Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfius]

It is also wholly inappropriate for DF, IMO, especially being issued by player forts. They are neither stable enough, old enough, or large enough to justify that kind of faith, and it's really rather open to player abuse. Bad inflation? Just add a few more zeros to the denomination of the new lead coins!

That's actually a common response to inflation in real life.  As long as the consequence of doing it (hyperinflation; see 1920s Germany, 1940s Hungary, or recent Zimbabwe for examples) is modeled, of course.

I was actually thinking of Zimbabwe while typing that - I know it happens iRL, but the problem with player fort implementation is one of time scale. Player forts won't generally last long enough for hyperinflation to become a serious problem, if it would become a problem at all - well, maybe if traders started refusing your currency.

I think that all coins should be minted out of any metal and be backed by actual materials (as real world money is, technically) and so you could say that your money is worth anything you liked, but at first people would want the actual materials, to check that you have them.

Asset-backed currency hasn't been used in decades(?) - it's pretty much all fiat currency now. Governments say "This is money," and faith in their economy(and supply, etc.,etc.) determines what it's worth.


Asset-backed however has the issue where these stocks much physically exist somewhere in your fort, which poses implementation challenges(and having to designate every item backing your currency) and potential exploits(ie, use your legendary dining room for a ☼Stone Table/Throne☼-backed currency), as well as hurdles for access, be it elaborate underground vaults with complex locking mechanisms, or someone showing up wanting to verify your backing while a siege/forgotten locked door/etc renders it temporarily inaccessible.

There's also the tendency of player forts to collapse, and their generally short existence, which should hinder them gaining the kind of trust needed for this to work. Gold-backed currency might seem nice and solid, but if it's being issued by an entity that might not be around in a few years time, leaving you with coins/notes only worth their composition...?

Asset-backed doesn't just depend on trust that you have the wealth now, but that you will continue to have it, and that those using your money will be able to access it should they have reason to.

It just doesn't seem appropriate for the setting.

[Rowanas]

Hmm.

To deal with each of your issues, I would propose that...

1: You would have to have the backing goods somewhere (at first), so you could trade in those mugs and totems and stuff when someone asked for it. Essentially the backing good would be chosen at the time of asking rather than the time of minting, using the "value" of the goods. this value is the basic, standard unit upon which all trade is done (so your dwarf minted coins are worth x value, where value is an objective and unchanging unit used to judge all other things.)

You couldn't use thrones being used, for example, they have to be unused to count as possible backing currency.

Does that satisfy your implementation and exploit problems?

The thing you mentioned about short-lived fortresses still holds true. Perhaps this should only be possible if you become the mountainhome, because this currency would apply to all your civ. Previous to mountainhome status it would seem reasonable if you are stuck using the less fluctuating currency of your home civ. I suppose you could mint coins of your home civ, which would require the previously stated backing and stuff, but you would automatically have people trusting in your currency because it is the currency of the long-standing dwarven civ. You would get no control, but then, there's a good reason to aim for king. Currently there's no bonus to getting a king/queen, and if currency was alterable when the royalty arrived, that would make sense, as you are essentially the new home of the civ who everyone trusts.

I'm not sure I like the above suggestion, but let's roll with it.

[Wolfius]

Hmm.

To deal with each of your issues, I would propose that...

1: You would have to have the backing goods somewhere (at first), so you could trade in those mugs and totems and stuff when someone asked for it. Essentially the backing good would be chosen at the time of asking rather than the time of minting, using the "value" of the goods. this value is the basic, standard unit upon which all trade is done (so your dwarf minted coins are worth x value, where value is an objective and unchanging unit used to judge all other things.)

You couldn't use thrones being used, for example, they have to be unused to count as possible backing currency.

Does that satisfy your implementation and exploit problems?

Hurm. On that line, you could make redemption akin to trading, save you had to buy your currency back for atleast it's value or suffer backlash. That should be flexible and simplify implementation, by making use if existing mechanisms.

Tho having to deal with traders who only have your coins to 'sell' would probably be annoying for the player, so I'd count that a serious mark against it.

