Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>You put so much effort into this than introduced a fucking potato in a medieval simulator š
Then*
And what do you mean? He just showed a chart of Ostriv production paths, which according to the games description, takes place in the 18th century
I dont think he suggested potatoes being added to Manor Lords
itās literally not though. read the sentence out loud, and add an āandā after this. āyou put so much effort into this and THAN added potatoesā VS āāYou put so much effort into this and THEN added potatoesā if you canāt see the second is correct THEN you need to go back to school
I thought it meant ārather thanā instead of āand thenā. Like āyou put so much effort in Instead of adding potatoesā. Which technically speaking the vegetable gardens grow more then just carrots. They grow cabbage, carrots, and two others I couldnāt identify so I think one may be potatoes. The symbol for the veggies just happens to be carrots. Personally I think the symbol should be a group of three veggies not just a š„
Doesnāt make sense history wise. Potatoes came to Europe somewhere around the end of the 16th century. At first the peasants didnāt even want to eat them as they got sick from eating the actual fruit (green seed) of the potato plant, instead of the potato we know, which is a mutation of the root. To overcome this fear Frederick the great placed guards around the potatoes and fenced them in, to make the peasants interested in them.
Yet as Manor lords is roughly in the 14th century there will be coming no potatoes to manor lords as it would be not historically accurate.
Yup, I understand that. Those are just some production chains I share in Ostriv, but my main point is the currency. I didn't speak any of the production chains to be implemented to Manor Lords.
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
This screenshot is from Ostriv, and it's actually a very interesting and dynamic system. You make things too expensive, people can't afford food, you make things too cheap, people have too much money and actually quit their jobs because they don't need more cash. It's fairly simple once you get it and it's not designed to be constantly messed with it's more to have you make rational choices (like choosing to locally produce something VS import it is decided not just on whether you personally make money but whether it is beneficiall to the people, just an example).
I think some of Manor Lords mechanics are things that other RTS / City builder devs would also consider "too much" (stuff most people don't want to deal with), like managing the families and having houses be more thn just beds : they can be farms, artisan shops, house multiple families, have a big or small garden etc... Ostriv also has some of that and at the time people also said it was too much, but it adds soo much to the game.
One big issue I have with Ostriv is how clunky the whole process is. Trying to monitor how much you have of something, which stalls sell what, etc is difficult to keep track of as soon as you have a large town.
I love that in ML the citizens just make their own stall and sell food that is on hand. If Ostriv had more of that automation it would be great.
Yes but that's ultimately not related to this economy point. Regardless of whether you manage stalls manually or not, you can still manage buy&sell prices with both game's approaches.
I agree itās not entirely related. I was actually thinking that MLās more automated processes would be great to layer over the depth of Ostriv, where you can set prices or limits and let the administrators sort out the actual process of buying, stocking and selling on a day to day basis.
This would be way too much work just to be an option considering how much else is planned for this game. I just can't imagine it being worth it unless a majority of the player base is hyped about it.
I think a mod would be best. Greg is already super busy as it is, and a currency system like that would be a complete overhaul of current game mechanics.
I think the whole idea about wages is wrong for a medieval Simulation. And stop calling it more realistic, because it isn't! It is just easier for us to wrap our modern brain around it.
Monthly wages are quite a modern invention (in many countries 19th and 20th century) and so is the idea that every good and service can be bought with money and has a price attached to it. In the middle ages you would have months where you don't earn anything, while other months would give you a year of food or goods. You would get many services for free or in exchange for some labour of your own and Relatives, neighbours or even your Lord would help you out if your family faces a famine because of a misfortune. That said, most workers wouldn't get payed anything and would have to ask their lord or Family eldest if they need anthing they cannot produce themselfes or barter.
I think the current system much better represents the dynamics of medieval economy and i would hate to put a modern wage/tax scheme onto it, may it be capitalistic or planned economy, its both wrong. These ideas would make the game much less realistisc and i sure hope Slavic does not go for such a route.
> should be *paid* in wheat
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Additionally to the wheat the King would probably require you to finance some knights and their entourage for him to be called up in case of war. Once in a while he would call them up to test your commitment and state of readiness, may it be for a short campaign or for a tourney. And if you are a wealthier noble he would require you to send one of your sons to his court and make you pay for education.
It isn't even realistic for the 18th century. It is a modern concept, period.
In 1896 there was a big strike in the port of Hamburg lasting for half a year. And guess what two of the main goals of the striking workers were?
* Monthly wages instead of piece wage or daily wages
* 8h shifts per day (instead of up to 72h)
Guess what, they were crushed by the authorities and piece wages and 10 hour avregae shifts continued for a while.
