Feature Request: Royal chest and granary

[Naidraug]

Title: Royal chest and granary

Summary: Add an option for the ruler to set aside a % of gold from crown taxes on a royal chest. This chest would be similar to the army chest and can be accessed by the Banker to buy food to send to realm regions in need, give to lords to improve regions.

Details: An option on the realm taxes menu would be added to ask the ruler how much of the gold would go to the royal treasury.
On the Command menu for the Banker add options to buy food with gold from the treasure or send to a specific lord.

Benefits: This would add more depth to the Banker role of the realm, giving him more to do and more ways to help administrate the realm.

From the ruler point of view: A change in ruler would still mean that the realm has a good amount of gold for emergencies instead of just adding excess gold to a ruler's family.
                                             He could order the banker and finance improvements on the realm, increasing productivity, allow the banker to buy food from other realms and/or traders to send to regions during starvation on the realm.

The feature would also increase on the Medieval atmosphere where the king usually had granaries and royal treasures that could be used to help the realm in times of need.

Possible Exploits: A rich realm hoarding the excess gold for war times and the banker could remove the gold from treasure to send to his own family.
A way around this would be to allow only the gold from the treasury to be used to buy food directly to a region with a deficit on production and instead of sending the gold to nobles he would invest directly on the region with authorization from the ruler(same system used to sign treaties). And to add an limit of the gold that can be kept inside the treasure.

No personal contact would be made with the gold and it would remain there to be used by the realm.

I hope I was able to make this clear enough without complicating it.

[Charles]

I feel like this has been suggested before.  I like it, but am fairly certain there are reasons it has not happened.

[Tom]

rejected before.

we have been moving AWAY from totally centralized realms for many years now, not TOWARDS them.

[Naidraug]

I couldn't find anything related here or on the wiki that's is why i posted.

Is this open for discussion or is a big final no?

I don't see this as centralization tool, and the feature can be work to prevent that.

But if this is final I´m ok with it.

[Tom]

It's not final in the "over my dead body" sense, but you need to show a real gameplay advantage and I don't see one from what's been posted so far.

[Azerax]

wouldn't a centralized realm depend on the government type?  In a Monarchy, a royal granary would make sense, in a democracy, not so much.

[Penchant]

wouldn't a centralized realm depend on the government type?  In a Monarchy, a royal granary would make sense, in a democracy, not so much.

No, in general the game is moving away from centralizing the realm as it can make characters irrelevant if the banker or some other leader just does everything.

[Azerax]

No, in general the game is moving away from centralizing the realm as it can make characters irrelevant if the banker or some other leader just does everything.

So, instead, we make the banker or some other leader irrelevant?

[Foundation]

Pertty much.

They retain their communication and leadership roles, just execution is delegated.

[Azerax]

authority is delegated, so you end up with responsibility without authority.

[Foundation]

Yeah, because if you have responsibility and authority, why have anyone else at all?

If the general could just move the army's units rather than tell marshals to order the army to move, it's somewhat pointless, no?

[Penchant]

authority is delegated, so you end up with responsibility without authority.

Well here is the issue, people listen to the General despite having any power to punish you because he has authority over you because of a hierarchy. The devs say that the general has no buttons to enforce things so why isn't the banker able to do that/that's your characters fault not ours, but the general is put in a position stating he has authority because of hierarchy and thus people listen to him meanwhile the banker is not considered to actually have any authority, just a responsibility, so people listen to the banker if they feel like it.

[Naidraug]

Yes, but if you and option that allows the banker to invest in some regions to help productivity and has a way to purchase food from another realm, this would help on the fun factor for the banker, and give more sense to food agreements that realms still sign.

[Azerax]

Yeah, because if you have responsibility and authority, why have anyone else at all?

If the general could just move the army's units rather than tell marshals to order the army to move, it's somewhat pointless, no?

The General has the responsibility to govern the army and the authority to issue orders to be followed.  Having a button does not give authority, it's clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
The leaders roles and responsibilities are well defined, as is the General and Judge.  The banker, not so much because they have no authority over their area of responsibility.  Anyway, I know this is a lost argument, so back to the granary.

It was very common for rulers to tax food production and store it in case of famine or drought.  Egypt is a very good example of this, they would store years worth of grain to be prepared for a bad crop.

[Charles]

So would food be taxed like gold?  5% to 50%?  Knight to lord to duke to crown?
As a duke I would like this, as a lord I would not.  The only power lords have over dukes is food.  Although now with the dukes not necessarily being lords of cities it might not be as polarizing (in some realms).