How would you imagine a reworked economy should be like? Fun Discussion.

Users who are viewing this thread

Spyware

Regular
Gold itself has almost no intrinsic value for ordinary villagers because it's useless for normal transactions. Can you imagine trying to pay for a beer with gold coins? Or even bronze?

If the idea of barter exists and an object such as gold of value can be bartered more easily than having to give someone a very specific amount of cows for a certain product. Gold being the alternative as an object of value can be easily exchange with the next potential barterer who will exchange it. That is how the idea of money or currency begins.


All archaeological evidence suggests that the advent of coinage is the result of large scale, long distance markets, or the markets that form around armies. It has to be maintained with cash taxation otherwise there is no incentive to use it.
To modern people in developed capitalist countries it can often seem like money has some metaphysical use-value that exists outside of the state or society, but that's because we've been essentially forced to use it for so long that our society and culture has formed around it, and this ends up impacting how video games depict money, but it wasn't really the case prior to the 1500s.

Bannerlord depicts all of these, especially in the role of the player therein. That's where I justify it. To be more specific, I said if Bannerlord went into the path of Politics and Statesman simulator rather than combat social-ladder climbing simulator... It is most definitely not a peasant working for his daily bread simulator.

Think about it, it really doesn't make any sense that a state would mint coins, dole them out, and then periodically demand a fraction of them back if it was just for the intrinsic value of the gold. The point of monetary taxes is to force people to use the currency you've just invented, and control the amount that people work. This is why taxes caused riots in premodernity. When most people are subsistence farmers who typically don't interact with markets much, having to pay a set amount every year (in a currency you can only obtain via markets), is an act of indirect violence, and a more effective form of coercion than just taking taxes in kind or in labour (which is how most peasantry was exploited in medieval europe).

This can often seem a bit counter-intuitive, for example the chapter I linked mentions how in early medieval europe everything had a set monetary value, from crimes to body parts, but these were abstract guides used to resolve disputes when there was no other alternative, and in these cases actual money rarely came into the equation. For the most part (and anyone who has lived in a village will have experienced this to some extent), transactions in premodernity were tied up in social bonds and cultural norms. Straight barter was practically unheard of, most exchange was a back-and-forth of informal gifting and uneven debts, and the values used in disputes were not referenced by this kind of socio-cultural exchange.

I rambled a bit there but my point is that no game really depicts this kind of thing. Bannerlord exists in a world that is more capitalist than modernity, let alone the period it's supposed to depict, and it makes money the centre of everything. I think this is the source of most of the problems in the campaign, and if they made it more realistic in this regard it would actually be more fun to play.

Regardless of the history or what happened back then, games still have to be games. If we were to put the most historically accurate asinine bull**** then it wouldn't be fun having to pour over broken sticks to figure out tax records. By game design, I think it's the best balance as it offers dynamic emergent gameplay and makes your kingdoms and economy as an actual thing that has to be cared for in order to maintain your army. I do admit that this method would result in much fewer battles and more waiting as large armies cannot be supported without a very strong economic base, but I'm hoping the diversity of politics and economics that came along with it would fill in the dead air time. However, if you wish to talk history, very well. Know that I'm in agreement on the specifics but I do not agree that it was all violence from one group to another.

Yes, it's an easily abusable system, but there were many other legitimates as well who came together not by force of arms but originally by agreement because they each found each other's skills to be more useful for their times and so willingly entered into a social contract to form these medieval societies.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
If the idea of barter exists and an object such as gold of value can be bartered more easily than having to give someone a very specific amount of cows for a certain product. Gold being the alternative as an object of value can be easily exchange with the next potential barterer who will exchange it. That is how the idea of money or currency begins.
That's how the idea began but the process of monetizing medieval societies was more than just expressing the idea of equivalanet exchange. Jacob's right that it was, at its core, fundentally about extracting labor and goods out of people who weren't interested in working any more than they had to (because it gained them NOTHING) and so had to be enforced. Most people didn't want to use currency (or even equivalent exchange) because it allowed others to opt-out of the social aspects.

There was a great series of blogposts about this, I can link it when I get home.
 

