Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: What the heck is money?
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:19 am 
User avatar
This user is a Tool!
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
Posts: 14
I've been doing some work on a hyptothetical Erfworld game. Maybe it'll get off the ground and become playable; maybe it'll just become one of those things I write about in concept and abandon. Don't know, doesn't matter yet.

I keep getting stuck on money. Shmuckers.

Kingdoms need shmuckers. Every turn, kingdoms must pay the upkeep of their units, in shmuckers, or else it must disband the units it cannot or will not pay for. These shmuckers presumably go to "the bank," go to Erf. To the Titans. Effectively, they vanish from the pool, meaning there's a hole in the economy. The bucket is leaking.

That must mean there's something flowing in too, right? If there's a leak in the bucket, something has to pour water back in, or the bucket will become empty. There has to be some form of income, something generating shmuckers, more or less from thin air. But what?

A few ideas:

- Mining. This is touched upon in the comic, and definitely generates shmuckers, but is it the main income? Supposedly, it's possible to drain an area of resources. Wouldn't that mean that a very old world will eventually have no more gems to mine, no more shmuckers to gather?

- Farming. Also touched upon, but this time, it seems that farms produce provisions, rather then shmuckers. Someone said "a good meal can cut your upkeep in half the next day" or something like that. Does that mean two good meals can eliminate your upkeep altogether? Can I sell food? If I have excess, can I convert it into shmuckers?

- Warfare. Everything else in Erfworld is military, why not money? Maybe the "bank" pays shmuckers to anyone engaging in combat...? Probably not.

- Maybe I'm wrong entirely and there is no "bank." Maybe the bucket isn't leaking, and the money spent on upkeep is going somewhere. That's how real money works, right? But if that's the case, then where? Who am I paying, if I pay the upkeep of my kingdom?

The most likely answer is that my ignorance of economics is blinding me to the real answer. x.x

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:13 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    Cities produce Shmuckers.

    You can also earn Shmuckers by sacking cities, but I'd imagine that gives you less money than it costs to rebuild (or it'd be a simple hack to turn that mechanism into infinite money).

    There's also mining for gems, as you noted, and (I think) looting Ruins.

    But yes, other than mining for gems (or perhaps even more than mining), it's my understanding that the main source of Shmuckers flowing into Erfworld is from Cities.

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:29 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    Nimelennar wrote:
    Cities produce Shmuckers.

    You can also earn Shmuckers by sacking cities, but I'd imagine that gives you less money than it costs to rebuild (or it'd be a simple hack to turn that mechanism into infinite money).

    There's also mining for gems, as you noted, and (I think) looting Ruins.

    But yes, other than mining for gems (or perhaps even more than mining), it's my understanding that the main source of Shmuckers flowing into Erfworld is from Cities.


    Cities produce shmuckers!

    Oh man, that is huge. How did I miss something that important? 8U

    "Parson's official duty now was managing the capital city. When a city had a Warlord to manage it, costs were lowered for things like city improvement and production of extra equipment and provisions. It also increased the amount of Shmuckers the city produced, and reduced the upkeep for units which spent the entire turn in the city. Besides the extra Shmuckers, Parson didn't think there was much tactical value to any of that, under current circumstances."

    That makes everything a whole lot simpler. 0_0

    Thank you so much, Nimelennar. <3

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:41 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Thank you so much, Nimelennar. <3

    Happy to help!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:47 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    Here's some more info from Book Zero:

    Quote:
    Despite the perils of the situation and the impossibility of working for Haffaton, Jillian couldn't help but be interested at the whiff of money. She had always assumed Haffaton was financially strapped. If they did have so many cities, then each one must only contribute the barest few Shmuckers to their treasury. After a certain number of city levels per side, the Shmuckers each city produced would begin to decline. Very large sides were hard to maintain, and had a habit of splitting off into new sides for the efficiency of it.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:13 pm 
    User avatar
    Has collected at least one unit Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:57 pm
    Posts: 84
    My thought is that Money is portions of the energy in the "source" that is being discussed by the temples. The primary method of it coming into erf is via city generation but properly equipped units can harvest some supplemental from nodes, mines, farms, presumably fishing. it seems units can also give up a refund in some cases by being turned into rations for sided units or simply eaten by ferals.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:12 pm 
    User avatar
    Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner This user has been published! Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm
    Posts: 437
    Did you notice that there is a wiki for creating your own Erfworld RPG?

    https://rpg.erfworld.com/Main_Page

    It's extremely easy to make a new page on the wiki
    Just go up to the bar, and write something like
    https://rpg.erfworld.com/KrenkoMobBoss_RPG

    If you click on this link you will get to a new potential page. If that name is fine, all you need to do is hit the create button (find it in the upper right corner), and then start putting in the stuff you already wrote. If you don't like the name just change the bit after "com/", and you get a brand new page.

