This isn't a suggestion but a fun thought experiment. Bannerlord in the base game centers around social ladder climbing and combat. Thus, the whole game caters to the sustaining of those endeavors. As such, currency or denars just comes out of thin air and inflation is more than inevitable, it's required. To add more depth to this would make it complicated and force a rework of all aspects of the game and even drastically changes the meta of the campaign.
If the economy did heavily impact our rudimentary and primitive AI, they might not be able to raise armies from the ground anymore and would easily be curbstomped by a bunch of bandits. Whole kingdoms could easily fall into ruin by the player alone if they find a market exploit and snowballing would be more prevalent as the faction with the least inefficient economy would go on and just take everybody out because everyone is too poor to put up a fight.
But supposed combat and social ladder climbing isn't the main dish and side dish served by this game. Rather, the game by original design is a politics and management simulator where the combat is just an additional feature and so they happen more rarely because it's more of an option and a fun mini-game to get to a goal.
Personally, I think before we rework everything as simple changes to the current system and resource distribution would cause immediate balancing issues, we should first ask the basic questions and principles of what makes an economy an economy.
1. What does the AI value?
Does it really have need for weapons, butter, clay or what not when there's no room for growth or need for it? Why do people want to buy these leatherworks when it is effectively useless and is just used for nothing but the player to resell and pretend people like it? This concept of what is and what isn't valuable needs a complete rework for the machinery of the consumers and the state. Though yes, it is true that price is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it, even if it's completely useless, people would gladly trade away their useless gold rocks for a drink of water in the desert.
So the first thing would be to address a hierarchy of needs and categorize a settlement into a focus based on their current situation. I personally would put these into necessities where food input is the main focus of most settlements as it is the most consistently valued and starving is NO BUENO. Maybe a multiplier for settlement happiness due to available food variety.
In addition to food input, other things need to support a medieval sized and styled society such as fuel like wood and charcoal being the primary form of energy for most people. Though this is actually expensive for small time things, I think for simplicity's sake and without adding a new item(though I think new items are inevitable in a reworked economy), it should be kept as such.
Wood and charcoal as necessities fuel industries and would also be multiplied in their requirements when an industry has more needs for them such as iron works, silver works or wood works and other such businesses. I haven't thought this completely through, but I hope my explanation may give you an idea without adding more items to the game. Rather, we just change the way they function. Industries and or items are required to fuel the next item to the point where it will end as a usable resource or consumed good.
Moving on with industrial goods - items such as clay, tools, leatherworks and other such being available also help fuel jobs and thus prosperity(population). Iron ore alone does not end with iron. You need coal or charcoal, wood for the tools or just tools themselves to get production going. Population should be tied to the availability of these resources to support jobs, the usual reason for population growth in the first place. The availability of these goods would help multiply productivity of certain industries.
Third, the category of luxury goods of being available to the population. These are items like jewelry or silk. These would be the end consumer product in themselves and categorized and of no inherent worth in themselves but fetching a high price and market value. These are the most difficult to tackle as tastes and consumer demand ebbs and flows. While there is reason to consistently gather fuel, food and items that help multiply productivity and therefore have an economy, there is little to think of what jewelry does for a computer-ran AI economy. So, I guess they just give a lot of loyalty cause these goods are consistently available in the kingdom?
Basically, the kingdom is so rich you'd be a fool to betray it. Yeah, simple as fuark.
2. What is Currency?
Currency is the means of exchange everyone agrees on has value. It can be anything so as long as everyone in that community agrees as the standard by which they set their goods on. In the game, people use denars or "gold" for simplicity's sake. Though in the past, different groups minted coins with different values on them due to many differing gold, silver or copper contents.
I think that instead of one universal currency divided into "gold, silver or copper" which is basically just subdivision, there should be multiple currencies, one for each faction and the option for the player to start their own currency when their own kingdom is made.
The currency is usually pegged to something of value and as such would be in limited supply. Most people used gold or control of any other precious metal, but for competitive game design's sake, a modern take on economy would provide the best balance(in my opinion): currency should be pegged to a faction's net value of goods produced divided by their total population.
This is basically GNP and though the numbers would be kinda gay due to the totally artificially contrived numbers, we can just hide it for the player somehow so as not to break immersion and put their currency in relative power parity with others.