Ruihan

Recruit
One thing I would like to see changed is how food consumption works
Seen a town that had 1000+ fish but no gain and was still starving

Towns people be like I rather starve to death than eat any more fish.
I think as long as a town has food It should not be allowed to starve, just stupid imo
 

Spyware

Regular
That's how the idea began but the process of monetizing medieval societies was more than just expressing the idea of equivalanet exchange. Jacob's right that it was, at its core, fundentally about extracting labor and goods out of people who weren't interested in working any more than they had to (because it gained them NOTHING) and so had to be enforced. Most people didn't want to use currency (or even equivalent exchange) because it allowed others to opt-out of the social aspects.

There was a great series of blogposts about this, I can link it when I get home.
In this social contract, the strong need people to support them and keep them strong. Without the peasants or the lot who provided the labor and resources that NEED to be imported such as iron in a place that lacks iron(and therefore must be paid in exchange with what a lot of the times precious metals). Without a strong base for which they can do their own job(protecting), these overlords would die out as well. Don't forget, at the start a lot of these people actually owned the land by right of conquest. They paid for it with blood. To share the land with peasants seems preferable than outright slavery.

Though Bannerlord is a fictional world with a different history - the common understanding between us is that it is reflective of real world history and that the truth is by around the 11th century, slavery around Christendom(Late Roman and Greek worlds of which the Calradic Empire is based off of) was practically non-existent as an institution as it was largely replaced by feudal obligations, even in nations that had a centralized government like Byzantine Rome.

If I had no inherent martial skills and the only way I could get by in a world was to give 1/10th of my work and harvests to my local lord then yeah that actually seems like a pretty good deal than being forced to deal with Dan the Dane, Terrence the Turk and whatever raider and expansive warrior culture comes in to kick my ass. Yeah, it's no guarantee that I won't get chevauchee'd, but the alternative is being left to fend for myself.

---

However, I am inspired by your comments and posts that we should include an economic system based on the experiences of the unmoneyed lower classes. Bannerlord aside from combat is also a social ladder climbing simulator.

It would offer depth and dynamic gameplay. I remember in Warband things changed when you were just an errand boy but later became king. Certain quests were locked out and you had access to new quests as you moved up in social standing. Maybe a mini economy centered around the serfs and peasants as well would help add that extra layer of progression for the player. There was always the option to have started out as a slave or an average normal guy in Warband, so why not Bannerlord where you are mostly a literal nobody.

Thank you for inspiring me, you two. @Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James @Apocal
 
Last edited:
If the idea of barter exists and an object such as gold of value can be bartered more easily than having to give someone a very specific amount of cows for a certain product. Gold being the alternative as an object of value can be easily exchange with the next potential barterer who will exchange it. That is how the idea of money or currency begins.

This isn't actually true. For most of the enlightenment, classical economists like Adam Smith invented this idea of barter slowly morphing into currency, partially out of ignorance but partially because they needed a baseline to start their theories. But to this day, anthropologists have not found a single barter economy on the face of the earth. In fact, the one example of barter that does exist is the Russian Federation right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when many people had no money at all.

However if you think about it for more than 2 seconds (which Adam Smith wasn't well known for doing), raw barter makes zero sense. The example classical economists always use is "If you want breakfast but only have one spade, you trade it for something of equivalent value", but this implies a specialised economy where everyone just stockpiles one thing like it's the Soviet Union, even things like salt and copper that nobody would willingly mine for themselves. Barter is the result of city-dwelling 1700s academics using the logic of modern markets to try and understand the primordial past.

In fact barter between people who know each other is taboo in many traditional societies. If I lived in my grandmas village in Jamaica and asked for someone's goat, it would be offensive to then immediately calculate the value of the Goat and then gather a bunch of items to "repay" them. Every gift in these economies is like saying "now you are in debt to me, I won't bring it up but now we are socially bonded". If I try to cancel out all the debts immediately, it's like saying "screw you, screw this, I won't play your social game. We're even again". Similarly a lot of you probably have parents or grandparents who will literally fight you to give you money, because on some level they want you to be indebted to them, even if they never explicitly "call it in".


