Linking prosperity with food production creates an inescapable downward spiral for fiefs

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

the_mango55

Recruit
One linked to the other wouldn't be bad, prosperity being affected by food shortages for example but not vice versa.

But when both are linked with each other they reinforce each other exponentially to the point it's impossible to escape, and you're destined eventually to have a fief with zero prosperity, food, or loyalty.
 
Higher prosperity means higher food usage. What you can do to counteract this is buy up a ton of food somewhere else and dump it on the market in that city.
 
Revenant342 said:
Higher prosperity means higher food usage. What you can do to counteract this is buy up a ton of food somewhere else and dump it on the market in that city.
Click to expand...
I also tried this and it did nothing. If it worked it would also do nothing to help starving castles as they don't have markets.
 
For castles isn't food production a flat value from village hearths and upgrades?

So as long as your villagess are growing, your food production in the castle should increase as well? And if your castle is outgrowing your villages and goes into a shortage, the negative prosperity growth ought to reach an equilibrium point?
 
I found the food upgrades stem the flow and garrison management is a must, that being said if your prosperity is high it should give bonuses to things not take it away. It should be like a number thats taken from all the villages and castles/cities stats to give you a general idea how things are going. It shouldn't be a thing that affects anything else.
 
Okay, I see what you guys are saying. My castle just never got that high.

I guess there should be a malus to prosperity growth the higher it gets so you reach equilibrium at some point. Could counteract it with a bonus from food *surplus* above a certain point.
 
I disagree. I don't think prosperity should affect anything. It should just be a number that takes all the variables and lets you know how well the town/city/castle is doing. There's already food shortages and upgrades to manage your city, plus defending it from raids and missions to help the folk there.
 
No, a high prosperity indicates that there will be a high population eating food... it makes perfect sense. They produce more goods, but you have to start importing or worrying about food. It's actually pretty well thought out.
 
Dearmad said:
No, a high prosperity indicates that there will be a high population eating food... it makes perfect sense. They produce more goods, but you have to start importing or worrying about food. It's actually pretty well thought out.
Click to expand...


Entirely agree, it's a logical system.
 
Sarissofoi said:
nope
high prosperity mean that population is wealthy and well feed
you can have high population with low population but it hard to tax beggars
Click to expand...

You don't tax the poor in any point in history- you exploit their labor. Others get wealthy doing that. You tax that. But wealth and labor are both required to create prosperity. Prosperity is not a measure of financial wealth at all. basic econ here, man.

  • Farmers don't get rich.
  • Ever. Anywhere. In any history time line.
  • Prosperity is the other wealth creating classes. Nobility. Land owners, merchants, artisans.
  • The wealth making classes EAT food... they don't grow it.
  • Food isn't wealth. It never has been. It lays the foundation for wealth to be created.
  • When you run out of food your prosperity will drop off a cliff (hey wow the game models this) until the food can sustain the people again and wealth comes back. This is called a recession, depression, famine, etc. In modern times sometimes the driving underlying resource isn't food, but is usally somethig very basic the extraction of which isn't associated with wealth (like basic health and the corona virus- this is the labor extraction). Even if it's because of market futures and speculation.
  • The top of the system has never caused an economic fall in any point in history. The top may have steered into a direction where the base gets yanked, but it's always the base that limits prosperity.
  • The above are basic economic principals usually taught pre the 101 course. usually all quite self evident when you look at reality.
  • Bannerlord has done a very intriguing take on this that needs some tweeks but the basic principals are sound. How the system self limits and moves in cycles makes for a fun challenge that doesn't spiral into exponential growth.
 
Having a realistic and believable system in place for food/prosperity is a good thing. Not being able to influence and rectify the shortages in a realistic (or any) way is bad thing.
 
Dearmad said:
You don't tax the poor in any point in history- you exploit their labor. Others get wealthy doing that. You tax that. But wealth and labor are both required to create prosperity. Prosperity is not a measure of financial wealth at all. basic econ here, man.

  • Farmers don't get rich.
  • Ever. Anywhere. In any history time line.
  • Prosperity is the other wealth creating classes. Nobility. Land owners, merchants, artisans.
  • The wealth making classes EAT food... they don't grow it.
  • Food isn't wealth. It never has been. It lays the foundation for wealth to be created.
  • When you run out of food your prosperity will drop off a cliff (hey wow the game models this) until the food can sustain the people again and wealth comes back. This is called a recession, depression, famine, etc. In modern times sometimes the driving underlying resource isn't food, but is usally somethig very basic the extraction of which isn't associated with wealth (like basic health and the corona virus- this is the labor extraction). Even if it's because of market futures and speculation.
  • The top of the system has never caused an economic fall in any point in history. The top may have steered into a direction where the base gets yanked, but it's always the base that limits prosperity.
  • The above are basic economic principals usually taught pre the 101 course. usually all quite self evident when you look at reality.
  • Bannerlord has done a very intriguing take on this that needs some tweeks but the basic principals are sound. How the system self limits and moves in cycles makes for a fun challenge that doesn't spiral into exponential growth.
Click to expand...

I think the point we're making, so it's clear, prosperity is a bad name for what you're describing. While the exact definition leans itself towards wealth, it also means flourishing or thriving (which food does). The problem with prosperity affecting the food consumption is that there is no real way to help sustain it (doesn't matter how much you trade sell or barter) and prosperity will continue to go up without intervention UNLESS terrible things happen to the fief, so unless you're willing to self sabotage in order to maintain a manage garrison (which, no kidding, uses more food the larger it is) and keep your people fed there's no way to prevent starving. Prosperity should be the accumulation of everything that "creates" a prosperous city, not a stat that ****s on everything else. The system they have now is trash, or buggy.
 
There are a lot of cool things in the game's economy. Problem is that everything is completely unbalanced. In this case there should be more ways to influence the production in your fiefs to prevent starvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SP - Economy Need More Autonomy (Ideas)
Replies
0
Views
162
Jager Bradley
Dejan
  • Sticky
Patch Notes v1.2.7
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
28K
Gianna99
Totalgarbage
A suggestion for additions to fief management
Replies
5
Views
519
Lord Grindelvald
Lord Grindelvald
Back
Top Bottom