Time to make trade value into its own resource, and decouple it from energy + idea to rework energy

[Bezborg]

Hi all

As the title says... It's high time to detach trade value from energy, and make it into a market currency.

The overlap of trade value and energy makes no sense at all.


Making trade value into a currency for the galactic market is a more sound, intuitive and logical system. Also used for slaves, or whatever.
This would also force empires to engage in trade if they want to participate in the galactic market, thus making it relevant.



As long as we're on the intuitive and logical side of things... I also propose to rework energy and make it a palnetary capacity, not a resource.||

Same as ships, with generators.

So my proposal is to make a special building slot in the planetary UI, called "energy generation" or "energy infrastructure".
This slot would have only one building in it - you guessed it - energy generation facilities/energy infrastructure.


This building would have a soft cap on its upgrades. Such as tech, planet size, maybe some traditions and civics can help...

Here's the whopper: Planetary buildings and non-deposit dirstricts would not be capped by building slots, but rather this energy capacity. THIS is the limitation on building up your planets, not arbitrary hard-capped slots.

Open to discussion: what happens if you go over capacity, if even allowed.

Additional note: this ide would tie in to another concept I'm advocating for years: making everything resource and jobs related on the district side, and keep buildings on the other side as big planetary infrastructure project... but this is a separate issue.

Closing thought: I just find how energy works in this game to be very silly, gamey and primitive. We can do better.
I also think trade value could be much more interesting as its own currency, and would make trade much more relevant. These are not new ideas, and I suggested it probably many times over various threads, over many years. Still we see no movement on that front, which saddens me.


Thank you for your time.


Thank you for your time.

 

[DukeLeto42]

This is not to shoot down the trade idea, but what about gestalts? Do they now get into the trade value game? Are genocidal empires now excluded from trade value as a mechanic?

Now on to energy, which is an entirely separate suggestion but I feel illuminates an underlying issue.

I don't think you're on the same page with the game as to what "energy credits" are. They aren't energy. Repeat: they are not energy. They are a credit for access to and control over energy generation capacity. While it is a bit odd that empires run on a representative currency rather than a fiat currency (seeing as the former was abandoned for the latter on Earth quite a while ago), it at least isn't a commodity currency (i.e. minerals, alloys, food, consumer goods...). Additionally, it would be something recognized for its value by other empires, which at least makes it suitable in that sense.

With all that said, planetary energy capacity as a component of its infrastructure is an intriguing idea, and I'd be interested in seeing it explored.

 

[Bezborg]

This is not to shoot down the trade idea, but what about gestalts? Do they now get into the trade value game? Are genocidal empires now excluded from trade value as a mechanic?

Now on to energy, which is an entirely separate suggestion but I feel illuminates an underlying issue.

I don't think you're on the same page with the game as to what "energy credits" are. They aren't energy. Repeat: they are not energy. They are a credit for access to and control over energy generation capacity. While it is a bit odd that empires run on a representative currency rather than a fiat currency (seeing as the former was abandoned for the latter on Earth quite a while ago), it at least isn't a commodity currency (i.e. minerals, alloys, food, consumer goods...). Additionally, it would be something recognized for its value by other empires, which at least makes it suitable in that sense.

With all that said, planetary energy capacity as a component of its infrastructure is an intriguing idea, and I'd be interested in seeing it explored.

I can agree with your energy interpretation (though, not so much on how your interpretation would make abstract energy credits recognizible to all other aliens), but I don't feel it's relevant to my point of making energy more logical and intuitive, and not resort to presumptions of complex amalgamations of vague concepts and calling it "energy credits".


With regards to gestalts and genocidals... they are precluded form the market game as is, correct? I guess everything stays the same for them then. I would not, however, be opposed to letting them trade. I mean why not. Maybe even by proxy, as in there's a special contract they can sign with a Megacorp that gives them a charter. I dunno, whatever tbh.

 

[DukeLeto42]

There's nothing abstract about it - "energy credits" suggests it refers to a definable energy draw right, a concept which would be communicable to other alien species. Representative currency isn't a vague concept, either - it is what virtually all paper money was on this planet until precious metal standards were abandoned. A credit economy for non-storable resources is also not new (see Cap & Trade plans for emissions, for one).

