elMerda
I could not have put it better. I like the way you think.
Economy I: AI Economy
- Thread starter (:) Dvd (:)
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I could not have put it better. I like the way you think.
Fascinating stuff Khalid, thanks for taking the time to write it up for us.
For some reason while reading that, I could stop thinking about Microsoft....
DE
For some reason while reading that, I could stop thinking about Microsoft....
DE
Deus Ex said:
Yes, salt was mined. Although I'm not sure salt is technically a "spice". Besides, we have salt as a separate good.
Deus Ex said:
No problem. I could add more details, but I think you get the idea. Guild systems are not a very interesting basis for a working economy (although I'm keeping them in my mod -- they make a great basis for court cases & street brawls and makes fairs "special").
DamnedChoir
Veteran
Fantastic Ideas! Reminds me a bit of an old game I used to play, Shareware, Escape Velocity. Actually, it was alot like this game, only in space. As in, factions, locations, trading for fortune, missions, and occasional random combat. I always loved things like that, freeform, especially if several 'story arcs' are built into the game later closer to the final version. The more chance to feel that you don't run out of things to do, or that you're important, the better. IMO, the trading system(s) suggested here would go a long way towards making the world seem more alive.
As in, factions, locations, trading for fortune, missions, and occasional random combat. I always loved things like that, freeform, especially if several 'story arcs' are built into the game later closer to the final version. The more chance to feel that you don't run out of things to do, or that you're important, the better. IMO, the trading system(s) suggested here would go a long way towards making the world seem more alive.
(:) Dvd (:)
Regular
Alright, gonna add this in a bit:
Economic Buildings produce 1 Units of their Merchandise every 4 hours.
6 (6 Units of 4 = 24 Hours = Day) x 1 = 6 (Units of Merchandise per Day)
Production Buildings take 8 Hours to build a single Unit of their Merchandise, if they have the resources.
3 (3 Units of 8 = 24 Hours = Day) x 1 (Unit of Merchandise per 8 Hours) = 3 (Units of Merchandise per Day)
So:
1 Farm produces 1 Crate of Wheat every 4 Hours.
1 Mill produces 1 Bag of Grain every 8 Hours IF the Mill has 2 Crates of Wheat in stock.
1 Distillary produces 1 Barrel of Ale every 8 Hours IF the Mill has 2 Bags of Grain in stock.
So, you need 24 Hours to get a finished product of Ale from Wheat. That is only if you have a single supply, however.
-Dvd
Economic Buildings produce 1 Units of their Merchandise every 4 hours.
6 (6 Units of 4 = 24 Hours = Day) x 1 = 6 (Units of Merchandise per Day)
Production Buildings take 8 Hours to build a single Unit of their Merchandise, if they have the resources.
3 (3 Units of 8 = 24 Hours = Day) x 1 (Unit of Merchandise per 8 Hours) = 3 (Units of Merchandise per Day)
So:
1 Farm produces 1 Crate of Wheat every 4 Hours.
1 Mill produces 1 Bag of Grain every 8 Hours IF the Mill has 2 Crates of Wheat in stock.
1 Distillary produces 1 Barrel of Ale every 8 Hours IF the Mill has 2 Bags of Grain in stock.
So, you need 24 Hours to get a finished product of Ale from Wheat. That is only if you have a single supply, however.
-Dvd
I would suggest a name change from distillery to brewery, unless you're producing spirits.
Also, many types of goods would be produced in most cities, like grain, cattle, hides etc. This should be reflected better than it already is, and there should also be fluctuations in the market - not necessarily based on the player's trade.
Also, many types of goods would be produced in most cities, like grain, cattle, hides etc. This should be reflected better than it already is, and there should also be fluctuations in the market - not necessarily based on the player's trade.
Well I was pretty sure that it was mined as well as evaporated. But one never knows when someone else might have better information - and I'm always willing to learn and be corrected - so I played it safe with the "I could be mistaken" caveatKhalid ibn Walid said:Yes, salt was mined. Although I'm not sure salt is technically a "spice". Besides, we have salt as a separate good.