Maybe make it so this only happened during normal trades, and you just have to buy back your issued coins befor you could purchase anything else, with a penalty to your currency/whatever if they reached the trade depot(with coins) but you didn't buy the coinage they wanted to redeem? So you're not additionally penalised for pathfinding problems or other FUBARs that prevent a trade from ever happening in the first place.

Of course, you still have the potential issue of having the goods, but them being so heavy the caravan can't accept them, especially if it's a mule train already heavily laiden.

And the exploit of redeeming your currency for more of your currency would have to be covered.

The thing you mentioned about short-lived fortresses still holds true. Perhaps this should only be possible if you become the mountainhome, because this currency would apply to all your civ. Previous to mountainhome status it would seem reasonable if you are stuck using the less fluctuating currency of your home civ. I suppose you could mint coins of your home civ, which would require the previously stated backing and stuff, but you would automatically have people trusting in your currency because it is the currency of the long-standing dwarven civ. You would get no control, but then, there's a good reason to aim for king. Currently there's no bonus to getting a king/queen, and if currency was alterable when the royalty arrived, that would make sense, as you are essentially the new home of the civ who everyone trusts.

Minting coins of your home civ would be... questionable. Like the US allowing states to mint USD, unregulated.

Maybe divide it up into two forms of currency?

Regular Coinage, which stands on it's own value, and Royal Coinage, which is asset-backed and can have a set value above it's innate worth, and presumably can be redeemed throughout the kingdom through any branch of the government.

Of course, asset-backed still has the, erm, 'issue' that you can create value from virtually nothing, as you shouldn't really see traders coming to cash in Dwarf Tokens very often, so wouldn't really have to insure you had much value in goods at hand for that purpose - buying trade goods with coins is kind of self-defeating if you keep having to but it back with your own goods. It'd really just add an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Unless, I dunno, the mountainhome(or somesuch - Mount Knox?) maintained the vault of backing assets off-map, and you just shipped your backing goods out with them, which would credit your currency control menu with ☼N equal to the value of the goods, which you could then allocate to coins as you minted them, or something.

I'm not sure I like the above suggestion, but let's roll with it.

Lkewise - the more I examine it, the more I come to question if it would really add anything of substance to the game.

...hurm. Wait, I have an idea.

Maybe have a "vault" stockpile/zone, and when meeting with the dwarf liaison the value of their contents(also found on your coinage menu) would be 'assessed' automatically(ie, abstracted), without need for access, and your fort issued license to mint Royal Coinage with X total value above that of the coins own innate? Thus your money is backed by the kingdom. An option only available once you get the king and/or survive long enough? A mix of both(say, king + 5 years or 10 years)? Other liaisons could also seek to verify your vaults - maybe an option to refuse? Maybe fabulous wealth(if you allow them to verify your claims) increasing attacks, or even having a chance of triggering a war if you don't trade much with that faction?

There should also be significant consequences for abandoning the currency system and liquidating your vaults, or otherwise being caught with insufficient value within(compared to what you actually minted - having less than what you're allowed to mint would have to be ok, just to allow you to relocate). Mandates are a good start - Add X good/☼N value to vaults as part of the mandate list, with shortfalls increasing it's frequency dramatically(and no Mint N Royal Coinage mandates, prolly, as you'd need ). Should also strain diplomatic and trade relations, reduce migrants, etc.(the aforementioned 'buy your coins back befor we'll trade with you' might be a good one, along with refusal to accept your royal coinage, and with each caravan only bringing back so many coins it should be manageable) And the ability to melt your coins to reduce the value you must keep in your vaults, as well as requesting your own coins from liaisons to meet this end.

Should Royal Coinage in vaults be allowed to add it's backed-value to the Reserve Value? Foreign currency, sure, but it seems circular and absurd - prolly limit it to adding their innate value, if that.



EDIT:

Huh, I think that might actually be a fairly decent implementation.
 But what advantages should it have over just trading raw goods? Maybe limit caravan size if you just barter, allow an increase with use of innate-value coins, and another increase as asset-backed Royal Coinage starts to flow, depending on the value of each you export(innate value coins not overlapping with Royal, for there will always be a market for money whose value isn't tied to a specific government, especially small ones. And it should simplify implementation), with the value counter decreasing annually, so failure to trade will actually result in a gradual decrease in caravan size?

