Print

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

[astaldaran]

The following was moved from another thread, as it seems to be a good start of a new thread.

I studied economics as a minor in undergrad and still try to read up on it (I follow Greg Mankiw's blog for example).

Anyway, one of the courses I took was about the history of economics---and probably the most interesting thing we studied was feudalism.  Essentially the popular modern theory goes that feudalism developed because labor was in short supply, that is in a farming community land was very plentiful and labor was relatively scarce compared to it. Therefore, when a need arose to defend themselves people offered their labor as payment to those who would defend them--village strong men who would spend their time training, making weapons etc.

Now it was to expensive to monitor people to insure that they worked x number of hours. In addition villagers/surfs were not willing to pay for protection in crops because that laid all the risk on their heads if there was a bad season. So a system of labor payments was developed where most of the week the surfs labored on a plot of land for their own use and then one or two days a week they labored on a plot of land for the local strong man.  This divided the risk between both parties and limited monitoring costs (you can tell pretty easily if someone has tilled the land, planted, etc).

Ofcourse strong men started to call the land theirs (in that they controlled it, they had the weapons) and thus surfs became bound to the land and limited land ownership emerged--though not in the sense of property rights today.

You can guess how this continued to eventually form the vassal state.


I think it would be interesting if dwarf fortress worked like this, where the  barons instead of being useless kings (like the royalty of England today, no offense intended--I just mean they don't have a governing function) they instead are barons because they are the best fighters and thus they are owed something by the peasants. And further they use their power over peasants to demand things.

This would mean you could give your nobles orders, but only military.  Perhaps your squadron leaders would be nobles instead of being appointed by you (or when they are appointed by you, they become nobles).

Now when a higher noble comes (like the king) he could demand stuff from the local nobles, who in turn (if they don't have it already) have to demand it from the dwarves under them. Thus the nobles can be punished by stronger nobles and the dwarves by any noble really.

Perhaps when the king comes (or other higher noble) he even brings soldiers (his squadron) and to make sure his orders are followed--not to say that he needs an army to take over the place but a few as a token of his power.

You could even have, from time to time (don't make it happen often), infighting between different nobles and their squadrons and dwarves under them. Perhaps each dwarf tends to separate himself from the dwarves of other barons. Nobles could even demand their own burrows where they demand their subjects to stay (and are punished if they leave).


The quasi property sharing community of a dwarf fortress lends itself really well to the baron--surf hiarchy.

I think you could make a new thread of your own, about the subject of feudalism. Although I am more familiar with the history of economics and the monetary system of the rising of capitalism from 14th century toward 16th century. Can't give much advice on this I am afraid.

Still, since I am Chinese, I do know about the origin of feudalism in ancient China. They are called the 'Well farm" or "Well field" (depend on the translation of "井田", perhaps you know about it, but I'll explained it for the others). They the exact translate of its meaning is "Farm lands shape like the word Well", since the word "Well" in Chinese is like a 3 by 3 grids with 9 blocks minus the outer 4 edges

Hence is what it looks like this

And the idea is exactly like you said, 8 people grow their crops on the outer 8 blocks, the middle one is owned by the landlord. So the 8 ones are called the "private farms", and the middle one "public farms". And the meaning of public is NOT the same as what we think today, it's more like the meaning of property of the community and it's manager. And they don't need to time shared the public farms, but more as a voluntary job.  The products of the public farms are collected by the manager, and used as taxes for the feudal lords. In addition, 1/10 of the products in private farms are also required by the lords as rents for the land. And this system is supposed developed at the the 21th century BC. And discarded at 361 BC by the power kingdom of "Qin" which later unified China in 221 BC, and build the first empire and dynasty, which essentially ended the feudalism in China (As a fact it ended earlier since powerful kingdoms arise for hundreds of years.) Still as reference, it is the true recode to backup the rising of feudalism. Although historians in China do argued about the effective date that this system actual worked, and the way it worked. Since no hard evidence other than records survived that long. And it is believed that the usage of iron tools and animals for farmings, made it less effective, also the serfs who works in the private farms started to running away, and join the new powerful kingdoms as small farmers like Yeomen, and new kingdoms often doesn't collect physical products as taxes, instead require farmers to provide service to the kingdom, like constructed public buildings - the great wall, served in the military, and landlords are mostly gone. The nobles now owns vest lands, working by slaves. And only those directly blood related to the royal families can be called nobles. (In a sense all the kings have the same family names)

P.S, isn't it that all the European monarchy and East Asia monarchy are now constitutional monarchy. Which means they are only the face of the nation, not the brain nor fist of the nation anymore. Actual power is given to elected officials.

