cities can't expect to be able to afford all the food they need to feed themselves seems to rest on two assumptions, both of which are false and which seem somewhat incompatible:
1) That food prices are primarily or wholly set by the seller, and buyers basically just have to take what they can get.
2) That food is fundamentally a free market everywhere.
The simple fact that disproves both of these is that some realms mandate certain price ceilings for food distribution in general, or in order to ensure that a particular city is properly fed.
Have Cherry try telling Hrok that if Giask can't afford to feed itself at 50g/100 bushels, it can just go starve, and see how far she gets.
True. Note that my point was in response to Chenier saying that his city cannot feed itself at 40-50 gold / 100 bushels. Something is wrong with the management of a city if it cannot do so. Either it has too much militia or too much gold is diverted elsewhere or tax rates are ridiculously low, etc. In that case, it's not surprising that a city cannot feed itself with such high prices and do everything else at the same time.
I don't mean to say that in general cities must feed themselves at 40-50 gold / 100 bushels or expect to starve.
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 01:42:44 PM
True. Note that my point was in response to Chenier saying that his city cannot feed itself at 40-50 gold / 100 bushels. Something is wrong with the management of a city if it cannot do so. Either it has too much militia or too much gold is diverted elsewhere or tax rates are ridiculously low, etc. In that case, it's not surprising that a city cannot feed itself with such high prices and do everything else at the same time.
I don't mean to say that in general cities must feed themselves at 40-50 gold / 100 bushels or expect to starve.
I also don't think it's unreasonable for a city to ask that it
not spend 90-100% of its (otherwise-)disposable income on food.
Cities need a great deal more gold for infrastructure than other regions, and their lords are also most often the sponsors of armies. They also tend to be the people the realm comes to when nobles need extra gold handed out for their units.
I have no problem with rural Lords making a fair price for their food, but if that fair price leads to most of the rural Lords just hoarding extra gold or sending it to their families, while the city Lords end up with less net income than the rural Lords do, I don't think that's a particularly helpful result overall.
I believe that is a false assumption. A decentralized gold system encourages participation. Assuming lords guilty until proven innocent is an incorrect attitude.
What is wrong with margraves asking for funding? Too proud? Dukes can get enough with taxes.
Quote from: Anaris on March 01, 2013, 01:49:15 PM
Cities need a great deal more gold for infrastructure than other regions,
This is indeed structural in the way the game is designed.
Quote from: Anaris on March 01, 2013, 01:49:15 PM
and their lords are also most often the sponsors of armies. They also tend to be the people the realm comes to when nobles need extra gold handed out for their units.
These, however, are cultural remnants from the time when Dukes were the City Lords and food was basically free with the ox cart system. The system has changed and the people can change too.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 01:36:30 PM
This is a real concern. If it were possible to keep a city at a lower population without regularly going into starvation and degrading your infrastructure, then food would not be so much of a problem.
+1
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 02:02:06 PM
I believe that is a false assumption. A decentralized gold system encourages participation. Assuming lords guilty until proven innocent is an incorrect attitude.
What is wrong with margraves asking for funding? Too proud? Dukes can get enough with taxes.
I don't think we're ever going to get to a point with changing culture in BattleMaster where people do not assume that being the Lord of a city will grant them—and, indeed, entitles them to—a higher income than they would get in a rural region.
Being lord of a rich city *does* entitle you to make more gold than being the lord of a rural region. That's the way it's *supposed* to be. If the system results in the Margrave of a rich city and the Count of a rural making the same net amount in tax income, then the system is *broken*.
This isn't some hippy commune system we're trying to recreate, where everyone shares and shares alike. It's a system with inherent inequalities. These are fully intentional, and desired. You want to make more gold? Then move up the system to a better region.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 03:10:33 PM
You want to make more gold? Then move up the system to a better region.
I think what Foundation is saying is that the identification city=better is fundamentally flawed, and the the changes in production and population that occured last year were meant to reflect that.
If a rural is providing more gold than a city, then the rural is, by all accounts, better.
No, it means the system is broken.
Indirik is right.
The system is intended to have cities be more desirable Lordships—a place to move up to from a rural Lordship.
If we wanted everyone to be making the same amount of gold per tax, we'd just go back to the old tax system, and lock the distribution at equal shares for everyone in the realm.
We don't. We want there to be an income disparity, both as a vehicle for low-level conflict, and as a goal to work towards—something to aspire to.
Even the system as it is designed doesn't even begin to capture the social stratification that existed in the milieu—and, frankly, I think that trying to do so fully would be counterproductive to fun in the game—but I believe that it is important to at least hint in that direction.
Quote from: Anaris on March 01, 2013, 03:22:04 PM
If we wanted everyone to be making the same amount of gold per tax, we'd just go back to the old tax system, and lock the distribution at equal shares for everyone in the realm.
We don't. We want there to be an income disparity, both as a vehicle for low-level conflict, and as a goal to work towards—something to aspire to.
I'm all for income disparity. I want some regions to be entry-level regions, and others to be more aspirational.
But if a rural is easier to manage and yields more gold than a city, then that just makes the rural the aspirational one, does it not? Is that a problem?
Quote from: Chénier on March 01, 2013, 01:49:41 AM
Oh yea, and militia too, let's not forget those.
It's NORMAL for a city to have militia...
I can see the necessity for one or two thousand CS of militia, but that by itself wouldn't eat up all of the free tax gold. Even a major city like Golden Farrow requires only one hundred food a day. It would cost three hundred-fifty gold per week to feed it's population. Meanwhile, it produces a gross two thousand gold per day. Even assuming a very modest tax rate of 15%, the city would yield 1,995 gold per week. Deduct the militia and infrastructure payments, which, given two thousand militia, should amount to no more than three hundred gold -- less than two hundred in most circumstances -- and you have 1,695 to be distributed amongst the Patron and his men. The Patron himself, through his estate and vessel taxes, could make away with at least 25%, if he was feeling generous, or upwards to 60% of it if he was not. Let's assume that he is neither generous nor greedy and so makes away with 40%, that gives him a personal salary of 678, of which three hundred-fifty would go towards food (assuming the food is premium price), giving him 328, after all is said and done with. This is a decent amount for a Lord who runs his region sub-optimally, for, as I explained in another thread, through truly exploitative measures you could wring far, far more gold out of a city than even this. Furthermore, this is discounting the duchy tax income. Still, even without it, even with the sub-optimal administration, the idea that food is costing city Lords their livelihood is exaggerated. If a city Lord is spending more than he makes then he can owe it entirely to his inefficient administration, because it is well within the realms of possibility for him to turn a profit, a much larger profit than even a rural Lord is capable of.
QuoteBut if a rural is easier to manage and yields more gold than a city, then that just makes the rural the aspirational one, does it not?
If that yield were actually due to talent, management skill, and ambition on the part of the rural lord, and incompetence of the city lord, then I could agree. But it's not. It's due entirely to the meta factors of region stats, over which the lord has no control.
(Note that there are always exceptions. I'm not counting the ridiculously poor "cities" like Gaston and Chrysantalys.)
Quotegiving him 328, after all is said and done with. This is a decent amount for a Lord who runs his region sub-optimally,
328 gold a week for the lord of Golden Farrow is ridiculously low. The lord of that city should be making nearly three times that much.
15% taxes is only slightly below what the region could run without constant attention. You shouldn't think that because a lord can babysit the region and run 20% or higher, that this should be considered normal. It simply is not.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
But if a rural is easier to manage and yields more gold than a city, then that just makes the rural the aspirational one, does it not? Is that a problem?