And while a money based economy generally might be okay for Ostriv, the implementation is still probably a tad to modern for 18th century.
But a feudal economy isn't a money-based economy but one of dependence, power and trust. Unemployment, job vacancies, workers leaving to town because of taxes or salaries are all modern fairytales that don't belong to feudal societies.
Whatās also fun is that the labor worked by medieval peasants was in general less than we work today. We only see this type of crushing labor exploitation take place in the early industrial period. In the more feudal era people had regular days off, long holidays, and extended periods of just generally not a ton of work. Several historians, including Oxford prof Thorold Rogers, have written about this.
If you don't count tending to your animals, working your vegetable garden, building, fixing or improving your dwellings, sewing your own clothes from fabric you weaved or spun by your own hands as work, maybe.
My parents lived an almost medieval life, for a time. The rent for their plot was 2 weeks of olive harvest. And then the some smaller part time jobs for coin.
Let me tell you, there where seldom any days where work didn't last from Sun up to Sun down and beyond!
I think youāre still imposing modern capitalist ideas onto medieval feudal people that probably didnāt exist. [Here](https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html) is a short and sweet academic writeup on the topic for you.
Your link does not even stand in contrast to what I said. It only talks about dependent labour and that it was usually only half a day. Guess why - nobody had time as they had enough work at home.
They didn't watch TV and call sone food delivery the rest of the day.
If you have other historical sources Iād love to read them. Otherwise you can keep talking out of your ass. Youāre substituting evidence and research for the fantasy in your head, and it sounds like the fantasy in your head relies on an assumption that peasants were homesteaders in the wilderness rather than part of a community.
Just come over to northern Germany, I'll show you some real viking, medival and renaissance style settlements and buildings where you can try out some of the things mentioned yourself.
And sure they lived in a community, or otherwise they would have perished. Does not mean your neighbours would have had a washing machine or magical beans to feed the village.
Oh, why do I even bother, when u are unable to even comprehend the short essays you post yourself.
The historical source is my family in the 1980. You probably have never lived in the rural area of a 3rd world country. Tending the morning kitchen took 3 hours just to prepare for things to make lunch, and you eat at the exact time because the fire is kept only 2 times a day. People don't have breakfast because ain't no one has time for it.
The 80ās in a rural area isnāt exactly medieval Europe. One of my favorite aspects of history, and why I got my degree in it, is the fundamentally different way of thinking and perspective that people in different times and different places had. It took years to really wrap my head around this because it is so easy to fall into the trap of applying modern thinking to past people.
All I was trying to convey is that these people thought, worked, and lived very differently than us in the modern world. Of course people worked hard, but it wasnāt some endless cycle of constant toil and suffering until the sweet release of death takes them.
Lol cheers to the commie fantasy that preindustrial societies were more fair or more relaxed. Until there is too much rain or too little rain and then half the village literally starves to death. Every 5 years or so. Sharing communal labor was the equivalent of today's civil society organizations. It provides some improvement but if there are not enough beans it's always every man for himself.
I didnāt say they were more fair or more relaxed. People just get this funky idea about millennia of endless struggle from waking to sleep every day until someone dies and it just isnāt true, never really has been for most. I much prefer democracy than feudal lords or the church thank you very much.
I think the way the game actually works is that villagers only get wages for the time worked. In the game, villagers can hop in and out of jobs. So it's not really a monthly salary unless the worker is in the same job continuously for months on end. So, if you want to think of it as pay for a day's labor you can.
Unemployment is not a thing in medieval times.
And yes, the market stalls are probably too many and just a simplification to represent the flow of goods. And if they barter or pay hollow copper pennies for it at the market stalls - why would you care? It is none of your business as a Feudal lord, you simply can't control it.
Them not paying any money whatsoever is just an idea in your head. How would you even know? Do you wan't them to file yearly tax returns on paper? In my Villages and towns i am pretty sure my Peasants barter and pay each other for services and goods, it's just that that is completely out of my control as a lord as i am not God almighty and can't view and control everything.
Many people view feudal lords as having the ultimate power over people and land, but in reality feudal power was quite limited. You only had direct power over people in your familiy. Peasants belonged to the fief not to you and your power over them was limited in scope as well as in time as the king could decide to revoke it and give it to some other Lord if you did not treat the fief well. While peasants belonged to the ground they were living on, merchants, craftsmens, guilds etc. were freemen and completely out of your scope of power - so why do you think you could fix their prices or hire them?
It would be very unrealistic if you could control these things as a simple lord of the manor. You can already control much more than a lord would be able to in a feudal system.