[astaldaran]

Maybe part of the reason there is so much difficulty in creating a dwarven economy is that Toady is trying to simulate/emulate the wrong sort of economy.  Perhaps a vassal state is what should be emulated in DF and not our capitalist system.  This would mean the primary "currency" is labor---and all of us can attest that could very well make since. It isn't as if we have scarce resources for our fortresses (not to say that it isn't sometimes hard to find something, but in general nothing is scarce besides labor).

As for all nobles being of the royal family, that was a later development and most likely emerged in order to consolidate kingdoms (your brother in law was a lot less likely to try to take your throne then say some random strong man). So this could or could not be emulated in the game, I'm not if it would matter.


ps:? a search of feudalism will bring up some relevant topics where feudalism will affect aspects of the game--though I don't see where a discussion on it as an economy itself has been fleshed out.

[dwarfhoplite]

capitalism doesn't work in real life so why would it work ingame? Some sort of feudalism sounds like a good idea.

[Crioca]

I think in the long run, the feudal system you outlined would make a much better approach than trying to simulate a capitalist system. The main problem with a capitalist approach to fortress economy is that the fortress doesn't have a free market.

[counting]

... the fortress doesn't have a free market.

Yet!

(Who said I only type in text wall! TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL) 

[counting]

capitalism doesn't work in real life so why would it work ingame? Some sort of feudalism sounds like a good idea.

Seriously? Do you not get interests from your bank account and stash all your cash in a jewel box? Do you lived in a house that you build yourself and not paid by mortgage loans? Do you enjoy your wages paid by money instead of chickens or cows? Welcome to the capitalism. (No disrespect for коллега from some countries XD)

[counting]

Good jobs, but it can use some more concrete descriptions to be better! (and remove the quota from the section you wrote)

[tolkafox]

Dwarves are communists, everyone knows that.

Although honestly, a lot of people play Dwarf Monastery.

[counting]

Dwarves are communists, everyone knows that.

Although honestly, a lot of people play Dwarf Monastery.

There is a communist and 7 dwarves walking into a bar, ...






So they can all be Feudalist!! All hail our new Lord Urist McCommunist!

[Vercingetorix]

I think dwarves would be more like the guilds...different crafts would have their own guild to restrict those working in the profession and to improve quality (or try to put upstarts out of business).

[Mechatronic]

Maybe part of the reason there is so much difficulty in creating a dwarven economy is that Toady is trying to simulate/emulate the wrong sort of economy.  Perhaps a vassal state is what should be emulated in DF and not our capitalist system.  This would mean the primary "currency" is labor---and all of us can attest that could very well make since. It isn't as if we have scarce resources for our fortresses (not to say that it isn't sometimes hard to find something, but in general nothing is scarce besides labor).

As for all nobles being of the royal family, that was a later development and most likely emerged in order to consolidate kingdoms (your brother in law was a lot less likely to try to take your throne then say some random strong man). So this could or could not be emulated in the game, I'm not if it would matter.


ps:? a search of feudalism will bring up some relevant topics where feudalism will affect aspects of the game--though I don't see where a discussion on it as an economy itself has been fleshed out.

Feudalism isn't an economic system though, it's a political system. I think you're conflating market economies with capitalism, which may be leading to your problems with the proposed system. Capitalism is a market economic theory but it not the only one. It emerged from, and largely in opposition to, mercantilism, which is also a market economic theory but based around a positive balance of trade. Prior to mercantilism, during the medieval period that DF is based, there weren't very sophisticated economic theories. But I don't agree with the implication that medieval Europe wasn't a market economy. Some prices were assigned, but mostly value was assigned by market forces. If The Wealth of Nations is correct, then even when prices were fixed they were usually fixed below that which the market would set them anyway. Currencies existed and were often used to designate values.

[Truean]

Feudalism is both a political and economic system. It determines what is produced, how, and who gets it. Just because there are no markets does not mean it is not an economic system. Or, if you'd rather, your standard economics text book calls it a "traditional economy."

Meh, Capitalism has numerous problems we don't want. Even boatmurdered had massive unemployment. Yes I realize that the dwarven economy is some messed up "objective" value thing and not a market but still. The issues with capitalism are the assumptions of perfect information, relative quality, perfect price sensitivity, and abstraction. Also very often, price isn't as important as connections and marketing. This is why sales leads and customer lists are massively important and modern neoclassical can't explain this. Same thing with brand loyalty. There are cheaper things than name brand, yet people keep buying them.

The idea of skilling up a dwarf into a jobset that can be used in the fortress (hauling should be a skill that makes them haul faster) fits the game model better.