DE
Ryuta
Sergeant
Khalid, that was very interesting readings.
I'd like to say, since in Calradia, The war between Swadis and Vaegir should make heavy impact on guild system. I mean, the guild system requires social stability in order to impose their power. But in war, most of rulers wouldn't want to be restricted by guilds' rules to equip their army. Also some free merchants, or craftsmen could use the turmoil to exercise out-guild business? Perhaps rulers could try to destroy the guild structure? Of course it can go opposite way.
And lastly, I think a Tanner makes leather from hide.
I'd like to say, since in Calradia, The war between Swadis and Vaegir should make heavy impact on guild system. I mean, the guild system requires social stability in order to impose their power. But in war, most of rulers wouldn't want to be restricted by guilds' rules to equip their army. Also some free merchants, or craftsmen could use the turmoil to exercise out-guild business? Perhaps rulers could try to destroy the guild structure? Of course it can go opposite way.
And lastly, I think a Tanner makes leather from hide.
(:) Dvd (:)
Regular
Ryuta said:
I realize that.
-Dvd
scaddenp
Squire
Hmm, guilds and rules varied somewhat in time and place through what you
would call "Medieval". No reason why a fictional place need conform to
France/English system.
However, do we really want Armagan diverted onto this kind of detail? What
difference would it make to game play??
would call "Medieval". No reason why a fictional place need conform to
France/English system.
However, do we really want Armagan diverted onto this kind of detail? What
difference would it make to game play??
(:) Dvd (:)
Regular
scaddenp said:
A lot. In fact, a ton. Instead of hacking & slashing around the map (currently the only thing to do in Vanilla besides running the trade lanes) you could pool your cash to make a trading empire. Of course, you would start with a single tower....
-Dvd
Nasrudin
Recruit
Khalid ibn Walid said:Ingolifs said:
Well, you asked for it....
There were three sorts of guilds in operation within a city: professional guilds (lawyers, doctors, bankers), merchant guilds (venturers, drapers, grocers) and crafts guilds (weavers, smiths, bakers). They all regulated their profession/trade/craft according to some strict rules. They determined whom could (and could not) engage in that activity, the quality standards they had to adhere to and often the prices that could be charged.
Within a guild, there were ladders of rank. First, the "apprentice" (usually a seven year stint as the near-slave of some master of your craft), then the "journeyman" (in theory a one-year stint, where you work for wages on jobs contracted by a master, although you could switch masters) then, finally, the "master" (when you finally become a full member of a guild and can ply your trade on your own account). Unfortunately, it often happened that masters kept a tight lid on who could ascend to their ranks, so journeymen were frequently shut out for years on end and forced to continue scraping a living as wage-laborers for someone else.
The most pernicious aspect of guild were that members agreed not to compete with each other. In other words, if you negotiate with carpenter Tom to build to build you a table, carpenter Harry cannot jump in and offer to do it for a lower price. No bidding wars were allowed, so prices tended to be artificially high.
Merchant guilds were particularly pernicious since they had a legal hold on the buying & selling of stuff. A blacksmith could not sell so much as a nail to a customer out of his blacksmithy. He had to sell it to a member of the ironmonger's guild and the ironmonger would sell it to the public. Again, non-competition rules were the rule: if ironmonger Tom was negotiating to buy a bag of nails from smith Joe, then ironmonger Harry could not leap in and offer a higher price for them.
Moreover, merchant guilds often held both ends of the stick: they sold the raw materials and bought the output from the craftsmen. e.g. If a blacksmith wanted to make horseshoes, he had to buy the iron bars from an ironmonger and sell the resulting horseshoes to an ironmonger. You can guess the result: the ironmonger sold the raw iron bars for a hefty price and paid little for the resulting horseshoes.
In short, craftsmen couldn't buy raw materials from the cheapest source nor sell their goods to the highest bidder.
It is for this reason that merchant and crafts guilds were often at odds with each other -- and often violently at odds, with frequent tumults in the streets.