As for trade... Gestalts are not precluded from the market game (unless they're genocidals), but they don't produce trade value, so either you're denying them access to the market currency or adding in a production line they are specifically excluded from. Fanatic Purifiers, meanwhile, are excluded from the galactic market but still produce trade value, so either their economy is being fully remade from other non-Gestalts or they need a use for trade value.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

The Star Trek: New Horizons mod does a MARVELOUS job of this. Trade creates Latinum, which us a resource that can be traded between empires and can be sold/bought on the market, AND... is a resource that some heavy economic jobs (like "traders") use as upkeep when producing other resources on a repeat per month basis.

Works GREAT.

 

[Bezborg]

There's nothing abstract about it - "energy credits" suggests it refers to a definable energy draw right, a concept which would be communicable to other alien species. Representative currency isn't a vague concept, either - it is what virtually all paper money was on this planet until precious metal standards were abandoned. A credit economy for non-storable resources is also not new (see Cap & Trade plans for emissions, for one).

As for trade... Gestalts are not precluded from the market game (unless they're genocidals), but they don't produce trade value, so either you're denying them access to the market currency or adding in a production line they are specifically excluded from. Fanatic Purifiers, meanwhile, are excluded from the galactic market but still produce trade value, so either their economy is being fully remade from other non-Gestalts or they need a use for trade value.

I mean... my apologies but you're reinforcing my point.

First, "energy draw"... yeah, ok. So you produce energy credits and then you spend energy credits on upkeep and construction. Sure, simple enough. Obviously any life form with intelligence in the universe will get the basic concept of this. Generators produce energy credits, and you spend energy credits as symbolic of energy expenditure on work itself, and energy draw. Yes, obviously.

But it gets silly when applied to trade, monetary policy, currency, and economic at large. What, are we exchanging chests of batteries as currency? It's ridiculous to conflate these two things.

In your second sentence you - again, irrelevantly - proceed to explain the idea of representative currency, talking about "credits" as currency. But you seem to have had some sort of amnesia from your first sentence, where you talk of energy generation, not currency. You offer no insight in how energy generation and energy expenditure, abstracted in the game as "energy credits", correlate to currency of any sort, especially on a galactic scale? Clearly, conflating currency and energy credits in Stellaris is just a gamey shortcut before they had any idea of any complex trade or economics in the game... but since then the game has evolved somewhat, and we can finally have a currency mechanic? Well, my answer to that question is yes.


With regards to the second segment of your post, no need to preculde anyone from currency, or a galactic currency, via some GC resolution... I have no issues with gestalts and genocidals participating in treaty-based intergalactic or internal trade of any sort.

For example, a hive mind... why wouldn't it play with the concept of currency with entities outside its collective, as a way to acquire resources? A hive mind doesn't have to be a dumb and instinctual animal at all.

 

[DukeLeto42]

First, "energy draw"... yeah, ok. So you produce energy credits and then you spend energy credits on upkeep and construction. Sure, simple enough. Obviously any life form with intelligence in the universe will get the basic concept of this. Generators produce energy credits, and you spend energy credits as symbolic of energy expenditure on work itself, and energy draw. Yes, obviously.

But it gets silly when applied to trade, monetary policy, currency, and economic at large. What, are we exchanging chests of batteries as currency? It's ridiculous to conflate these two things.

In your second sentence you - again, irrelevantly - proceed to explain the idea of representative currency, talking about "credits" as currency. But you seem to have had some sort of amnesia from your first sentence, where you talk of energy generation, not currency. You offer no insight in how energy generation and energy expenditure, abstracted in the game as "energy credits", correlate to currency of any sort, especially on a galactic scale? Clearly, conflating currency and energy credits in Stellaris is just a gamey shortcut before they had any idea of any complex trade or economics in the game... but since then the game has evolved somewhat, and we can finally have a currency mechanic? Well, my answer to that question is yes.

No, we aren't exchanging chests of batteries as currency. That's what a commodity currency would look like. Energy credits are representative within the game world.

Generators produce energy; the working of them under an empire's control produces energy credits (the right to use of energy supply). As I've said before, energy credits are not an abstraction of energy generation, but rather the right to access energy generation at a point of the empire's choosing. Just like credits in current economies, the currency is transmissible even though the good they represent are not - you cannot trade reduced SO2 output, but you can underproduce it and sell the resulting credit under cap & trade schemes.

