Print

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

[Dante]

pay miners and woodcutters for trees cut and squares mined

Ownership should be either Fort or Individual

I'd like to see a system where you set a designated digging area then assign it to a miner and he gains credit for the hours he spends digging. Dug-out material still becomes property of the fortress.
The fort would sell the material to a mason to build a door, then buy the door.

So it seems that people think the fortress itself is going to act an agent, that:
1. Holds prior rights to all the trees/stones/etc
2. Pays the labourers who extract those resources
3. Sells such resources to the manufacturers (carpenters, metalcrafters, etc), who then own whatever they produce
 and presumably
4. Trades goods to the caravans which it has bought from its own citizens

That seems like the easiest way for it to go, but it seems to be a bit of a departure from the emergent , strictly individual-dwarf-centred economy AngleWyrm was originally talking about.

The issue of player control is, I think, going to be central when the economy gets re-done, because of questions like "Am I allowed to dump a dwarf's possessions into the magma" and "Can I sell any item in the fortress to the caravans" and "Do a dead dwarf's items default back to the fortress".

[AngleWyrm]

There will always be extremists on both the left and the right, but reality generally lies somewhere in the middle. I believe there is room in this game for the concept of public property, or community property, owned and operated from the coffers of the fort as a distinct entity from the dwarves. Currently the game is almost exclusively a communist, left-wing view that everything belongs to The People, save a few small private items. Even to the point of being too much so, begging for a little capitolist innovation.

Reversing the situation so that everything is owned and operated by a dwarf might also be extremist, and maybe the solution resides somewhere in between, where we declare a public goods and have a chaperon oversee the common goods. Probably a noble, maybe the mayor, maybe a treasurer. The flow of money to/from the commons would be in the form of rent, and maybe a tax taken off the top of all material goods produced in the fort.

This might put the player in the Fun position of having enough dwarves, but being too low on resources to pay them for any work. Here again, the government makes a promise for future delivery of goods, in the form of promisary coin. The idea being that in better times, the dwarves can come and trade those coins in to the Treasurer for meals, crops, or metals that they might want for their personal use.

Then we have a system with at least two forms of currency, the food coins from the farmer, and the unspecified coins from the treasury. The treasury coins need more clarity, so let's say they trade for a bar of metal, as chosen by the player when he mints them.

The player is free to mint way more coins than there is metal to trade, which brings up more opportunities for Fun. If a dwarf goes to cash one in when there's no metal to back it up, what happens? "Come back later" can get old, and so it should probably cause an unhappy thought. So if the player chooses to set up unbacked coin, and not bother to back it up later, then the citizens could experience a lot of bad thoughts as they attempt to trade their money in for metal. They might even be less inclined to accept government coin while they are experiencing a bad thought from unbacked currency.

[Andeerz]

Yeah.  I like where y'all's ideas are going.   

That seems like the easiest way for it to go, but it seems to be a bit of a departure from the emergent , strictly individual-dwarf-centred economy AngleWyrm was originally talking about.

The issue of player control is, I think, going to be central when the economy gets re-done, because of questions like "Am I allowed to dump a dwarf's possessions into the magma" and "Can I sell any item in the fortress to the caravans" and "Do a dead dwarf's items default back to the fortress".

Bingo.  I agree with both those statements.  I also want to bring up that the role of the player is somewhat nebulous right now, I think.  Who are you supposed to be or represent?  That might help define where the aspects of player control should lie.  I know Toady discussed this a bit in one of the talks... and I can't find it in the transcripts for the life of me! 

But, yeah, I am totally for the emergent , strictly individual-dwarf-centred economy AngleWyrm was originally talking about.  Abso-frikin'-lutely.  With fiat currency and everything.  I would like for that kind of economy he mentioned, with the fiat currency/promissory note thing to be possible. 

I emphasize "possible" because I think whatever models DF uses for economics and stuff, there should be the possibility of different scenarios playing out as they did in real life: there was an entire spectrum of economic systems present throughout the world throughout the medieval times.  China had fiat currency, as did the middle east, and in Africa, I believe.  Bronze age peoples did as well.  In most of Western Europe, and other parts of the world, commodity monies were used (as in gold, copper, silver coins that had value by virtue of their physical make up, not a government guarantee).  Systems of serfdom, mercantilistic, capitalistic, and socialistic systems all existed in different parts of the world throughout virtually the entirety of civilizational history.  I would love all of these kinds of systems and all variations in between to be possible, emergent from an elegant model of the most basic, fundamental rules that govern economics.

What are these basic, fundamental rules from which complex behavior arise?  AngleWyrm pointed out a biggie: ownership.  There are others undoubtedly, but I am nowhere near knowledgable enough yet to say what they are for sure.  And how would we model these kinds of things in the game at the most basic level? 

[forsaken1111]

I would actually like a dead dwarf's possessions to go to his next of kin, rather than defaulting to unowned/fortress owned.

I'd also like some sort of family tree display which is more intuitive.

[Andeerz]

I would actually like a dead dwarf's possessions to go to his next of kin, rather than defaulting to unowned/fortress owned.

I'd love for that to be a possibility, for sure.  I'd also like a dead dwarf's possessions to also be able to go to his lord (if a system of serfdom is ever included), or guild, of church, or whoever the dwarf may have agreed (voluntarily or forced) to give them to in an agreement made when alive. 