I... kinda suppose it would make sense, after a fashion - thoughts?

[Rowanas]

I disagree with most of the things you just posted, wolfius

Buying your currency back (taking it out of circulation) would be done as with all other trade goods, and would cost as much in value^TM as they did before. You would gain nothing in this process, as the only way to buy coins back would be to mint new coins or change the value, both of which have other repercussions, as they do in real life.

If traders brought your coinage, then that might be because you're doing well. Eventually everyone might be using your coins, which is no big problem (think of EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH. The American dollar is accepted almost anywhere, why should DF be any different? If you manage to be a global superpower, you deserve to have the rewards.

Backing goods checks would be performed by special liasons who would appear from a civ or town or whatever, bringing back all the coins that they wanted redeemed, and you would have to trade them their goods. I think that a vast wagon should come along as well, so that they WILL be able to take any goods you offer them. Maybe only actual goods should be allowed, so hauling 14 tonnes of stone in backing goods wouldn't be allowed. Having separate events for backing goods checks is essential.

Rethinking about the mountainhome minting has brought up a better solution. Fuck it. People wouldn't trust your currency after only a year or two, but oh well. Other fortresses crumble after three or four years, but oh well. Screw this bit of realism, let's go with what's fun.

I'm really not happy with the idea of royal coinage and fortress coinage. I think every fortress/site should have it's own coins to trade, and they all kinda compete for dominance. I think that wagon sizes is dealt with already by how much you trade, and similarly, if people trust your coinage, that will boost the wagon train because they know that you are a strong trading partner and that the possibility of good trade is high. This implementation seems simpler and sleeker.

I think there should be a pretty constant flow of people wanting to check your currency in the early years, with the peak times being after crises and wars. The thing about asset backed currency is that, yes, it leaves itself open to exploitation (minting more coins than you can back), but every coin minted is a gamble that enough people won't check to collapse your currency. It's all about making people think you have the goods, and persuading them not to all check at once. Exploitation is the very fundamental basis of all established credit systems.

Urist McCredit: "Instead of you walking about with this chair, why not take this note saying you can have it whenever you need it"
Urist McBanker: "Sounds good. no need for me to lug the chair around"
Urist McCredit: "Now, I still have one chair. Hey, Urist McOther, want a chair?"

Later...

Urist McBanker: "Hey, I've come for my chair"
Urist McCredit: "Shit, you're back already. I thought I could give someone else the chair until you came back."
Urist MCBanker: "Wrong! Now I'm going to tell everyone that you can't be trusted, and no-one will ever buy anything from you"

Urist McCredit's value has exploded in gore!

[MrFake]

What are you all, a bunch of sissyfoot elves?  Economy is for the weak, and currency is for the maggots being crushed under the pink, beflowered boots of the weak!  But, since we have to cater to individual tastes in these times of growth, we'll give you something to shut you up keep you happy: Dwarven purses!

That's right.  Purses!  If your pansy, beard-shaving, bauble-collecting dwarfs absolutely must handle the pitiful waste of metal you call "coinage," we can have our clothiers design special cloth or silk (for the majorly pussified) coin purses.  Then, your dwarfs can carry around their baubles like a marksdwarf or hunter--who incidentally wouldn't be caught dead with... oh never mind--like these dwarfs carry arrows in quivers.  Dye pouch an optional accessory.

As a matter of common decency, coins can only be placed in purses by their owners, and not in stockpiles, so the more respectable of the citizenry don't have to see such things in public, and so as not to strain foreign relations by attempting to sell these "pansy pouches" to other nations (even the eternally undignified pointy-ears and retarded hairless apes don't use coins).


Okay seriously.  Using coin purses seems like a quick way to keep currency manageable (no coin piles, no negative thoughts from vaults), without taking DF down a far too serious and complicated road.  Plus, it does fit in with the supposed era--medieval style, despite their being no real "era" to DF--in that purses were more widespread and less effeminate.  Less effeminate for humans... not dwarfs.