    The main hub of ideas for what sort of rules this RPG should follow are here
    https://rpg.erfworld.com/Category:Combat_Mechanics

    To link your article with this page, just copy/paste these lines, and add them on to the ending of your post.
    Quote:
    [[Category:Combat Mechanics]]
    [[Category:Proposal]]


    There is also a thread entirely devoted to making an erfworld game that you can read here.

    viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13541

    It's not really active, but you might want to give it a read through.

    My personal method, for now, is that cities produce 1000 smuckers per city level. That means if it is a level 5 city you get 5000 smuckers, if you have 5 level 1 cities, that also produces 5000 smuckers.

    However, since big empires end up having less money, I also have a corruption mechanic, so that every city level, after the first, loses 10 smuckers. So a level 5 city makes 5000 smuckers minus 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 (100 total). 5000-100= 4900 per turn.

    Income tops out at 100 city levels and 50k smuckers. Not counting additional revenue sources.

    _________________
    The Imperfect Warlord
    Summery: Somehow I ended up being summoned to Erfworld instead of Parson Gotti. See how the events of book 1 change from my actions. Focus on Erf-game mechanics.
    http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/46631 ... -chapter-1

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:08 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    tomaO2 wrote:
    Did you notice that there is a wiki for creating your own Erfworld RPG?

    https://rpg.erfworld.com/Main_Page

    It's extremely easy to make a new page on the wiki
    Just go up to the bar, and write something like
    https://rpg.erfworld.com/KrenkoMobBoss_RPG

    Thanks for the link, though I feel like it would take me longer to learn the system here then to just make my own. Will give it a look the next time I feel like I can sit down and sort through it for a little while.

    Anyway, another thought occurs to me about money: Parson talks about a hypothetical "bubble kingdom," which he describes as a kingdom where there is no need for combat, a side with "zero or positive upkeep." His choice of words makes this sound complicated, difficult, and involving multiple different and obscure hacks working in tandem.

    This implies the following:

    1) Warfare does indeed generate money. Maybe not literal generation of shmuckers, but it definitely causes cash to flow.

    2) The income from warfare is so great that it can probably be considered a primary source of income. If the idea of a kingdom without it seems far-fetched, then that implies that all kingdoms - or nearly all kingdoms - make heavy use of it.

    3) There are other sources of income, but it's difficult or impossible to use them conventionally to pay for the upkeep of a side. (perhaps only a large side? Maybe smaller sides are easier to pay for?)

    4) Whatever form the income of war takes cannot be something that can be easily screwed with. For instance: if croaking a unit of another side generated shmuckers, then it would be simple enough to set something up, for instance, popping basic stabbers, ordering them to go barbarian (or switch sides, if that's not possible) and kill them off for shmuckers. Or two sides might send stabbers to go kill each other for shmuckers. If this is a form of income, then it must be so small as to be insufficient to pay for the upkeep of a side.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:51 pm 
    User avatar
    Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner This user has been published! Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm
    Posts: 437
    The link I gave you is literally a place where a number of people have made their own system. There is no unifying system for you to learn. At least not at this time. There may end up being a unifying system some time down the line, but there isn't one at the moment.

    If you don't want to read what anyone else has done, that's fine. It's literally just a wikia to write down your system and compare it with what others have come up with. It's a lot easier to access it there than it is when posting in the forum.

    As for war being profitable... I've never read any passages that state killing people makes money, or even any that implied it. Most money comes from capturing cities, and then sacking them. Alternatively, you make contracts to get people to give you money. Ransoming soldiers is one method, placing a bounty on them is another. That said, you are certainly free to create your own concept and say that money increases from constant fighting.

    Personally, I honestly think Faq could have afforded to live on what they had if they hadn't kept popping soldiers, and the reason they didn't was because Faq was predicted to fall. Jillian was predicted to rule later on, so If she is away on missions all the time, then she can't be killed off when Faq gets destroyed.