[astaldaran]

But I don't agree with the implication that medieval Europe wasn't a market economy.

Your points are well taken.  Political and economic systems often come out to the same thing. In a way really, there is barely such as thing as "not a a market economy" since people always want something. The question is what is in demand and what is in supply and that can dramatically change what political system there is in place to handle wealth. For example, not until ships went to the new world and started coming back with huge amount of treasure did property rights emerge. These rights emerged because nobles and such didn't want to risk lots of money on a venture if they were not certain  that they could keep the bounty of that venture.

If dwarf fortress were thought of in feudal terms I think it could address the issues of money creation and the like that plagued the previous economic implementation.


The biggest challenge I see to the implementation of the ANY economic model in DF is what someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the fortress is a planned economy. 

It seems that the only way to escape the planned economy model would be to represent you, the player, in the game as an economic actor. As dwarf who then must keep power (coup d'état could add a lot of FUN to the game), convince others to build what you want them to (presumably through force and persuasion).

I haven't fleshed it out and it might alter the game enough to be either A) another mode or B) just something we wouldn't want.


My idea is you play the role of the expedition leader. When you embark, you have some choice over who the leader is because during the game, while you control the leader, his traits and wants will affect what things you do. For example, let's say he is just in love with Gold, maybe if you don't make sure all his furniture is made of Gold he goes mad, or maybe he hates cats and so you have to kill them all...i don't know.

Now, as expedition leader you would belong to the royal family and be a noble. You would have all the weapons and be the defender of the rest and thus rule over them. 


The other dwarves would have progressively increasing wants (probably determined by skill and maybe some by age) and how you meet those would determine whether they support you or not (and how strong you are). 

When other nobles come along, you either submit to them (so they can put production orders in, etc and if those don't get done you get punished--even potentially death, a lose condition) or you can try to take them out of the picture ( a little civil war).

You would treat your soldiers the best because you want them to be loyal.

Traits such as a lying could also be used, a liar who is made book keeper for example might (out of laziness) simply make up numbers. So managing who you have do key jobs would be important.


As for the economy, you would somehow choose how many hours was a dwarf's own and how many were yours. This would effect their happiness. In the hours that are yours they would fulfill the production orders you have given. In the hours that are theres they would sleep, eat, drink, mill about, and perhaps even be able to make things for themselves (I'm not sure how this would work).

Like I said, it isn't fleshed out. I see how it could be a lot of fun but I also see a lot of potential problems.

[counting]

Maybe part of the reason there is so much difficulty in creating a dwarven economy is that Toady is trying to simulate/emulate the wrong sort of economy.  Perhaps a vassal state is what should be emulated in DF and not our capitalist system.  This would mean the primary "currency" is labor---and all of us can attest that could very well make since. It isn't as if we have scarce resources for our fortresses (not to say that it isn't sometimes hard to find something, but in general nothing is scarce besides labor).

As for all nobles being of the royal family, that was a later development and most likely emerged in order to consolidate kingdoms (your brother in law was a lot less likely to try to take your throne then say some random strong man). So this could or could not be emulated in the game, I'm not if it would matter.


ps:? a search of feudalism will bring up some relevant topics where feudalism will affect aspects of the game--though I don't see where a discussion on it as an economy itself has been fleshed out.

Feudalism isn't an economic system though, it's a political system. I think you're conflating market economies with capitalism, which may be leading to your problems with the proposed system. Capitalism is a market economic theory but it not the only one. It emerged from, and largely in opposition to, mercantilism, which is also a market economic theory but based around a positive balance of trade. Prior to mercantilism, during the medieval period that DF is based, there weren't very sophisticated economic theories. But I don't agree with the implication that medieval Europe wasn't a market economy. Some prices were assigned, but mostly value was assigned by market forces. If The Wealth of Nations is correct, then even when prices were fixed they were usually fixed below that which the market would set them anyway. Currencies existed and were often used to designate values.

(In fey mood) DON'T WRITE TEXT WALL! DON'T WRITE TEXT WALL! DON'T... What?

OK, first, thanks for clearing out some of the differences between policy or doctrine in public/politic with economic. (1000 words cut off), and I believe the word Manorialism, which later being theorized it forms economic policy over a nation as physiocarcy, is what you are looking for and described. And the difference in nature of them, is why I think it's better to discuss feudalism in a separate thread, than my economics related topic.

WARNING!! WALL OF TEXT APPROACHING.