Screw this bit of realism, let's go with what's fun.

That's basically my sentiment regarding most suggestions on economy.  It's hard to deny that it would be an awesome simulation, and fun to manipulate.  But, since Economy even as it is currently implemented isn't a superficial feature like Justice, but a tightly integrated constraint on the fortress, expanding those constraints may end up overcomplicating the system to an unplayable degree.  Some already find the Economy too much trouble, even though it's quite manageable and harmless.

So ...
(1) Yes, (2) no, (3) coin management, and (4) dwarfs and elves living together--mass hysteria!

[Buddybud]

As Scarpa mentioned, backed currency and fiat currency are modern inventions and don't really fit in with a medieval-style setting.  ....

actually...

The Song Dynasty was the first in China to issue true paper money in 1023. Though technically not a fiat currency - as the notes were valued at a certain exchange rate for gold, silver, or silk - in practice conversion was never allowed. The notes were initially to be redeemed after three year's service, to be replaced by new notes for a 3% service charge, but, as more of them were printed without notes being retired, inflation became evident. The government made several attempts to support the paper by demanding taxes partly in currency and making other laws, but the damage had been done, and the notes fell out of favour.

But to be fair i think fiat and paper currency would just complicate things. My only real problem with the present system is how dwarfs drag coins all over the place.

[Wolfius]

Buying your currency back (taking it out of circulation) would be done as with all other trade goods, and would cost as much in value^TM as they did before. You would gain nothing in this process, as the only way to buy coins back would be to mint new coins or change the value, both of which have other repercussions, as they do in real life.

WRONG!

You've also got me backwards - buying back currency would be done with goods, and would fill the function of A) People redeeming your currency for backing goods B) You removing your currency from circulation, and prolly melting it down/destroying it, so you don't have to back it.

If traders brought your coinage, then that might be because you're doing well. Eventually everyone might be using your coins, which is no big problem (think of EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH. The American dollar is accepted almost anywhere, why should DF be any different? If you manage to be a global superpower, you deserve to have the rewards.

Bringing your coinage to buy things is functionally the same as bringing it to redeem it's value. They could bring it as a 'trade good', in which case you wouldn't have to buy it or face consequences, but that's mostly not what I was talking about(unless you requested it for the purposes of removing it for circulation/whatever).

In general, however, you'd have no use for your coinage, so traders bringing it to trade with probably isn't something you want - it's an export.

Backing goods checks would be performed by special liasons who would appear from a civ or town or whatever, bringing back all the coins that they wanted redeemed, and you would have to trade them their goods. I think that a vast wagon should come along as well, so that they WILL be able to take any goods you offer them. Maybe only actual goods should be allowed, so hauling 14 tonnes of stone in backing goods wouldn't be allowed. Having separate events for backing goods checks is essential.

So, each civ can now send another caravan, except these ones we have to trade with or our currency and reputation is screwed.

My god, man, dealing with three a year can already be a pain, with all the hauling and the dwarf supposed to meet with them/trade/whatever going off to haul/eat/drink/sleep/on break! Special caravans will be nothing but a burden.

I'm also not convinced having them as separate events is essential - I see no point, and several reasons not to. It adds nothing to the game.

Rethinking about the mountainhome minting has brought up a better solution. Fuck it. People wouldn't trust your currency after only a year or two, but oh well. Other fortresses crumble after three or four years, but oh well. Screw this bit of realism, let's go with what's fun.

I'm really not happy with the idea of royal coinage and fortress coinage. I think every fortress/site should have it's own coins to trade, and they all kinda compete for dominance. I think that wagon sizes is dealt with already by how much you trade, and similarly...

Royal coinage is an implementation of your idea for asset-backed currency being a king-based reward, with me suggesting the addition of duration enabling access.

It should, I think, have some prerequisites. The king is a good one, as it adds legitimacy, but there are a few other handy points.


The wagon size is less logic and more player-incentive based. As is, your suggestions seem to boil down to a horribly complicated, laborious and fragile way to moderately inflate your available trade value, with no real incentive to do so.

