Yes, it definitely is weird.

The problem with taxing your subjects is that it would not change anything mechanically, and might even be more weird than the current system. Consider that you are receiving every bit of labor from your subjects for free.

They could demand money instead and you could tax them, but the result would be the same.

If we did add taxation without changing anything else, where do your subjects get the money from, and what are you even taxing, when you get all the resources by default?


A mint has potential, and sithilon could be used for it. While it has some uses that are not apparent in game, it would make for good coinage.
The problem would be balancing the industry. With every other industry you hit diminishing returns since you flood the market and the price reduces. Producing money itself does not have this limit; it only increases the price of Sithilon.

Perhaps the profitability of that industry could start out lower, but in exchange it is more resilient? Due to how tech works, that could lead to entire mint-cities.

Originally posted by Vanir:

Perhaps the profitability of that industry could start out lower, but in exchange it is more resilient? Due to how tech works, that could lead to entire mint-cities.

I like this. I've encountered a few starts where you only have 1 neighbor so trading is very limited and eventually you have to fight them. The minting could help you be independent from your neighbors; even if its less profitable.

Well, one thing that makes diminishing returns out of mints would be the inflation. That system we've already got right now as flat percentage, that can be lowered by research. Mints on the other hand could increase the inflation.

Ofc, here we would have to tinker a little around the math, but what I could imagine out of my head would be a (exponential?) multiplier based on the income generated via mints compared to the income of your city as whole. This would also most likely disallow mint cities, because there would be a break point from where every additional mint worker produces more costs via inflation than he mints himself.

The only show stopper I see here out of my head would be the communication to the players, so that they understand what's going on and especially why their loss of money because of inflation suddenly sky rocketed.

The problem with inflation as a limiter is that it is almost meaningless unless you have extreme amounts of it.

If you can still use the produced money to buy something, inflation does not really matter. In SoS income matters much more than savings. The only things you need big chunks of money for are diplomacy and perhaps mercenaries.

Furthermore, even if inflation increased to an extreme degree, you can still save money. You would just buy gems or Sithilon. Those are completely unaffected by inflation and also store wealth.

I've also already managed right now to get the inflation to a level, where it consumes my whole tax and autotrade income. Ofc, that was at several millions in savings, but still it was slowing my progress of getting another province the diplomatic way. So I see your point.

Saving wealth in gems or Sithilion still only works partial, since if you buy/sell bigger amounts of it, the price moves as for any other good on the market and especially Sithilion would be consumed anyway for minting.

Maybe the key to think about is how profit per manpower would work out. For simple math lets say 1 sithilion ore is 1000c

Production would be 10c/day/worker/.009s base - this would give a 11%ish profit on sithilion ore. However the total cost in terms of value would be different because you either have to buy the ore (which would increase cost; natural inflation?) or mine it (which would come with manpower/efficiency costs)

If too profitable just increase the manpower cost.
5c/day/worker/.0045s - same profit percentage but hugely more costly in terms of people power.

The value of every resource is based on the time it takes to produce it. The value of a day's work is 200 denari.

So if a woodcutter produced 1 wood per day, wood would cost 200 denari. If you could produce 1 furniture from 1 wood per day, furniture would cost 400 denari.
If an AI faction has a boost, and produces 2 wood per day instead, it would sell those for 100 denari per unit.

Sithilon rate is something like 0.1 if we disregard deposits, or 2000 denari.
A mint could have the following recipe: 0.1 Sithilon -> 400 denari. That would net you 200 denari of profit per day, just like the other industries.

That seems fair at first glance.

Let us assume everyone works at a speed of 2. So AI factions have halved prices, and the player produces at the same rate.

In the furniture example, you would produce 2 wood worth 100 each (200) instead of 1.
Furniture would be worth just 200 denari since the price of wood reduced and it is produced at twice the speed. So for 1 worker each -> 2 wood -> 2 furniture -> 400 denari total.

You can see that the denari value stays constant.

Now for the mint:
Sithilon is now 1000 denari worth, and a worker makes 800 denari from 0.2 Sithilon per day.
The profit per worker increased from 400 to 600 per day.


And this is without considering that you do not have to worry about selling prices. Now, this problem is not insurmountable, but a mint can not use the same framework as the other industries. At a guess, making boosting them more expensive might work.

Originally posted by Vanir:

Yes, it definitely is weird.

The problem with taxing your subjects is that it would not change anything mechanically, and might even be more weird than the current system. Consider that you are receiving every bit of labor from your subjects for free.

They could demand money instead and you could tax them, but the result would be the same.

If we did add taxation without changing anything else, where do your subjects get the money from, and what are you even taxing, when you get all the resources by default?

Money could be just as much of a desire for subjects as access to toilets, for example. People might desire to receive wages more than other types, perhaps just to feel the comfort of having money on hand. At the market, there could be different prices for goods, which could either be controlled by the player or automatically adjust based on the supply in the warehouses. This way, different social strata could emerge in your settlement, from the rich to the poor, which would influence the overall motivation of people to work or do other things.
Or conversely, the poor might start cluttering the streets because others wouldn't want to live near them, or the poor might not be able to afford to visit the hospital for a check-up, which would generate different scenarios.
Therefore, the player will have to come up with solutions for such situations, because people, as a species, really love money, so the player will eventually have to provide access to it. For instance, at first, all work might be done for free. But over time, subjects will want to have some cash in hand.