    _________________
    The Imperfect Warlord
    Summery: Somehow I ended up being summoned to Erfworld instead of Parson Gotti. See how the events of book 1 change from my actions. Focus on Erf-game mechanics.
    http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/46631 ... -chapter-1

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:02 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    tomaO2 wrote:
    As for war being profitable... I've never read any passages that state killing people makes money, or even any that implied it. Most money comes from capturing cities, and then sacking them. Alternatively, you make contracts to get people to give you money. Ransoming soldiers is one method, placing a bounty on them is another.


    Let's assume the money of warfare comes largely - or entirely - from sacking, razing, and ransoming. These are all different forms of taking money from a side: their side loses money, and you gain an equal amount. If this is true, why is Parson having such a tough time imagining how a bubble kingdom could work? After all, either:

    A) There must be TONS of bubble kingdoms, or
    B) The world economy must be hemorrhaging money like mad.

    If kingdoms sustain themselves by eating other kingdoms, then why hasn't the world fallen apart yet? If it is falling apart, why isn't anyone talking about it? You'd think that would be a major topic of discussion.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:21 am 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Let's assume the money of warfare comes largely - or entirely - from sacking, razing, and ransoming. These are all different forms of taking money from a side: their side loses money, and you gain an equal amount. If this is true, why is Parson having such a tough time imagining how a bubble kingdom could work?


    Upkeep is for units. A side with even a small city and almost no units could sustain itself indefinitely. However, there are sides out there with too many units to pay upkeep for, so they want to attack your city: for the extra income, or to raze it.

    (There's a theory that you can't stop units from popping, and thus your upkeep is always going to increase unless you attack people, but that hasn't been proven, so I'm going to continue under the assumption that you can stop popping units if you so choose).

    So, you choose to pop soldiers to defend your city. This decreases your net income, but increases the likelihood that your side survives.

    Now, two of your neighbouring sides have been fighting for many hundredturns, which has kept their attention off of you, but now one of them seems to have an advantage, and you know the other is going to try and take your city, to get some of that advantage back. You have a choice: to pop more soldiers than you can support, or to cease to exist as a side. You decide to pop more soldiers. You defend yourself, the big side conquers the small side, but your treasury is now getting low.

    You now have two choices: to disband some of your loyal units, or to find additional income. The former seems uncomfortably like murder to you, so you march to some of the cities of the now overextended side and start expanding. This gets the attention of the larger side, which can't effectively defend its entire frontier. You know they're going to come for you eventually, so you keep popping soldiers, which requires you to keep taking cities, which extends your own frontiers and requires you to keep popping more soldiers...

    In a peaceful world with a stable and sustainable population level, sure, bubble sides could exist.

    In Erfworld as it exists now, you'd either need to completely hide yourself, as Faq did, and keep your upkeep lower than what your cities produce... or you have to keep a large standing army. Which means that you need to find a way to pay for it, and, when you already have an army...

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:26 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    So, you're of the opinion that things are the way they are because people have gotten themselves into something of a death spiral? That things current in the comic's events are the result of long-standing histories?

    That's a problem if that's the case; the game I'm imagining begins on turn 0 of the world. One turn ago, nothing existed; now, everything suddenly exists. Thus, there are no histories at all, because nothing has ever happened yet.

    There's a careful balance that needs to be struck. I want players to feel encouraged to fight, but I don't want them to accidentally overextend and be forced to disband their whole side because the economics were too confusing. It sounds like the best way to set up a world is to have lots and lots of teeny tiny kingdoms for the bigger kingdoms to eat... but is that really how a side sustains itself if it's anything bigger then tiny? By conquering and razing city after city?

    A world where every side is either a tiny nation with a positive upkeep-income, or a big military nation that gobbles up the tiny nations? I'd have to wonder why anyone of the former type exists at all.

    For that matter, sides can split off into more sides - Jetstone was considering doing this, letting Ansom rule his own allied side, based in the city of Gobwin Knob, if he'd succeeded in conquering it. What's to stop a massive nation from splitting into tons of smaller sub-sides that focus on generating shmuckers, then forcing them to either pass all the excess your way or be crushed? Sounds like a pretty obvious hack. Why isn't everyone doing it?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:19 pm 
    User avatar
    Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner This user has been published! Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm
    Posts: 437
    There is a certain sweet spot for a kingdom to be in, that is the best balance of smucker production and unit density per city. Let's say that sweet spot is 10-15 cities, that are each around level 2-3, with a level 4 capital. Ideally, you would want to pop your own children, and have them spin off several allied kingdoms around that zone, after conquering the area, if you were looking for maximum efficiency for your side.