...and let's be clear, buying out caravans is easy - introducing something so complex that only generates more trade value is virtually pointless. It adds very little to the player experience...

Rather, allowing the player to better increase caravan size via coin use(and selling trade goods/barter use will still increase it under my suggestions, just not as much) is intended to provide a solid, innate incentive and benefit to using both forms of currency beyond "style" - and something this complex needs more than that to justify itself.

...if people trust your coinage, that will boost the wagon train because they know that you are a strong trading partner and that the possibility of good trade is high. This implementation seems simpler and sleeker.

You really know how to pick your battles, don't you? On everything else you've opted for cumbersome and needlessly complex.

Not only would that be far more abstract, but you don't get business because people trust your currency, you'd get it because people want what you have to offer(the goods and their cost). Having a strong currency is part of that, as money is a very handy and appealing store of value, but you really seem to have the reasoning backwards.

Still, this is pretty similar to what I proposed in terms of functionality, just shallower and... oddly justified.

I think there should be a pretty constant flow of people wanting to check your currency in the early years, with the peak times being after crises and wars. The thing about asset backed currency is that, yes, it leaves itself open to exploitation (minting more coins than you can back), but every coin minted is a gamble that enough people won't check to collapse your currency. It's all about making people think you have the goods, and persuading them not to all check at once. Exploitation is the very fundamental basis of all established credit systems.

I know what you're talking about, but how you want to implement it in DF, well, it's just cumbersome, impractical, and adds very little to the game.

My final suggestions in my last post is a far more streamlined implementation with logical, optional incentives and good versatility. Add the hinted ability to refuse foreign liaisons the option of checking your vaults(an action that would be abstracted, so they don't have to run down to the vaults and can do the task from the meeting. Like how the book keeper doesn't have to run around to take stock) and you can implement the deception that you want, albeit at the cost of trust when you refuse their request to verify(trust prolly implemented as a limit on the backed-coinage a civ's caravans will accept, be it overall value and/or percentage of value above the coin's innate value(ie, if the Hunams don't trust your currency a whole lot, they might only accept coin denominations 150% their innate value, so coins with an innate value of ☼60 could have their value boosted to ☼90 via backing, and they'd accept that, but stamping a ☼92 denomination would be pushing it too far, even if you have the goods. Atleast until you build up faith in your currency)), but this can be offset by gifts and proving your money reliable over time.

Maybe even an option to bribe the liaison to claim your vaults are wealthier than in reality? Prolly depending of your representative's social skills VS his own and/or personality traits(determining how susceptible he is to bribes and corruption).


Now, I can see you scraping the Dwarf Liaison verify-and-license, or making it optional, at the cost of taking longer to build up trust and thus the size of denominations and the total value of currency you can export with any given caravan. The trust mechanic I mention above would seem a decent balance to prevent excessive easy abuse while being fairly plausible, I think, while V'n'L allows the honest(or those who can bribe the dwarf liaison  ) a faster way to build up trust, with the caveat that suddenly deciding to refuse him would seriously hurt overall trust in your asset-backed, license-minted currency(and if your license-minted currency collapses, it'll have a backlash against your kingdom's government and economy, depending on how much is out there and how big the collapse is).

And of course you always have the option of traditional innate-value coinage - which should become far more popular if you've caused a few economic collapses with previous forts in the same world, as you've undermined overall faith in asset-backed currency in general. 



Remember, while it's a neat idea, you don't want to unnecessarily burden the player, and you want to give them a solid reward for doing it(especially given the depth and complexity we're talking about) - extra trade value means little overall(atleast until we have alot more to spend it on - it's too easy to become incredibly wealthy as-is), and tying caravan size to it isn't actually a huge benefit either, but rather the best I could think of.

It needs something more, IMO, but I can't think of something appropriate.



EDIT:

MrFake, the focus here is external trade, not the internal fortress economy. Atleast, that's what my suggestions are aimed towards. As a player, the internal economy isn't something I'm personally fond of.

[Rowanas]

I'm not going to answer al of that, I'm knackered. I will address the last point, however.

