Economy

AC Feedback and Suggestions
21

The question gets drawn to how much player involvement is there for commerce to take place with merchants coming to the village/town and selling their wares.

In other games like Banished the player is in full control of that trade - which kills the realism. I think a better solution is facilitating supply and demand mechanics based on the desires of the villagers. Thus the trade element is pulled off the player and down to the villagers - that way the player can focus on macro management things. In Banished, the Marketplace is a thing - but doesn’t actually function as a marketplace (you don’t see people actually utilising the market). By implementing a supply and demand system in game, individual villagers have desires and needs - which they can fulfil by trading with others. Of which they need to trade in turn.

The only failure of this is at the village level, villagers will be focusing on putting food on their neolithic table and not much else, they will be focusing on their village rather than just themselves. Once the technology to store food (like pottery jars to store grain) become available then new job roles will start appearing and the local village economy and capability becomes ore vibrant leading to better specialisation of individuals and the potential for legitimate trade within and outside of the village.

The major topic of discussion is the ‘means’ of trade. Initially it would be item for item in a ‘fair barter’ system which is historically accurate. Though as things like tablets and proper written language are invented then they would formalise these transaction systems to something more uniform and enable larger trade capabilities to happen. Actual currency would require the discovery of vast supplies of rare metals like gold or silver and the ability to smelt, and press them into roughly uniform shapes - which in turn would require a form of metallurgy. Which enables more trade with other tribes/villages due to a similar acceptance as well as greater trade internally.

Tablets were record keeping devices, not actual means of trade. Much like the paperwork for arbitrage in stock and commodity trading. I don’t need to actually be able to hold the goods, but I have a written contract that shows that I am the owner, or that I am owed the good - thus allowing trade and arbitrage even if the good isn’t actually in physical possession as of yet. The enforcement of contract was done by a greater body like the local temple on pain of ostracism. Self-interest was a strong component since in a small town everyone knows everyone.

The application of such in game once again relies on the technologies that are researched - and the formal structure of society. If people aren’t capable of comprehending contract, credit/debit, etc then these tablets are not going to work.

Thus, the simplistic ‘economy’ of the first settlement tribes in the game will have barter economies where individual villagers have multiple skills they ply to create wares. I sell you fishing hooks for fish, though I am pretty good at threshing seed.

This would then lead to a skills economy element which is a whole other bucket of fish.

2 Likes
22

@joeroe has a point. implementing anything like a currency or even a barter system would not be realistic for most of the societies the game attempts to cover. just because you found evidence of tokens being used, doesn’t mean it was used for trading on a daily basis.

if you really want to quantify things for better gameplay experience, try building something around karma points on interpersonal and intercommunity levels.

23

I think a difficulty lies in implementing whatever conclusion we think would be fitting. In games like Pharaoh, Caesar (III), Zeus: Master of Olympus, or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom, and also the Anno series, there is always a currency, however fictional it may be (meaning it doesn’t necessarily need to mean “money” as a bunch of coins). With this currency, every worker in the city is paid, as are the traders that come to the city from abroad, to sell wares. This currency is earned by selling wares to the same traders, and by taxing the population.

This mechanic is problematic both because we know there was no currency in the modern sense practically anywhere in ancient times, but also because it suggests a practically communistic society, in which everyone works solely for the state, by which they are paid, and from which they receive everything, for free, and to which they pay taxes. There is no private initiative, there is no private enterprise. Even the traders from afar are practically emissaries of foreign cities, bringing ware solely from and to their respective cities. In reality, the world was both different and more complicated.

This mode of functioning is practically true for Tropico and Banished too, the former having no taxes, the latter having no currency, no “money”. But in both cases, there is only the state, and everyone works for it, and gets everything from it. Everything is essentially communal, just like in the games mentioned earlier.

Children of the Nile shows a different way, in which, firstly, there is no money (currency, coins), and secondly, there is a form of private property and enterprise. The player does build for example shops and farms and noble housing, but shops operate privately, producing and selling wares to costumers for bread. Farmers grow this bread, and pay a substantial part of it as tax either to the player, being Pharaoh, or a nobleman “owning” the farm. A labourer, overseer, scribe or priest, works for the government, and therefore is paid, in bread, by the government, taken from great public granaries and government bakeries. If the player builds too many, say, mat shops, then the costumers won’t be enough for the mat maker and his family to earn enough food to survive.