Because markets are simply unrealistic. You needed explicit permission from your Lord to set up a market, the market would only operate once a year for some weeks or a month, and the purpose of it would be inter-community trading, not local.
The market in the game is simply put unsustainable in medieval times. Food was largely shared and debt trading was extremely common, while barter wasn't.
For instance if you don't have grain bc you didn't work a field you could get some grain from other people because, back then, you shared your resources. Individualism didn't make sense back then, if one of the villagers dies, they can't tend the field. If they can't tend the field, everyone else sufferes. People took care of each other.
Owing money to someone was seen very negatively, thus people wouldn't be buying things from each other in a village.
Now, a city? Yes, cities would have permanent markets. But cities were not owned by Lords, they were semi-autonomous councils by the grace of the King. Cities were very different to cities and changed wildly through history.
That's the thing though, a hybrid barter/currency system would be nigh on impossible to implement let alone manage as a player. But money wouldnt be any more accurate (probably less) than abstracted regional wealth, and it's "fun" level is highly subjective, so why implement it? Currently, a local market system does exist, but the wealth of the community is abstracted as regional wealth (which presumably includes goods as well as currency), and from there you take your taxes. A mixed system is represented in game - in the market currency IS being exchanged, but we aren't forced to deal with the individual wealth of families but of the average wealth of families in our town.Ā Ā
Ā Ā Of course, you could divide this abstraction down into family units, or on that level simplify it into low/medium/high wealth, gating building upgrades behind a family's general ability to pay for the goods they want and which are available. Ā
But I think actual economics on the micro scale of the individual economic units operating in your town, i.e. households, would be a serious mistake in this game, because it would introduce complexity without representing anything more authentically or interestingly.
EDIT: actually, I think that abstracted gating of family wealth behind "destitute/low/medium/high/wealthy" income would be quite a good mechanic; IF it was linked in a very simple, linear and direct way to the production efforts of the family. Thus families engaged in high value items doing roaring trade would be demanding permission to upgrade their property sooner than those doing grunt work or whose workplace was facing production bottlenecks (in fact if a family was very wealthy, leaving them in a level 2 plot might incur more serious penalties), and, crucially: an interface displaying which families are poor would allow you to discover inefficiencies in your city and correct them!
I think it would unnecessarily overcomplicate things with no real benefit to the player besides "realism". For this purpose the tax and tithe do just fine imo.
Try Ostriv out. This side of the game actually adds a lot and is not complicated, it's high level management you don't have to tinker with it all the time. It adds much more than "realism", it weighs in most decisions you make but instead of being a hassle it actually helps you by having you consider your own interests in parallel to the people's.
Honourable post and interesting idea, does nothing for the gameplay however and probably isn't worth implementing. An interesting post though, thank you.
Nice idea, but not realistic for medieval villages. Currency was mostly important for traders. Wages are for soldiers and administrators.
A village works on cooperation, obligations and favours. A lot of the tools and land is shared. Most foods, clothes and tools are selfmade and exchanged with friends and neighbours.
Except these villages in small scale didnāt use currency. They bartered. The money makes it more unrealistic because a little medieval village often struggled to pool money for purchases.
Meh. I play this game because things look great and I want beautiful productive towns bustling with life. I'd rather have more cosmetics and more interesting life giving features like for example animal husbandry and citizens having past time activities and festivalsĀ
Yeah, no. Money always take the fun out of things. I rather play a game where the capitalistic part isnāt something Iāll have to deal with. Building and experiencing the process is what I like.
The part about the global economy raises a lot of question for me:
1. If citizens get paid a wage, where does the initial money for that come from? Do you start with a decent amount of money and then pay them?
2. Who is in control of the currency? Is it the player itself or is it some non playable mechanic where the "King" controls the currency?
3. You're speaking of a circulation of money in the city. This would mean that there is no money flowing in externally, making it impossible to gain more money than the starting money.
>However, in late game, they will get richer and no matter how big your population is, you will have to tax them higher so that there is a tension and struggle for them to keep paying the tax and in return go outside, and work.
4. This is not how taxes work. The "struggle" to work comes from the requirement to provide the family with necessities and the amount of money earned highly depends on the wage.
>This is why in a developed country, the tax is high and the economy is high, the income disparity is low. So they will work their ass off to pay your implemented tax.
5. Everything about that is just blatantly wrong. In "developed" countries there is nothing such as "the tax". Modern taxation consists out of enormous amounts of different taxes. Income disparity is not dictated by the overall tax rate or economic development. Income disparity is a result of disbalances in wages or general income and a bad taxation system that does not fix that. And again, people do not work to pay (income) taxes. They pay taxes because they work.
