but you see "TODAY" does not apply to the system.
why? first off: you don't have a lot of side countries that are adjusting the market, you have 3 warring factions. second of all they really dont have an agreed upon credit system, (can you see us going to an China-ish country that fell out of the sky and saying "come to our credit system")


then how come its still a common practice in-bulk.
thats how most countries trade for their smaller needs that would otherwise be expensive.

Firstly, these factions aren't neccesarily at war. As far as I know, there is some diplomacy. Secondly, the "credit" system isn't mainly because of the number of states doing the deals but because of the huge number of different goods being traded, making it hard to define the "fairness" of the deal. Imagine the barter among neighbours with a lot of goods; I'll give you a table, three stools, four forks, six glasses and three mice and you'll give me two spoons, six knives, a tablecloth, a bottle of champagne and a cat. Fair?
Who knows. It takes time to compare the two offers unless you have a common denominator (I hope that's the correct term in English). That's why the currency is for. It doesn't even matter what currency you take, as long as you can define the worth of each good in it, sum both ends and compare the deal. One could go intot eh extent of giving each faction it's own currency, but that's just taking it too far for a game of this kind.

Barter deals are used in cases one per one good and definitely not in a big extent if you count out the oil...

the background story dissagrees.

not really.
its to simplify a market that wouldn't be stable in any other way. if the world was three nations credit would be way too unstable to rely on.

nonono, credit has this issue. not barter
barter is what your willing to give up, credit is the "fairness" or worth of the deal.

not how the barter system works. thats a gross misrepresentation
barter is usually of 2-3 objects being traded, not 10.

the only demoninator is the worth of the object. it makes deals much easier.

this is the keystone issue.
the worth will fluctuate uncontrollably between 3 nations. 150+ negates the natural instability.

1 to 1 deals rarely occur in barter.
and what does oil have to do with your representation anyway?

The diplomacy in the gameplay doesn't.

That's why I said that one common currency is a simplification because having three currencies may be going too far for this game.

True, that's why it's never used in normal market exchange where thousands of goods are being bought/sold...
Exactly. And why try to define the worth in sheep?

1 to 1 deals are most common in barter. You should know that from your earliest childhood, unless you're not there yet. The oil was simply pointed out because with the huge demand for it it's almost a currency of it's own, making it the most usual barter good in large "transactions".

Just a thought that may help clarify the absolute NEED for currency (in real life); what if you have sheep and want to get a cow. The one that has a cow doesn't want any sheep, he wants a car (for instance). Now you may look around untill you find somebody with a cow that wants sheep, whom you may or may not find. You may also try to barter sheep for a car which the cow owner may or may not like/be prepared to barter.
What you CAN do is to "convert" sheep to common currency with somebody who actually wants sheep and offer that to the cow owner - than he can buy whatever he wants.

We've gone as far OT as possible, so I'll not push this debate any further (you're naturally free to do so), especially since I'm here for the game and I don't care what system it will use, I'm more than happy it will use any kind of trade.

that currency would be negligably small on the game-scope. it would matter to people, but not as much to you.

that doesn't apply on this scale. all of those thousands of goods are contained within your own structured economy, all you need is stuff to build with. making this a 2-3 material market.

because its much easier and intuitive than money is.
tell me, how many staplers would you give up for a pencil? you can probably come up with an answer far quicker than you would give for money.

absolutely not. whens the last time you traded 1 thing for 1 thing? the trades are more excess for deficit. i.e. you will trade 3 apples for an orange if you own an apple orchard. 1 to 1 ratio deals are very rare
2 object trade (apples for oranges) are the norm, but rarely in a 1 to 1 ratio.

which is the job that the metal and crystal hold in this game.

oh, very witty.

again, doesnt apply.
why? because you can get sheep or cows wherever you want. those are self contained within your economy, the only thing you need is an abundant supply of the basic materials. unfortunately in game these are the only things that are in low supply.
i.e. your example doesnt apply because your using too specific a topic. advent will have their own cows, but they wont have the crystals. TEC has plenty of merchant ships, but not enough metal to create more.

Everything comes crashing down schem. Currency and credits are one of the three resources.

I dont know why you guys spent so much space talking about it.

we're econobuffs.
or at least I am.

it just doesnt make sense given the background of the story. the barter system is far more stable than the credit system. not to mention the credit system shouldn't even be applicable.