All of this assumes a supply and demand situation, where trading with trade goods would be complex and require a different type of product for each civ per season. Endlessly producing mugs would make your fortress worth nothing, as you would constantly be trading things that everyone already has, and eventually those skull totems and rock mugs will be worth literally nothing, and you'll have to keep trading other things. The natural progression would be to give coinage to avoid the ever shifting lattice of supply and demand, which brings with it a new set of different challenges. That's basically what I want. The rest was the things that I thought about. it probably doesn't matter anyway, but hopefully my question will be raised in the podcast.

[lucusLoC]

i disslike the idea of basing DF ecconomics on the real world. if you do then you will need real world tools to help track things like supply and demand, valuations and exchange rates, trending, blah blah blah.

i think DF needs its own simple economic theory. something that is easy to grasp, and provides fun for the player. something that would probably meake even an entry level econ student balk.

lets start with the most basic, value of goods.

the value of currenct should be based off of the lowest possible demomination of coinage, i.e. a coin of the leas vauable metal. let us assume that is lead. so on lead coin is the least valuable unit of currency in the game, valued at 1DB or dorfbuck.

(Asside: values specified in the raws would be relative to each other. so if lead had a value of 10 in the raws, and gold had a value of 3500, then lead coin would be worth 1, and a gold coin would be worth 350. the same would be true if lead were worth 1 and gold 350 in the raws. this would allow for the creation of worthless materals as well. if you make lead worth 1000, and some stone worth 1, then that stone would effectivly be worthless, since lead is the least valuable coinable matiereal and so has a base value of 1 per unit.)

the value of an item is based on its material (M), times the number of that material in the item (N), plus a base usefullness of the item (I) (which is multiplied by the quality (Q)), as defined in the raws. so (MxN)+(IxQ)

M can be 0.
N must always be 1 or grater (so no more 3 mugs from 1 unit of stone)
I can be 0, but should be baed on how useful/desireable that item type is
Q is defined as below (names and numbers made up, open for debate):


shoddy: .5
ugly: .7
rough: .8
decent (or qualityless): 1
good: 1.1
beautiful: 1.3
superb: 1.5
masterpiece: 1.7





i am now going to BS some numbers.

say you have a table. the base value for the stone in that table is 2, and it requires 8 stone to make, for a total of 8. the overall usefulnees/desierability of a table is 10, and it is good quality. (2x8)+(10X1.1)+27

so the table is worth 27 DB. period. the value of the table does not change. the amount of labor put into that table does not affect its value (that part is true to life). the value of the table is set in the stone it is made from.

now, if a dorf wants to put this table in his room he must buy it, and he will pay 27DB for it. glut of tables or not. i do not realy care if htat is how it wroks or not, it is simple, easy to understand, and cuts out the need for  the player to think about how many table to make for optimum value and usefullness. the player should not need a calculator to figure out the value of something, or watch the reported values of items fly about all over the place (except for noble mandates, but we will get to those).

now, that reported value may not nessisarily be what everyone is going to pay though. caravans are going to want to make a profit on the things they buy, and they know taht that table is going to only be woth 27 DB when they get there. so they may only be willing to pay 70% (this number should be based on distance to market, whatever that market is determined to be). now, if you are trying to unload, say, 100 table onto them, they may not be wiling to take them all. they may only want 15. you may, perhaps, be able to get them to take 30, but the last 15 will only be bought at 35%. the coice is yours.

now if you request something from a caravan, they are going to stick it to you, making you pay more. if they have a request of you, you can getthem to pay more. pretty much same as now, but the markets will be derived from the world, instead of randomly. this is where the nobility come in.

if urist McNoble sees that his fort is in need of something, say tables, he can resonably assume there is a shortage and boost the price on them. please note that the carivan is not going to care about this local price hike, they will still only pay 70% of the actual value, not the inflated value. they will, however, be willing to charge more. price hikes can be based off of thoughts and complaints, or simply the whim of the noble, like they are now. also note that noble in other locatoins are what is going to drive the merchant requests. if some noble up north has hiked the price of sunshine to 200%, the merchant may very well be wiling to pay you 120% to get you to give up a large portion of you stock.