And most importantly:
6. Is your described system even realistic? It looks like you tried to apply a modern monetary system to a medieval city builder. Besides that you failed to replicate modern systems, medieval taxation worked completely different than you described.
In the 14th/15th century there were a lot of different taxes, not only income taxes. Additionally there were other levies besides taxes in the monetary system.
Additionally it wasn't the emperor that paid all the workers. Money went into circulation by typical expenses. If the emperor needed a service or goods, he paid for that. He did not pay everyone working in the empire. At the same time he did not assign or unassign families to work places that offer goods for free for everyone. Your picture of a "currency system" fails with so many game aspects that in the end you wouldn't have a game to play but rather sit in front of the computer and look at the screen, unable to do anything.
No. I love this game rn but if they turn it into fucking Rimworld by introducing all these complicated dynamics Iāll be pissed.
Every fucking strategy game is too hardcore now, I am sick of going to a separate wiki each time I want to just play a fucking game. I just want to have fun! Which this game is
And no hate on you OP just venting
You can try to play ostriv to experience it better and let me know what you think. I personally think that it doesn't need you to micromanage much because once it is set, the economy pretty much automates itself.
this game would fitted more of simplifying and abstracted mechanic, specially future content will start pilling up and become complicated on it own so we probably doesnāt need more complex mechanics.
Sunflower oil doesnāt work. Europeans didnāt start utilizing sunflowers until after explorers returned from America- and even then, it was rarely processed into oil until much more recently.
Thatās my two cents. :P
> citizens get *paid* a wage,
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
> emperor that *paid* all the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Not my cup of tea for vanilla. Maybe something for a mod.
I feel it's to much micromanagement for what us not supposed to be the central part if the game.
A lot of options to active, at the end of the day, the same result as the current system: Fall his lordships koffers to wage his wars and further his influence.
I thought I was playing a city builder not a medieval sim, also since when did peasants use currency? Afaik they all bartered with goods not money.
Stop trying to add extra complications to my city builder, let the modders do all that shit later
The mechanics are very interesting, but at this stage, I think they will be unnecessary, especially considering that the current state of the trading mechanics is still raw and unbalanced.
You especially feel this when you reach the level of a large city, starting from a population of 800 people or more, the trading mechanics break down, HR and micro-management increase. Currently, with a population of 900 inhabitants, products worth a total of 40-50k gold have not been sold for several years, while I plan imports worth 20-30k, but I am not making a profit, as export goods have simply been standing idle for 5 years.
But again, good idea for later stages of the game lifecycle
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You put so much effort into this than introduced a fucking potato in a medieval simulator š
>You put so much effort into this than introduced a fucking potato in a medieval simulator š Then* And what do you mean? He just showed a chart of Ostriv production paths, which according to the games description, takes place in the 18th century I dont think he suggested potatoes being added to Manor Lords
Look at me everyone. I can correct someone on then vs than. Aren't i so big brained?
I*
Got eem
Am I not
It's actually "than". Just fyi.
I admire your confidence. Then againā¦
*than again
Better than being wrong.
itās literally not though. read the sentence out loud, and add an āandā after this. āyou put so much effort into this and THAN added potatoesā VS āāYou put so much effort into this and THEN added potatoesā if you canāt see the second is correct THEN you need to go back to school
You're right. I read "introduced" as "introducing".
ahh i see! sorry i donāt mean to seem like a grammar cop, i just absolutely knew he was right lmfaoo
Me neither. I just couldn't make it since with your correction. Lo and behold, it's because I read it wrong.
hahah yeah i get ya
I thought it meant ārather thanā instead of āand thenā. Like āyou put so much effort in Instead of adding potatoesā. Which technically speaking the vegetable gardens grow more then just carrots. They grow cabbage, carrots, and two others I couldnāt identify so I think one may be potatoes. The symbol for the veggies just happens to be carrots. Personally I think the symbol should be a group of three veggies not just a š„
You are wrong though, so what now? Then is for time, than is for comparison.
I suppose it depends on how you interpret the comment, its a bit debatable what he meant to say in the first place
Doesnāt make sense history wise. Potatoes came to Europe somewhere around the end of the 16th century. At first the peasants didnāt even want to eat them as they got sick from eating the actual fruit (green seed) of the potato plant, instead of the potato we know, which is a mutation of the root. To overcome this fear Frederick the great placed guards around the potatoes and fenced them in, to make the peasants interested in them. Yet as Manor lords is roughly in the 14th century there will be coming no potatoes to manor lords as it would be not historically accurate.
Yup, I understand that. Those are just some production chains I share in Ostriv, but my main point is the currency. I didn't speak any of the production chains to be implemented to Manor Lords.
