GDP Per Capita

[^ban^]

Hello, I've made your table not suck. Feel free to use this in the original post.

Realm	GDP per Capita	The 0.01%	The 99.99%
Lurida Nova	248	8,688	163
Asylon	270	9,451	177
Libero	272	9,527	179
Madina	280	9,787	184
Astrum	282	9,874	185
Morek	296	10,371	195
Pian en Luries	300	10,485	197
Summerdale	307	10,737	201
D’Hara	352	12,310	231
Corsanctum	354	12,382	232
Aurvandil	393	13,742	258
Barca	397	13,879	260
Fissoa	397	13,904	261
Iashalur	403	14,104	265
Terran	426	14,921	280

[Gustav Kuriga]

Much easier to read. Thanks.

[Heq]

Vellos,  we'll probably just disagree on this one flat out, I tend to believe that the urbanization pre-900 was for military rather then capital creation reasons.  After all, one of the major things the Solow model types would have considered capital would have been the animals and whatnot.  This all changes once we get stable shipping again, but BM doesn't seem to have real trade routes except for when nobles hoof it, so we're talking about Autarkies here.

Not that european economic models are really my area, so you're probably right and I'm just being hard-headed *l*.

[Tom]

I haven't run the numbers recently, but I seem to recall, a while back, doing a comparison and finding that BM was significantly more urbanized than Medieval Europe ever was in terms of population; but I guess our data on food and gold doesn't reflect that urbanization as much.

Yes. I have a re-distribution planned for, I don't know, two years now? It just takes a lot of fiddling with numbers.

[Vellos]

I tend to believe that the urbanization pre-900 was for military rather then capital creation reasons

Military being a subsection of "legal," which is exactly why I said Medieval urbanization happened, I will just assume you disagreed with me for the !@#$s and giggles.

But in all seriousness, capital pooling is very important for urbanization but, as you noted, medieval capital is not necessarily as urban as modern capital is. And labor pooling is the real reason for industrial cities, and labor pooling on a large scale is foolish in most pre-Modern contexts (though not in all: slave cities come to mind).

Medieval cities would be a function of arable land in an area compared to confluences of travel and trade routes in relation to political/legal boundaries that make urbanized social norms possible.

"Villagization" and "castle towns" are very much a "military" phenomenon; Townslands in BM context. But cities are not simply people clustering for protection.

Hello, I've made your table not suck. Feel free to use this in the original post.

Why thank you. Will do.

[Vellos]

Also...

I've made an updated chart that breaks it down into 3 classes: the BM-class Aristocracy, the NPC Aristocracy, and the Peasantry. The wealth of the BM-class aristocracy is predicated upon the "income per player" statistic and the number of nobles; it doesn't change the relative GDP per capita rankings, but it has some significant changes on the income of peasantry and aristocrats; namely, Astrum is richer overall than Madina, but Madina's peasants are richer than Astrum's. Fissoa's NPC aristocrats are slightly wealthier than Iashalur's, and, overall, a bit of the disparity between incomes of peasants went away.

I don't really know how to work tables on forums, sooo..... yeah.

[Indirik]

So, this is based on the "Gold", "Food", and "Population" ratings the game gives for the regions on the region stats page? Did you use the 100% pop values, or the current pop values? I'm trying to figure out how you came up with all of this. And how you can say that tax rates are unimportant, but investments are important. How can you separate out tax rates, yet still account for investments? I'm really trying to figure how what you've arrived at can be used. Or whether it reveals anything at all, other than the hard-coded relation between the regional population/gold/food ratios over which the players have no control. At first glance, it appears that all you've gotten is some general trend where realms that happen to own high pop cities (or a high ratio of cities-to-rurals) are at the bottom, and realms without high-pop cities are at the top. Which simply reveals that high pop cities are very inefficient.

[Chenier]

So, this is based on the "Gold", "Food", and "Population" ratings the game gives for the regions on the region stats page? Did you use the 100% pop values, or the current pop values? I'm trying to figure out how you came up with all of this. And how you can say that tax rates are unimportant, but investments are important. How can you separate out tax rates, yet still account for investments? I'm really trying to figure how what you've arrived at can be used. Or whether it reveals anything at all, other than the hard-coded relation between the regional population/gold/food ratios over which the players have no control. At first glance, it appears that all you've gotten is some general trend where realms that happen to own high pop cities (or a high ratio of cities-to-rurals) are at the bottom, and realms without high-pop cities are at the top. Which simply reveals that high pop cities are very inefficient.

To me, it doesn't mean anything at all, because these numbers aren't the result of nature but the result of what someone thought was about right and balanced as he put it in the database.