i do wish to emphasise that the actual value of the item does not change, just the relative value. this is not like the real world, where it is actual value that fluctuates, but it keeps things simple for the player, as they have a baseline that they can always fall back on to see if they are getting a good deal. it provides a constant, so that frustratoin is kept to a minimum.

now i am going to quote myself, becaue i kinda alreay explaned how i would like the transfer of wealth to work:

As to the fortress account, you do have to make sure the player does not get the (still active) fortress into an unplayable state. If there are no funds left, how is digging handled? What about food production? I think fortress wealth should be phsical wealth only, but dorfs are paid in "work credits" that do not count twords actual wealth. They are mearly a way to aquire actual wealth from the fortress. With a system that simple we can also do away with inflation models. We can do that since we are more or less dealing with a closed system, with finite resources. If a dorf makes a billion dorfbucks hauling, and there is not a billion dorfbucks of stuff available, he buys what he can and either sits on the rest or buys out caravans. I lean twords the sits on it part, as i prefer the caravans to only take phisical goods, or phisical coinage. Payment from off site (traders buying ale at the inn for example) would obey the same rules. So player interaction would be paid out of the "fortress cedit," which is onlt good on the local map, and for local units, all other trasactions would need to be phisical.a dorf who owns a shop that could not sell stuff for lack of demand wold either have to return to the general fortress work pool or be hired by a more succeddful dorf to earn credits to buy food. If they are renting something, they loos it, if they own it outright then they can sell it (prefered) or keep it. Dorf bums (dorfs with no monies and no available jobs) eat on the forts dime, drink water and sleep either on the floor or in an avaialable barracks/unclaimed bed, similar to what they do now. This would obviously make them unhappy. The price of goods would not fluctuate, except by noble mandate. This would keep things simple for the player. However, i am totaly for the idea of trade caravans refusing to take more of a paticular good. Not pay less for it, just refuse to take it. There should probably be a warning though, like a liasion telling you "the human caravan is not interested in any more mugs"

here is the link to that thread:

http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=40667.0



TLDR: real life modeling of economics in DF means that DF will need the equivalent of real life tools to keep up with it. i am not an accountant or financer or stock market annalyser, nor should i have to be to play DF. DF's economy model should be simple, not complicated.

[Machinesquid]

As modern-world accurate as currency backing is, I'd prefer a system that tries to track the availability of different metals in order to establish their current value. So, inflation by flooding is a problem, with your awareness of metal values based on a sort of 'econ' skill, similar to systems already in place.

I'd also like to see privatization as an option. Allow workshops to be bought and traded within your dwarf community. Make it so that dwarves own their own products, and have the broker wander the fortress offering to buy them from individuals, and retail them. This would have to include limitations on large goods produced without your commission(wait for it,) to prevent certain dwarves from stockpiling all your beds and doors. In order to patch up the issues of furniture acquisition, make it so that goods produced under a job order are sold directly to you, and paid for from your vaults.

Also, would it be possible to solve the coinmess problem by making it so that coins ordered into circulation (that is, used to pay your dwarves) would "disappear" and just become a tracking number in the individual dwarfs RAWs? It would make your money harder to track, but the quick fix would be a "currency in circulation" element on the Status screen.

[Quift]

I just want to state that I feel any economic system based on something else than demand/supplu theory to be unworkable. Everything related to the current economics system should be treated as a placeholder and thrown out.

1, only metal based coins can reasonably be expected to be worth anything. DF is on the verge on a sociaty supporting a monetary instead of a barter economy and fiat money requires a way more intricate economy than we could possibly represent. unless you wish to properly model rent anything including asset backed money is silly. so no paper money. And coins' worth is afunction of the base-metal.

2, demand needs to be properly be implemented for any economy to make any sense otherwise we are just fiddling with imaginerary goods. So goods need to have an actual use, and dwarves have to geniunily want them. once we have all the wants of the dwarves we can quite easily calculate total demand. and then correlate that to supply. and prices should be local. in an pre-industrial economy all prices are local, otherwise traders would go bankrupt since there would be no profit in transporting things. So traders would normally wish to buy stuff which are cheap in your fort, and sell you stuff that is relativly expensive. if they adjust solely to that they would ask to buy your surplus and sell you what you do not have by default. And isn't that nice?