Regardless of the history or what happened back then, games still have to be games. If we were to put the most historically accurate asinine bull**** then it wouldn't be fun having to pour over broken sticks to figure out tax records. By game design, I think it's the best balance as it offers dynamic emergent gameplay and makes your kingdoms and economy as an actual thing that has to be cared for in order to maintain your army.

I agree, but that's why game designers trim out stuff that isn't fun after using this historical taxation as a basis. I'm not arguing for the game to be like this just because I'm a history autist, but because I think it would make for a better more streamlined game loop.
 

Spyware

Regular
This isn't actually true. For most of the enlightenment, classical economists like Adam Smith invented this idea of barter slowly morphing into currency, partially out of ignorance but partially because they needed a baseline to start their theories. But to this day, anthropologists have not found a single barter economy on the face of the earth. In fact, the one example of barter that does exist is the Russian Federation right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when many people had no money at all.

I do know that the far ancient past had more of an honor system, but this is at a certain period where currency has already been established as evidenced by archaeological discoveries of what is clearly currency. Assuming we use the life and death of Jesus Christ(or you might prefer Yeshua of Nazareth) as a chronological dividing point - he was recorded as to have already be given a coin to make an example of when asked if the Judeans should pay taxes to the Roman Emperor. Regardless of what happened or what went on, the existence of coins and minted currency itself by the 11th century was real thing.

It was definitely real among the governing or traveling classes who moved from one place to another and needed a medium of exchange. And what do we play in Bannerlord as? That guy from the same class.

I agree, but that's why game designers trim out stuff that isn't fun after using this historical taxation as a basis. I'm not arguing for the game to be like this just because I'm a history autist, but because I think it would make for a better more streamlined game loop.

The same source you referred did make mention of government minted currency being available to armies, governments and markets which a huge part of Bannerlord has. Forgive me for not continuing your discussion on your grandma's goat or Adam Smith, but those guys refer to the far past and what happened basically 600 years ago, which is closer to him than what his theories surmised.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
There was a great series of blogposts about this, I can link it when I get home.
I realized the whole series is a bit long so the specific blogpost about monetization, taxation, coerced productivity, etc. mostly happens here.

Obviously it isn't formal academic writing or a published work, but the guy is an actual historian, just writing in a looser free-form style.
 

Spyware

Regular
I realized the whole series is a bit long so the specific blogpost about monetization, taxation, coerced productivity, etc. mostly happens here.

Obviously it isn't formal academic writing or a published work, but the guy is an actual historian, just writing in a looser free-form style.
I'm reading it, but it is really hard to follow when he keeps saying that though much isn't in the form of money, he goes on to refer to a money in the system repeatedly. For example, bullion which is practically money by definition since it's a precious metal of origin. The next is just the social obligations, which I'm not denying. However, I'm justifying my position in that you play the role of a guy who goes around and kicks people's asses(upper class). Therefore it is not far fetched that you will have lots to deal with in terms of cold hard money and or coinage of the 11th century.

I agree that the lower classes may have their own unique economy, and I think that would be great if the villages and lower lords deal with a different aspect of economy before they move up. It's just that the guy you're playing is a big shot more often than not.
 
I do know that the far ancient past had more of an honor system, but this is at a certain period where currency has already been established as evidenced by archaeological discoveries of what is clearly currency. Assuming we use the life and death of Jesus Christ(or you might prefer Yeshua of Nazareth) as a chronological dividing point - he was recorded as to have already be given a coin to make an example of when asked if the Judeans should pay taxes to the Roman Emperor. Regardless of what happened or what went on, the existence of coins and minted currency itself by the 11th century was real thing.

It was definitely real among the governing or traveling classes who moved from one place to another and needed a medium of exchange. And what do we play in Bannerlord as? That guy from the same class.

I'm not saying that currency didn't exist in the past, but that it had a few highly specific uses. In warband and especially in Bannerlord you just use it for everything, which boils the entire game down to hoarding as much money as possible meaning you never have to interact with anything else. For instance I think inter-city trade would be a lot more interesting if it was the only way of getting huge amounts of money (which could then be spent on things you can't acquire any other way).

