Print

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

[Terenos]

Hey, I was just securing our own fortunes against expansionism near us. It was totally the right move at the time.
Admittedly, the merchanting seems a little strong from some points of view. But they cant raise troops and are sort of at the mercy of kingdoms. I reckon the explosive growth of their funds is because otherwise it would be a tad boring shuffling back and forth with 1 load of goods till you eventually had the cash to have 2 loads..so on.

[CyberGenesis]

Everyone has been, it's not your fault. I'm a math nerd, it was only a matter of time until i found a flaw in the system. I didnt expect to find a 30d/season one though.

Limitations on merchant trade:
-Cost of Transports (NPC .5d/cargo/season) - PC: 1d for 1cargo/yr + upgrades (The Night Runner currently costs me nearly 3d/yr)
-Cost to Protect Transport (NPC guards are .5d/season, 2d a year) - PC: Normal unit costs, but yeah we cant hire those
-Volatility of goods rolls (+/- 2 increments at any time)
-Transport event rolls (1s get you robbed or killed, my first heavy investment was robbed - By Suul)
-Market Allowance: A hard cap of fungible cash any given city has
-Goods Caps: There is a hard limit on the number of UNITS of any particular good we can buy AND sell to any city

Theres more, but i think that's sufficient for the most part.

People, you need to remember - trade itself isnt broken...I broke it. I found a decent good that i could sell at a 5-7 increment profit. But we cleaned that out in 3 trades and 2 cities. Which also screwed ourselves that we cant use preston or vasir any more this season to sell in, unless we buy a LOT from them

[Ardas]

Finally, we are being constructive instead of raiding my behind.  CG, you are better spokeperson for the trade issue than I was. In all I don't think there is enough ground to claim that merchants are evil incarnate if they don't do much with their money apart from more trade.
The only way we might become danger is if we start loaning money and the mercenaries become cheaper and more plentiful. And I don't see that anytime soon.

[CyberGenesis]

Merchantile idea: "Tier" the goods
Goods base cost per unit with be x*Tier
-This makes the requirement to purchase the goods slightly higher, making it take more to multiple your profits.
--Goods would have increments equal to 10% of their Tier

So my latest information puts the max gains for 1 ship with 1 cargo hold selling wool or grain (a tier 1 good) at about 3.6d/season not including production/demand modifiers (which always increase the price on buy and sell and for the most part negate eachother for all but 1 inc) and 100% MAX profit off speed and haggle rolls (-3 buy, +3 sell)

Since most of our trade avg maybe 2 increments in profit if we're lucky, you're looking at 1.2d/season/hold/ship (without clipper)
-With a convoy (2x3hold ships and a combat carrack) you're looking at a 6d/yr upkeep to make 7.2d/season(28.8/yr)

Again this is assuming stable and consistent profit, which it never is, as well as being able to pull off said stable profit a whole season without burning out the market allowances.

Possible additional limitations to player merchants:
-Convoys: cant be created without first having a Size 3 Trade Business.
--Size would also determine the number of ships the player can logistically support/command.
-Ship Limits: Personal Ship (which you have a limit to trade, but can still move around without goods on board) PLUS 1 ship -or- The combined size of your businesses, whichever is larger
-Cargo Holds: .25d/yr upkeep instead of no additional upkeep

[ashton1993]

Well that's something I'd support although the ultimate decision is Iiteum's

[filiusenox]

So now we have nothing to discuss now that I stopped arguing about merchanting...

And are you going to bring that man you caught back, Vagel? I think I may have a plus one to interrogation...or something.

[CyberGenesis]

As an aside: I'm now trying to find a way to increase the fungible cash of the nobles without breaking things

[Terenos]

-FINE- I'll ramble about merchanting.
That would be interesting Cyber, but as it stands the balance between nobles/merchants almost works out. You guys cant do anything with money, with the exception of more trade. Or possibly other limited activities. Personal guards, mercenaries. Still.

Us nobles, barely have the cash for our armies and other projects we may consider. As an example: Highways? 5 ducats to build and 1/year? Assuming I am placed in a position of authority over a province, I wont build them. But if a merchant would meet me halfway on the price/upkeep, we could see that happening. Theres still a problem therein as highways only seem to benefit merchants.

If the Elbreth nobility unites with merchants on any basis, things are going to get very broken, very quickly. We'll be able to fund the necessary improvements to merchant ventures (highways, more markets, more villages, finding more resources) and reap great profits that can be funneled into research, founding/expanding places for specialists, so on.  But the problem lies there. If our territorial holdings contributes 30 ducats/year to our coffers, and our merchant empire contributes 30 ducats/season (not unreasonable, in time), then he controls 4/5ths of our economic might. Even at 10d/season he would control well over half the economic strength of the country. This may lead to the merchant in charge having a lot of swing within the government. This level of concentrated power is dangerous, hence why I (And my character) will advocate decentralization, heavy limitations, taxes, so forth.
Its a path that offers a lot of power, but limits us by placing us at the mercy of one person. I would agree that we're nearly at the point where we could use a noble in place to control spending in the realm, and it would add a layer of intrigue. I'm primarily opposed due to the raw strength of the merchant system and the relative weakness of a noble to gain that much raw wealth.