While medieval age, or dark ages as its meanings, many things were restored back to some previous states, market exchange drop back to bartering exchange. However since advanced form of economic system with market system has already being developed in the ear of classical age, and Rome period in Europe, the usage of a common commodity as a exchange medium or even using metallic money as coins, have already been a prime factor and social customs in the field of exchange and used as a units to set price. So medieval economic system is a weird combination of old customs and some advanced aspect of economy, UNLIKE the very early economy with pure bartering say 6000 years ago before the forming of market system with tribal village communities. (Yes, market system is old, very old, trace back to ancient Mesopotamia spread to ancient Greeks and later Rome)

While bartering is base on exchanging goods->goods->goods..., till you find the commodity you need. And with the fall of Rome, and long distance trading became difficult to impossible, the choice of commodities was limited. While in previous era in Rome time, trading is easy, the price (exchange your commodities into coins, and later exchange back to commodities) is set, but when medieval time came, the cost of trade increases, and coins become useless in local exchange, the surplus of coins combined with the huge costs during trade, let the price of long distance trading goods become much higher. Trade from long distance did existed, as long as there are needs, only this time the lords have the privileges using them, the so price was high (whether it used coins as units or not). However the laws they followed and customs of price still fixed with the prices in previous area. So the price is way up in real exchanges.  Gold/Silver as hard currency is value based on their uses as luxuries, and copper as soft currency[1] being used in local exchange since it's abundant, and functions as the medium, were back up by the authorities of the local lords, and the gold/silver locked in their vaults (not necessary in the form of gold/silver coins, but crafts and wares or bars).

[1] In fact copper coins is function so much alike credit money, the exchange rate of copper coins vs silver/gold coins is high like 10:1, tells the story that credit was created by merchants, so the name of "soft" currency contradicted the fact copper is a harder material than silver/gold, and it means copper coins is "weak" in exchanges. I'll talk more about the economic roles of currency and productions, or even political/managing aspect of a supposed medieval society would look like. I'll tell them as stories, and see for yourself if any of the elements is contradicted with DF, and if the future should look like it.

[counting]

Feudalism is both a political and economic system. It determines what is produced, how, and who gets it. Just because there are no markets does not mean it is not an economic system. Or, if you'd rather, your standard economics text book calls it a "traditional economy."

Meh, Capitalism has numerous problems we don't want. Even boatmurdered had massive unemployment. Yes I realize that the dwarven economy is some messed up "objective" value thing and not a market but still. The issues with capitalism are the assumptions of perfect information, relative quality, perfect price sensitivity, and abstraction. Also very often, price isn't as important as connections and marketing. This is why sales leads and customer lists are massively important and modern neoclassical can't explain this. Same thing with brand loyalty. There are cheaper things than name brand, yet people keep buying them.

The idea of skilling up a dwarf into a jobset that can be used in the fortress (hauling should be a skill that makes them haul faster) fits the game model better.

As -ism means an ideology, even capitalism isn't just a form of pure economic topic only. And certainly market is just market, market system is the basic of all exchange (since villages exchange goods with other villages rather than completely isolated)

And capitalism as a functional system evolved and grew from 14th century till today isn't about theory at all, it's very very practical and down to earth in everyday life. It's the theories we developed that tries to explain the events and trying to give it a name, makes someone thinks its about math and assumption. When classical economics became a field of study, it's the time when the philosophy of the material world is a mechanical view of Newtonian world. Everything can be calculated and explained by math, and mechanical processes was compared to the natural world. We now hold a more evolutionary view toward economic system, and believed that the invisible hand is not that invisible, but rather like the force driving evolution process, through new ideas, new tools are invented and discarded, people/entities carry them around and spread, they compete with each others, or cooperate, the entities in a modern capital driven world are enterprises, manufacturers, governments, households, supermarkets(retailers), financial firms, not individuals anymore.

And you are right that price isn't just the only "thing" that's important. In fact it's not even a thing at all, but the product and results of other factors. And price essentially means "ratio" (money:goods). It's an abstract number, not a thing like a shoe or a car, or even a coin. The coin is the basic unit to count the "number" (price). It's determined by the factors, like you said, relationships (business partnership for capital reasons, or suppliers for materials, or distributors, or number of customers), the number of demand from retailers, the number of products a factory can produce, and the costs of wages, transportation, capital goods, R&D, rents, or like commercial ads. Marketing is more about the availability of information, and increase the change the products being find on the markets, and this cost will effect the retail price in the end.

Try to think the difference between the thing you have to pay, the amount you have to pay, and the number count that amount. (goods/services, money, price)

Indeed that economic theory do NOT view customers as completely independent. And long-term relationships form the basics of a brand name, thus increase the price that it can be sold. The early stage of economics can't discuss so many factors, and have to simplify using statistic method. Just like you need to have a incomplete Newton's physics laws first, and slowly develop into more complex models like quantum mechanics.