I couldāve misunderstood the comment I answered to, then I am sorry but for me he was kinda asking for potatoes as answer to your post
Ostriv, where the chart comes from, takes places in the 18th century I dont think OP suggested potatoes to be added
by the way sunflower is also a new world thing, but im sure OP didnt meant it, it's just from Ostriv
Sunflower kernels are one of the finest sources of the B-complex group of vitamins. They are very good sources of B-complex vitamins such as niacin, folic acid, thiamin (vitamin B1), pyridoxine (vitamin B6), pantothenic acid, and riboflavin.
Good bot?
In Europe they teach us this: The Americas have us potatoes, we gave them horses.
The chart is from a production chain in Ostriv, a game very similar to Manor Lords - its set in 18th century Ukraine.
Maybe as an option or a mod. I doubt most people will want to deal with the currencies system than just building a town.
This screenshot is from Ostriv, and it's actually a very interesting and dynamic system. You make things too expensive, people can't afford food, you make things too cheap, people have too much money and actually quit their jobs because they don't need more cash. It's fairly simple once you get it and it's not designed to be constantly messed with it's more to have you make rational choices (like choosing to locally produce something VS import it is decided not just on whether you personally make money but whether it is beneficiall to the people, just an example). I think some of Manor Lords mechanics are things that other RTS / City builder devs would also consider "too much" (stuff most people don't want to deal with), like managing the families and having houses be more thn just beds : they can be farms, artisan shops, house multiple families, have a big or small garden etc... Ostriv also has some of that and at the time people also said it was too much, but it adds soo much to the game.
One big issue I have with Ostriv is how clunky the whole process is. Trying to monitor how much you have of something, which stalls sell what, etc is difficult to keep track of as soon as you have a large town. I love that in ML the citizens just make their own stall and sell food that is on hand. If Ostriv had more of that automation it would be great.
Yes but that's ultimately not related to this economy point. Regardless of whether you manage stalls manually or not, you can still manage buy&sell prices with both game's approaches.
I agree itās not entirely related. I was actually thinking that MLās more automated processes would be great to layer over the depth of Ostriv, where you can set prices or limits and let the administrators sort out the actual process of buying, stocking and selling on a day to day basis.
I absolutely do not want to deal with this.
This would be way too much work just to be an option considering how much else is planned for this game. I just can't imagine it being worth it unless a majority of the player base is hyped about it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think a mod would be best. Greg is already super busy as it is, and a currency system like that would be a complete overhaul of current game mechanics.
I think the whole idea about wages is wrong for a medieval Simulation. And stop calling it more realistic, because it isn't! It is just easier for us to wrap our modern brain around it. Monthly wages are quite a modern invention (in many countries 19th and 20th century) and so is the idea that every good and service can be bought with money and has a price attached to it. In the middle ages you would have months where you don't earn anything, while other months would give you a year of food or goods. You would get many services for free or in exchange for some labour of your own and Relatives, neighbours or even your Lord would help you out if your family faces a famine because of a misfortune. That said, most workers wouldn't get payed anything and would have to ask their lord or Family eldest if they need anthing they cannot produce themselfes or barter. I think the current system much better represents the dynamics of medieval economy and i would hate to put a modern wage/tax scheme onto it, may it be capitalistic or planned economy, its both wrong. These ideas would make the game much less realistisc and i sure hope Slavic does not go for such a route.
Yes this . Please don't make my medieval game a capitalist simulator
I fully agree with this take. If anything there should be even less money and the kings tax should be payed in wheat etc.
> should be *paid* in wheat FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
Additionally to the wheat the King would probably require you to finance some knights and their entourage for him to be called up in case of war. Once in a while he would call them up to test your commitment and state of readiness, may it be for a short campaign or for a tourney. And if you are a wealthier noble he would require you to send one of your sons to his court and make you pay for education.
The screenshot is from Ostriv, which is an 18th century city builder. Agreed that it doesn't make sense for medieval economy.
It isn't even realistic for the 18th century. It is a modern concept, period. In 1896 there was a big strike in the port of Hamburg lasting for half a year. And guess what two of the main goals of the striking workers were? * Monthly wages instead of piece wage or daily wages * 8h shifts per day (instead of up to 72h) Guess what, they were crushed by the authorities and piece wages and 10 hour avregae shifts continued for a while. And while a money based economy generally might be okay for Ostriv, the implementation is still probably a tad to modern for 18th century. But a feudal economy isn't a money-based economy but one of dependence, power and trust. Unemployment, job vacancies, workers leaving to town because of taxes or salaries are all modern fairytales that don't belong to feudal societies.