It would be cool for the player (or even nobles) to be able to establish the sort of terms and conditions of living in the fort.  Does an immigrant have to agree to giving up the right of personal property and serve a noble in order to benefit from the employment and protection the fort offers?  Is there a legal limitation imposed by a guild or government of the people that prohibits such bondage and exploitation?  I think things like these should be able to come up in the game, as they were some of the things that happened IRL that shaped the economies and lives of people throughout history.

[Waparius]

I would actually like a dead dwarf's possessions to go to his next of kin, rather than defaulting to unowned/fortress owned.

I'd also like some sort of family tree display which is more intuitive.

Agreed.

Having a clan system running in parallel to the guildmasters based on the number of resident clansdwarves would add a lot of flavour to large, end-game forts. I could see Clan Patriarchs/Matriarchs showing up, dwarves supporting their more destitute/injured clan members (which would help the economics of hospitals), and spreading grudges among themselves.

Being forced to put some patrols in your meeting halls and build separate districts clan districts after Rigoth McCoy calls in her cousins to smash up Urist McHatfield's bedroom can only be a good thing.

[Dante]

Urist Iliktableedalot has been content lately. He was conscripted into the fortress guard lately. He made a will recently.

Dastot Probablybenefits has been ecstatic lately. He admired a fine engraving of himself as sole beneficiary recently.

Once the game has actually reached the level of detail where dead dwarves pass on their possessions, we will presumably need other avenues which they might use to get rid of stuff. Rather than selling it, it might be given away, re-gifted, given to charities or orphans, used as bribes, or just dumped...

I think the idea of the economy 'kicking in' at some point is hard to get around. Nobody wants their starting seven to refuse to shoulder picks until e.g. there are enough coins minted, shops built and individual storage areas allocated.

[forsaken1111]

For any kind of useful economy we will first need item degradation and the removal of all 'unlimited resource' options.

[AngleWyrm]

I think the idea of the economy 'kicking in' at some point is hard to get around. Nobody wants their starting seven to refuse to shoulder picks until e.g. there are enough coins minted, shops built and individual storage areas allocated.

It wouldn't be as bad as that, with ownership of food and drink. Then the player starts with about six month's rations, to trade for services. And as each service is bought, the workman gains food/drink as a personal posession. So the player already has a starting bank of whatever they choose to take with them.

[forsaken1111]

Yeah, right away the miners begin earning cash for mining and they buy food from the state when they consume it. Dwarves with no immediate jobs can still buy things, but it would be on credit. You could designate certain dwarves as a 'ward of the state' so they're exempt from the economy for a time, or just grant them a certain amount of wealth on the books so they can function until things get going.

Like right off the bat, you might give your weaver 500 dorfbucks. He isn't gonna make any money until the farmer gets busy really, so he needs to stay happy and fed until then. While there should be no hard cap on debt unless you set one, dwarves could get unhappy thoughts from being in debt.

Credit could even be tracked by the records keeper noble.

[Andeerz]

Credit could even be tracked by the records keeper noble.

Ooooh... good one!  This ties in nicely with the writing, books, libraries and abstract knowledge ideas floating around.

[King_of_the_weasels]

Your first 7 dwarves are on an expedition, so it's more like there camping then living in a town, everything discussed shouldn't matter to them til there's a mayor.

[AngleWyrm]

Yes, in the beginning they just trade straight across for food, booze, clothing, metals. The player can mint coins at any time, but if they mint them too early, there might not be enough metal when people come to turn in their coin for metal, which would cause unhappy thoughts. But then how much metal does a dwarf want anyway? All of it!

[Malorn]

pay miners and woodcutters for trees cut and squares mined

Ownership should be either Fort or Individual

I'd like to see a system where you set a designated digging area then assign it to a miner and he gains credit for the hours he spends digging. Dug-out material still becomes property of the fortress.
The fort would sell the material to a mason to build a door, then buy the door.

So it seems that people think the fortress itself is going to act an agent, that:
1. Holds prior rights to all the trees/stones/etc
2. Pays the labourers who extract those resources
3. Sells such resources to the manufacturers (carpenters, metalcrafters, etc), who then own whatever they produce
 and presumably
4. Trades goods to the caravans which it has bought from its own citizens

That seems like the easiest way for it to go, but it seems to be a bit of a departure from the emergent , strictly individual-dwarf-centred economy AngleWyrm was originally talking about.

The issue of player control is, I think, going to be central when the economy gets re-done, because of questions like "Am I allowed to dump a dwarf's possessions into the magma" and "Can I sell any item in the fortress to the caravans" and "Do a dead dwarf's items default back to the fortress".

Keep in mind that governments do exactly this.  They make the money, and pay people to make that money (mints), as well as pay for services they want.

[ZebioLizard2]

Instead of needing to make your own coins..You're given an amount every so long by the mountainhome. (Depends on scenario of leaving) This most likely would be for a start where a certain area has been found with good stuff the original mountainhome wants. There would be different leverage of coins generally. The mountainhomes original coinage would count for more due to being from a stable economy, and would be more "official" but you can mint your own. (Maybe a limit set by the king, going above it would generally be like counterfeiting and piss him off a bit)

Infact, make it so that your starting amount is what BUYS you all the goods (The expedition screen) that you take with you to the new area. Whatever you have left is the amount of money that will be given to you in coins.