With regards to the second segment of your post, no need to preculde anyone from currency, or a galactic currency, via some GC resolution... I have no issues with gestalts and genocidals participating in treaty-based intergalactic or internal trade of any sort.

Gestalts do not produce trade value in the current iteration of the game. Are you, or are you not, suggesting they be reworked to produce trade value?

Genocidals do not engage in the galactic market and should not, because the very concept of "treaty-based intergalactic... trade" is anathema to their existence. Regardless, are you suggesting that trade value should function in an internal market, allowing everyone to use at least that?

 

[Bezborg]

No, we aren't exchanging chests of batteries as currency. That's what a commodity currency would look like. Energy credits are representative within the game world.

Generators produce energy; the working of them under an empire's control produces energy credits (the right to use of energy supply). As I've said before, energy credits are not an abstraction of energy generation, but rather the right to access energy generation at a point of the empire's choosing. Just like credits in current economies, the currency is transmissible even though the good they represent are not - you cannot trade reduced SO2 output, but you can underproduce it and sell the resulting credit under cap & trade schemes.


Gestalts do not produce trade value in the current iteration of the game. Are you, or are you not, suggesting they be reworked to produce trade value?

Genocidals do not engage in the galactic market and should not, because the very concept of "treaty-based intergalactic... trade" is anathema to their existence. Regardless, are you suggesting that trade value should function in an internal market, allowing everyone to use at least that?

So you're saying you're ok with slaves and goods costing energy credits generated by power plants? This is fine to you in the game? Not in your mind that is capable of apologetics, does it work for you when playing the game? No changes needed?


With regards to the second half - yeah, why not. It can simulate an internal market for the genocidals. I have no issue with it. I also have no issue with a hive mind adopting alien currency concepts so it can interact with all the strange single-minds

 

[DukeLeto42]

you're saying

Since you've made straw men of my arguments, no. Honestly I'm tired of this and don't need the aspersions you've cast on me.

 

[Bezborg]

Since you've made straw men of my arguments, no. Honestly I'm tired of this and don't need the aspersions you've cast on me.

There’s a question mark at the end of that sentence lol. As in - a question. Not statement. Go rest mate, no worries

 

[MatthewP]

There’s a question mark at the end of that sentence lol. As in - a question. Not statement. Go rest mate, no worries

As a disinterested observer, it doesn’t look to me like you’re deliberately making straw men, but you are misunderstanding what DukeLeto is saying. You are thinking of energy credits as units of energy, for example electricity, being used. So you need to spend electricity to power a building.

DukeLeto is suggesting a completely different interpretation, that energy credits are a currency in basically the same way dollars are a currency. So you need to pay money for the upkeep of a building.

I think either of these is plausible. Like a lot of stellaris, the game leaves things super vague and no explanation is fully consistent with all game mechanics. But it’s frustrating watching this this back and forth degenerate over this missed distinction.

 

[Bezborg]

As a disinterested observer, it doesn’t look to me like you’re deliberately making straw men, but you are misunderstanding what DukeLeto is saying. You are thinking of energy credits as units of energy, for example electricity, being used. So you need to spend electricity to power a building.

DukeLeto is suggesting a completely different interpretation, that energy credits are a currency in basically the same way dollars are a currency. So you need to pay money for the upkeep of a building.

I think either of these is plausible. Like a lot of stellaris, the game leaves things super vague and no explanation is fully consistent with all game mechanics. But it’s frustrating watching this this back and forth degenerate over this missed distinction.

Thank you for explaining, but I actually understood. What I'm saying, unfortunately in some offensive way (I'm sorry Leto, it really wasn't so, and I enjoy the discussion with you), that his currency interpretation is perfectly fine - but unintuitive and clumsy in a game sense where you have merchants and literal power generators - ultimately producing the same currency.

Again, i understand that this is an extreme abstraction that simulates a universal economic concept that all things IN THE UNIVERSE are "energy", and the economy taps into that in an indirect and abstract way... my point was simply that it's not great for a game. It's clumsy - in my opinion.

So I understood Leto's point, I simply disagree and I think the game would be served better with a more obvious currency system that comes from non-material economic production, notably the trade value. i think the game would be served better by decoupling energy credits from trade value entirely.

 

[MatthewP]

Thank you for explaining, but I actually understood. What I'm saying, unfortunately in some offensive way (I'm sorry Leto, it really wasn't so, and I enjoy the discussion with you), that his currency interpretation is perfectly fine - but unintuitive and clumsy in a game sense where you have merchants and literal power generators - ultimately producing the same currency.