3, and when we have a demand we could pay decent wages. and to avoid the hassle of actual coins we could just abstract them. there is no need of actual coins if that is to much of a hassle. to just know that this particular dwarf has 234 ¤ should be enough.

[Machinesquid]

2, demand needs to be properly be implemented for any economy to make any sense otherwise we are just fiddling with imaginerary goods. So goods need to have an actual use, and dwarves have to geniunily want them. once we have all the wants of the dwarves we can quite easily calculate total demand. and then correlate that to supply. and prices should be local. in an pre-industrial economy all prices are local, otherwise traders would go bankrupt since there would be no profit in transporting things. So traders would normally wish to buy stuff which are cheap in your fort, and sell you stuff that is relativly expensive. if they adjust solely to that they would ask to buy your surplus and sell you what you do not have by default. And isn't that nice?

I dunno, I tend to think that the dwarven need to obsessive-compulsively collect things they don't need is almost Fun. Also, actively tracking and adjusting item values would make DF even more of a CPU hog than it already is.

[Zantan]

Urist McPeasant is unhappy.  He was recently taxed of 12 pig tail socks.

[Granite26]

1: I think it's most period appropriate to have coinage based on the actual value of the metal in the coin.  It leads to all sorts of period appropriate Fun.  This would require vastly more valuable precious metals, but I'm ok with that.

2: Italy is considering allowing aging cheeses and wines to be used as collateral (the private version of backed currency).

3: Dwarfbucks should be kept as an inate value unit for purposes of code.  Everything could float against the (nonexistant) dwarfbuck, although there would never actually be a dwarfbuck.

4: If backed currency is allowed, I don't think it should be in the hands of the player.  Everybody should be allowed to release notes, bounded by civ and fort laws.  (in this view, deeds are also backed currency

[Arrkhal]

To actually be pseudo-quasi-semi-historic, the economy should really use a barter system.  Way back when in medieval Europe, most people outside the locked in, both legs broken, dehydrated, starving guys nobility would never even see gold in their entire life, unless a noble happened to walk by.  Even lesser denomination coins were very rarely used.  Precious metals would mainly be used to trade between nobles and between nations.  Internal tithes and taxes within a kingdom were more often measured in percentages of your harvest and/or livestock.

Now, granted, these are dwarves and not humans.  Even so, food and booze are far more vital than metal, to the success of a fortress.

It'd be nice if the economy would scale based on your infrastructure.  maybe something like...

Initially, it's communistic share and share alike.  Then around the time that a mayor is elected, a system of barter is established, with "values" of trade goods influenced by the matprefs of the dwarves doing the trades, scarcity, utility of the item, etc., and the idea of currency only comes into play when the caravan comes.

Then the baron and the tax collector arrive.  At that point, any system could come into play, including incredibly idiotic ones.  The baron has mandated the construction of pig iron windows.  The tax collector has banned the export of metal, rock, and bone.  Most of the dwarves would probably barter among themselves still, and tithe the baron portions of their crops, animals, crafts, etc., in exchange for continued use of the fortress which they struck from the earth with their own hands (that's exactly how feudalism works; totally fair, right?  And people wonder why certain Native American tribes had such a different concept of land that they'd trade it away for beads).

Over time, the baron would trade surplus tithed goods to traders (on the side, nothing to do with the player's trading) in exchange for personal wealth, including precious metals.  Then he gets upgraded to count not based on population and exports, but his personal wealth in metals.  So by that time, there's enough metal in the count's personal coffers for him to offer a backed currency in exchange for dwarves who do things above and beyond the necessary yearly tithe.  Slowly, the dwarves would start to use this backed currency among themselves.  The idea of backed currency, letters of credit, owing favors, etc., is not a recent thing.

Then once the count's wealth turns him into a duke... eh, I'm out of ideas.