The members of merchant guilds were usually richer & had higher social standing than the craftsmen. For some types of merchants, like long-distance merchants, wool-merchants, etc., they were wealthy & high-status enough to ally with and marry into the nobility (in some cases, e.g. in Italy, the members of the merchant guilds were very often nobles themselves). Thus the frequent stories of urban gangs formed by craftsmen battling it out on the city streets with bands of noble retainers hired by the merchants guilds.
That said, merchant guilds had obligations too. For instance, they were legally obliged to buy their goods from city craftsmen; they were not allowed to buy goods from "abroad", from other cities or even from workshops in the countryside. (the writ of guilds reached usually up to the city walls, in some cases three miles beyond that, but rarely more). Conversely, they were not allowed to sell "abroad" either. Goods must be sold "in town".
So, like craftsmen, merchants too faced the problem of not being able to buy from the cheapest source & sell to the highest bidder. (Of course, since the great merchant guildsmen were very often the "powers-that-be", it was easier for them to bend the rules and get away with it.)
So why sanction guilds? Well, their origin is deep in history. When a city got "incorporated" by royal charter, guilds were often legally recognized along with them. Indeed, the "definition" of a city requried it. To live in a chartered city as a free man, you must show proof of guild membership; otherwise you're assumed to be the runaway serf of some feudal lord and have no right to be there.
(Even in London today, an incorporated city, very few people have the "legal" right to be there; only those who have acquired the "freedom of the city" (membership in one of the London's guilds, what they call "livery companies") are legally sanctioned. All other Londoners are technically vagabonds & squatters and (up until very recently) had no role or voice in city government.
Secondly, everyone in the Middle Ages was on the verge of starvation. Nothing panicked rulers more than a shortage of some good or another, which might lead to riots in the streets and mutinies in the army. The guildsmen "persuaded" rulers that the way to "ensure" there were no shortages was to "protect" their trades and crafts from "destructive competition".
Of course, that was a lie. Competition is what makes the world go around. But in Medieval times, there was very little understanding of that.
To take an example, suppose there was a really bad harvest in the environs of London and a really good one in the environs of Bristol. In a free market world, the price of grain would rise in London and the price of grain fall in Bristol, which would prompt merchants (in their self-seeking profit ways) to buy grain in Bristol and sell it in London. High London grain prices might also induce East Anglian turnip farmers to plant grain for next year. The shortage of grain in London would be automatically "fixed" by market forces.
But under guild rules not only was shipping grain from one area to another explicitly forbidden, the prices were not allowed to fluctuate either, so no signals were sent out to induce any activity on the part of merchants and farmers. Londoners might pay low prices for bread, but there would be no bread to buy. She would be stuck with the shortage and the people would starve. At the same time, Bristol's silos would be bursting but the Bristolers would still be paying an unfair price for it. And in East Anglia, turnip farmers would still grow turnips and that's the end of that.
Similarly with the crafts guilds. Not only did they keep things artificially expensive by preventing people from engaging in the trade, their very explicit rules on how to produce stuff kept these crafts in the stone age. Guild rules that "required" to use a particular tool or instrument or method of production and "required" to produce cloth with so many threads per square inch, stifled a lot of technical innovation & quality improvements. Productivity growth was absolutely zilch for many centuries.
It was this type of economic insanity -- non-competition, anti-innovation, unreflective prices, prohibition of commercial traffic -- that kept Medieval economies tied up knots under persistent shortages and on the brink of starvation at all times.
But there was very little understanding of economics back then. And when the rulers were told by some selfish guild masters that "allowing x would ruin us. And if we are ruined, imagine the shortages that will result!", they believed them. e.g. price ceilings & the prohibition of grain traffic was instituted out of fear that free markets would lead to grain being exported and "cause" famines. Whereas the truth is that, under free prices & free markets, precisely the opposite would occur: grain would be transported from bumper regions to starving regions; it is what fixes shortages & fends off famines. But the rulers didn't realize that and, of course, the guildmasters did not enlighten them but rather encouraged their misconceptions.
There were two bright spots in the Medieval world: fairs & abbeys.