    Instead of having allies, you can also force those new sides you spin off and have them pay tribute. Those are called colony sides. Given that a side generates less and less smuckers the bigger it gets, the strategy of having a bunch of small sides give tribute to a parent side is the most efficient way of gaining smuckers. In this way, you could sustain a very large side easily.

    The first problem with that is that the colony side is extremely weak, which leaves it open to being conquered by a relatively small force. The second is that the colony side can get sick and tired of giving all his smuckers to the parent side, and decide to rebel. Even a colony kingdom, is still not the possession of the parent kingdom. It is a seperate sovereign nation, and the feelings of it's king towards the parent nation can change over time. This can be represented by having a mechanic that can cause sides to flip over to enemy players, if they are mistreated for a prolonged period. Keep in mind that keeping a portion of an allied nation in the colony side is one such irritant. No side, not even a colony side, which barely has any troops, likes being under a military occupation. No, even if it is for their own protection, they still don't like it.

    We also have a different example of a big side that constantly raids enemy sides for money. They do this by attacking a city, and holding it for ransom. When the ransom is paid, they give the city back. The weaker sides are probably also forced into contracts that caused them to hand out a certain percentage of their generated money for a 100 turns or so. Transilvito did this strategy successfully for a long time. However, recently, the king started spending a lot of his wealth to build up an allied kingdom to fight against GK. It drained the treasury to so this. In addition, TV has also recently lost a battle that cost him a significant portion of his army.

    Sensing weakness, all the small fry sides that it routinely beat up suddenly got themselves a bit of luck (one side popping a shockmancer that was used to good effect), started an alliance, and are now in the process of a war against TV that they are WINNING.

    We also have information of how the beginning of this world went down. Basically, when the world was born, 99 rulers were popped into being. Those rulers were spread across the world in 99 different level 1 capital cities. They immediately started expanding around to find other city zones that needed to be built up, and even more capital cities, where they could have their heirs found a new side.

    Eventually they started bumping into each other. Some got along peacefully, others went to war. As time goes on, there is more and more war, until you just end up in the present situation.

    _________________
    The Imperfect Warlord
    Summery: Somehow I ended up being summoned to Erfworld instead of Parson Gotti. See how the events of book 1 change from my actions. Focus on Erf-game mechanics.
    http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/46631 ... -chapter-1


    Last edited by tomaO2 on Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:27 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    Not so much a death spiral; that, by definition, can't be sustained for long before it reaches its final terminus, and the current state of war has been going on from, if not the start, then very close to it.

    No, what I'm describing is something I see as inevitable, given the rules of the game: a martial threat will provoke a military buildup, causing an overpopulation crisis, which will, in turn, result in an economic situation that can only be resolved through expansion (or depopulation, which leads back to getting more martial threats).

    The only way that I can see to avoid the crisis is to protect yourself from military threat some other way. A massive, worldwide (or nearly so) alliance would be one way; Faq's tactic of hiding the very existence of your side and cities would be another.

    As for why smaller nations exist among the larger ones: because it's the only way the economy would work. If every side were income-negative, then the world would run through its supply of Shmuckers pretty quickly. So, the larger sides split off new sides, to become colonies, or independent sides allied to their original side. Or they overextend themselves and can't effectively defend their cities from raids by small sides or barbarians. Or they pick a fight with someone stronger and get wiped out, their former cities captured by their conqueror, or by smaller sides, or by a barbarian commander who wants to form a new side.

    I don't see this as a one-off circumstance at all. Given a world of people unwilling to make peace with their neighbors, and a system that rewards those who conquer more than those who defend, it seems like the only way history could possibly go.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:37 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    Your argument seems to be "This must be true, because there is no other way it could possibly be." You say this in spite of numerous holes in the theory. Do you believe Jetstone is being supported by colony sides? Or Transylvito, Haggar, or all the other nations? Where are these supposed colony sides, if they exist?

