fighting, looting, capturing enemies and selling the loot and captured enemies to fund more fighting
Of course the roguery skill would be separated from this gameplay loop, because actually the skille this loop has nothing to do.
They can very well coexist separately.
Mixing two things deeply just to say that they are there but distorting them does not seem like a good idea to me.
Especially if it doesn't add gameplay mechanics.
Imagine if a lord gives you a mission to infiltrate enemy walls to carry out a sabotage (for example, setting fire to the barn or starting a random fire to serve as a diversion).
With a rope you climb with a silence and speed proportional to your roguery skill and athletic skil.
Once you get on, try not to get caught if you can, or take out the guards that are in your path (if possible).
If you believe that the mission has a high probability of success, continue towards the objective, otherwise you go back to your lord and inform him that it cannot be done.
Introducing these mechanics would make the roguery skill meaningful.
What is needed to intervene on the loop and prices:
-TIME: looting takes time.
The number of equipment you find compared to the total present is proportional to the time you take to collect.
you decide how much to collect and as soon as you see an enemy approaching, you stop welcoming, as in the looting of a village, which takes time.
SCOUTING:
Mainly it determines and increases the amount of loot found in the unit of time and to a lesser extent it determines the monetary value regardless of durability.
SMITHING:
Mainly it determines and increases the quality of the loot found, intended both in terms of DURABILITY and MONETARY VALUE, but it does not determine the number of equipment found in the unit of time.
Also it can be used to improve the condition of that equipment, as I describe in the thread.
TRADE:
This skill should manage (and already does, but badly) contractual relationships.
I think the current system where you have to choose between two perks is limiting, mundane and unrealistic.
So to give an example:
suppose there were 100 enemies on the battlefield.
At the end of the battle 75 died and 25 fled.
Of those 75 around should have their equipment.
If each soldier wore 5 pieces (head, arms, torso and legs), then there are 75 * 5 = 375 pieces of equipment in the field
To collect them all, with the current scouting value (10) it would take 15 hours.
If we had scouting 100 it would take us 5 hours.
Let's assume that we have scouting 10 and we collect for 5 hours, it means that we will find 125 pieces of equipment out of the total.
But 125 pieces of what quality?
Based on skill scouting 10 and our skill smithing (50) we find equipment with a given economic value and with a given durability.
If the two skills are low and the time it takes us to collect is not the total but less, then of 375 pieces we will find among those 125 pieces those with the worst durability and the worst condition.
If, on the other hand, we have a lot of scouting and little smithing, we will find many pieces but with some valuable equipment but with low durability and many low-value equipment but with a not bad durability.
If, on the other hand, scouting is low but smithing is high, we will find much less than 125 pieces out of 375, but of those few we will have those with high economic value and good durability.
Having both skills high then of those 375 pieces we will find the 125 with the greatest economic value and the best durability.
If we spent 100% of the collection time we would find all the equipment, 375 pieces, with the durability and monetary value that they have.
Therefore, the skills themselves do not affect the quality of the whole loot, but only the probability of finding the loot among all, the one of value and / or in good condition, and on the collection time.
After that the collected loot can be "maintained" with the smithing skill, at the cost of materials (which have a cost and / or availability) and money, in order to equip or sell it (here the skill trade helps a lot of course).
In light of all this, is a high collection number of low-value equipment or a low collection number of high-value equipment better?
answer: it depends
Sometimes you don't need money, but the amount of MATERIAL is essential (to equip an army and forge weapons and armor for everyone).
In this case, if you want to increase the production of a certain good in a city, even the loot with low economic value can be useful if in large quantities (a lot of iron or steel is recovered for example).
I prefer a system that is less based on arbitrary parameters and more consistent with the physical reality of things and the economics of things.
To make equipment you need material.
To make armies you also need equipment, so you consume material which decreases where it was collected.
The army loses and the material is transferred to the winner.
With that material he strengthens his army.
You will say: but the villages always produce materials.
And if you have read my thread you will also have seen that the materials degrade both with time and with use until they disappear because they are considered irrecoverable.
So on the one hand the resource appears and on the other it disappears, so that the world is not full of weapons, equipment and more.