This is why reforms to the explosive growth rate of merchant ventures are required. I'm interested in the way Cyber is moving, but I think its going to require a lot of effort to keep the merchanting system from overshadowing everything else, while at the same time being interesting. By an eerie coincidence, prior to this whole squabble about merchanting, my backstory includes a place where the merchant princes effectively run the city.

Anyways. In order to give us nobles a chance. Some avenues I might suggest are... Technology? Theres a rudimentary technology system in place, and we could explore that in order to give us more cash on a per resource basis, or as a lump bonus per parcels controlled (Every 5 gives an extra 1 ducat or something). Tracking separate instances of 'improved' parcels could be logistically difficult, and might be..odd in a war situation. But the bookkeeping is still possible, if onerous. Something laid out like: 1 Parcel (Improved ++) = 3 ducats/year. Personally I'd favor a technological approach. Since technology seems to be kingdom specific. And that may make the bookkeeping a bit easier.
Hmm..Thats it for my ideas for now. I seem creatively tapped out right now. *Shrug* Theres options for improving the relative strength of nobility. And they should be explored I think. We have to get the ability to buff our income, or merchants should get a bit nerfed.

[evilcherry]

Another good system would be to actually move the demand of goods by 0 or 1 slot if one make a trade, unless the good is locally produced which would be more stable. Which means trade prices fluctuates a bit more, and you can't raid the market by buying everything without sellers raising prices.

[CyberGenesis]

Actually demand always increases the price, buy or sell...so actually it's intended to limit income off trades

[Ardas]

And here was the beauty of my monopoly proposal. Since nobles can't do much with economy, they give the rights to merchants, and merchants pay them a flat rate of royalties for these privilieges.
For example, if Erik gave me the monopoly rights in the kingdom, I would be prepared to pay 3d/year at my HQ and 1d per every city in which I have estabilshed counting houses  and warehouses WITHIN the kindom.
I'd see that as building branches to the guild, equivalent to simply adding a tier to the business. If my Company HQ were in Sheepstead as a tier 3 business, then building counting house and a company branch in Preston would count as expanding it to tier 4 business. I would obviously pay the full price for expansion and all related fees and royalties. But those would go to Erik only, since he was the one granting the realm-wide rights and is the realm's sovereign. Other nobles would be able to pitch in with their proposals and my offers to them and separate deals would be struck.

So, that way, I would give money to whatever noble I was under, I would be allowed to modify and shape the economy according to the wishes of the noble( or potentially my own, here you have the potential backroom deals and so on) and most of the fiddling that CG proposes, although useful, dissolves most relationships that nobles and merchants might have, since both become balanced and self-sufficent and introduce more maths, which I am personally NOT that fond of (at least on the level we are getting to).

E: Slight correction on my statement about CG's proposal. I like the logistical limitation to the caravans and ships. That way people who want to expand their business are forced to invest into a company (potentially joining one) and have to be prepared to pay more for the logistics and goods movement. If that were combined with my proposal on money transfers between nobles and merchants, then other adjustments would not be necessary. If we really are desperate to adjust the profits though, I would wait until we get started with these and see how much money each merchant has, because so far it was simply a business of hoarding the monety to open a Company. I guess all costs will go up and money will be spent more often, so I wouldn't be so quick on axing the high profits yet.

Mind you, the situation of fatass merchants and cash-strapped nobles is not a new one, and there are plenty of examples where kings granted a lot of privileges in return for money or outright confiscated the wealth of those whom they disliked(please don't that to me!). I was hoping that instead of implementing more rules, I would be able to have an business relationship with a noble, so that there is a money transfer without more maths. all it would be is a simple payment by the merchant and an expanded ability to trade. Unfortunately for me, I haven't explained myself properly last time, partially because of the atmosphere at the time.

[micelus]

If your willing to serve, then I might just have a huge job for you, once Locanil gets back from writing his book and getting the moolah.

[Ardas]

Well then, if you got something good to offer, I won't say no.

[evilcherry]

Actually demand always increases the price, buy or sell...so actually it's intended to limit income off trades

I mean, if you, buy, you would tend to drive demand up, or reduces prices if you sell.
This is, naturally, in addition to price changes after season simulating random factors.

[micelus]

With the ducats I get from my guidebook, I plan to found a new town on the Mirish Coast, or failing that, On some island or abandoned ruin. The town will be a university town pretty much; a centre of research and learning.

Now here's your job; I need someone to keep the town supplied with goods from all over the world as well as protecting it from raiders. With a trader able to set up convoys and trade routes, the town would be a possibility; otherwise I'd be forced to build in Sheepstead, Preston or Miring. Something I'd rather not do.


So, is that a yes or no?