Again, i understand that this is an extreme abstraction that simulates a universal economic concept that all things IN THE UNIVERSE are "energy", and the economy taps into that in an indirect and abstract way... my point was simply that it's not great for a game. It's clumsy - in my opinion.

So I understood Leto's point, I simply disagree and I think the game would be served better with a more obvious currency system that comes from non-material economic production, notably the trade value. i think the game would be served better by decoupling energy credits from trade value entirely.

Well, ok, if you say so. I don’t see why power generators producing credits that are backed by the promise of power generation is unintuitive, or why merchants producing any accepted currency is unintuitive, but intuition is always subjective.

 

[Bezborg]

Well, ok, if you say so. I don’t see why power generators producing credits that are backed by the promise of power generation is unintuitive, or why merchants producing any accepted currency is unintuitive, but intuition is always subjective.

I simply find the conflation of a society’s energy needs and expenditure with the concept of a currency usedto trade goods and slaves to be unwieldy, and I think having a separate trade value currency would produce a more interesting strategic situation in the game

 

[GhostDanny]

Trade value is effectively what your civilian populous is producing, as in, the vast majority of population in your empire.
The only pops that are working your job slots are just the pops working in government sanctioned jobs.

That's why Gestalts don't have trade value, they don't have a civilian population.
Though the reason why they do still have an internal market is because of sub section drones, that are controlled by slightly more autonomous drones that are controlled by the actual visible leader drones which the overmind/core-intelligence controls.

 

[Bezborg]

Trade value is effectively what your civilian populous is producing, as in, the vast majority of population in your empire.
The only pops that are working your job slots are just the pops working in government sanctioned jobs.

That's why Gestalts don't have trade value, they don't have a civilian population.
Though the reason why they do still have an internal market is because of sub section drones, that are controlled by slightly more autonomous drones that are controlled by the actual visible leader drones which the overmind/core-intelligence controls.

So what’s the point?

The thread is about detatching trade value from energy credits, and making it into a currency of its own, used to trade. Those that can’t trade by virtue of their empire type will just carry on as usual, sure.

 

[Mik_C]

Following the sugestion of the OP I understand that trade value would be used to buy on the market, but also that it would be gained when selling resources there. So that's how Gestalts (or other highly centralized autorities that can be added) would gain TV to buy on the galactic market.

Then, if an empire has 0 private sector like gestalt or all owned by the state (*cough* space communism) where are the resources of the internal market coming from? Nowhere, they only have their stockpiles, so for thematic purposes there should not be any internal market, only access to the galactic market when they join the galactic community.

That obviously depends on the definition of the internal market as other posts here understand it differently (I don't know if there is an official definition in the game), but as with any suggestion asking to change some aspects of the game there will be consequences on the rest of mechanics if it is implemented.

 

[MatthewP]

It seems like for this suggestion to work trade value would have to become a resource that can be accumulated. Then it can work for gestalts, doesn’t force weird choices and micro on the player to make they use it all every month, etc. I’m not sure I buy the intuitiveness of all this, but it does seem like it could be an interesting change.

I wonder if it’s moddable? Seems like a good way to test if it actually makes much difference to the game. It’s basically just 1) making a new trade value resource 2) making the resource the sink for trade value instead of energy 3) making markets use that as their “cash” resource instead of energy 4) Allowing energy to be bought and sold on markets. I don’t know if all these can be changed in mods.

 

[Bezborg]

It seems like for this suggestion to work trade value would have to become a resource that can be accumulated. Then it can work for gestalts, doesn’t force weird choices and micro on the player to make they use it all every month, etc. I’m not sure I buy the intuitiveness of all this, but it does seem like it could be an interesting change.

I wonder if it’s moddable? Seems like a good way to test if it actually makes much difference to the game. It’s basically just 1) making a new trade value resource 2) making the resource the sink for trade value instead of energy 3) making markets use that as their “cash” resource instead of energy 4) Allowing energy to be bought and sold on markets. I don’t know if all these can be changed in mods.

You raise an interesting point that I forgot to mention, but one that also factored in my certainty that trade value should be a separate currency: I believe energy should be sold and bought on the market.

I think energy import and export is a valid thing.