    And remember, Gobwin Knob was briefly a one-city nation, whose only city was briefly a level 1. Yet nobody discussed the possibility of sitting tight and raising funds before jumping up to level 5. And Parson - shrewd and masterful as he is - never gives any thought to, say, having Jack run a tiny side in a constant veil. Why wouldn't he? If colony sides are a good way to raise money, why does nobody ever mention this, at all?

    It just seems like there must be something we're missing.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:14 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Your argument seems to be "This must be true, because there is no other way it could possibly be." You say this in spite of numerous holes in the theory. Do you believe Jetstone is being supported by colony sides? Or Transylvito, Haggar, or all the other nations? Where are these supposed colony sides, if they exist?


    We've heard of them (Jillian mentions, in the Book Zero paragraph I quoted above, that they happen when sides get too large); we haven't seen them directly except in Backer Stories. Eagle Keys (from Duke Forecastle) is a Colony; Homekey (from DigDoug) is a split-off side.

    We don't know how many cities any of the sides in the main story has, either (apart from Faq's ICFYS). None of them may be large enough that a split-off is necessary.

    Other reasons why we may not have seen them in-story: the RCC was in a war that they were winning, which tend to be good for the finances. And then, suddenly, they weren't winning anymore, but any upkeep problems would have went away when the massive army they put together was croaked to the last unit.

    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    And remember, Gobwin Knob was briefly a one-city nation, whose only city was briefly a level 1. Yet nobody discussed the possibility of sitting tight and raising funds before jumping up to level 5.


    Because, at that point, they were, quite possibly (discounting Charlie), the richest Side in Erfworld. Plus, they had a massive, zero upkeep army, and so it made sense to get their City to its maximum level so it could raise more Shmuckers.

    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    And Parson - shrewd and masterful as he is - never gives any thought to, say, having Jack run a tiny side in a constant veil. Why wouldn't he?


    Because you'd need to find a city that no one knows about, first. Anyone can find even a veiled city if they drop an army on top of that city approximately where they know it to be. Faq's greatest asset was its secrecy. If you've watched the 2000s version of BSG, it'd be like planning for finding New Caprica: a place that your enemy doesn't know about, can't scan for, and will only run across by sheer dumb luck, if at all (unless you do something stupid like set off a nuke).

    I mean, sure, it's a viable strategy once you have such a place, but finding the right place to pull it off basically requires a deus ex machina.

    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    If colony sides are a good way to raise money, why does nobody ever mention this, at all?


    You'd need to be past the point of diminishing returns for it to make more money than just absorbing the city into your side as-is. No side that we've even seen has been definitively that point (except for Haffaton, which falls into the "protect yourself from military threat by some means other than popping massive numbers of units" category: specifically, the means of a Hippiemancy/Carnymancy magic item and a Master Croakamancer who dabbles in every other magical field).

    My "colony sides" remark wasn't to say that this was "a good way to raise money;" it was to provide a response to "Why isn't every side a massive one?"

    My "how to make money" answer was "maintaining a war footing get you broke unless you expand; not maintaining a war footing will get you conquered unless you can find a way to not get attacked; the solution, therefore, is to find a cheaper way to not get attacked." Alliance being my preferred solution.

    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    It just seems like there must be something we're missing.


    It's quite possible.


    Last edited by Nimelennar on Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:29 pm 
    User avatar
    Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner This user has been published! Year of the Dwagon Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:14 pm
    Posts: 437
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Your argument seems to be "This must be true, because there is no other way it could possibly be." You say this in spite of numerous holes in the theory.


    What the heck? I thought you were just asking for ideas here. If you don't like the stuff Nimelennar and I come up with, you are free to ignore it... I mean, it's not like we are telling you that you have to do things X way.

    Quote:
    Do you believe Jetstone is being supported by colony sides?


    Jetstone appears to be a very prosperous side. According to canon, they have at least two capital sites, and a total of THREE level 5 cities. We don't know how Jetstone stayed rich. Maybe they have colony sides, maybe they get their money from raiding nearby sides. Alternatively, they could be selling magical items, like healing scrolls or communication hats to the poorer sides. We don't really know.

    We DO know that Tramennis was an incredibly skilled negotiator though, and he managed to get a lot of money from other sides in the form of tributes and such.

    Tramennis had neither conquered nor fallen on that mission, but had cornered the enemy and opted to negotiate. He returned with a new alliance, including quite a nice little tribute from the former enemy side.