I wouldn't see the exact math, but I would see rather would be something like:
In this way, a certain amount of your currency immediately gets converted when you buy from a different place. In addition, trade would also function like this among the AI.
This does not necessarily mean Battania is overall poorer. The Player Kingdom in the table just has a lot of high producing industry for a considerably smaller population. Battania could just have a much bigger industry, but they have an even bigger population to go along with it, thus devaluing their "currency".
Factions should also adopt currencies of foreigners if their economy is just too much in the ****ter and the player too. This could also be a fun way to stoke players' egos when they make their own currency used by everyone and would be great roleplay lol
Though I haven't thought of how this would affect trade and relations in between factions. Maybe they just really want to access a certain kind of good? I don't know. Maybe currencies can be used for casus belli?
3. Currency Sinks and Consumables.
All these items should be consumed or used and disappear over time from use. Food should be consumed by the population, tools should break down and and 2 wood for charcoal that is then used to smelt iron and other such ores should happen dynamically in the settlements. One of the most obnoxious things I can encounter in games is when gold or the currency is so much it's literally a joke. This is a necessity at times because in the real world, there is a limited amount of currency and their printing and regulation is heavily controlled.
Armies should use up supplies like wood, charcoal, salt, and tools for example as they march on campaign would be necessities for AI lords and the player. No longer food, but items and tools are needed to ensure an army is fighting fit and multiplies their marching speed.
I imagine the first iterations of my thought experiment would have everyone start off immediately poor until over time they can get themselves on their feet via production. Heavy editing and updates would be needed to get the balance right and to make sure that faction is as rich as it is lorewise and not just collapse immediately.
____
Anyway, this is my thought experiment, I hope you enjoy reading it and maybe I inspired you to have thoughts of your own.
Take note, that this is just if Bannerlord would go the route of a state and politics simulator. Because I admit that if we go this route, the freaking game would reduce in combat heavily as building an army and then using it wisely would be more important than the frequent awesome combat we get. Maybe it'll increase the value of combat as a great treat because we worked so hard to actually build and maintain that army that it won't collapse after three days because of bad supplies and logistics.
If the economy did heavily impact our rudimentary and primitive AI, they might not be able to raise armies from the ground anymore and would easily be curbstomped by a bunch of bandits. Whole kingdoms could easily fall into ruin by the player alone if they find a market exploit and snowballing would be more prevalent as the faction with the least inefficient economy would go on and just take everybody out because everyone is too poor to put up a fight.
But supposed combat and social ladder climbing isn't the main dish and side dish served by this game. Rather, the game by original design is a politics and management simulator where the combat is just an additional feature and so they happen more rarely because it's more of an option and a fun mini-game to get to a goal.
Personally, I think before we rework everything as simple changes to the current system and resource distribution would cause immediate balancing issues, we should first ask the basic questions and principles of what makes an economy an economy.
1. What does the AI value?
Does it really have need for weapons, butter, clay or what not when there's no room for growth or need for it? Why do people want to buy these leatherworks when it is effectively useless and is just used for nothing but the player to resell and pretend people like it? This concept of what is and what isn't valuable needs a complete rework for the machinery of the consumers and the state. Though yes, it is true that price is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it, even if it's completely useless, people would gladly trade away their useless gold rocks for a drink of water in the desert.
So the first thing would be to address a hierarchy of needs and categorize a settlement into a focus based on their current situation. I personally would put these into necessities where food input is the main focus of most settlements as it is the most consistently valued and starving is NO BUENO. Maybe a multiplier for settlement happiness due to available food variety.
In addition to food input, other things need to support a medieval sized and styled society such as fuel like wood and charcoal being the primary form of energy for most people. Though this is actually expensive for small time things, I think for simplicity's sake and without adding a new item(though I think new items are inevitable in a reworked economy), it should be kept as such.
Wood and charcoal as necessities fuel industries and would also be multiplied in their requirements when an industry has more needs for them such as iron works, silver works or wood works and other such businesses. I haven't thought this completely through, but I hope my explanation may give you an idea without adding more items to the game. Rather, we just change the way they function. Industries and or items are required to fuel the next item to the point where it will end as a usable resource or consumed good.