[Indirik]

That's kind of what I figured, Chenier. But there does seem to be a pattern. Even if all it does is indicate the general composition of the realm, it does mean *something*. The question is if it's a useful something, or not. For example, if it somehow indicated better region management, or higher general tax ratings or something. I suspect that's not the case, though.

[Chenier]

That's kind of what I figured, Chenier. But there does seem to be a pattern. Even if all it does is indicate the general composition of the realm, it does mean *something*. The question is if it's a useful something, or not. For example, if it somehow indicated better region management, or higher general tax ratings or something. I suspect that's not the case, though.

I suspect that it's simply that the gold output per region was arbitrarily put along a more or less logarithmic scale: the more peasants in a region, the less gold per peasant. Because if that wasn't the case, you'd either have rurals that produce nothing but a few coins or cities which produce more than 30 rurals combined. That kinda makes for poor gameplay, as once realms would be self-sufficient in food they would no longer have any reason to desire to expand into more rurals.

[vonGenf]

(though not in all: slave cities come to mind)

Now you've piqued my interest. What are those? Wikipedia gives me a reference to He-Man as a first link which, though it invites fond reminiscences of youth, is not particularly useful.

Or did you simply mean slav cities?

[Vellos]

So, this is based on the "Gold", "Food", and "Population" ratings the game gives for the regions on the region stats page? Did you use the 100% pop values, or the current pop values? I'm trying to figure out how you came up with all of this. And how you can say that tax rates are unimportant, but investments are important. How can you separate out tax rates, yet still account for investments? I'm really trying to figure how what you've arrived at can be used. Or whether it reveals anything at all, other than the hard-coded relation between the regional population/gold/food ratios over which the players have no control. At first glance, it appears that all you've gotten is some general trend where realms that happen to own high pop cities (or a high ratio of cities-to-rurals) are at the bottom, and realms without high-pop cities are at the top. Which simply reveals that high pop cities are very inefficient.

I used "realm income" from the stats page. Realm income is calculated, as far as I can tell, from regional production values multiplied by the gold value, possibly then by some percentage, but that shouldn't matter assuming it's consistent.

Tax rates don't matter, because tax rates occur after productivity; they occur after the point of collection for my data. Which is good, because I wanted to find economic output, not distribution. In the long run, sustained taxes at very high levels (enough to cause unrest) or very low levels (too little to fund investments or effective defense and management) I suppose do matter, but that's pretty indirect.

Investments do matter, because investments affect production levels (productivity rising over 100% and whatnot), and thus final gold output.

In terms of the question "does this matter," I see that as equivalent to asking "does the Dwilight University matter." No. And most of the wiki doesn't "matter." It's superfluous player-generated information about a fictional world. Mine is trying to be something other than completely arbitrary (I did not do any balancing at all to overall income, other than to add some zeroes for convenience' sake; I did do some balancing for distribution), and to inform us about how the people in various realms might be living. If we assume a uniform price level (an idiotic assumption in terms of realism, but about right from game mechanics terms, though larger realms would have wage-inflation for soldiers-peasants due to game mechanics), then those numbers give us relative wealth of peasant and aristocrat populations compared to each other.

So that's its use. A bit more RP depth, based on something other than whim.

[De-Legro]

I used "realm income" from the stats page. Realm income is calculated, as far as I can tell, from regional production values multiplied by the gold value, possibly then by some percentage, but that shouldn't matter assuming it's consistent.

Tax rates don't matter, because tax rates occur after productivity; they occur after the point of collection for my data. Which is good, because I wanted to find economic output, not distribution. In the long run, sustained taxes at very high levels (enough to cause unrest) or very low levels (too little to fund investments or effective defense and management) I suppose do matter, but that's pretty indirect.

Investments do matter, because investments affect production levels (productivity rising over 100% and whatnot), and thus final gold output.

In terms of the question "does this matter," I see that as equivalent to asking "does the Dwilight University matter." No. And most of the wiki doesn't "matter." It's superfluous player-generated information about a fictional world. Mine is trying to be something other than completely arbitrary (I did not do any balancing at all to overall income, other than to add some zeroes for convenience' sake; I did do some balancing for distribution), and to inform us about how the people in various realms might be living. If we assume a uniform price level (an idiotic assumption in terms of realism, but about right from game mechanics terms, though larger realms would have wage-inflation for soldiers-peasants due to game mechanics), then those numbers give us relative wealth of peasant and aristocrat populations compared to each other.

So that's its use. A bit more RP depth, based on something other than whim.

Perhaps write a wiki economic treatise based on it