In depth look at in game economy

[Oloof22]

I read mexicco post (link below) about snowballing where he noticed a huge inflation in economy. I would like to make some in deppth thoughts about it.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/information-about-developments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/

I want to clarify whenever I will use word inflation i have on mind "increasing amount of money in the economy" and deflation "decreasing amount of money in the economy.

So let's start by simple question. How to get rid of inflation and deflation. It's all about as I call it "money in" and "money out". If the is more money going into economy (money in) than going out of it (money out) we will have inflation. If there is more money going out we will have deflation. So the only solution is to have money in = money out, because even small amount of difference will make the economy break after a long time.

How money enters the economy (money in) or in other words how the game creates currency:
Cities and villages creating money.
Taxes and tarrifs from settlements.
Money plundered from parties.
Prisoner ransoms.
Quests (player only?)

How money exits the economy (money out) or in other words how the game destroys currency:
Troop recruitment. (and upgrades)
Troop upkeep.
Cities and villages destroying money.
Workshop upkeep.

One of the thing I want to point out at this moment is that cities and villages (mostly cities) can create and/or destroy infinite amount of money without any punishment. So we can just make them have infinite money and the game economy wouldn't change much. So I decided to exclude Cities and villages from the economy assuming that currency is created when someone sells to them, and destroyed when someone buys. Then it looks like this.

How money enters the economy (money in):
Lords selling to cities.
Caravans trading. (They are also selling and buying but I made them separate)
Workshop trading.
Taxes and tarrifs from settlements.
Money plundered from parties.
Prisoner ransoms.
Quests (player only?)

How money exits the economy (money out):
Lords buying from cities.
Troop recruitment. (and upgrades)
Troop upkeep.
Workshop upkeep

I want to look more deeply at workshops. Do they really generate money? They buy resources cheap from thecity and sell products expensive to the city. Since I excluded cities from economy they are in fact bringing money into economy. So it seems correct.

"Lords selling and buying from cities" is also something that needs more analysis. What do they sell? Food, equipment, horses? (I think all items can be categorized into one of these three categories). They sell equipment gathered from battles. Food? I don't think they sell it. Horses? I also dont think so. (It can be noticed that lords can also trade anything - basically behave like a caravan but in this case I would put their income earned that way into caravans category) What the buy? Food and horses. (I might be wrong there.)

So let's do it again.
Money in:
Battle loot (Equipment sold, prisoners ransomed and money plundered)
Caravans.
Workshops.
Taxes and tariffs.
Quests. (probably player only - minor impact - ignored)

Money out:
Troop costs (including recruitment, upkeep, upgrades and food costs)
Workshop upkeep (minor impact - mostly can be ignored)

So let's start math. As I wrote at the start money in = money out so:

Loot + caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = troop costs

If me can make this equation(how do you write it?) true then we have fixed economy.The most crucial part there is loot. Why? Because the bigger is the army you beat, the more loot you get so we can say loot = a * troop costs. "a" is some value that determines how much money you get into economy based on how much money you paid for troops (money out). "a" can have a different value based on the time that have passed in between recruiting and the battle (due to upkeep costs) and can also be multiplied by rougery skill. But if we put it into equation we have:

a * troop costs + caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = troop costs
caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = troop costs - a * troop costs
caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = (1 - a) * troop costs
If a>0: (Let's say 1,5 ) caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = (-0,5) * troop costs
There is a big problem as right side is negative. In order to fix it you can
Solution 1: Make income from caravans, workshops and taxes negative (and break the game entirely)
Solution 2: Lower "a" so right side is positive again.

If a<0: (Let's say 0,8 ) caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = (0,2) * troop costs
As it clarly determines income from caravans workshops and taxe have to cover 20% of troop costs in this case. Let's balance it around it an voila it's balanced... (almost).

Now we are left with the problem that this equation fluctuates in the playthrough. So it may be more balanced and will not break the game within 10 years, but it will in 100 years. So we have to add something into equation. I will add some (stupid) examples but it is developers decision what to do with that.
The more money I have the more I spend it. Can you imagine a kingdom that stores half of it's income and never uses it? (well maybe) It's much better to use the money to get bigger advantage in wars. So... Do I have to much money...? Yes... So recruit and uprgade troops... Still too much... Recruit and upgrade... Still too much... Recruit and... Well I can't because there is a party limit. So my money is going all to waste.
Solution 1: Remove the party cap (I said these will be stupid)
Solution 2: Add another way to spend money, maybe you can recruit small parites patrolling and hunting bandits.
Solution 3: There are a lot of ways to do it. Think yourself.

So in the end it's all about making "a" lower than 1 and then balancing income. (Keep in mind rougery as it can easly break the economy again).

And one last thing. Get rid of this stupid perk "Gain 0,1% interest per day on gold you have". Money should never create money by itself. It has a great potential to break the economy.

Sorry for my english. I'm sure there are some mistakes in such long post so correct me if you can. Also look at it and think. Is it correct? Even I am not sure but I want the economy to be fixed. So if something is wrong just point it out and we will try to figure the way to correct it.