Moving on with industrial goods - items such as clay, tools, leatherworks and other such being available also help fuel jobs and thus prosperity(population). Iron ore alone does not end with iron. You need coal or charcoal, wood for the tools or just tools themselves to get production going. Population should be tied to the availability of these resources to support jobs, the usual reason for population growth in the first place. The availability of these goods would help multiply productivity of certain industries.
Third, the category of luxury goods of being available to the population. These are items like jewelry or silk. These would be the end consumer product in themselves and categorized and of no inherent worth in themselves but fetching a high price and market value. These are the most difficult to tackle as tastes and consumer demand ebbs and flows. While there is reason to consistently gather fuel, food and items that help multiply productivity and therefore have an economy, there is little to think of what jewelry does for a computer-ran AI economy. So, I guess they just give a lot of loyalty cause these goods are consistently available in the kingdom?
Basically, the kingdom is so rich you'd be a fool to betray it. Yeah, simple as fuark.
2. What is Currency?
Currency is the means of exchange everyone agrees on has value. It can be anything so as long as everyone in that community agrees as the standard by which they set their goods on. In the game, people use denars or "gold" for simplicity's sake. Though in the past, different groups minted coins with different values on them due to many differing gold, silver or copper contents.
I think that instead of one universal currency divided into "gold, silver or copper" which is basically just subdivision, there should be multiple currencies, one for each faction and the option for the player to start their own currency when their own kingdom is made.
The currency is usually pegged to something of value and as such would be in limited supply. Most people used gold or control of any other precious metal, but for competitive game design's sake, a modern take on economy would provide the best balance(in my opinion): currency should be pegged to a faction's net value of goods produced divided by their total population.
This is basically GNP and though the numbers would be kinda gay due to the totally artificially contrived numbers, we can just hide it for the player somehow so as not to break immersion and put their currency in relative power parity with others.
I wouldn't see the exact math, but I would see rather would be something like:
FACTION AND CURRENCY | PLAYERKINGDOM "Butterbars" | Battanian "Stater" |
PLAYERKINGDOM | 1 | 12 |
Battania | 12 | 1 |
In this way, a certain amount of your currency immediately gets converted when you buy from a different place. In addition, trade would also function like this among the AI.
This does not necessarily mean Battania is overall poorer. The Player Kingdom in the table just has a lot of high producing industry for a considerably smaller population. Battania could just have a much bigger industry, but they have an even bigger population to go along with it, thus devaluing their "currency".
Factions should also adopt currencies of foreigners if their economy is just too much in the ****ter and the player too. This could also be a fun way to stoke players' egos when they make their own currency used by everyone and would be great roleplay lol
Though I haven't thought of how this would affect trade and relations in between factions. Maybe they just really want to access a certain kind of good? I don't know. Maybe currencies can be used for casus belli?
3. Currency Sinks and Consumables.
All these items should be consumed or used and disappear over time from use. Food should be consumed by the population, tools should break down and and 2 wood for charcoal that is then used to smelt iron and other such ores should happen dynamically in the settlements. One of the most obnoxious things I can encounter in games is when gold or the currency is so much it's literally a joke. This is a necessity at times because in the real world, there is a limited amount of currency and their printing and regulation is heavily controlled.
Armies should use up supplies like wood, charcoal, salt, and tools for example as they march on campaign would be necessities for AI lords and the player. No longer food, but items and tools are needed to ensure an army is fighting fit and multiplies their marching speed.
I imagine the first iterations of my thought experiment would have everyone start off immediately poor until over time they can get themselves on their feet via production. Heavy editing and updates would be needed to get the balance right and to make sure that faction is as rich as it is lorewise and not just collapse immediately.
____
Anyway, this is my thought experiment, I hope you enjoy reading it and maybe I inspired you to have thoughts of your own.
Take note, that this is just if Bannerlord would go the route of a state and politics simulator. Because I admit that if we go this route, the freaking game would reduce in combat heavily as building an army and then using it wisely would be more important than the frequent awesome combat we get. Maybe it'll increase the value of combat as a great treat because we worked so hard to actually build and maintain that army that it won't collapse after three days because of bad supplies and logistics.