Anyway the use cases of currency fluctuate a lot throughout history, it's not just a linear progression from caveman to capitalism. Peasants were often taxed in currency in the Roman Empire, but after the Justinian land reforms and all the eay to the early modern period this wasn't the case, so even lords rarely had an income / outcome like you do in Bannerlord.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I'm not saying that currency didn't exist in the past, but that it had a few highly specific uses. In warband and especially in Bannerlord you just use it for everything, which boils the entire game down to hoarding as much money as possible meaning you never have to interact with anything else. For instance I think inter-city trade would be a lot more interesting if it was the only way of getting huge amounts of money (which could then be spent on things you can't acquire any other way).
It isn't difficult to imagine a campaign loop where the player going the noble route would focus on horizontal relationships with other nobles and the (downward) vertical relationship with his people in the form of notables who could be called upon. Instead of the recruiting meat market (I know you think it is dumb) it could be each notable-companion brings his own troops to your party and provides for them as long as he is either obligated or convinced the adventure is going to be worth his while. And that, in turn, can inform a lot of the campaign decisions because you're essentially riding a herd of personal retinues (just like a real medieval lord) who might really want to do stupid **** and your ability to keep them in line isn't the decidedly ahistorical drill instructor type of leadership, but the status-competition of martial aristocrats.
 
It isn't difficult to imagine a campaign loop where the player going the noble route would focus on horizontal relationships with other nobles and the (downward) vertical relationship with his people in the form of notables who could be called upon. Instead of the recruiting meat market (I know you think it is dumb) it could be each notable-companion brings his own troops to your party and provides for them as long as he is either obligated or convinced the adventure is going to be worth his while. And that, in turn, can inform a lot of the campaign decisions because you're essentially riding a herd of personal retinues (just like a real medieval lord) who might really want to do stupid **** and your ability to keep them in line isn't the decidedly ahistorical drill instructor type of leadership, but the status-competition of martial aristocrats.
Would be a fun mod. I hope someone picks it up. :grin:
 
It isn't difficult to imagine a campaign loop where the player going the noble route would focus on horizontal relationships with other nobles and the (downward) vertical relationship with his people in the form of notables who could be called upon. Instead of the recruiting meat market (I know you think it is dumb) it could be each notable-companion brings his own troops to your party and provides for them as long as he is either obligated or convinced the adventure is going to be worth his while. And that, in turn, can inform a lot of the campaign decisions because you're essentially riding a herd of personal retinues (just like a real medieval lord) who might really want to do stupid **** and your ability to keep them in line isn't the decidedly ahistorical drill instructor type of leadership, but the status-competition of martial aristocrats.

1257AD came close to this, and it felt far better having a free but finite number of troops you can just call into your army. I know I won't shut up about this but it really baffles me that the "go to every village buying 2 guys at a time" thing is somehow a non-negotiable game mechanic that has to be in the game. They have settlement notables who handle recruitment, sure that's a step in the right direction, but they're just quest conduits who never leave or interact with anything.

Having to actually recruit the notables directly, along with their retinues / lances or whatever, and forcing the AI to do the same, would cut out a lot of the frustration I have with Bannerlord currently.
Imagine a system where each "lance" or whatever is actually tracked, meaning once you kill a notable's retinue in battle, they are gone for good and have to regenerate on their own from the village, and don't regenerate at all if the settlement is looted, under siege, has low prosperity or whatever.
Imagine only being able to recruit lances from your own village, meaning no more "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" recruitment system where all village troops are a free-for-all.
Imagine being able to kill notables in battle, severely damaging the ability of that lance to regenerate until someone else is found.
Imagine getting a royally-appointed lance of heavy cavalry for being close to the king.
Imagine these lances being part of the garrison if not used, meaning you can fight more field battles and prolong the war to make sieges easier.

I genuinely don't care if this causes more snowballing. The game needs more snowballing. I honestly think the decision to make the map more static has hurt the gameplay. If you are winning 5:1 battles against an enemy, you should steamroll the map. All this paradox-pilled, balance-cucked nonsense about adding rebellions and civil wars to slow the player down and lower the skill ceiling is utterly mental.
 
