$mini-game debate : how to balance supply and demand

[Franses]

I like many of the ideas listed above. I think however that we should add things slowly and not complicate things to quickly. This to be able to distinguish between good and bad additions clearly. Therefore I suggested to add one building that adds value to the three base commodities and see what the effects are.

I suggest to have a poll about it. Unless there is much opposition against this poll I will start one tomorrow afternoon(GMT). In view of above discussion I will suggest a:

Bakery (cost: 20 shields/labor) converts 2 food into 1 bread

The default price of bread is $150.
Bread can not be stored.
Demand of bread is "50% of the citizens of the city the bakery is build in.
Supply of bread is "50% of the citizens of the city the bakery is build in.
Market assessment D:S = 100% = $150

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Can we change that to "requires two grain"?

I'd like to start calling product by the specific names so we can get used to them as described in the post above.

That way next trading session I can start tracking the different products and the session after we can start tweaking the subMarkets.

I still think the Consumer Purshasing Power thing where the total demand for consumer products is Population times Annual Per Capita Income is more realistic (14X3=42) for commerce.

[Franses]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Can we change that to "requires two grain"?

I'd like to start calling product by the specific names so we can get used to them as described in the post above.

Sure, no problem to me. May be confusing though for the voters until they are used to the new name for food. So I suggest to keep food in for the poll and, if accepted, call it grain in the rules.

I still think the Consumer Purshasing Power thing where the total demand for consumer products is Population times Annual Per Capita Income is more realistic (14X3=42) for commerce.

OK with me. How is supply defined in this case?

Noted that you disobeyed your suggested rule to limit the trade thread to trades only. Nice post though!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Franses


OK with me. How is supply defined in this case?

Noted that you disobeyed your suggested rule to limit the trade thread to trades only. Nice post though!

Food and Shields will still operate the same and with the same demand/supply funtion. The only difference is we call it Bananas or Grain and Bananas get a 20% bonus. Note that you can never increase Banana production, as sood as the jungle is cleared it will produce Grain. What should we call Food from Forest? Oranges? Apples?

I figured that post was warranted as I wanted to give the traders a "heads up" that a sudden price change could invalidate their potential transaction.

Besides it was "in character" so to speak.

Small posts don't throw me off when I go through the trading session like those long ones with quotes did.


ON A COMPLETLY DIFFERENT TANGENT
If we get to the point where we can build weapons maybe we can work it out to field small personal armies. As we're entering the Middle Ages it would be in character to have small skirmishes between rival Nobles.

Would have to work out rules for occuping other Noble's' holdings and how to determine when it transfers by force of arms and how to fairly determine conflicts.

Jonny and K-man might just march on jdd2007's river valley.

I'm going to try to name each of my tiles. The mountain one is going to be called "Ghengis Mountain".

I might build a Fortress on it if we do the inter-Noble conflict thing. Since Region One's official name is now Mingapulco, I could call the fortress "Ming Sing". That's where we house all the spammers sent "on vacation".

[Spiffor]

Here are the D:S calculations if we make the nobles' estates (attached picture) not to be part of the basic supply :

Apolyton produces 6 food, 5 shields and 3 commerce from nobles' estates (Franses, civman2000, Kloreep)
Termina produces 2 food, 1 shield, and 1 commerce from nobles' estates (Rendelnep)
Tassagrad has a wholly independent production
BHQ produces 4 food, 2 shields and 4 commerce from nobles' estates (Captain and Kramerman)

Then, basic supply is :
Apolyton : 4 food, 2 shields, 5 commerce
Termina : 4 food, 2 shields, 2 commerce
Tassagrad : 8 food, 4 shields, 4 commerce
BHQ : 6 food, 3 shields, 5 commerce

Total basic supply : 22 food, 13 shields, 16 commerce

These figures didn't take corruption / waste into account. They were calculated from the raw production of lands.

Now, if we consider corruption / waste ADDS to demand rather than substracting from it, the base demand is :
Apolyton : 10 food, 8 commerce, 7 shields
Termina : 6 food, 3 shields, 3 commerce
Tassagrad : 8 food, 4 shields, 4 commerce
BHQ : 10 food, 5+1 shields, 9+2commerce.

Total demand : 34 food, 21 shields, 25 commerce

[Epistax]

I like the idea of being able to sell something for more than $40


Makes sense not to count the same square twice. Makes sense that things that were trying to be produced, but couldn't be, add to demand.


Give me money or give me.. well.. money!

[Franses]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Here are the D:S calculations if we make the nobles' estates (attached picture) not to be part of the basic supply :

IMO you have sound arguments for the model you present and thank you for the picture .

but assuming I understand it correctly I have one suggestion:

1. If all lands are sold, the basic supply will always default to the supply of the city tile (which by the way equals the proposal of GhengisFarb). In fact, if a few more players would have taken part, this would have been the case from the start of the game. So why not start with basic supply = city tile production from the beginning and avoid adding extra calculations that are needed for the first couple of turns only?

[Spiffor]

Frances :
You're right. But I think we should use my model once (next turn), and your suggestion after, to compare if your suggestion is practicble at the beginning of the game. After all, there is a risk of imbalance.

[Franses]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Frances :
You're right. But I think we should use my model once (next turn), and your suggestion after, to compare if your suggestion is practicble at the beginning of the game. After all, there is a risk of imbalance.

OK. Sounds good to me but with a little tweaking. I suggest to use the city tile approach first, simply because this is also proposed by GhengisFarb and is the final (if not start) result of your model. If there appear to be unbalances that can be repared by your model, we switch (this all assuming that the other nobles support this approach). Does that sound fair to you?

[Spiffor]

yes

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Yay! I still have questions about the shield demand/supply thing. All the rest of my alternate market sources are based on actual supply/demand figures but what is a good source for shield demand?

Only things I have come with:
1 shield demanded for each building in city (Materials used for maintenance)
and/or
1 shield for each city (Materials used for maintenance- this would start us at the base rate, 4:4 and shields but only allow the market to purchase 4 shields)
any ideas?

[Epistax]

What about each city has a shield damand directly proportional to the # of shields in whatever they happen to be building?

Or at least some of the demand must be made that way.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Epistax
What about each city has a shield damand directly proportional to the # of shields in whatever they happen to be building?

Or at least some of the demand must be made that way.

That's a thought. But couldn't that generate a HUGE demand that would skyrocket shield prices?

Not that I'm arguing mind you , I'd be more than happy to spend one turn selling $300 shields but that wouldn't seem fair to no-shield producers who need the shields to use their domestic labor unit.

[Epistax]

Remember to keep supply and demand and a local level.

If you are building a wonder, should shield prices NOT skyrocket? Face it- when building a wonder, everything around it crumbles to pieces until the wonder is done

EDIT-- we could incorporate laborers into this as well, maybe not getting shields TOO high.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Epistax:

Nice idea, but unfair to some as we originally purchased our lands without that thought. This is, however, a beta. Changing the rules is the norm for betas. I am just stating that it would make Shields inordinately more valuable than any of the other commodities, and therefore unbalanced. Perhaps if we had some kind of maximum limit on that as there is NO way Commerce or food is going to hit $300? They should at least TRY to be even.