 

[echoco]

Like you said the problem is A is a variable, but it also represents a lot of other variables. How active the player is, how many wars is going on (assuming A also account for AI raiding).

I might be in the minority who think TW had it right at first when they had AI recruit the same way as players (they needed to balance the game in other ways), before they gave AI parties ability to skip levelling the normal way. I don't know if the AI paid equivalent $$ for the high tier units they get when they respawn but it seems like that's part of the problem.

 

[niekdegrijze]

I liked reading this post @Oloof22, you put a lot of effort in it.
i would think that making a 100% closed system is very difficult. this would mean for instance that all the loot from the battlefield has to be collected and returned to a city and that the recruiting cost of a unit includes the equipment.
Alternatively you could take the equipment out of the battle loot and just keep the goods + the total of the hiring cost of the defeated units.
What to do with de daily wage problem? do the units spend this in the city?

a fully closed economic system with the different systems (taxes, wages, item prices, tribute, loot, tariffs, hiring costs, etc.) all nicely connected sounds good, but this is an enormous task and it might not benefit the gameplay. Think snowballing, the more money one kingdom had, the more troops and goods it can buy. Goods will be rarer and more expansive in the other kingdoms.
it would give more strategic options for destroying a kingdoms economy.

I am personally fine with an economic system that takes shortcuts and has build in safeguards to keep the system stable.
i do however like the following thinks changed:

• Lowering loot income.
• Increase importance of tax and trade income.
• Increase raiding income
• Increase the cost of troops. Hiring and wages
• raiding villages, attacking caravans and villager parties should have a bigger impact on the region. This could be balanced with a big short/medium term impact with low long term impact to keep the system stable.

I could be wrong, but in my experience I struggle money wise until I can afford a decent party. After that my saldo keeps increasing from all the loot I can sell.
i understand that this system works toward a constant battle focus and a more "action" like game.

I believe changing the values of battle loot, wages, hiring costs, taxes, trade and raiding would improve the strategic side of the game and would hold my interest longer.

 

[Gandamula]

Since you're talking about economics, does anyone explain this to me?​

-Why training and equipping a level four soldier is much cheaper than the sum of his equipment?​

-Does the entry of a Party or an army into a city bring benefits? I mean do they consume? Even if it's just beer and wine? If not, where does the money I pay them go? Get out of circulation?​

​

​

 

[Tlap]

Since you're talking about economics, does anyone explain this to me?​

-Why training and equipping a level four soldier is much cheaper than the sum of his equipment?​

I think, that this is the main issue with inflation. Troops upgrade cost is much lower that their gear, that they get from that upgrade. So, when you loot an army of upgraded troops, you can get a lot of money that gear, that is from nowhere, because cost to get that gear was just cost of upgrade of troops, so almost nothing. Thats why i like suggestions like:

• Lowering loot income.
• Increase importance of tax and trade income.
• Increase raiding income
• Increase the cost of troops. Hiring and wages
• raiding villages, attacking caravans and villager parties should have a bigger impact on the region. This could be balanced with a big short/medium term impact with low long term impact to keep the system stable.

Because it will decrease gain of that money from "nowhere".

like you say here:

-Does the entry of a Party or an army into a city bring benefits? I mean do they consume? Even if it's just beer and wine? If not, where does the money I pay them go? Get out of circulation?​

You cant do closed system of economy, because you would have to do rly hard work, to make up way for npc to spend their money. And not just for troops, but for villagers too, for everyone. It would make sense for villagers, to spend money, that they get, when you buy something from them. It would be immposible to do it closed.

Thats why i like thought of OP.

If a<0: (Let's say 0,8 ) caravans + workshops + taxes (and tariffs) = (0,2) * troop costs
As it clarly determines income from caravans workshops and taxe have to cover 20% of troop costs in this case. Let's balance it around it an voila it's balanced... (almost).

Now we are left with the problem that this equation fluctuates in the playthrough. So it may be more balanced and will not break the game within 10 years, but it will in 100 years. So we have to add something into equation. I will add some (stupid) examples but it is developers decision what to do with that.
The more money I have the more I spend it. Can you imagine a kingdom that stores half of it's income and never uses it? (well maybe) It's much better to use the money to get bigger advantage in wars. So... Do I have to much money...? Yes... So recruit and uprgade troops... Still too much... Recruit and upgrade... Still too much... Recruit and... Well I can't because there is a party limit. So my money is going all to waste.
Solution 1: Remove the party cap (I said these will be stupid)
Solution 2: Add another way to spend money, maybe you can recruit small parites patrolling and hunting bandits.
Solution 3: There are a lot of ways to do it. Think yourself.

Just decrease income in one side, to make it more stable for longer time. Sooo, we or devs have to make up suggestion for it, to make it more stable.


Sorry for my english. Hope you gonna understand it that way, that i wanted to.

 

[echoco]

I don't know about how to fix it but I think TW should think about this deeper. This reminds me of EVE Online, the economy in that game is entirely player driven (much deeper than how AI in BL was supposed to recruit the same way as the player) and they had to hire an economist so they could tweak the game to prevent inflation etc.