There is no completely free market in Children of the Nile, but at least the actors of the market, once created, are practically quite free. Come to think of it, their prices are probably constant, so… no, no free market at all. But at least slightly more than in the games mentioned above.

The problem is that in a very small group, let’s say ten people, or even a hundred people, living isolated lives, with death lurking at every corner, in such a group, it would be quite natural to live communally, to share everything. I hope the historians, archaeologists and anthropologists of this forum would agree that nomadic hunter-gatherers are practically universally egalitarian, owing simply to their inability to even carry any surplus with them. Even when humans settled down, it takes a lot before hierarchies and specialisation to occur within a group to such an extent that a game such as this could portray it in a meaningful way. I am no economic historian, but I know that in early agricultural sedentary societies, honour and prestige were very important in the few economic transactions that actually occurred, just as @joeroe mentions from Graeber. Gift economics is a well-known phenomenon. If wealth is quite evenly spread, and we all produce just about the same things, and there aren’t any real options, and nothing really changes ever (how much did agriculture develop in one century?), then using honour and favours as a currency works quite well. We all work together, because what else would we do?

This however, doesn’t work well in a game, unless there is some mechanic to switch from communal to individualist (or at least familial) in time. Once there is enough surplus to start hiring people to do stuff for you? Once there are enough landless sons (and daughters) to hire? God knows that people were paid up to only a few hundred years ago in Western Europe with food and a roof over their heads, with the occasional cloth or other necessary trinkets. Then comes the question of serfdom and slavery, which probably ought to be implemented to at least a limited degree. Furthermore, shaman or similar priest figure, would probably be exempt from the normal work in the fields, and would have to be paid in turn, maybe communally, maybe “by the gig” :wink: At some point specialisation would reach such levels that very few farmers would be able to produce certain goods themselves, wherefore they would pay someone instead. But again: if the market is very closed, an very small, then it might be prudent to buy and sell using honour, prestige, goodwill, and the “socially-enforced credit system” previously mentioned. Barter?

Maybe depending on the size of the village, and availability of resources, at a certain threshold the citizens themselves will start trying to specialise? “One of your farmers has just sold his fields to start making goods!”? But does that seem plausible, that this farmer would stop sharing, and start trading? Or maybe, at some point, the communality will turn into a… tax? To be given to a chieftain, priest and someone else, to live off, and store, and use when needs be?

Sorry for the word wall, I’m just trying to offer my thoughts and suggestions on a difficult topic. The developers have quite a conundrum before them in case they would want to surpass their forebearers… :confused: On the other hand, most of it only comes into play once we move into the Chalcolithic :wink:

1 Like
24

Very interesting thread this is.

25

@Grigor world wall is good wall since you’re fleshing out our limitations.

Naturally taxes are not going to be a thing in these very early stage tribes - since taxes assumes a form of centralised power and then enforcement of that power to collect the taxes due to the size of the community this will be difficult to enforce and model since the community is acting as a commune. As it grows, and specialisations emerge because some villagers become skilled workers that is when barter and trade will emerge - creating a greater expression of the individual and thus trade. Scale begets specialisation.

In its initial stages I can only imagine everyone is treated like family and thus working for the family unit to stay alive. Which raises the question of, “To what level of individuality exists with individual villagers at this stage? Are they just cogs in the survival machine that is the tribe? Or are they making decisions based on their self-interest relative to the group?”

The common theme across both of the answers to those questions is the family/tribal unit. They are part of the tribal unit because they understand that as a group they have a better chance of survival and they can pool resources + manpower.

@Grigor’s previous point about the “working for the state” mechanic is based on the limitations of development and gameplay. Which is a puzzling situation for the developers of this game as well. If they wish a virtual supply/demand free market system where individual villagers have needs, wants, desires then they would need to operate like characters from ‘The Sims’ - fulfilling these needs and desires by going out, finding the solution and then acquiring it. Though this would mean the player is sitting back and doing nothing, since the villagers would literally be doing everything from collecting wood to building shelters. Thus, what role does the player play when it comes to their little community?

