These days, the amount of money you can borrow from creditors is proportional to how much income you have to pay them back with.
There is no reason to think that this was any different, back in the day. It makes too much sense.
As it stands now, the flat "borrow 300" option is hugely overpowered for tiny little dukes, and trivially underpowered for mighty Emperors. Unlike borrowing, the "Expel the Jews" option does seem to give returns in relation to yearly income.
-
Firstly, your borrowing capacity should be related to your income, or related to whatever determines the gold gained from "expel the Jews" if this is not the same thing.
-
Secondly, the interest for this decision is a flat 1/6 over the principal - borrow 300, owe 350. The debtor should have to pay 1/60 of the principal per annum in simple interest, as "expenses".
To balance this, the -10 theocratic opinion penalty should be removed. It is more realistic, and painful, to pay interest in gold, instead of in opinion penalty which, with proper use of free investiture, antipopes, and the pressing of their claims to the papacy, can be made to not matter entirely.
Prior to beginning this thread, I didn't know if Jewish moneylenders had schemed up compound interest in those days. According to this fellow with a Jewish last name (some things never change) who wrote a paper for Cambridge, apparently the scheme did not really catch on until the 1500s, due to both primitive mathematics and to the position of the Church.
However, simple interest was known to accrue annually.
-
Thirdly, it would be interesting if, after taking out an initial loan at 1/6 + (1/60) x annum of the principal, the option would arise, after 2-5 years, to take out another loan at 1/3 + (1/30) x annum of principal, and then after another 2-5 years, an option to take a final loan at 1/2 + (1/20) x annum of principal.
However, it may complicate the game to create the option for a debt trap, both because the "Expel the Jewry" option would have to be revised to make it more punishing to counterbalance the slippery slope of debt you could work your way into, and because the AI would have to learn how to behave around this mechanic, and could end up behaving like the US federal government.
There is no reason to think that this was any different, back in the day. It makes too much sense.
As it stands now, the flat "borrow 300" option is hugely overpowered for tiny little dukes, and trivially underpowered for mighty Emperors. Unlike borrowing, the "Expel the Jews" option does seem to give returns in relation to yearly income.
-
Firstly, your borrowing capacity should be related to your income, or related to whatever determines the gold gained from "expel the Jews" if this is not the same thing.
-
Secondly, the interest for this decision is a flat 1/6 over the principal - borrow 300, owe 350. The debtor should have to pay 1/60 of the principal per annum in simple interest, as "expenses".
To balance this, the -10 theocratic opinion penalty should be removed. It is more realistic, and painful, to pay interest in gold, instead of in opinion penalty which, with proper use of free investiture, antipopes, and the pressing of their claims to the papacy, can be made to not matter entirely.
Prior to beginning this thread, I didn't know if Jewish moneylenders had schemed up compound interest in those days. According to this fellow with a Jewish last name (some things never change) who wrote a paper for Cambridge, apparently the scheme did not really catch on until the 1500s, due to both primitive mathematics and to the position of the Church.
However, simple interest was known to accrue annually.
-
Thirdly, it would be interesting if, after taking out an initial loan at 1/6 + (1/60) x annum of the principal, the option would arise, after 2-5 years, to take out another loan at 1/3 + (1/30) x annum of principal, and then after another 2-5 years, an option to take a final loan at 1/2 + (1/20) x annum of principal.
However, it may complicate the game to create the option for a debt trap, both because the "Expel the Jewry" option would have to be revised to make it more punishing to counterbalance the slippery slope of debt you could work your way into, and because the AI would have to learn how to behave around this mechanic, and could end up behaving like the US federal government.
- 1
Upvote
0