Fairs were the seeds of the capitalism since guild rules were suspended during fair periods and anyone could buy & sell whatever they wanted to the public at whatever price they could negotiate. So at fairs, blacksmiths sold nails, journeyman could sell their services, bankers charged whatever interest rates they wanted, foreign merchants could come and sell their wares, etc. Even if everything could not be done within that short amount of time, contracts could be written up then under fair rules, and carried out during the remainder of the year. So, yeh, journeymen carpenters could just come to the fair and just collect contracts to build a hundred shelves, which they would then build in the course of the year and technically not be "in violation" of guild rules.
As time progressed, more and more economic activity became concentrated at fairs, and soon very little large-scale business was ever contracted outside of them. Fairs became increasingly less about "fun & games" and more & more about "serious business", esp. financing. Capitalism proper "begins" when Bruges instituted a "permanent" year-round fair (the "Bourse"), in the early 15th C. (followed up a century or so later by Antwerp & still later, London ("Royal Exchange")),
Heck, by the 16th C., the entire finances & budgets of the greatest monarchs were scheduled around fairs -- the French monarchy depended completely on the Lyons fair, the Spanish monarchy in its Golden Age lived & died by a circuit of three fairs (Antwerp, Piacenza and Medina-del-Campo). But that is a bit beyond our time period.
In the High Middle Ages, outside of fairs, the only other "free market" islands were the Abbeys. Medieval Abbeys were incorporated without guild structures, so abbey markets were free-for-alls. People could buy, sell, truck & barter, contract and be contracted at Abbeys, without any stifling rules (save perhaps canonical ones about usury & stuff). Abbeys were focal points of economic activity, one reason they were so very often envied & targeted by towns & rulers.
So what did other regions/civilizations (i.e. Arab-Islamic world, Roman era, China, India, etc.) do?
Wow, quite a topic. One economic model that may be fairly easy to impliment would be JoWoods Industry Giant. It goes along the principles of 2 in = 1 out, 3 in = 1 out, 1 of this 1 of that in = 1 out, etc.
It seems that an economy, of sorts, would be a perfect compliment to the game, adding the ability to own land, improve it, and raise armies according to your financial prowess. We all know the combat part of the game rocks, and the new ability to take over some castles is great for storing hundreds of troops and slaves- but I want to put them to work. I want to decide their wages, I want them to produce stuff that either I hire out caravans to carry to market for me, or I have to carry. I want to exert economic control over cities, and get more money, so I can kill more. The quest system is good, but it lacks self interest other than a few coins and rank. A multifaceted game would allow disinterest in combat for awhile, and still hold and captivate the player with an economic side, and vice versa.
It seems that an economy, of sorts, would be a perfect compliment to the game, adding the ability to own land, improve it, and raise armies according to your financial prowess. We all know the combat part of the game rocks, and the new ability to take over some castles is great for storing hundreds of troops and slaves- but I want to put them to work. I want to decide their wages, I want them to produce stuff that either I hire out caravans to carry to market for me, or I have to carry. I want to exert economic control over cities, and get more money, so I can kill more. The quest system is good, but it lacks self interest other than a few coins and rank. A multifaceted game would allow disinterest in combat for awhile, and still hold and captivate the player with an economic side, and vice versa.
Nasrudin said:
I am not sure. Many Medieval Arab cities had quite similar guild structures, although lack of feudalism often meant they could draw upon a wider & more freely-contractable labor market. In China, if the little I've heard about it is anything to go by, in the cities that were under direct rule, price schedules & the like would be set by regional bureaucrats, not by practitioners. Same thing with Roman Empire.
The general rule is that guilds (or something quite like them) are symptoms of self-ruling cities. The greater the autonomy of a city, the more likely guilds developed. Cities under the rule of a tyrant or "external" lord or a wider power were less likely to develop them.
As Adam Smith pointed out, put two or three businessmen together in a room, and they'll inevitably hatch up a plan to combine & fleece the public. ("People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. " (Wealh of Nations, I:10))
Koufodin@s
Recruit
WICKED DUDE!