People adapt Schem I am sure that the Vasari forsought that they would need to conform to some of the TECs ways, and the Advent would definetly still have currency, they are still partially human.

And as for econbuffs, not quite so sure any of us are, some of us are still quite firmly planeted in the stuborness and arrogance of youth.

well this bleeds arrogance.

unlikely, these guys aren't sticking around. and 1,000 (10,000?) years is more than enough to change a culture irreversibly.

Never said one of them wasnt me

And by the way, this is like nothing they have encountered before, I am sure some factions found it advantageous to adapt a currency system that is simillar to their enemies/allies.

Not that I wish to push that (much) further, but what you are describing IS 1:1 deal. Both of the 1s apply to the commodity, not the quantity... Naturally the quantities are different. One can never expect to give one sheep for one cow, yet it remains a 1:1 deal. I thought this was clear when Igave the table, stools... example.

I agree with you that in a 2-3 commodities market barter is just as effective as money. But this time you want a gross simplification. Why not just say that those three are the most war-important things while the market actually holds apples and oranges and so forth as well. So money is nice to have around. And in the end, it adds to the economical depth of the game which is great.

but its quite obvious who you intended to implicate.

allies sure, but there isnt a point with enemies

and again, a monocurrency system would fluctuate wildly in a 3 faction system.

your using ratio, which means it applies to quantity not commodity.
be more careful if you wish to avoid confusion.

no, its far more effective because its more stable.

not in this case, it severly detracts from game.

I'm not asking for simplication of anything, the monocurrency is the simplification. we aren't talking about dependant interwoven governments, we're talking about INDEPENDANT governments who's only ties are their needs in resources. the currency system is the simplification and frankly, the less interesting system.

Listen carefully, credits are already in the game, not much you can do about it. However, we do not know whether the credits are the same for everyone. Most likely they are.



Seeing as we are probably two of the only minors I know on this forum, yes your quite on target there

I know... its just that I'm pointing out their pitfalls  

???
this board is flooded with minors...
and where did your miraculous knowledge of my age come from?

Not at all. Ratio can apply to anything that is presented with numbers. Quantity is just as much a number as a number of commodities is.

That's hilarious. You haven't even tried the game and you are writing about something detracting you from it. I'd understand if there weren't any battles, but an extra trading option...

Why do you think it's more stable? Yes, sheep have no in/deflation but if there's too many of them their value drops just as much as in the currency.

It's not hard to guess, believe me.

doesnt make it any less confusing.

It doesnt take much to realize which one creates depth.
I've played games that work through both, and I know which I like.

because it makes economic sense, and history has proved it so.

again, we aren't dealing with sheep. you're trying to draw examples from a non independant system of governing.
which does not apply.

credit works in a system where many minor fluctuations tend to cancel out and provide stability. this is why it doesnt work in a limited commodity market (crystals and metal)

well duh, guessing is easy. doesnt mean you're right.

The Empire knows all Schem.
Well first off the age thread we had a while ago, then the Bush thread were Sarcasm critisized your age. And the fact that your birthdate is included in your profile.

Dammit, now EVERYONE's gonna look.

well w/e, we're still on even ground with each other and most of the people here. and if anyone attacks my age I'll just call them senile.

damn kids, get offa my lawn!

at any rate, the youngling here seems to be right. Barter does make more sense in a system where a small number of sides are at semi-war. Can't really see one side saying "No well give you this ammount of fictitious credit for you real crystal, credit which can of course be traded for anything we have and want to trade, asuming we feel like it and you haven't screwed us to hard and we're in a good mood"

BUT, that being said, in a gameplay sense, money is nice to have. money eliminates the need for long discussions, but doesn't remove the ability. money makes a third resource, which is nice to have Imho. Money also allows for better balancing and could give a different feel to each side (expensive stuff, lots of income Or cheap stuff, low income)

I'm willing to live with it.

Money is the midle man. I am surprised that, being the captalist you are Schem, that you arent happy with it moving out into the galaxy.

I'm a market man. I just think that its pseudo nonrealistic.

I want the earthers to sell rock videos, the vasarii to sell anti-matter silly puddy, and the advent to sell mind controlling video game chairs with optional rocker seats.

Destroy planets the fun way, use our new Anti-matter silly puddy!!