It is a problem when virtually all of the functions necessary for a realm to survive are in cities. Then, the relationship becomes something akin to extortion: a bunch of (or even a few) rural lieges, either motivated by gold or keenly aware of how empowered they are, are capable of bringing a realm to its knees as a consequence of this one issue.
One could argue any number of things as to how this could have been avoided. The point is that it isn't just
easy for a realm to find itself in this situation; the game practically
incentivizes it.
Many rural Lords, acting together, can bring a realm to its knees. I think that's normal and good.
Remember that a single City Lord is also able to bring a realm to its knees, by your agument. Is this in any way better?
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 04:25:54 PM
If that yield were actually due to talent, management skill, and ambition on the part of the rural lord, and incompetence of the city lord, then I could agree. But it's not. It's due entirely to the meta factors of region stats, over which the lord has no control.
(Note that there are always exceptions. I'm not counting the ridiculously poor "cities" like Gaston and Chrysantalys.)
And ridiculously rich rurals, like Montijo. But that's exactly my point.
If place A is rich and place B poor, and A happens to be rural and B urban, why is that a problem?
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 04:59:31 PM
And ridiculously rich rurals, like Montijo. But that's exactly my point.
If place A is rich and place B poor, and A happens to be rural and B urban, why is that a problem?
It's not.
It's a problem if that becomes the rule, rather than the exception.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 04:31:21 PM
328 gold a week for the lord of Golden Farrow is ridiculously low. The lord of that city should be making nearly three times that much.
15% taxes is only slightly below what the region could run without constant attention. You shouldn't think that because a lord can babysit the region and run 20% or higher, that this should be considered normal. It simply is not.
Three times as much?! That's more than the Lord would make
even if he didn't have to purchase food. If Lords are indeed supposed to make as much as you say, then cities need to have their incomes boosted. Right now, the only chance at reaching such an income would be to implement those methods of mine which you deem abnormal (and that's without factoring food into account).
All the balance issues in mechanics aside, don't under estimate a city lords ability to fight back. Is your realm not helping your city remain profitable? Jump ship. Only city? Destroy your smithy and other important buildings specialized to the region type as "cutting expenses" to afford high food prices. Might be some drastic measures, and might not work in the average scenario, but the point is cities can and should fight dirty too.
If a rural region lord is constantly jacking up prices of something you need, remind him what he needs. Hell, since somebody mentioned sponsors often being city lords, take some diplomacy into account. Make those lords pay for the service, or lack of it. Keep your army back while a neutral realm loots the region and sells you the food at a fair price- if the lord isn't helping you, who the hell cares if his assets are damaged?
Get a religion to back you. "These lords in Rural Swindler Regions are starving the faithful that I house in my city. Help punish them by throwing them out; feel free to claim the region yourself with my endorsement in exchange for cheaper food"
Just like realms are limited in nobles when selecting lords and end up with greedy food barons, do you think they'll do better with city lords? Do you think those same greedy barons will give up their income to buy other lords food? Do you think they want a duke taxing them all to accommodate food prices?
All sides of the arguments listed on this thread have merit, but I'm surprised many aren't proposing any sort of IG reaction. Since food came about there have been some complaining about BATTLEMaster shouldn't have so much resource management. Take advantage of the difficulties in resource management and BATTLE over it.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 04:31:21 PM
328 gold a week for the lord of Golden Farrow is ridiculously low. The lord of that city should be making nearly three times that much.
I'm not sure where that "should" comes from either. No one is entitled to 1000 pieces of gold per week.
Quote from: Psyche on March 01, 2013, 05:22:59 PM
All sides of the arguments listed on this thread have merit, but I'm surprised many aren't proposing any sort of IG reaction. Since food came about there have been some complaining about BATTLEMaster shouldn't have so much resource management. Take advantage of the difficulties in resource management and BATTLE over it.
Fighting with your own realm mates does not make for an enjoyable game in the long term. Not for me at least. It quickly spirals beyond the food and then your realm starts really falling apart.
It ruins the atmosphere and certainly contradicts the proud declaration of being a part of a team that's on the front page.
Quote from: LilWolf on March 01, 2013, 05:31:00 PM
Fighting with your own realm mates does not make for an enjoyable game in the long term. Not for me at least. It quickly spirals beyond the food and then your realm starts really falling apart.
It ruins the atmosphere and certainly contradicts the proud declaration of being a part of a team that's on the front page.
As lord of Libidizedd, with much less than half the population of Golden Farrow, I can easily pull down over 700 a week, which includes some food purchases. That's not even trying. If I really wanted to push it, I could probably get nearly 1K. Golden Farrow's lord should easily be able to get way over 1K a week. He's lord of one of the richest cities on Dwilight. He *deserves* that much. You want that much? Then work out a way to take that city away from him.
You're already battling economically. Either retaliate through other means, or surrender and quit whining about prices/availability of food.
Escalation CAN lead to mediation. Some times your realm council just needs a kick in the pants to see how hot an issue is.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 05:40:21 PM
As lord of Libidizedd, with much less than half the population of Golden Farrow, I can easily pull down over 700 a week, which includes some food purchases. That's not even trying. If I really wanted to push it, I could probably get nearly 1K. Golden Farrow's lord should easily be able to get way over 1K a week. He's lord of one of the richest cities on Dwilight. He *deserves* that much. You want that much? Then work out a way to take that city away from him.
But why? Sorry, I may be a bit dense, but I really don't see it.
Your argument seems to be that even though Libidizedd creates more gold for its Lord than Golden Farrow does, nevertheless Golden Farrow, on some other esoteric ranking, is
richer, and therefore its gold output should be brought in line? I don't get it. Why is it so wrong if Libidizedd is richer than Golden Farrow after food purchases?
Some times it's just a bunch of factors, like management. For instance, on BT, Hvrek was once lord of Lopa when this new system kicked in. His food sales paid for investments. As a priest/diplomat, he stayed in his region to maintain it at 25% tax with constant investments for as long as he felt like. He ended up on average with around 1k gold a week, after investment costs. Lopa's stats on region page were 400 some gold and 500 some food. Food was sold somewhere along the lines of 20-30 gold per 100 bushels.
QuoteWhy is it so wrong if Libidizedd is richer than Golden Farrow after food purchases?
Because Golden Farrow is a bigger, richer city. Of course it should make more gold. Significantly more gold. Assuming all other factors being equal.
(All other factors aren't equal in reality, of course. There are several key differences, but that's mostly irrelevant for this discussion.)
The whole point of having big, rich cities to highlight and enhance the inequalities. They are supposed to be fabulously rich. They're the lords of the most prosperous cities. Why wouldn't they be rich?
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 07:52:55 PM
Because Golden Farrow is a bigger, richer city. Of course it should make more gold. Significantly more gold.
What measure are you using to say Golden Farrow is richer?
Clearly it's not gold. You said you get more gold in Libidizedd. So what is it? How do you rank cities from richest to poorest? Alphabetically?
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.
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.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 08:07:46 PM
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.
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.
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.
I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-ton of gold as a result? How about you try to feed 50,000 people...
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 01, 2013, 08:29:58 PM
I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-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.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 08:33:29 PM
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).
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 01, 2013, 08:29:58 PM
I have over 50k in population, and still 15k more till I reach max. Why shouldn't I get a metric !@#$-ton of gold as a result? How about you try to feed 50,000 people...
Well, it is possible that Golden Farrow is just a badly designed city or whatever. Higher population shouldn't inherently result in more gold. (See India/China today). It's all about efficiency. So, this argument can have merit depending upon the circumstances:
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 08:33:29 PM
It's not how it works. Not all regions are equal. It's very possible that Golden Farrow is a large but poor city that can barely feed itself.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 01, 2013, 08:36:45 PM
I have the third highest economy in Dwilight. The only ones higher are Darfix and Giask, and that's because they can hold an exponentially greater population (over 90k for Giask).