    Thereafter, there was little thought of sending him out to fight. He traveled with courtiers as ambassador-at-large, an unusual role for a Royal unit, but how it had paid off! If one did the Mathamancy, Slately supposed that Tramennis may have earned his upkeep more than any of his siblings. Hm.
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%202/107


    We also know that Ansom was supposed to be given GK to spin off into its own side, after it was destroyed. I know you know this, since you mentioned it. Here's the quote anyway.

    "He would have directed you to found a new side, with Gobwin Knob as your capital."
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/173


    Allies are also useful, ideally a bunch of medium sized kingdoms in an alliance can really protect each other, as was seen in the So Be It Union of the Lord Crush backer story.

    Quote:
    Or Transylvito, Haggar, or all the other nations? Where are these supposed colony sides, if they exist?


    Transilvito raided other sides for money. They didn't need colony sides.

    "We do make a lotta money off Carport," said Dewy. She was flying beside Caesar, sticking very close to him except for occasional one-hex scouting hops. These had very little tactical use to the group, but they meant that Caesar got to watch her wiggle her butt, so they had tactical value to Dewy. "What'd they pay us to pull out and not sack it last time? Forty grand? Easy money. No risk." Transylvito had been taking Carport and sacking or ransoming it every dozen turns for as long as most of them had been alive.

    Vinny was of the opinion that "no risk" was optimistic. One of these days, Carpool was gonna load up that city with something nasty and veiled, and bite their faces off. But he kept his mouth shut. It was just good to listen to home politics again.
    http://archives.erfworld.com/Book+1/174


    Quote:
    It just seems like there must be something we're missing.


    Not really sure what you are looking for here. If you want to make your own version of erfworld where killing enemies gives you smuckers, then be my guest. Just don't pretend it's supported by canon, in any way, shape, or form.

    _________________
    The Imperfect Warlord
    Summery: Somehow I ended up being summoned to Erfworld instead of Parson Gotti. See how the events of book 1 change from my actions. Focus on Erf-game mechanics.
    http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/46631 ... -chapter-1

  • Tipped by 1 person!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:25 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    Last time I'm gonna say this: the money spent on upkeep vanishes. The world economy is leaking. There must be a major source of income replacing the money being lost, or else the economy is going to dry up.

    If the main way people get money is by stealing it from each other, then the whole world will consume itself. But as old as the world is, this doesn't seem to have happened yet, nor does it seem to be happening.

    I apologize if I seem a bit brusque; I'm trying to find an answer that feels satisfactory, and I haven't been considering your feelings on the matter.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:47 pm 
    User avatar
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Mined 4 Erf Won Mine4erf for the Marbits
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:12 pm
    Posts: 187
    KrenkoMobBoss wrote:
    Last time I'm gonna say this: the money spent on upkeep vanishes. The world economy is leaking. There must be a major source of income replacing the money being lost, or else the economy is going to dry up.

    If the main way people get money is by stealing it from each other, then the whole world will consume itself. But as old as the world is, this doesn't seem to have happened yet, nor does it seem to be happening.

    I apologize if I seem a bit brusque; I'm trying to find an answer that feels satisfactory, and I haven't been considering your feelings on the matter.


    And my answer to that is, "Cities produce Shmuckers, but not quite enough to support the upkeep of a large enough army to effectively defend that city."

    If you choose not to spend, if you overextend yourself, if you piss off the right people to crush you... then you get attacked, your cities razed, your Treasury looted, and they get all your Shmuckers, all at once (like Unaroyal) or a bit at a time (like Carpool).

    If you have the army, you know where to find one of the viable targets listed above, and you would like some money, you go out conquering.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:51 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool!
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 am
    Posts: 14
    Let's remember a few facts about Faq. The old Faq, the one run by King Bahammer:

    1) They had three cities to their side
    2) they were a bubble kingdom that didn't largely rely on warfare to sustain themselves
    3) Parson - Parson - struggled to figure out how this could have been possible. Ansom and Jillian remarked that it was completely impossible. ("There's no such thing." "I know! But King Bahammer liked to think it was.")

    Do you insist that a small enough kingdom can be easily self-sustainable without warfare, even still? If so, is three cities still too large? Do they need to be as small as two cities, or even one city?

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Everything Else Erfworld


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: