Farming boost

[Quinn Inuit]

I fear that the current game mechanics undervalue farming relative to trade when you look at their actual importance in ancient economies. In order to fix that, I propose increasing tax income by 40% for every two points of farmland (this is going to be a pain in the neck, but can be done--think Metropolis Mod). Then, to balance the fix and decrease the number of armies running about, double unit costs and upkeeps.

Thoughts?

[Cheomesh]

Define "points of farmland"?

M.

[Carados]

The same as levels.
You have the 5 different farming levels.

Land clearance
Communal farming
Crop rotation
Irrigation
Latifundia

[Cheomesh]

Ah so for Communal farming I'd get a 40% increase, an an additional 40% when I make irrigation?

I would not be opposed to that.

M.

[Quinn Inuit]

No, not exactly. What I meant was the points of farm level in descr_regions, which currently range from 1-6. Hmmm...these would have to be multiplied in some way by the farm building level, though.

Ok, so we've got six points of farm levels and five levels of buildings. End results need to be divisible by 10, for EDB purposes.

6*5*10 = 300. That's too high.

6*5*5 = 150, but with the possibility of numbers not divisible by 10.

3*5*10 = 150. Guess that'll have to do.

How about (Base farming level/2) {rounded up} * (farm building level) * 10?

[Carados]

Oops...
My bad ^__^

Is it the number at the bottom?? A very quick scan last night showed me they go from 2-7 instead.

[Quinn Inuit]

They do? *pulls up the file*

Oh, right, they do go up to 7 (there are a couple of 1s, though). I thought I'd removed them all, but I guess I left a few. Hmmm...eh, let's just lump the 7s with the 5-6 block.

[Cheomesh]

So the base farming level is an absolute based on the region, then?

M.

[Wambat]

This modification would have significant game-play consequences in terms of happiness. In the current state of the mod I have to devote nearly all of my building production to the happiness problem outside the immediate vicinity of my capital. Making farming upgrades nessisary to maintain income levels will severely retard empire growth. While it is historically accurate to emphasise the importance of food production, it should be remembered the importance of market and port facilities in realizing the financial potential of food production; if Egypt had not the facilities to arrange for the sail of its grain to and ship it to Roma and other population centres, it would have had a great deal of grain, but not much wealth.

I am not sure I can see the justification behind the reduction of sea trade income. Certainly sea trade caused an imbalance of income between seafaring and non-seafaring factions, but this imbalance was highly accurate. Vast financial reserves are exactly what saved the Eastern Roman Empire from the Huns and countless other threats. The better balance to financial problems might be the reduction of Troop/Merc costs for barbarian factions, perhaps through faction specific traits or retinue, and reduced building costs, or increased building times for these factions.

My two drachmae.

[Quinn Inuit]

Base farming level is indeed absolute based on the region.

Sea trade income has already (as of 3.5.1 or so) been well-nerfed, actually, and should be fine as-is. I know that it should be substantial, but in previous versions it was overwhelming. Check out 3.2 sometime and you'll see what I mean.

What I'm suggesting in this thread is, instead, making farm income relatively more important. I've reduced trade as far as I feel comfortable (and rebalanced it--land trade is now much more valuable than it was), but farms are still a miniscule part of one's economy. That's just not how it was back in the day. Farms were a major source of the Republic's wealth. I really want to make sure we replicate that.

As far as slowing down empires...well, that sounds good to me. I'd love a situation where it wasn't feasible for anyone, human or AI, to conquer most of the world in under a hundred years.

[Wambat]

As far as slowing down empires...well, that sounds good to me. I'd love a situation where it wasn't feasible for anyone, human or AI, to conquer most of the world in under a hundred years.

Well, so long as you can conquer half the world in twenty years we should remain within historical precedent.

I am not suggesting that food production was not significant in the economy of the ancient world, it still it today, I am only suggesting that part of the income from trade upgrades should appropriately be interpreted as resulting from agricultural trade, and that better markets and ports are just as significant to the value of a region's crops as level of agricultural development. I think increasing this value associated with farming income, or deceasing that of trade, may be appropriate, but not to the extent of making the game impossible to play without investing in farming upgrades early on. Moreover, I think it would be appropriate to increase the build time and cost of agricultural improvements.

[Caligula Caesar]

Why does it have to be divisable by 10? If you put in "taxable_income_bonus bonus 1" or whatever, ingame, it tells you "tax bonus 1%". Is the game lying?

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, so long as you can conquer half the world in twenty years we should remain within historical precedent.

Heh, fair enough. Let me rephrase myself, then. I'd rather not see a player be able to steamroll and create a _stable_ empire. Sure, conquer all you want, but hopefully parts will rebel rapidly unless you take your time.

I am not suggesting that food production was not significant in the economy of the ancient world, it still it today, I am only suggesting that part of the income from trade upgrades should appropriately be interpreted as resulting from agricultural trade, and that better markets and ports are just as significant to the value of a region's crops as level of agricultural development. I think increasing this value associated with farming income, or deceasing that of trade, may be appropriate, but not to the extent of making the game impossible to play without investing in farming upgrades early on. Moreover, I think it would be appropriate to increase the build time and cost of agricultural improvements.

Well, I guess we have population boosts on markets now, so it makes sense to add it on ports. I'd just hate to see population get out of control, though. Maybe we can make up for it by making sewers only affect squalor, and not give an additional population boost on top of that. I've been meaning to look into that.

I think the problem here is that trade scales very differently than taxable income. I think one should receive income from farms regardless of how many trading partners one has in the vicinity.

Why does it have to be divisable by 10? If you put in "taxable_income_bonus bonus 1" or whatever, ingame, it tells you "tax bonus 1%". Is the game lying?

I'll be darned. It does say that, doesn't it? I thought this was one of those ones where 1 bonus = 5-10 result. Perfect, thank you for pointing that out.

[Wambat]

I think the problem here is that trade scales very differently than taxable income. I think one should receive income from farms regardless of how many trading partners one has in the vicinity.

I don't think this jives with economic theory. Having greater access to markets should have a direct effect on the value realised by your crops. Mining seems to me the only source of income that should not be affected by the loss or lack of trading partners, and only because the ancient world would have used a gold/silver standard for trade.

If we assume part of one's trade income to be attributable to staple crop sales, then the farming income, which is not dependent upon upon trade access, would represent only income from domestic consumption. Logically, this income should be dependent not upon the development of the crops, but upon the size and wealth of the domestic population.

[Quinn Inuit]

I'm not disagreeing with you from a theoretical point of view, just a technical one. IRL, you could trade overland over more than one set of borders, but in-game you can't. In addition, trade_income_bonuses get out of hand very easily, and I've had to be very careful with them while balancing. Therefore, I really think that tax income is a much better way to reflect the wealth of farmlands _in this game_.