Granted, I'm right there with you. Barad Falas has the 3rd best economy on Atamara, and currently produces the 2nd most gold due to one of the cities with a higher production missing 15k from its max population. (I'm feeding 60k population at this point, and my gold value pretty much mirrors Golden Farrow)
I've explained this already, that Golden Farrow could make a metric !@#$-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.
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.
Quote from: Indirik on March 01, 2013, 09:36:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on March 01, 2013, 09:43:09 PM
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.
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.
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.
Also you were using the numbers of what Indirik said. I think the lord of the third richest city should be making definitely be making 5 times that of the a lord of an average rural.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 01, 2013, 08:02:10 PM
What measure are you using to say Golden Farrow is richer?
Clearly it's not gold. You said you get more gold in Libidizedd. So what is it? How do you rank cities from richest to poorest? Alphabetically?
Economy, the unwise people ignore it.
Show me 1 region lord that's making more than 400 gold from taxes. It should be clear on the tax reports.
Then, how many region lords making 300-400 gold from taxes have 400 bushels of surplus every single week?
If we're comparing the richest city lords to the poorest region lords, sure, a 5x difference after food sales is perfectly normal. But if that kind of relationship should hold between the median city lord and the richest region lords, something is seriously wrong.
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Chenier, the calculation was done for cities, doesn't matter which continent it's on, cities have similar stats.
Sure, you can argue all you want that additional gold generated by additional population must go somewhere else. When it comes down to it, you're expecting to do everything with a city when it is in an area with a low access to supplies of surplus food as when it is in an area with tons of surplus food.
By the way, by data I meant population, food consumption, production, gold values, tax rates, that kind of thing. Surely that data cannot be lost?
I am not longer lord of Paisly and the numbers have since changed.
I see, that is unfortunate. :(
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 11:56:39 PM
If we're comparing the richest city lords to the poorest region lords, sure, a 5x difference after food sales is perfectly normal. But if that kind of relationship should hold between the median city lord and the richest region lords, something is seriously wrong.
Why on earth would we not make our comparisons between the median city and median rurals?
Quote from: Psyche on March 01, 2013, 05:51:10 PM
Some times it's just a bunch of factors, like management. For instance, on BT, Hvrek was once lord of Lopa when this new system kicked in. His food sales paid for investments. As a priest/diplomat, he stayed in his region to maintain it at 25% tax with constant investments for as long as he felt like. He ended up on average with around 1k gold a week, after investment costs. Lopa's stats on region page were 400 some gold and 500 some food. Food was sold somewhere along the lines of 20-30 gold per 100 bushels.
Other factors come in play, too... like tax rate, which itself is linked to distance from the capital. Not every city is the capital. Also, not every city lord is a duke (which could simply tax his vassals to compensate for high food prices, if he was buying from them).
Quote from: Chénier on March 02, 2013, 12:45:57 AM
Other factors come in play, too... like tax rate, which itself is linked to distance from the capital. Not every city is the capital. Also, not every city lord is a duke (which could simply tax his vassals to compensate for high food prices, if he was buying from them).
That last option is something I need to remember if I am ever duke/magrave though I doubt I will since I prefer townslands, they are the city 2.0.
Quote from: Anaris on March 02, 2013, 12:21:14 AM
Why on earth would we not make our comparisons between the median city and median rurals?
I'm only comparing the extremes to show how wrong it is to compare by extremes. (Which was how this gold comparison started and how it is continuing) I guess that in itself is wrong. ;)
You troll so much, no one can tell when you're serious or trying to make subtle point. ;)
Ah, the drawbacks of trolling. "Let us troll and troll some more, for tomorrow, no one will take us seriously anyways."
QuoteThen, how many region lords making 300-400 gold from taxes have 400 bushels of surplus every single week?
As lord of Nimraw I cleared just under 350 gold last week. I wasn't even trying. I literally hadn't been in the region for over a month. I have no doubt I could have run the tax rate 3 or 4% higher if I felt like it, and wanted to deal with the hassle. I also run a surplus of 67 bushels per day. There are several regions (probably at least 5) on EC that are even better. Several more that are almost as good.
I'd say on an average tax day as the 2nd richest city lord on Atamara, I make 800 gold (before food purchases).
This is with a 19% region tax rate though.
So, you can try and use that to compare to rural region lords, but I find it almost impossible to believe that I have a 5x ratio on even the worst rural regions. (After they sell their food)
Quote from: Foundation on March 01, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
Chenier, the calculation was done for cities, doesn't matter which continent it's on, cities have similar stats.
Sure, you can argue all you want that additional gold generated by additional population must go somewhere else. When it comes down to it, you're expecting to do everything with a city when it is in an area with a low access to supplies of surplus food as when it is in an area with tons of surplus food.
By the way, by data I meant population, food consumption, production, gold values, tax rates, that kind of thing. Surely that data cannot be lost?
Actually, I did have an excel spreadsheet to help with realm food planning, which I just found... After the city's own production, Paisly needed 569,8 bushels per harvest. I think the taxes were probably around 12% at the time since I moved a lot. Unfortunately, I did not record wealth production values, but I do know I had quite a lot of infrastructure (Paisly had previously been the capital), and at between 2000 and 5000 CS of militia (probably closer to 2000 CS).
However, it'd be incorrect to assume that since Paisly needed 570 bushels per harvest, I could content myself with merely buying 570 bushels every harvest cycle. Because, as I've stated a ton of times... Dwilight has... Seasons! And there were no frigging sellers in winter. Nor in late Fall. As such, I had to pretty much buy ALL of the food I could find, whenever I could find it, with my spammed caravans to every corner I could reach. And I obviously had an open buy offer back at home for when traders returned. Usually, the traders' return coincided with when I could buy the most food, sometime in Fall I believe. Which meant that, since I could find absolutely 0 bushels of food to buy during all of winter and most of Spring (and some of Fall), during some tax cycles I was basically buying over 1500, 2000, or even 2500 bushels of food. If not more. After all, my city needed 4300 food to go through a year, 4300 food that had to mostly be bought within a rather limited time frame. With granaries that could support 2000, which we tried to fill as much as possible because we never knew from season to season if the sellers were still going to sell, none of the exporters being all that incredibly reliable. And none of this accounts for ridiculous rot or militia consumption. Because back then, upgrading from 2000 to 2500 granary capacity cost a TONLOAD. I had already spent ridiculous amounts just to get it that high, and in fall, I still needed to keep a lot more food than my granaries' capacity. So rot was a major concern, though we had not evaluated it's % (because the policy of buying everything we could we allowing us to barely make it through the winters, and we couldn't do better than buying everything, there wasn't much need to quantify such a variable and hard to measure number).
This was before the population rebalance, though, which made the food situation in D'Hara much better. But the manual food store depletions and food production reductions came after the rebalance, I believe, which basically came and negated all of the improvements and caused the greatest starvation D'Hara had ever faced. It was also before granaries became just another building that could be built for cheap, which had allowed me to increase granary capacity from 2000 to 6000 for a reasonable price.
(Fun fact: D'Hara had a yearly deficit of 11,895 bushels per year back then, with a granary capacity of probably around 7,000. Yearly values were used for all planning, because offers and food production was not reliable year-round and thus forward planning was necessary to survive winter)
Eh, one thing I used to look at once food was introduced to BT was gold efficiency. A city that produces 1,000 gold with 30,000 people could be more favorable than a city of 36,000 (25% more food required) that produces 1,100(10% higher income). I don't remember the average consumption per population anymore, but you still need to check gold to population ratios some times to see if cities are on par with each other.