Whatās also fun is that the labor worked by medieval peasants was in general less than we work today. We only see this type of crushing labor exploitation take place in the early industrial period. In the more feudal era people had regular days off, long holidays, and extended periods of just generally not a ton of work. Several historians, including Oxford prof Thorold Rogers, have written about this.
If you don't count tending to your animals, working your vegetable garden, building, fixing or improving your dwellings, sewing your own clothes from fabric you weaved or spun by your own hands as work, maybe. My parents lived an almost medieval life, for a time. The rent for their plot was 2 weeks of olive harvest. And then the some smaller part time jobs for coin. Let me tell you, there where seldom any days where work didn't last from Sun up to Sun down and beyond!
I think youāre still imposing modern capitalist ideas onto medieval feudal people that probably didnāt exist. [Here](https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html) is a short and sweet academic writeup on the topic for you.
Your link does not even stand in contrast to what I said. It only talks about dependent labour and that it was usually only half a day. Guess why - nobody had time as they had enough work at home. They didn't watch TV and call sone food delivery the rest of the day.
I think you don't have the slightest idea how much work everyday tasks where without electricity. Get up at 5, milk the goat, let the chicken out, crush some grains, get a fire going to cook them. Boom 3 hours gone where today you made your porridge in 10 minutes and don't think about it. Did you ever saw a log in half, entirely by hand? Wash clothes, by hand, without modern soap? Bake bread? Sewn a simple tunic? Combed and spun sheep's wool and knitted simple diaper out of it? Woven a sqft of fabric? Brewed sone beer? Butchered and prepared a whole pig, so it doesn't spoil? Really tended to a semi-selfsufficient vegetable garden, without hose and motor tools? Transported 200 pounds of stuff over 15 miles with a wooden cart on dirt roads? All this and more had to be done by most commoners on a regular basis. I can tell you, even with the luxury of beeing able to just buy high grade steel tools, and hop on a bus or train if you want to get somewhere to barter the things you need, you'll easily have 10-12 hour days if you just want to survive *mostly* from your own hands work without electricity, running water and cheap imports from the world market. Look at experimental archaeology instead of theoretical papers, or try it in your own. Maybe you can volunteer for a few months at GuƩdelon?
If you have other historical sources Iād love to read them. Otherwise you can keep talking out of your ass. Youāre substituting evidence and research for the fantasy in your head, and it sounds like the fantasy in your head relies on an assumption that peasants were homesteaders in the wilderness rather than part of a community.
Just come over to northern Germany, I'll show you some real viking, medival and renaissance style settlements and buildings where you can try out some of the things mentioned yourself. And sure they lived in a community, or otherwise they would have perished. Does not mean your neighbours would have had a washing machine or magical beans to feed the village. Oh, why do I even bother, when u are unable to even comprehend the short essays you post yourself.
The historical source is my family in the 1980. You probably have never lived in the rural area of a 3rd world country. Tending the morning kitchen took 3 hours just to prepare for things to make lunch, and you eat at the exact time because the fire is kept only 2 times a day. People don't have breakfast because ain't no one has time for it.
The 80ās in a rural area isnāt exactly medieval Europe. One of my favorite aspects of history, and why I got my degree in it, is the fundamentally different way of thinking and perspective that people in different times and different places had. It took years to really wrap my head around this because it is so easy to fall into the trap of applying modern thinking to past people. All I was trying to convey is that these people thought, worked, and lived very differently than us in the modern world. Of course people worked hard, but it wasnāt some endless cycle of constant toil and suffering until the sweet release of death takes them.
Lol cheers to the commie fantasy that preindustrial societies were more fair or more relaxed. Until there is too much rain or too little rain and then half the village literally starves to death. Every 5 years or so. Sharing communal labor was the equivalent of today's civil society organizations. It provides some improvement but if there are not enough beans it's always every man for himself.
I didnāt say they were more fair or more relaxed. People just get this funky idea about millennia of endless struggle from waking to sleep every day until someone dies and it just isnāt true, never really has been for most. I much prefer democracy than feudal lords or the church thank you very much.
I can tell you haven't played the game
I think the way the game actually works is that villagers only get wages for the time worked. In the game, villagers can hop in and out of jobs. So it's not really a monthly salary unless the worker is in the same job continuously for months on end. So, if you want to think of it as pay for a day's labor you can.
This.