Just took this pic before "finishing" a non-modded campaign yesterday(1.6.1) and I think it is somewhat related to this discussion.
PgORG.jpg

I worked my way up until I became the main Southern Empire clan. Then, I had to (regretfully) execute every damn lord on my way, since peace was constantly being declared every time I was about to get the upper hand during any war. At the same time, more wars were declared to other factions, so basically a complete ****show.

Even though it was very tedious to eliminate the factions one by one, I've managed to do it, but before eliminating the very last one (Khuzaits), the result was just bizarre. Rhagaea accepted a (monopoly money?) 28 million tribute and refused to go to war permanently.
-Where was this money coming from? I waited for a while to see if they would run out of gold, they didn't
-Why the permanent peace, since it would be so easy to conquer the rest?
- Also, why the received tributes are a negative(overflown integer? Not a programmer, sorry if it ain't the appropriate name). I think I had to plunder a Khuzait village in order to re-start the war and finish them off.

Took me a while to accept that - apparently - your sovereign is actually hostile towards your world domination goals, even if it's on behalf of his/her kingdom. The peace/war declarations seem to work as an artificial handicap, delaying the player conquests. That is very gamey, felt like an Atari game. I know devs put a lot of effort to sort the snowballing, but that's not working as it should toward the endgame. I definitely think other factions should join forces to stop your faction - but not your own ruler!

The irony is that money was the key element to prevent this last war to happen, and even though I am supposed to have an advantage, it actually worked against my goals and served no absolute purpose.

This is so detrimental to the gameplay...I think most people will agree the endgame needs to be redesigned, and one important step is having winners and losers.

As a medieval enthusiast, I totally support lance recruitment mentioned above.
It definitely could work. You'd just have your permanent retinue of followers at first, making bandit hunting much more challenging. In times of war, the lances(or better quality ones, if you will) would join your host if your relation with the notable is good; you are not reliant on that only though - if you have money, you could hire efficient (but expensive) mercenaries.
However, I think the casual prefers to manually recruit them, which is a shame. So I'm hoping for mods to address this, but other things can be reassessed in the vanilla regardless. I've mentioned the following regarding lords death rate:

-Settlements recruits need to take a much longer time to regenerate - currently resource attrition war is not an option
-Battles shouldn't be a carnage in most cases, fleeing and regrouping should be the norm
-Most sieges are supposed to won by starving out the opposition and not assaulting
 
- Also, why the received tributes are a negative(overflown integer? Not a programmer, sorry if it ain't the appropriate name).

That is the correct name, but funnily enough this isn't an overflown integer. The closest variable types to this overflow are int16 and int32, which overflow at 65,536 and 4.2 billion respectively. The 23 million figure suggests it's just broken maths somewhere else.

However, I think the casual prefers to manually recruit them, which is a shame.

I really don't think casual players will drop a game based on stuff like this. Casual players play and mod Minecraft, GTA V on PC, and Skyrim, which are some of the clunkiest, user-hostile games ever produced. Touhou and Dark Souls are more popular than any jrpg or action rpg respectively.

This idea that casuals are inherently different to autists like us, and will drop a game the moment it gets too hard or complicated, is a PR meme that has somehow been accepted by players. If you look at the most popular games, not a single one of them is crudely "casualised" in this vulgar modern way. Casual players are just people who haven't found a game they really enjoy yet.

-Battles shouldn't be a carnage in most cases, fleeing and regrouping should be the norm

I agree completely. Currently the AI will essentially fight to the death. Along with disorderly routs (which are just massacres), there should be organised retreats where the AI starts backing away to the edge of the map, screening some of its men to block you, like what the flavour text says when you leave some of your men behind. In the case where theyre outnumbered, or losing decisively but not yet outnumbered, it makes way more sense to do this than just soak up arrows and get rekt, or fight for a bit and then rout while in melee.

+1 All this discussion. @Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James , would love to play a mod that expresses your ideas about non-traditional currency themes such as relationships, "lances" etc.

 
Top Bottom