The Price of Food

[DuPont]

Something I have always thought but has really come to mind lately - food is too expensive and it doesn't make sense. I realize the 3 to 1 rule was set up to encourage trading, but that's not an option in anonymous. And in 300, with extra cities to feed, the lack of food is a real problem.
I can get why three units of food would only get one gold, but there is no logic in the suggestion that it would then cost three gold to buy one food. It should cost something - the middleman has to make a profit, after all, but I think that one unit of gold should be able to buy two units of food. That gives the food distributor a profit margin of 50% (which any grocer in our world would kill for). I would never buy food under the current setup, but I would if this were changed because there are times when I need some and would pay if the price were fair.

[Jumpingfist]

In 300 those of use with no cities in there region are happy you have some trouble to go with all your gold.

I think one problem of offering such a good exchange rate it is would make it hard to try and starve a military. It already is hard but with a good exchange rate crazy. It would be cool to have a market where the value goes up or down. Then if a lot of people are trading food for gold perhaps there is food out there to be gotten at a good price as your suggesting. The trade value of that food would get worse as well as the market became more saturated.

[Rogal]

What are these Cities you speak of?  In 300, I still have yet to find one. Strange how the talking  Mountains seem to be filled with fields of food.

[Jumpingfist]

Shah you may get a Halfling invasion

[kevindusi]

Shah you may get a Halfling invasion

If only there was a portal from Runnimede to the Mountains....

[Cipher]

Originally there was no 200 order available to all kings.
The Halfling could trade in as a special order and that increased his position/capacity/value in trades with other kingdoms.
I believe that the 3:1 was to protect the halfling's value and to keep some value in keeping food on hand, or using it to trade with military heavy kingdoms.

With the halflings not in play, it might make sense to revisit, but lowering the trade rate will lower the 'value' of food even further, I'd say almost to the point of considering whether to bother with it at all....

[Hawk_]

Originally there was no 200 order available to all kings.  
The Halfling could trade in as a special order and that increased his position/capacity/value in trades with other kingdoms.
I believe that the 3:1 was to protect the halfling's value and to keep some value in keeping food on hand, or using it to trade with military heavy kingdoms.

With the halflings not in play, it might make sense to revisit, but lowering the trade rate will lower the 'value' of food even further, I'd say almost to the point of considering whether to bother with it at all....

I happen to agree with DuPont on this topic.  I have actually brought this up in the past on the forum.

I think kingdoms should be able to purchase food at 1 gold per 1 food instead of 3:1.

NPC Merchants buying 3000 food for 1000 gold would then be willing to sell to players the same 3000 food for 3000 gold and make a decent profit after freight. 

The greedy ones might need 6000 gold per 3000 but the current in game rate would be 9000 and that is excessive IMO.

Also, the Halflings were the end market for food but they were not the source because they could sell it back to the NPC merchants.

[Frost Lord]

In 300 those of use with no cities in there region are happy you have some trouble to go with all your gold.

I think one problem of offering such a good exchange rate it is would make it hard to try and starve a military.  It already is hard but with a good exchange rate crazy.   It would be cool to have a market where the value goes up or down.  Then if a lot of people are trading food for gold perhaps there is food out there to be gotten at a good price as your suggesting.  The trade value of that food would get worse as well as the market became more saturated.

I like JF's suggestion on a fluctuating market based on supply and demand.  This is the same market that existed in Fall of Rome.  If a lot of kings are trading away their food, the ratio could flip so that you sell 1 gold and get 3 or 4 food for it.  If everyone is buying food, then it would flip the other way.  We could then add modifiers to the ratio based on seasons and what region your king is currently located in.

[Frost Lord]

Originally there was no 200 order available to all kings.  
The Halfling could trade in as a special order and that increased his position/capacity/value in trades with other kingdoms.
I believe that the 3:1 was to protect the halfling's value and to keep some value in keeping food on hand, or using it to trade with military heavy kingdoms.

With the halflings not in play, it might make sense to revisit, but lowering the trade rate will lower the 'value' of food even further, I'd say almost to the point of considering whether to bother with it at all....

I happen to agree with DuPont on this topic.  I have actually brought this up in the past on the forum.

I think kingdoms should be able to purchase food at 1 gold per 1 food instead of 3:1.

NPC Merchants buying 3000 food for 1000 gold would then be willing to sell to players the same 3000 food for 3000 gold and make a decent profit after freight. 

The greedy ones might need 6000 gold per 3000 but the current in game rate would be 9000 and that is excessive IMO.

Also, the Halflings were the end market for food but they were not the source because they could sell it back to the NPC merchants.

If you are wanting to do a 1:1 ratio, why not eliminate food all together?  PCs would produce only gold and everything simply costs gold to execute.  Otherwise, why would villages be important?  I could have 3 villages and issue a 200, and I would have more gold than someone with a city.

[Hawk_]

Originally there was no 200 order available to all kings.  
The Halfling could trade in as a special order and that increased his position/capacity/value in trades with other kingdoms.
I believe that the 3:1 was to protect the halfling's value and to keep some value in keeping food on hand, or using it to trade with military heavy kingdoms.

With the halflings not in play, it might make sense to revisit, but lowering the trade rate will lower the 'value' of food even further, I'd say almost to the point of considering whether to bother with it at all....

I happen to agree with DuPont on this topic.  I have actually brought this up in the past on the forum.

I think kingdoms should be able to purchase food at 1 gold per 1 food instead of 3:1.

NPC Merchants buying 3000 food for 1000 gold would then be willing to sell to players the same 3000 food for 3000 gold and make a decent profit after freight. 

The greedy ones might need 6000 gold per 3000 but the current in game rate would be 9000 and that is excessive IMO.

Also, the Halflings were the end market for food but they were not the source because they could sell it back to the NPC merchants.

If you are wanting to do a 1:1 ratio, why not eliminate food all together?  PCs would produce only gold and everything simply costs gold to execute.  Otherwise, why would villages be important?  I could have 3 villages and issue a 200, and I would have more gold than someone with a city.

Wow, good point.  I didn't think that through.

Wait, being able to sell food at 1:1 would create the effect you describe above and that is not what I suggested.
Being able to purchase food at 1:1 would still make it attractive to produce your own food because food sells at only 1/3 of a gold.
Being able to purchase food would still be 3 times as expensive as growing food but would enable kingdoms to survive winter better.