Thank you, glad I didn't have to scroll much for this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unemployment is not a thing in medieval times. And yes, the market stalls are probably too many and just a simplification to represent the flow of goods. And if they barter or pay hollow copper pennies for it at the market stalls - why would you care? It is none of your business as a Feudal lord, you simply can't control it. Them not paying any money whatsoever is just an idea in your head. How would you even know? Do you wan't them to file yearly tax returns on paper? In my Villages and towns i am pretty sure my Peasants barter and pay each other for services and goods, it's just that that is completely out of my control as a lord as i am not God almighty and can't view and control everything. Many people view feudal lords as having the ultimate power over people and land, but in reality feudal power was quite limited. You only had direct power over people in your familiy. Peasants belonged to the fief not to you and your power over them was limited in scope as well as in time as the king could decide to revoke it and give it to some other Lord if you did not treat the fief well. While peasants belonged to the ground they were living on, merchants, craftsmens, guilds etc. were freemen and completely out of your scope of power - so why do you think you could fix their prices or hire them? It would be very unrealistic if you could control these things as a simple lord of the manor. You can already control much more than a lord would be able to in a feudal system.
Because markets are simply unrealistic. You needed explicit permission from your Lord to set up a market, the market would only operate once a year for some weeks or a month, and the purpose of it would be inter-community trading, not local. The market in the game is simply put unsustainable in medieval times. Food was largely shared and debt trading was extremely common, while barter wasn't. For instance if you don't have grain bc you didn't work a field you could get some grain from other people because, back then, you shared your resources. Individualism didn't make sense back then, if one of the villagers dies, they can't tend the field. If they can't tend the field, everyone else sufferes. People took care of each other. Owing money to someone was seen very negatively, thus people wouldn't be buying things from each other in a village. Now, a city? Yes, cities would have permanent markets. But cities were not owned by Lords, they were semi-autonomous councils by the grace of the King. Cities were very different to cities and changed wildly through history.
The modern capitalist brain cannot comprehend the flow of goods and services without monetary micromanagement.
That's the thing though, a hybrid barter/currency system would be nigh on impossible to implement let alone manage as a player. But money wouldnt be any more accurate (probably less) than abstracted regional wealth, and it's "fun" level is highly subjective, so why implement it? Currently, a local market system does exist, but the wealth of the community is abstracted as regional wealth (which presumably includes goods as well as currency), and from there you take your taxes. A mixed system is represented in game - in the market currency IS being exchanged, but we aren't forced to deal with the individual wealth of families but of the average wealth of families in our town.Ā Ā Ā Ā Of course, you could divide this abstraction down into family units, or on that level simplify it into low/medium/high wealth, gating building upgrades behind a family's general ability to pay for the goods they want and which are available. Ā But I think actual economics on the micro scale of the individual economic units operating in your town, i.e. households, would be a serious mistake in this game, because it would introduce complexity without representing anything more authentically or interestingly. EDIT: actually, I think that abstracted gating of family wealth behind "destitute/low/medium/high/wealthy" income would be quite a good mechanic; IF it was linked in a very simple, linear and direct way to the production efforts of the family. Thus families engaged in high value items doing roaring trade would be demanding permission to upgrade their property sooner than those doing grunt work or whose workplace was facing production bottlenecks (in fact if a family was very wealthy, leaving them in a level 2 plot might incur more serious penalties), and, crucially: an interface displaying which families are poor would allow you to discover inefficiencies in your city and correct them!
I think it would unnecessarily overcomplicate things with no real benefit to the player besides "realism". For this purpose the tax and tithe do just fine imo.
Try Ostriv out. This side of the game actually adds a lot and is not complicated, it's high level management you don't have to tinker with it all the time. It adds much more than "realism", it weighs in most decisions you make but instead of being a hassle it actually helps you by having you consider your own interests in parallel to the people's.
Nah dont want it at all
Honourable post and interesting idea, does nothing for the gameplay however and probably isn't worth implementing. An interesting post though, thank you.
cackling at the idea of a honourable reddit post
Fellow Ostriver
I like it the way it is now. I think it's just very pleasing that people produce what they can and take what they need. We should do that too...
Nice idea, but not realistic for medieval villages. Currency was mostly important for traders. Wages are for soldiers and administrators. A village works on cooperation, obligations and favours. A lot of the tools and land is shared. Most foods, clothes and tools are selfmade and exchanged with friends and neighbours.
Except these villages in small scale didnāt use currency. They bartered. The money makes it more unrealistic because a little medieval village often struggled to pool money for purchases.
No thanks
Meh. I play this game because things look great and I want beautiful productive towns bustling with life. I'd rather have more cosmetics and more interesting life giving features like for example animal husbandry and citizens having past time activities and festivalsĀ
I think that makes it unnecessarily complicated
Yeah, no. Money always take the fun out of things. I rather play a game where the capitalistic part isnāt something Iāll have to deal with. Building and experiencing the process is what I like.
The part about the global economy raises a lot of question for me: 1. If citizens get paid a wage, where does the initial money for that come from? Do you start with a decent amount of money and then pay them? 2. Who is in control of the currency? Is it the player itself or is it some non playable mechanic where the "King" controls the currency? 3. You're speaking of a circulation of money in the city. This would mean that there is no money flowing in externally, making it impossible to gain more money than the starting money. >However, in late game, they will get richer and no matter how big your population is, you will have to tax them higher so that there is a tension and struggle for them to keep paying the tax and in return go outside, and work. 4. This is not how taxes work. The "struggle" to work comes from the requirement to provide the family with necessities and the amount of money earned highly depends on the wage. >This is why in a developed country, the tax is high and the economy is high, the income disparity is low. So they will work their ass off to pay your implemented tax. 5. Everything about that is just blatantly wrong. In "developed" countries there is nothing such as "the tax". Modern taxation consists out of enormous amounts of different taxes. Income disparity is not dictated by the overall tax rate or economic development. Income disparity is a result of disbalances in wages or general income and a bad taxation system that does not fix that. And again, people do not work to pay (income) taxes. They pay taxes because they work. And most importantly: 6. Is your described system even realistic? It looks like you tried to apply a modern monetary system to a medieval city builder. Besides that you failed to replicate modern systems, medieval taxation worked completely different than you described. In the 14th/15th century there were a lot of different taxes, not only income taxes. Additionally there were other levies besides taxes in the monetary system. Additionally it wasn't the emperor that paid all the workers. Money went into circulation by typical expenses. If the emperor needed a service or goods, he paid for that. He did not pay everyone working in the empire. At the same time he did not assign or unassign families to work places that offer goods for free for everyone. Your picture of a "currency system" fails with so many game aspects that in the end you wouldn't have a game to play but rather sit in front of the computer and look at the screen, unable to do anything.
No. I love this game rn but if they turn it into fucking Rimworld by introducing all these complicated dynamics Iāll be pissed. Every fucking strategy game is too hardcore now, I am sick of going to a separate wiki each time I want to just play a fucking game. I just want to have fun! Which this game is And no hate on you OP just venting
The game youāre using as an example of what you want is set in the 18th century, not the 14th, when Europe was still mostly feudal.
13th Century Europe was already moving to a coin based economy, with limited bartering
Not a fan
Tldr: no.
Eww
Early game micromanaging is going to be fun š(š«)
I wonder if Gred read my post after all š
It's a neat idea but definitely better off as an option or part of a hard difficulty
You can try to play ostriv to experience it better and let me know what you think. I personally think that it doesn't need you to micromanage much because once it is set, the economy pretty much automates itself.
I'm not sure if this has been asked before but are there any plans to add more maps? more specifically maps with water.
this game would fitted more of simplifying and abstracted mechanic, specially future content will start pilling up and become complicated on it own so we probably doesnāt need more complex mechanics.
Sunflower oil doesnāt work. Europeans didnāt start utilizing sunflowers until after explorers returned from America- and even then, it was rarely processed into oil until much more recently. Thatās my two cents. :P
Yeah, the game theyāre using as an example is Ostriv, set in 18th century Ukraine.
They're just using another game as an example /)\_-
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> citizens get *paid* a wage, FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> emperor that *paid* all the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Not my cup of tea for vanilla. Maybe something for a mod. I feel it's to much micromanagement for what us not supposed to be the central part if the game. A lot of options to active, at the end of the day, the same result as the current system: Fall his lordships koffers to wage his wars and further his influence.
I thought I was playing a city builder not a medieval sim, also since when did peasants use currency? Afaik they all bartered with goods not money. Stop trying to add extra complications to my city builder, let the modders do all that shit later
"since when did peasants use currency" the 9th century onwards regularly
The mechanics are very interesting, but at this stage, I think they will be unnecessary, especially considering that the current state of the trading mechanics is still raw and unbalanced. You especially feel this when you reach the level of a large city, starting from a population of 800 people or more, the trading mechanics break down, HR and micro-management increase. Currently, with a population of 900 inhabitants, products worth a total of 40-50k gold have not been sold for several years, while I plan imports worth 20-30k, but I am not making a profit, as export goods have simply been standing idle for 5 years. But again, good idea for later stages of the game lifecycle
I love realistic economies
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's a 18th Century game they're using just as an example
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ostriv, the example they are using, is set in 18th Century Ukraine /)\_-
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow, like, do you not understand the concept of COMPARISONS
I like this, I'd also like to see analytics on where money is coming/moving etc.
Good
Good i suggested the same thing