And trolling is only an issue when you've just finished off your bottle of vodka, and can JUST type, but not well.
Quote from: Psyche on March 02, 2013, 04:22:12 PM
Eh, one thing I used to look at once food was introduced to BT was gold efficiency. A city that produces 1,000 gold with 30,000 people could be more favorable than a city of 36,000 (25% more food required) that produces 1,100(10% higher income). I don't remember the average consumption per population anymore, but you still need to check gold to population ratios some times to see if cities are on par with each other.
And trolling is only an issue when you've just finished off your bottle of vodka, and can JUST type, but not well.
Sure, if two cities produce the same gold output, then one should favor the one with the least population... However, if the "gold efficiency" ratio was lower, but raw gold output higher nonetheless, it's usually still better to go for the "less efficient" one. On continents with ample food surpluses, that is.
Rereading where this is going while sober I was quickly reminded of the Monty Python skit from Holy Grail about coconut/swallow migration, coming to all sorts of hypotheses. I think this is where I bow out.
Regarding seasons, Tom told us that on Dwilight, food production was 113% of what it consumed.
So I did some calculations... (Assuming no looting, no troops, perfect production, no zuma, no drought, no monsters, etc.)
With seasons, at the end of the year, you'd have 1.55 days' worth of surplus production over what you'd have had the year before, accounting for the rotting of 8% of your total production.
Without seasons, and thus a steady production, Dwilight would instead end up with 6,65 days' worth of excess production at the end of the year, thanks to only having 4% of your year's production rot.
Seasons do have an impact.
Especially when you count in weather. With seasons, half of your food is produced during Fall. If you have a drought during fall, you lose a quarter of your yearly production, whereas on continents without seasons, having a drought for a season only results in losing an eight of the yearly production.
Food production is at 108% of what is consumed on Dwilight, across a full year.
Uhh...
For what it is worth, I also believe that some regions (cities for sure, possibly strongholds, mountains, badlands and some forests) should be high gold/low food while some regions (rurals for sure, possibly some forests) should be high food/low food. Some regions (Townslands for sure, possibly others) should be mid gold/mid food. Some can have a surplus of both or a lack of both, but that should be the exception to the rule in my opinion. I also think that this should all be based on average taxes run (actual averages, not expected averages). I also think that a region should not be considered making an excess unless they are making more that what it would cost to support a reasonable amount of buildings/militia.
I would expect something like:
City = High Excess in Gold, High Deficit in Food
Stronghold = Sufficient in Gold, Deficit in Food
Townsland = Excess in Gold, Excess in Food.
Badland = Sufficient in Gold, Deficit in Food, Minor Excess in Gold, High Deficit in Food
Woodland = Sufficient in Gold, Minor Excess in Food or Minor Excess in Gold, Sufficient in Food
Rural = Deficit in Gold, High Excess in Food or Sufficient in Gold, Excess in Food
High Excess = Makes a whole lot more than needed
Excess = Makes more than is needed
Minor Excess = Makes a tiny bit more than needed
Sufficient = Makes what is needed
Deficit = Makes less than is needed
High Deficit = Makes a lot less than what is needed.
Quote from: ^ban^ on March 03, 2013, 05:08:54 PM
Food production is at 108% of what is consumed on Dwilight, across a full year.
Yep. So the question to be answered is whether an 8% buffer is sufficient to account for weather, rot, other loss, and delays due to ambivalent rural lieges. Thoughts?
Quote from: Solari on March 04, 2013, 02:45:20 PM
Yep. So the question to be answered is whether an 8% buffer is sufficient to account for weather, rot, other loss, and delays due to ambivalent rural lieges. Thoughts?
Is it really? Rather, I would ask whether it is sufficient for a lively market. The amount of food could very well be sufficient in a world of perfect distribution, but establishing a world of perfect distribution through in-game means does not sound extremely fun.
My take is that the mechanics of the markets should be changed, and not the amount of food. It is entirely possible that the markets would be more lively with more food given the current rules, but I think that is the wrong way to look at it. With easier distribution in those places that do not want to specifically withhold food, food tightening would not be a problem as it could create IC conflict. As long as the misdistribution stems from a broken system and not lack of food, it won't.
Quote from: Solari on March 04, 2013, 02:45:20 PM
Yep. So the question to be answered is whether an 8% buffer is sufficient to account for weather, rot, other loss, and delays due to ambivalent rural lieges. Thoughts?
Clearly not.
While a lot of the losses are hard to quantify and predict, rot is not, and merely factoring minimum rot in turns a 107,2% surplus into an actual yearly deficit with 0 starting bushels. At 108% production, you really wouldn't need much of a starting value to get a yearly deficit either. Depending on the various food production levels I've been given, yearly rot value has varied among 8%, 16%, and 20% of production. Ignoring rot altogether when decided what's an acceptable production value is simply a very big mistake. Some of the loss values are difficult to quantify, but not minimum rot.
Note: I've made a (rather) clean set of tables for the prediction of food values on a continent with seasons. How does one send attachments on these forums? Or else, anyone know where I could put a .xls for easy sharing with everyone? You could then all put in your own numbers or inspect my formulas to see if everything adds up.
Additional data: with 125% food supply in summer, it takes about 5 years (assuming starting warehouse value of 0) for rot to equal the food surplus. Otherwise, it just takes a warehouse starting value of 72,000 on the first day of summer.
Fun thing about equations, they assume perfect selling and buying of food to provide for all regions. Unfortunately we're human...
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 04, 2013, 05:26:12 PM
Fun thing about equations, they assume perfect selling and buying of food to provide for all regions. Unfortunately we're human...
Indeed.
But wouldn't you agree there's a problem when, even under an impossible perfect scenario, there's an average of less than 250 bushels of food left in every region's warehouses at the end of spring?
And that's without counting the continental population that grows at a rate of about 3,370.52 peasants per day, which results in an increase of 24066 additional bushels consumed per year not considered by my previous numbers, which had also underestimated population by 100,000.
I've just noticed that when trying to compensate for population growth, I inserted an error in my formulas that overestimated food production... some of my last batch of numbers may be overestimates.
Is there any historical data kept for the number of bushels kept in the granaries? I'd really like to see its evolution since the last manual changes to compare it to my model.
Also, I'm not sure where the numbers I was provided come from... the stats page suggest considerably lower food outputs than what you guys have been saying.
As far as I know, the only historical data is what's recorded on the stats pages.
Quote from: Indirik on March 05, 2013, 02:39:10 PM
As far as I know, the only historical data is what's recorded on the stats pages.
Any way to get that in csv or xls format?
Also, am I right to assume that the food production statistics do not consider seasons in those display values? Only weather? And that the values displayed are on a 7-day value, instead of on a daily value? I don't suppose all of the food production and consumption stats could be displayed on a daily basis, could they? It'd allow easier analysis...
I think Tom is the only one that could answer those.
Oh gosh...
I'd like to know if anyone knows a good way to share an .xls file.
After reviewing my stuff, I've found out that a in a couple of places, food production was being considerably overestimated, because I accidentally had it scale with population. Now sure, it'll increase some... but I'd be surprised if it grew at the same scale... Cities were the most affected by starvation, not the rurals, and as such they have the most to build up. And while, sure, Barca gained a few rurals no one had owned before, Falkirk's also losing a bunch of them, which ought to compensate.
And I'd really enjoy some confirmation on what's an average daily food production value for summer. Is 5500 about right?
Quote from: Chénier on March 05, 2013, 05:29:33 PM
I'd like to know if anyone knows a good way to share an .xls file.
Can't you zip it and post it on the forum?