Sure, if we add a lot of things to a money system, it will eventually become worthwhile. The issue is that this system would not really change anything without those additions, and would be very complicated to add in addition to that. Both code and mechanics-wise.

For example, if you could set the prices at the market and food stalls yourself, what is stopping a player from setting prices to 0 and wages very low? That would ensure everyone gets everything required, and eventually, your subjects will be happy with the money they saved up.

If we add some artificial limits, you would have to calculate how much a subject needs to live in comfort, which would be pretty involved compared to the other napkin math in SoS.

If we automate that, there is no real interaction. Subjects would buy stuff at the market, give you taxes, and eventually, you end up exactly where we are now, just with a few extra steps. Those might scratch that simulation itch, but I do not think adding these things would be worth it.

Originally posted by Vanir:

Sure, if we add a lot of things to a money system, it will eventually become worthwhile. The issue is that this system would not really change anything without those additions, and would be very complicated to add in addition to that. Both code and mechanics-wise.

For example, if you could set the prices at the market and food stalls yourself, what is stopping a player from setting prices to 0 and wages very low? That would ensure everyone gets everything required, and eventually, your subjects will be happy with the money they saved up.

Regarding the market prices, if the player sets everything to zero, you could introduce the following, which already exists in another game of the same genre:
If all prices are set to zero, 'traders/subjects' from other countries would start coming to buy all your products for nothing and take them back to their own market to sell at their own prices. This would force the player to set market prices or manipulate numbers for better effect.

And concerning money in the game I mentioned above: new subjects bring money with them to your settlement, which eventually leads to them spending it on purchases, contributing to players treasury. It's another source of income. Not just trade with other countries, but also subjects who arrive with money and spend it in your settlement, using services and buying goods.

Tourism already exists in the game. It could also bring in additional money through tourists buying things or food at your market for money, and using services like a barber, for example.

Regarding services for residents, for instance: "What if we set service prices to zero to boost satisfaction?" One could respond to this by saying that then money would simply stay in the residents' pockets - less goes into the treasury - and as mentioned above, residents love having money, so abandoning the internal economy could lead not only to lower satisfaction but also to a lack of desire from other countries to interact with you. Since money isn't even circulating in your economy.

In theory, you could go so far as to add separate currencies used in different regions, for example. A section of the map might use "N" currency, and if you don't use it in your city (for wages and prices), neighbors might not like it, for example. Moreover, people from other countries would come and simply collect everything for free and leave to sell it in their own country. This would be a debuff for the lack of money in your city.

Some of the tax/market stuff you describe is already implemented in Norland. It works kinda well there, but the whole economy is also build around the concept of each of your people has money. It most likely wouldn't translate that well into SoS since it would require a ton of changes, code and design wise, to far down the road. Sure, it could be done, but given that this is more or less a one man passion project, I think the necessary time to revamp the whole money/tax system is better used elsewhere.

Originally posted by Judaspriester:

Some of the tax/market stuff you describe is already implemented in Norland. It works kinda well there, but the whole economy is also build around the concept of each of your people has money. It most likely wouldn't translate that well into SoS since it would require a ton of changes, code and design wise, to far down the road. Sure, it could be done, but given that this is more or less a one man passion project, I think the necessary time to revamp the whole money/tax system is better used elsewhere.

Yes, I completely understand this, and it's even a pity that it's this way. It's just unfortunate that in such a well-developed game, where there are so many parameters for your subjects' desires, there isn't a feature like internal currency. It seems logical that something like this should exist, yet sadly it doesn't.
However, I'm not criticizing, I just love this money-oriented direction where you could create so many interesting gameplay mechanics.

Originally posted by Vanir:

If we automate that, there is no real interaction. Subjects would buy stuff at the market, give you taxes, and eventually, you end up exactly where we are now, just with a few extra steps. Those might scratch that simulation itch, but I do not think adding these things would be worth it.

Let me clarify and organize my thoughts in detail:

Why do we need money within your village?

- Subjects value money. It satisfies their needs.
- Let's say money exists in all other cities. Then what's the point for a subjects to move to your city if they won't even get paid for their work, while other cities offer payment? This affects the increased/decreased flow of subjects.

What happens if we set all prices and services to 0?

- Traders/subjects from neighboring cities will start flooding into your city to take everything for free. Or, if you haven't even introduced currency, the situation remains the same.
- Since money circulates within cities of other countries, they will automatically expect the same from you. For example, they might give you several years to implement this. During these years, no one will take things from you for free, but once this "protection" from such buyers expires - they will immediately rush into your city, and leaders of other countries will treat you worse, which could affect your ability to trade with them.

If we add this feature, everything will remain roughly the same as before.

- New subjects will come to your village bringing their savings - creating a new influx of money.
- Traders may visit your village (from time to time) who are willing to buy your goods for a higher price than neighboring country leaders. For example, coal. If the nearest country is willing to buy it for say 10 coins, this traders will buy them for 12. And that's exactly how much coal costs for sale to your subjects.