Do they represent the collective will of the villagers? A guiding hand?

In my opinion they are just the architect to the villagers needs and desires, some of which they may come into conflict with since you can’t make everyone happy. This would avoid the situation of players min-maxing for efficiencies sake like you see in many other games. Instead the players are there to focus on expanding the tribe and the in-the-middle things like barter and trade are automatically organised by the villagers themselves.

This satisfies two important attributes to this type of game: realism and player involvement. Realism is satisfied through less micromanagement, as villagers are satisfying dynamic needs and wants. Player involvement is satisfied due to the player focusing on organising their village/town at a semi-macro level.

26

Being quite interested in this matter, and noting that the thread has been a bit inactive, I allow myself indulge a bit:

I think, @EchelonMirror, that the obvious solution, and the most realistic one, albeit not very easily implemented one, is to divide the evolution of our society in a few distinct phases, which deal with both economy and law, politics and sociology (which means it touches upon subjects in this thread about civil unrest: Social cohesion and tribal breakdown ).

In the beginning, the tribe would own all, and everyone would work for the tribe, and be fed by the tribe. There would be no point in hogging resources when it’s clear that everyone needs to share everything to even stay alive. Complete communality.

I think it was @Icewolf and @louis.mervoyer who brought up that at a certain population, humans biologically cannot sustain the closeness that smaller numbers offer. The bigger our group, the less we feel truly a part of it. This of course depends on why we are in the same group at all. The original settlers of our village and their descendants might share more than the traders and lone tribesmen that have joined us since then. Furthermore, at this certain limit, it is quite possible, and even likely in some cases, that out fledgling village would be moving away from fighting to survive, to more… living. Even thriving. If food is plentiful, and security not an issue, and we have our huts… at that point, a new economic system could come into being, albeit slowly at start, one of specialisation, in which supply and demand set prices. This naturally requires predictability and protection from that which is power, has a monopoly on violence: the player.

One way could be to change it, gradually, to a tax. Instead of the state, the tribe, taking 100 % of the produce, it could be lowered by a series of events, to 80 %, then 50 %, then 30 %, or something like that. It would have little impact there and then, since in such early times, and such a small group, most people still do the same things, and produce a bunch of different goods at home at a low level. But it will almost immediately lead to more specialization, a few tribesmen would to a greater extent than earlier put aside hunting and gathering and farming, and specialise something they’re good at, like carpentry, pottery, clothes-making, and other crafts. I’m sure @lotus253 has a whole book of inspiration in the practicalities.

The important thing is that it be done in accordance with the laws and the “elders” or “great leader”: the player. When a certain tribesman has crossed over entirely into making pots or thatched objects or something like that, and thereby is on the verge of turning his home into a workshop, an even could fire: “Great leader, tribesman Ugga-bugga has become a great craftsman of pots, shall we declare him a potter?” Then, the household would no longer be the household of “Ugga-bugga”, but of “Ugga-bugga the potter”!

As @EchelonMirror writes, in games like the Sims, Children of the Nile, Tropico and Banished, the citizens have meters for different needs, and fulfil these needs as they want, whenever they want. In Children of the Nile, citizens who cannot get food in normal ways, will forage the land, and finally leave. But while citizens can definitely fulfil their needs, I am a bit more sceptical towards their being able to handle everything. Sure, if there is a church, in Tropico, the citizen will tend to their spiritual needs whenever they want, with our without the player watching them. But what if there is no church? Will they somehow band together and build it? I believe the player should be slightly more than what @EchelonMirror suggests, more than an architect.

If a wall needs to be built, the player will naturally lead the people to this goal. The same is true if a forest needs to be cut down for new farms, or marshlands drained, or any other great project. But also if a potter’s kiln or a metalworker’s furnace are to be built. In fact, I would like to argue that such a things as organising irrigation and the mining and melting and trading of metals and certain other items, would be where the player truly gets to lead the tribe. Any tribesman can sell a few thatch mats from his or her doorstep, but build and administer a foundry, a mine? Trade with the foreigners (at a larger scale)? Protect us against barbarians? Lead the troops? Drain the swamps? Cut down the forests? Not to mention zone (à la Simcity) for new areas to be farmed, settled and so forth. Also roads, bridges…

Of course, I am also assuming that there is a proper skill system in the game, a stronger version of what was in Tropico, more like Dwarf Fortress (oh how valuable you “legendary” cook, or brewer, or weapons smith were!), a quality aspect in items, from bad to legendary, and that therefore there would be a reason for specialisation, but also paying for the superior product. In Pharaoh, Caesar III and the other games, as in Tropico, you could pay your citizens different wages. While “Ugga-bugga the potter” and his household won’t get paid by the tribe, Zog, Mog, Rog, and their leader Og, from the tribe militia, who keep watch over the palisade at night, and fend of dangerous animals, would get paid by the tribe. Enough to survive, and a bit more, to keep it an attractive profession. Maybe an honour - eating at the elders’ table…?

2 Likes
27

Many interesting thinking approaches. Think, it would have to be defined the function of the player. Architect, manager, God? Next, the individuality of the NPCs (beyond covering the basic needs). Are they pure command recipients or do they develop their own initiatives? People are also not equal. Some are strong - but simple, others clever - but unsympathetic, others want only their peace and nothing to change. One strives for power, the other for prestige, one wants to research or discover and one wants to fight with everyone. And do not forget the drug testosterone in younger men …
So how does our tribe work? Are impulses brought by NPCs to the player? "Hey, what would you say if we found a new settlement down there on the lake, we’d have more fish …?"
Or: “What do you think of Bula-Bula? He has found some strange stones that melt in the fire, Let’s go about it, or?” Or: "There seems to be good land behind, I’d like to build my hut and lay a field. Uga-Uga would also be interested ".
What happens when two young men can not agree who gets the daughter of this prestigious flintstone craftsman? Also falls within the area of ​​jurisprudence. How does “right” arise? How does authority define and justify itself?
Very complex, interdisciplinary considerations that characterize the character of the game.

2 Likes
28

Every single tribe in history has come up with its own answers to the great questions, and there are as many answers as there are variables affecting the life of a tribe. I believe we should therefore base the answers to the questions to our tribesmen and their lives. Just like in Tropico, the player needs to win election, sway the voters, and perhaps control the people, or how in Crusader Kings the player must insure the loyalty of the most important vassals, and rely on their approval for legislative reforms, so should we in Ancient Cities be reliant on the people for both approval and many initiatives. Events! :smiley:

A happy tribe will work better, achieve more, make discoveries, but perhaps also become complacent. It will attract other tribes, both as migrants and aggressors. Need, or necessity, is the mother of inventions, but also of action. If there is a lack of food, your tribesmen should bring this matter up, and, if needs be, act against their leader, the player. If there is plenty of most things, but the oldest son of a certain household wants to build a house for himself, so that he may marry a girl, the player should be notified of this wish. In the end, the young tribesman might be so fed up with it all, that he will strike out on his own.

Justice and right should also evolve depending on the culture of our tribe. If a crime is committed, and the tribe is outraged, then they will probably bring that up, prompting the player to either agree to the suggestions/demands, or answer with something else. Imagine a button opening up a menu of basic laws. At the start of the game, it would be greyed out, but as your tribe develops, population increases, and problems arise that were unimaginable from the start, more and more events occur, like the first theft, the first murder, the first adultery and so forth, prompting more decisions, filling the menu with colour. But of course, this is a thought more appropriate in threads dealing with crime, justice and police issues:

I would opt for the same approach in technology, though I believe that’s more fleshed out as it were. Organic, logical growth over time, depending on many variables, leading to knowledge appearing for individuals, and then, depending again on different variables, spreading to other individual tribesmen. This thread:

1 Like
29

Considering the average - very short - lifetime of our ancestors, he is likely to have this event quite often. Even in the case of inheritance, the claim to power at the beginning stands on shaky ground

… one of the most interesting phases in the game. How is the first time to judge? Who is the judge, who is the prosecutor, who is the defender? Where is the “norm”, how is it established? The rules of living together, when was the first time called “law”?

Think, that deserves its own thread. Do it…:wink:

1 Like