Quote from: vonGenf on March 05, 2013, 05:32:03 PM
Can't you zip it and post it on the forum?
How does one post things on the forums? I see "attachments and other options" below my post, but no option to actually add one. I suspect one needs special privileges to do so.
Dropbox or Google Drive.
Quote from: Chénier on March 05, 2013, 05:46:52 PM
How does one post things on the forums? I see "attachments and other options" below my post, but no option to actually add one. I suspect one needs special privileges to do so.
Click on "attachments and other options", additional options will unfold. Click the "Choose file" button to, well, choose your file. You don't need any special privileges to do so.
Quote from: Chénier on March 05, 2013, 05:29:33 PM
Oh gosh...
I'd like to know if anyone knows a good way to share an .xls file.
Upload it to Google Docs/Google Drive.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 05, 2013, 05:52:00 PM
Click on "attachments and other options", additional options will unfold. Click the "Choose file" button to, well, choose your file. You don't need any special privileges to do so.
Well, I don't know what I'm doing wrong, then, because I never get that option. Under "Attachments and other options" for me is only "notify me of replies," "don't use smileys," and "return to this topic."
This is the case on Firefox, Chrome, and Safari on the Mac.
Quote from: Anaris on March 05, 2013, 05:57:20 PM
Well, I don't know what I'm doing wrong, then, because I never get that option. Under "Attachments and other options" for me is only "notify me of replies," "don't use smileys," and "return to this topic."
This is the case on Firefox, Chrome, and Safari on the Mac.
It works for me on Chromium on Mint.
If food production doesn't rise, it'd take 200 days for Dwilight to completely run out of food, under perfect conditions.
Google Drive Share Link for Dwilight Food Predictions (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4Ja4LBEKg-8aU9GRFVlQ0w3U2c/edit?usp=sharing)
If you see any errors, or have questions about any of the equations or numbers, feel free to speak up.
My goal, by doing this, was not to manipulate. It was to provide the best tool I could possibly build to help get a better estimate of Dwilight's food situation, as the numbers that are always given always seem exaggerated and do not consider fundamentally significant data like rot.
Here's a question: Why does Dwilight NEED to produce an overall surplus? Why do all regions have to be fully fed in order for the island to be successful?
A key idea from Tom's Might and Fealty game is that if you want some places to grow, that means other places won't grow as much. Thus, production truly does become an exchange in resources.
Why not implement part of this idea in Battlemaster, or perhaps just Dwilight/testing?
To do this though, you'd need to make an important change to make it viable and not just anti-fun. Namely: Allow region lords the ability to choose an artificial cap on population for their region. This will be the maximum population which the lord chooses to feed at any one time. (This cap would have to be lower than or equal to the actual population cap of the region.)
What this would do is prevent the growth/starvation cycles which have been seen many times on Dwilight. Instead of growing to 20k pop in your city, then starving back to 12k pop, you can simply set a cap at 15k population. When this cap is hit, extra population that is born is forced to either emigrate away from the city, or population growth simply stops. In this way you get to grow your population to a certain point, and then not have to worry about feeding an increasingly larger population that you don't have the production to support. This cuts out all the negative effects of starvation caused by this cycle. Now, if you can't feed whatever population you have, you'll still have them starve, but now you'd have much more control.
There is no need for rationing under this plan, and this sort of implementation has far less opportunities for abuse than a rationing plan.
An island must have an overall surplus or it is impossible to feed the island. It would require the complete abandonment of perhaps a dozen regions, which defeats the purpose of creating those regions in the first place.
Food in BattleMaster is, frankly, not designed to be a zero-sum game, and I think trying to make it one is the worst suggestion I've seen for the system.
The thing that makes me uncomfortable with being able to modify population growth (despite hating growth/massive starvation cycles) is the fact that there's an optimal pop count for each region, because 100% production does not require 100% population, and as such all of the pop above that threshold just eat food and produce nothing. It'd just feel like we'd be gaming this, because, except for maybe religious purposes (and even then), I don't see people wanting max pop, but rather just max production.
Artificially setting a population cap for a region is way too gamey. Tom has rejected such suggestions in the past.
QuoteAn island must have an overall surplus or it is impossible to feed the island. It would require the complete abandonment of perhaps a dozen regions, which defeats the purpose of creating those regions in the first place.
Food in BattleMaster is, frankly, not designed to be a zero-sum game, and I think trying to make it one is the worst suggestion I've seen for the system.
I'm fairly new to the game, but it would seem to me that it makes the game more interesting (and realistic) if food is a "zero sum game". The scarcity of resources means that no realm can afford to be complacent, it gives them a motivation to go to war and engage in diplomacy. It's the same in real life. Scarce natural resources, e.g. oil, water, diamonds, etc. are among the root causes of many conflicts. If the developers' intent is for every realm to be fed, then why have it as a variable?
That would make the game suck for everyone on the minus side of the equation. Realms are completely unsupportable with less than the required amount of food. They will death-spiral into revolt and anarchy. If it was possible to run a realm with less than 100% supply, then it would be a different story.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 27, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
I'm fairly new to the game, but it would seem to me that it makes the game more interesting (and realistic) if food is a "zero sum game". The scarcity of resources means that no realm can afford to be complacent, it gives them a motivation to go to war and engage in diplomacy. It's the same in real life. Scarce natural resources, e.g. oil, water, diamonds, etc. are among the root causes of many conflicts. If the developers' intent is for every realm to be fed, then why have it as a variable?
We've been studying the way food works in the game for some time now, and we can say with confidence that this simply does not work.
Because of how quickly regions deteriorate without food, there is really no way for a realm that lacks food to go out and get it.
If food were actually scarce, why would you do anything but horde whatever thin margin you get? Trade it for gold so you can go out and kill whoever you sold food to?
Quote from: Kai on May 29, 2013, 07:28:00 AM
If food were actually scarce, why would you do anything but horde whatever thin margin you get? Trade it for gold so you can go out and kill whoever you sold food to?
You've described the situation on Dwilight for the past 3 years.
And then when there's a war both sides just end up starving to death.
Quote from: Kai on May 29, 2013, 07:28:00 AM
If food were actually scarce, why would you do anything but horde whatever thin margin you get? Trade it for gold so you can go out and kill whoever you sold food to?
You would try to horde it while others would try to take it from you.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 31, 2013, 02:21:48 PM
You would try to horde it while others would try to take it from you.
No, you would try to hoard it, while any others who were low enough to need to take it from you would simply starve to death because war while starving is pretty darn near impossible.
Quote from: Anaris on May 31, 2013, 02:28:08 PM
.. war while starving is pretty darn near impossible.
Doing *anything* while starving, other than dying, is impossible. It's just the way the mechanics of starvation work. Once it starts, you only have a few days to get food to the region before everything goes to hell.
Quote from: Indirik on May 31, 2013, 02:59:35 PM
Doing *anything* while starving, other than dying, is impossible. It's just the way the mechanics of starvation work. Once it starts, you only have a few days to get food to the region before everything goes to hell.
And even then you spend a week hanging on the brink while it gets distributed.
Or you could cut unsustainable regions loose, in order to preserve the rest.
That is what I would do if this were a single player strategy game.
Quote from: Kwanstein on June 01, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Or you could cut unsustainable regions loose, in order to preserve the rest.
That is what I would do if this were a single player strategy game.
Except that the "unsustainable" regions tend to be the ones that actually produce the
gold you need to fight wars...
Bread doesn't buy weapons.
Quote from: Kwanstein on June 01, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
That is what I would do if this were a single player strategy game.
Single player strategies rarely, if ever, transfer over to multi-player games. It is extremely rare to find a live opponent as stupid as a game AI.
Quote from: Indirik on June 01, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Single player strategies rarely, if ever, transfer over to multi-player games. It is extremely rare to find a live opponent as stupid as a game AI.
You're right. Most of the time by making multiple people work together online, you make them dumber than a game AI.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on June 04, 2013, 10:18:33 PM
You're right. Most of the time by making multiple people work together online, you make them dumber than a game AI.
I really think people don't realize that the AI in games is purposely dumbed down... otherwise you'd have AI that aim-botted and reacted instantly.
Gustav, it obviously varies by genre. Targeting a point in 3d space is mathematically simple, so AI can beat humans in FPSs. In strategy games, tho, AI often struggle to behave rationally, or sometimes even vaguely understandably (Total War diplomacy, take a bow).
Quote from: Hroppa on June 05, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
Gustav, it obviously varies by genre. Targeting a point in 3d space is mathematically simple, so AI can beat humans in FPSs. In strategy games, tho, AI often struggle to behave rationally, or sometimes even vaguely understandably (Total War diplomacy, take a bow).
Oh, that I'll agree with you on (fellow Total War veteran here, so I know what you mean).
Quote from: Kwanstein on June 01, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Or you could cut unsustainable regions loose, in order to preserve the rest.
That is what I would do if this were a single player strategy game.
Or if you have surplus food, you can sustain another region.
Looking on the bright side, food or gold 8)
Quote from: Anaris on June 01, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
Except that the "unsustainable" regions tend to be the ones that actually produce the gold you need to fight wars...
Bread doesn't buy weapons.
Bread doesn't buy weapons aye ;D
But bread can starve the region into revolt. It does take sometime for the region to revolt after starving. I have been playing at a realm where we have war until the enemy border regions are driven rogue, some in part due to us constantly looting the region food for replenish our unit provision.
But if you have less men on battlefield, then bread doesn't buy weapons. Becos you will need gold and lot of it to recruit more men.
Quote from: Indirik on May 31, 2013, 02:59:35 PM
Doing *anything* while starving, other than dying, is impossible. It's just the way the mechanics of starvation work. Once it starts, you only have a few days to get food to the region before everything goes to hell.
So get food before starvation sets in. You don't wait until cupboards are bare before you go shopping. That reminds me...I need to go shopping.
I have one dislike for food though. Our unit Provision rise up very very very slow... Especially when you want TO a region, that particular region is always starving. And there is no mechanism to transfer food to that region while doing TO, which ensure that we need have enough Provisions for our unit to last as long as the ongoing TO period. Even when we are in food producer regions, the Provision still rise slowly. And Healers do not always do the trick to heal the starving ill soldiers among your men. I have experienced a few times where my unit has been cut down to last men after Provision run out, when TO is finally concluded. Dislike the dedicated to work attitude of me inside my character trait :P
Quote from: Ketchum on June 06, 2013, 04:56:26 AM
I have one dislike for food though. Our unit Provision rise up very very very slow... Especially when you want TO a region, that particular region is always starving. And there is no mechanism to transfer food to that region while doing TO, which ensure that we need have enough Provisions for our unit to last as long as the ongoing TO period. Even when we are in food producer regions, the Provision still rise slowly. And Healers do not always do the trick to heal the starving ill soldiers among your men. I have experienced a few times where my unit has been cut down to last men after Provision run out, when TO is finally concluded. Dislike the dedicated to work attitude of me inside my character trait :P
Just be glad we actually
have provisions. They are a relatively new innovation (maybe you already knew that, but I don't know how long you've been playing). Before they were implemented, your men just starved instantly when they entered a starving region. At the extreme (in a region where starvation had reached maximum effect) you could lose well over half of your unit the same day you moved in.
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 06, 2013, 04:22:44 AM
So get food before starvation sets in. You don't wait until cupboards are bare before you go shopping. That reminds me...I need to go shopping.
Spoken like a strong independent member of the first world who don't need no harvests and caravans.
Quote from: Geronus on June 06, 2013, 06:50:45 PM
Just be glad we actually have provisions. They are a relatively new innovation (maybe you already knew that, but I don't know how long you've been playing). Before they were implemented, your men just starved instantly when they entered a starving region. At the extreme (in a region where starvation had reached maximum effect) you could lose well over half of your unit the same day you moved in.
I been playing since 2009. Glad to know you here to help answer on my post.
I am glad to have provision but it need some tweaking. At the rate of provision increase when we at food producer region, we might as well stay at our lands until we reach 100% food provision before we go march for battle again. If there is tweaking to provisions, I will be glad to have it. Ideally provision should be adjust so that we either can buy provision for our unit or, we can replenish our provision at fast rate when we inside food producer region.
Apology if my choices of word are not so clear. I am Asian by the way :)
Quote from: Ketchum on June 07, 2013, 02:24:56 AM
I am glad to have provision but it need some tweaking. At the rate of provision increase when we at food producer region, we might as well stay at our lands until we reach 100% food provision before we go march for battle again. If there is tweaking to provisions, I will be glad to have it. Ideally provision should be adjust so that we either can buy provision for our unit or, we can replenish our provision at fast rate when we inside food producer region.
On testing, you can buy provisions.
In general, though, we are considering some tweaks to provisions. I can't promise anything right now, but we are considering it.
Is it still possible to cart around caravans full of food if you're main class Warrior, no subclass (ie, not a Trader?) I think it used to be possible to do this... But that was well before provisions and starvation even existed.
No, it's not anymore.
Quote from: Wolfsong on June 07, 2013, 07:28:09 AM
Is it still possible to cart around caravans full of food if you're main class Warrior, no subclass (ie, not a Trader?) I think it used to be possible to do this... But that was well before provisions and starvation even existed.
Well, before provisions (but not starvation), one could bring a caravan full of food, and troops would eat from that when the region had none.
It'd be cool if you had something similar to that (caravans full of extra food) that existed army-wide. For example, say you've got an army invading a starving region. Get a few of the troopleaders to drag along caravans of food, sit in the region as normal, provisions begin to run out. Except when they do, they'll automatically replenish from friendly food-carrying caravans in the region. Baggage trains, ftw. Caravans would slow people down considerably, but give some tactical advantage.
I think that starvation is a bigger problem in the Colonies, there's no option to travel through the starving region at night...
Quote from: Kai on June 07, 2013, 12:07:26 AM
Spoken like a strong independent member of the first world who don't need no harvests and caravans.
I disagree. I don't think planning ahead is strictly a "first world" consideration. Actually it's more important in an agrarian society, not less, for precisely the reason you're suggesting. Sure if you wait until the food runs out before doing anything about it then it's probably too late. But whether you get it from Safeway, a medieval farmer's market, or you grow it yourself, the trick is to stock enough to last until the next harvest or shopping trip or raid.
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 07, 2013, 09:18:44 PM
I disagree. I don't think planning ahead is strictly a "first world" consideration. Actually it's more important in an agrarian society, not less, for precisely the reason you're suggesting. Sure if you wait until the food runs out before doing anything about it then it's probably too late. But whether you get it from Safeway, a medieval farmer's market, or you grow it yourself, the trick is to stock enough to last until the next harvest or shopping trip or raid.
The problem in BattleMaster is that if you're not already a realm that runs a deficit every winter, you're not going to be able to anticipate the famine times—because they will come either as a result of enemy action, or random drought.
Quote from: Anaris on June 07, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
The problem in BattleMaster is that if you're not already a realm that runs a deficit every winter, you're not going to be able to anticipate the famine times—because they will come either as a result of enemy action, or random drought.
Isn't that also true in the real world?
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 07, 2013, 10:05:09 PM
Isn't that also true in the real world?
Depends on the time period...
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 07, 2013, 09:18:44 PM
I disagree. I don't think planning ahead is strictly a "first world" consideration. Actually it's more important in an agrarian society, not less, for precisely the reason you're suggesting. Sure if you wait until the food runs out before doing anything about it then it's probably too late. But whether you get it from Safeway, a medieval farmer's market, or you grow it yourself, the trick is to stock enough to last until the next harvest or shopping trip or raid.
You missed the point it's not about planning or stocking. The characteristic time of starvation is days, while the characteristic time of harvest is weeks. While this is the case, food inertia will always be slow relative to starvation. Confer first world, where characteristic time of food supply is minutes. In the former case the food market will be very inelastic and hoardish because fluctuations in demand must be responded to by an approximately static supply.
Region-wide starvation is also a game mechanic more than a historical representation. Even armies that looted and pillaged would typically be taking for themselves rather than rendering a region uninhabitable, so there was no notion of 'we need to take Harfleur, let's be sure we bring buckets of grain for after the conquest.'
There was certainly a lot of scorched earth as well, but even then it was usually on the scale of villages rather than hundreds of square miles. You'd burn fields because you wanted to lay siege to the nearby castle and make sure that there was no food around to be smuggled in. You wouldn't do as we do in BM and, say, pillage all of Normandy to reduce it to some non-functioning wasteland.
Quote from: Scarlett on June 08, 2013, 04:10:25 PM
Region-wide starvation is also a game mechanic more than a historical representation. Even armies that looted and pillaged would typically be taking for themselves rather than rendering a region uninhabitable, so there was no notion of 'we need to take Harfleur, let's be sure we bring buckets of grain for after the conquest.'
There was certainly a lot of scorched earth as well, but even then it was usually on the scale of villages rather than hundreds of square miles. You'd burn fields because you wanted to lay siege to the nearby castle and make sure that there was no food around to be smuggled in. You wouldn't do as we do in BM and, say, pillage all of Normandy to reduce it to some non-functioning wasteland.
Greeks disagree.
QuoteThe defense in depth that Heraclius set up on the Taurus Mountains led to the evolution of the "Shadowing War". The Byzantine frontier forces would fight a low intensity guerilla campaign while following the Arab armies across Anatolia and the local forces would burn crops and remove populations to make the land hostile to the invader. Once the Arab columns could no longer sustain themselves in the field, the Byzantine army would attack and harass them until they retreated back over the mountains.
Not all of Anatolia was reduced to wasteland, but not all of Anatolia would be represented by a single region.
Also, I remember reading that many Mediterranean islands, aka regions, were totally depopulated due to piracy, aka looting.
Perhaps the ratio of non-functional wastelands in BM is higher than it should be, or perhaps it isn't, but whatever the case this type of thing was not unheard of irl.
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2013, 01:46:37 PM
You missed the point it's not about planning or stocking. The characteristic time of starvation is days, while the characteristic time of harvest is weeks. While this is the case, food inertia will always be slow relative to starvation. Confer first world, where characteristic time of food supply is minutes. In the former case the food market will be very inelastic and hoardish because fluctuations in demand must be responded to by an approximately static supply.
There are no mysteries in this equation. You know how much food the population consumes and you know how much the region produces each day and you know how much food is in the granary. If you know that it takes a week to acquire or harvest food and distribute it to the population, then make sure you always have a weeks worth of food in the granary. You also know that droughts and invasions are a fact of life, so plan accordingly.
QuoteSpoken like a strong independent member of the first world who don't need no harvests and caravans.
As a strong independent member of the first world, I can assure you that we still rely on harvests and caravans, except caravans have been replaced with trucks and trains. The reason food in the modern world is usually only minutes away, is because there is a well-managed supply chain. Yes I can walk outside and get bananas from Ecuador, grapes from Chile, and chocolate from Belgium because the manager of my local supermarket ordered those items a few days ago from a warehouse that ordered them a week ago from suppliers that purchased them a month ago from various farmers and chocolatiers. In BattleMaster, the granary is the supermarket and the regional lord is the manager and his job is to make sure the shelves/granaries are properly stocked. If he fails to plan ahead, the food runs out and he loses his job.
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 08, 2013, 09:23:34 PM
There are no mysteries in this equation.
Yes, there are. And I have already stated them, though you seem to have ignored me.
The mysteries are when droughts will occur, and when your enemies will come and devastate your regions.
If your rural regions are looted to starvation in the autumn, then your cities
will starve, unless you have been routinely building up massive surpluses. Which is generally not easy to do.
QuoteIf you know that it takes a week to acquire or harvest food and distribute it to the population, then make sure you always have a weeks worth of food in the granary. You also know that droughts and invasions are a fact of life, so plan accordingly.
While your thoughts are admirable and well-intentioned, what you suggest normally isn't possible. "Make sure you have food" is all well and good, but when your realm doesn't produce enough, and no one will sell, you can't very well "make sure you have enough". You simply cannot buy what isn't for sale. Similar situation with drought. If you don't produce enough to stockpile, then you can't create stockpiles to get you through the tough times.
Quote from: Anaris on June 08, 2013, 09:26:36 PM
Yes, there are. And I have already stated them, though you seem to have ignored me.
The mysteries are when droughts will occur, and when your enemies will come and devastate your regions.
I haven't ignored you, I was responding to a comment from somebody else. In any case, you may not know
when droughts and invasions will occur, but you know they
may occur.
QuoteWhile your thoughts are admirable and well-intentioned, what you suggest normally isn't possible. "Make sure you have food" is all well and good, but when your realm doesn't produce enough, and no one will sell, you can't very well "make sure you have enough". You simply cannot buy what isn't for sale. Similar situation with drought. If you don't produce enough to stockpile, then you can't create stockpiles to get you through the tough times.
Those are the challenges of the game.
QuotePerhaps the ratio of non-functional wastelands in BM is higher than it should be, or perhaps it isn't, but whatever the case this type of thing was not unheard of irl.
Of course it wasn't, but it wasn't typical for medieval, land-based warfare either. Being anywhere near the Barbary pirates was a different picture.
You do seem to have a lot of trouble with nuanced distinctions when things land somewhere between 'all the time' and 'never happened.' The fact is that pillaging a region until it goes rogue has become a staple of BM war while it was not a staple of medieval war.
You could get a lot closer to being accurate (if that's what you were after) by having region damage top out at 50-60% and making it much more difficult to drive a region rogue. Though if it were up to me I'd have a sort of 'economy and warfare 2.0' rolled up in one where you added siege warfare (making local granaries far more important) but also reduced the ability to eliminate the food supply for a whole realm.
Quote from: Scarlett on June 08, 2013, 09:59:17 PM
You could get a lot closer to being accurate (if that's what you were after) by having region damage top out at 50-60% and making it much more difficult to drive a region rogue. Though if it were up to me I'd have a sort of 'economy and warfare 2.0' rolled up in one where you added siege warfare (making local granaries far more important) but also reduced the ability to eliminate the food supply for a whole realm.
Well...we're actually planning some changes quite similar to those in the not-too-distant future (though the siege changes are a bit more distant).
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 08, 2013, 09:23:34 PM
If you know that it takes a week to acquire or harvest food and distribute it to the population, then make sure you always have a weeks worth of food in the granary. You also know that droughts and invasions are a fact of life, so plan accordingly.
As a strong independent member of the first world, I can assure you that we still rely on harvests and caravans, except caravans have been replaced with trucks and trains. The reason food in the modern world is usually only minutes away, is because there is a well-managed supply chain. Yes I can walk outside and get bananas from Ecuador, grapes from Chile, and chocolate from Belgium because the manager of my local supermarket ordered those items a few days ago from a warehouse that ordered them a week ago from suppliers that purchased them a month ago from various farmers and chocolatiers. In BattleMaster, the granary is the supermarket and the regional lord is the manager and his job is to make sure the shelves/granaries are properly stocked. If he fails to plan ahead, the food runs out and he loses his job.
Yes you are correct that the way to play is to hoard as much as possible and hope your realm runs a surplus. Now you can move on to the idea that the result of this is that everyone hates food, it is boring and offers few ways to succeed and many harsh penalties for failure.
You should also note in the first world that the interesting trade and supply chain mechanics you detail
only function when there is a vast surplus of food already.
Quote from: Scarlett on June 08, 2013, 04:10:25 PM
Region-wide starvation is also a game mechanic more than a historical representation. Even armies that looted and pillaged would typically be taking for themselves rather than rendering a region uninhabitable, so there was no notion of 'we need to take Harfleur, let's be sure we bring buckets of grain for after the conquest.'
There was certainly a lot of scorched earth as well, but even then it was usually on the scale of villages rather than hundreds of square miles. You'd burn fields because you wanted to lay siege to the nearby castle and make sure that there was no food around to be smuggled in. You wouldn't do as we do in BM and, say, pillage all of Normandy to reduce it to some non-functioning wasteland.
I'm not sure this is accurate, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_north
Yes, it happened. It was not ordinary, and only under extenuating circumstances became the go-to strategy for typical medieval warfare. This may not seem like the huge distinction some of you are looking for, but it is a distinction.
William the Conquerer is one of the few examples of a noble from culture A sailing over and completely conquering a large piece of land from culture B whereupon he and his vassals and descendants held it for more than a little while. One of the characteristics of this conflict that distinguished it from a lot of medieval warfare is that he was totally uninterested in ruling the people who lived in the Saxon-held North -- some of them, anyway, since he did end up assimilating a significant number despite the harrying.
The other big example of this kind of thing was in the Hundred Years' War, when it was called Chevauchée (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e"). Two key features:
- Both the French and the English shifted to it because of the Black Death: neither side had the manpower for protracted siege warfare any longer. The English also didn't have the best leadership after Edward III until Henry V came around.
- Although a lot of damage was done, it also just didn't really work. It caused a lot of misery but it didn't result in lots of land changing hands, because it diverges from BM in that pillaged regions wouldn't 'go rogue' - if you couldn't occupy and hold an area, it might produce a crap harvest for a year, but it still belonged to whomever it had belonged to before after that.
The period between the death of Edward III and Henry V was the high point for this kind of thing and the low point for actual progress in the war (on either side). Henry V turned things around and stopped doing it as much (the famous 'when thou art King, do not hang a thief' bit) and his were the last great gains made by the English during the war.
This may seem like an academic distinction and it certainly isn't a complaint. The way BM is right now, the system more or less makes sense. It sounds like the devs are already working on some good long-term solutions. The only other suggestion I'd make is to further reduce the influence of peasants on who holds regions: peasants kicking out lords is still way too common in BM, or at the very least, it happens for the wrong reasons. But that leads to a larger discussion: medieval warfare did not feature 'takeovers' at all, but sieges and occupying castles. If you held the castle, you held the region. The business of 'convincing the populace' or replacing the bureaucrats is a BM invention, at least until you start getting into the Renaissance and more urban warfare with cannon - at which point 'conquering a city' did require that you consider the burghers and bureaucrats more because the burghers and bureaucrats controlled a lot more of the purse strings.
Quote from: vonGenf on June 09, 2013, 10:34:18 AM
I'm not sure this is accurate, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_north
Which tool several campaigns whereas a large army in BM that outnumbers the enemy so they can't stop them can take out several regions in under a week.
Hey I just saw this so ill drop my two cent o wait I have a nickle score.
All I see is whining... complain complain complain food has been here and should stay. If your realm can't produce more get off your butt and go grab some surplus regions from your neighbors. Food is a good reason to go to war better than some king saying only I can wear red capes you have to wear blue ones. If your realm can get people to trade food with you, your doing it wrong.... If your population is starving look at why it failing first.
Regions lords are responsible make them accountable for not trading.
Food is so powerful! You literally can starve not just your enemy regions into submission, but your own if need have for it. If said Duke/margrave was well getting on my nerves and I was a surplus region and he was trying to buy food for 10 gold per 100 bushel, i'd tell others to refuse to sell him food until he raised it to 30-40 else the pompous Duke would act quickly to please us of the surplus or have to start looking outside the realm.
Surplus regions for the win! never worry about food and sell it to make ends meet and to buy nice trinkets for yourself!
Banker's are so gonna love being able to move food. With great power comes great responsibility or great power comes with new
Quote from: Blue Star on May 07, 1974, 03:21:10 AM
*snip*
Yeah, by chance, what realms are you a part of?
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on June 15, 2013, 08:24:58 AM
Yeah, by chance, what realms are you a part of?
From his posts, CE and Fontan.
I think if the food price cap is lifted it will solve the biggest problem of food shortages; people not bothering to trade. As a rural lord, literally the only times my characters have had to sell at prices below the maximum is because of fealty/friendship reasons.
Egamma you following my post? Fontan has long been dead (actual Fontan, not the limp leg one that was still around when I came back).
Games not perfect and I like it better. Tom if you add in wood stone or w/e mm make it hard to sell. Game needs another interesting way to play than always going to war with one another.
Quote from: Blue Star on June 15, 2013, 06:38:53 PM
Egamma you following my post? Fontan has long been dead (actual Fontan, not the limp leg one that was still around when I came back).
Games not perfect and I like it better. Tom if you add in wood stone or w/e mm make it hard to sell. Game needs another interesting way to play than always going to war with one another.
The most recent dev discussion on additional resources (not particularly recent) had Tom advocating an implementation where regions produced resources solely for those regions, and maybe a few surrounding them. That would mean that they could not actually be traded--if you wanted that resource, you would necessarily have to own the region.
Tim that sounds interesting, mm but if I can't hold someone in suspense I can't sow the seeds of chaos as well mm so begins the plotting.
I personally disliked the old food system I had to leave back in 08, this new system implemented gives that other aspect that had me coming back.
I'd just like to chip in that I like the food system. I'm not saying that it can't be tweaked and improved, but my guy is a lord in a surplus producing rural region and I like the leverage that it affords us. Also, it rewards good management and punishes bad management. What I don't understand is when regions are starving and their lords either post no buy orders, or they place 20-gold limit orders and ignore existing sell orders. If your region is starving, shouldn't you be willing to pay more? Perhaps they feel that their fellow realm mates should sell to them at a discount, but the fact is that rural regions generate less tax revenue than cities and towns. If you're not willing to dig deep into your revenues to feed your region, then why should a lord whose tax revenues are less and therefore needs to actually do some work to generate revenue, cut into his/her revenues to feed your region?
Also, a general question: When it says that 'x bushels needed to be burnt because they were found to be rotten,' does that mean you have too much food? Or what do you need to do to not burn food?
Quote from: Buffalkill on June 16, 2013, 06:48:13 AM
Also, a general question: When it says that 'x bushels needed to be burnt because they were found to be rotten,' does that mean you have too much food? Or what do you need to do to not burn food?
Ensure that all your food is stored in granaries; that helps a lot. Other than that, yeah, you have surplus food. Burning 1-5 bushels a day isn't a big deal; if you're burning 20+, then you probably need to sell that food.
All food rots. Food in a warehouse just rots slower. You cannot stop it. (Except by having a miniscule amount (<50 or so?) on hand.)