What do you mean? Of course they don't have trade value, but they do trade resources. Trade value just translates into energy credits plus maybe something else.
Should Energy and Credits be different resources?
- Thread starter Arcvalons
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The point is not to have it be actual energy even now. I think it is currency that is backed by energy in the national reserve the same way currency used to be backed by the national gold reserve. You aren't transferring actual energy every time you make a purchase.
...But then energy wouldn't be currency anymore, which is one of the starting assumptions!
What does that have to do anything? Under my proposal the market would still use energy for currency and bilateral trades would work as they do now.
I don't think you are following this conversation very well.
First, I negated the argument that consumer goods would make a better trade resource on the galactic market than energy as they are more universal, because machine empires don't use them.
Then you come along and suggest that they don't engage in trade at all because they do not have the trade resource, which is wrong. They still can trade with other empires and the galactic market.
I then say that what you said makes no sense because they do in fact trade resources, so would need something to use as currency, and wouldn't use consumer goods.
Now you come along and say that they would still use energy? What is your stance here? You're all over the place.
Come on man, keep up.
What is energy credits in the game? Is it literal energy, or the fuel that gives you the ability to produce energy? I propose it is the latter which is what Dalwin I believe is getting at. It's still the same thing in that case, it's energy credits, even if it's an abstracted barrel of oil, or ingot of plutonium, or whatever you want it to be.
No it is you who did not read his comment correctly... he said that CG should be used as currency or wealth in regular empires and energy used as currency on the galactic market. We still barter goods for goods in bilaterall agreements so there it does not matter.
and you need to barter in something that is recognizable as being valuable to everyone. Energy fits that role, as it is required to even be able to meet the partner you want to barter with,
So, in our more modern times we abandon direct bartering more and more, but on an interstellar level the barter economy is the go-to economy?
No, you barter with one resource for another, exactly like you do in bilateral agrement right now... you could do the same on the galactic market. Energy is subjected to supply and demand in the same way any other resource and as effective as currency as say minerals or any other resource your trading partner wants to trade.
Currency is suppose to be stable in terms of worth which is why you use it to trade with, energy really is not stable in price due to supply and demand. Currency can be made to have the same value through manipulating the supply and demand to be as equal as possible.
I'm not arguing for having currency in the game, just that the galactic market is a strange thing... there should be political trade agreements and federations should house such beneficial markets etc..
I would rather like to have a better UI for trade between empires in general and ditch the galactic markets for markets in political trade unions or federations. Political dealings would make the game much more interesting. Xenophobs already have too many benefits in the current game in my opinion.
money is just statements of "I owe you" tied anyway. It is an artificial construct to ease bartering. And your claim of abandoning bartering in modern times isn't what I am seeing when I look around, quite the opposite. It's just a bit more abstract than trading a a couple of geese for some logs of wood, normally.
Your problem with interstellar trade is that a random spacefaring species you meet could have totally different interests than you. Our money would be worthless to them, as that money only have worth for us, on our planet. Thus you would need to supply them with something they would find usefull in order to be able to 'purchase' something from them. This could be resources only appearing on earth in large quantities or other forms of exchanges (like work labour or access to specific knowledge).
If I had any say in the design of the game, the market wouldn't exist at all. We have trade agreements to deal with actual trades between species and to me, the market seems an anomaly in the game created to lessen the flaws of the new economy system.
But I never made that argument, in fact I said that the one place where it does make sense to use energy for currency is on the market.
Again, what is your point? For exmaple, "my" money, the €uro, is also useless in the USA, the same way the my empire currency in Stellaris would be useless for an alien empire until an exchange happens. I can understand that it is difficult to simulate proper exchange rates, but why not use a middle product of this exchange, general Credits? And I say again also, the interstellar community was able to establish a common galactic market with 2.2, they can also introduce a common interstellar currency, the Credit for trading purposes.
EXACTLY... why you need to BARTER good for good in some situations and able to forge economic trade alliances where you can agree on a common currency across two or more empires. Why involve energy if two parties are interested in trading food for minerals for example.
This would be a more interesting way to play the game that also would favor less violent empires and not just make the game about conquest and trade a viable way to play the game. If you go to war against someone you have a intertwined economy with you will get serious economy repercussion for it.
Last edited:
Ironically, the realistic thing would be a direct-trade system prior to the galactic market (requiring you to trade one good for another) and once the galactic market comes into play a new global resource "Market Credits" should exist that controls trade.
Breaking these two up is the premise, shifting all trade value to consumer goods would work very well in doing this while not adding a fifth arbitrary resource.
Aye, I understand that some of us here here interpret energy credits as some separate currency that's backed by a commodity, in the form of energy sources (and now some of us are mulling over the idea of consumer goods instead).
The thing that confuses me is why was a link given to a really early conversation (here) where the discussion was on something completely different. Back then the discussion was about what an economy where money literally equals energy would look like, and why it's bonkers.
The thing that confuses me is why was a link given to a really early conversation (here) where the discussion was on something completely different. Back then the discussion was about what an economy where money literally equals energy would look like, and why it's bonkers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. Frankly, I've never understood the whole "energy as money" thing anyway. How does one trade, or stockpile, "energy?" And if an empire were going to peg their currency to anything, why wouldn't it be minerals, something you actually *can* physically trade and stockpile?
IMO, energy should really work like food did in the 1.0 build of the game. It should be a planetary/system level resource, used to run buildings and boost production of other resources.
"Currency" should be something separate.
That would also open up some interesting possibilities for game play. The player could choose, for example, whether to pin their currency to any particular resource, or to have a free floating currency. Alliances could also come up with their own currencies, like the Euro in RL, to try and spread their influence.
Every game I have played in 2.2 I *have* seen inflation. By 2300 one energy buys you about 1/3 to 1/2 a mineral, and perhaps 2/3 of a food. The prices of the rare resources never go below 13 credits, and often higher.
If only there were in-game graphs of prices over time. Not to mention other stats. People would love that, and I don't really understand why the creators of Victoria II haven't tossed those in already.