I have so many questions before enacting settlement policy.
Enact Settlement Policy:
Guarantee that those willing to settle in previously undeveloped lands or territories yet unclaimed by any nation will be given a certain amount of money to help further their effort. However, this might cause a severe drain on the Treasury, especially during times of sudden, mass migrations to the countryside.
1) Is this mainly targeted at redistributing our people or attracting foreigners to move closer?
2) Do we even get a claim on the new territory? I have to assume so or else what are we paying for, but it doesn't actually say so. If they're discontented Methiantese, perhaps they'll set up their own state that just happens to share most of our culture and values at its start. If foreigners, perhaps they'll be grateful but not wish to be fully integrated – some sort of quasi-vassal at most.
3) Is it really a variable amount with "sudden, mass migration"? I would think it would be easier to put some regular money in a fund, first come first served sort of deal. We've done "regional improvements" before on a system of pay a few years, eventually get a yield of some sort (Zasitost, Tiftit, even central Methiant way way back).
4) Are we able to target a specific area, like the area between Tiftit and the northern Parsians, or even send all takers to homestead in Orcworld? Or do they just have to make an affidavit, "I swear on this non-denominational codice of Methiantese proverbs that I'm on my way to some wilderness"?
B or A anything but don't bring the salts
the salt will bring 0 profits to +1, but the +1 only comes with a 6 last time, AAAND, we will be losing -1 of the gems, the furs seems like they will be sold for high prices maybe rolling a bad number will be the same as not selling the gems which is enough
To clarify, the earlier trade broke even on a roll 1to5: that is, we paid -1 for the salt and gained +1 back reselling it. It turned a profit (-1, +2) on a roll of 6. Trading the gems would be paying the same -1 price to acquire it as before.
My best
guess how the passage tax would affect this is to make the success roll at -1. So we can never get that six and only break even money wise but we still have happiness. Every so often we'd get 0 and lose money. (Alternative guesses all involve some other mechanism to periodically mess with our profits. Since the margin on salt is so low, it easily becomes a money loser – but still a happiness gainer.)
Not knowing how the furs work mechanically, it's pure speculation whether selling them at home is worth it. The closest equivalent I've seen is probably the ketton cloth, a luxury fabric that varied quite widely from year to year. Selling furs abroad may or may not cause double the passage tax woes; we probably wouldn't know unless we try. Erik's testimonial suggests they have a significant happiness component, but only high end buyers will be interested whereas everybody wants a pinch of salt in their stew.
It's a semi-permanent trade of money for happiness (or, if reselling to the south, for the
hope of more money). The thing is, I personally don't think we need to semi-permanently buy happiness when we already have glassware and future wine. Also, it's possible either or both the wine conversion and the big Orcworld bastion are ongoing projects with an ongoing drain. In that case we don't have spare money in the first place for a few years.
Poll
Author
Topic: SPAMKINGDOM#: Emperor Houlandin IV of Methiant-Cydwyl! (Read 788313 times)