19-02-2026, 12:11 AM
On currency:
I like that proposal and it comes across a lot more clearly now that it’s broken down practically than it had seemed on the surface. It’s reminiscent to me of a proposal I made in Classic that didn’t attract much interest (and which, admittedly, was worse): there would be a “Universal Standard Dollar” or USD (pegged to the USD) that all currencies would be valued in relation to; countries could set an exchange rate in USD or peg their currency to a real world currency other than USD; additional modifiers could be added at regular intervals reflecting the economic performance of that country as judged by RP (if I peg Hanzen’s currency to the Thai Baht, it could be impacted by a modifier of +/- X.XX% depending on RP). Again, not ideal, but my thinking was that at least it would be something to replace the inherently broken currencies in Classic (relatedly, I was going to propose pricing commodities in a similar way – pegged to RL prices in USD, with in-game modifiers – though I feel this is even more problematic...).
This is all to say: interesting, I’d like to see this work. I think with the game's new approach to AI integration and so on, your model is both better and a bit more feasible long-term.
On Sanctions:
Generally agree with everything you said, and I think to an extent we’re just repeating the same view. But I found this point more interesting for further discussion:
I also think this topic somewhat bleeds into another related though distinct area I've sought greater clarity on in the past, which is (a) whether companies are free to invest in other countries, and to what extent this can be the case prior to or without the explicit consent of a player in that country (likely dependent on the laws of a given country), and; (b) how we understand the base state of global trade (do nations import/export products from other nations without this explicitly being stated? Would it be fair to assume, for instance, that a fair amount of high-quality Hanzenese silk ends up in the fashion houses of Kalistan?).
On resource scarcity, oil, climate change:
Since we’re in agreement I have nothing to add, other than to underscore that I do genuinely think this would be an interesting topic to further explore and discuss… It might be nice if the game had a more “official” stance on certain issues like this so that current and future players can be on the same page about our world – similar to how there's an official line on technology like nuclear fusion. On the one hand, climate change in-game cannot be at a catastrophic rate, despite this being the most likely scenario given PT world history, but on the other, it shouldn't simply be hand-waved away nor unaffected by human action in the game world. Perhaps some sort of authoritative "degree of warming" metric could be published, and could be adjusted up or down depending on state actions? Could be pegged to current rate of pre-industrial global warming, with modifiers?
On proposal 3(a): Resource register, or Economic Protocols
To be clear, my stance on matters such as these is generally: let's just try it and see where it goes. That said, I am still hesitant to enthusiastically support this proposal, if only because with our current state and limitations, I think it would cause more headache than it’s worth and probably generate some player resentment in its implementation. Of course, these objections do not delegitimize the proposal on its merits. As I suggested in the Discord thread on this topic, in the short to mid-term, I would strongly encourage the more widespread use of the Wiki and specifying these things in “Economy of [Country]” articles to at least begin to publicly publish some information on the products/resources imported and exported into a given country, as per the player's determination. To my mind, this would make the eventual project of building out EPs/Resource Registers easier.
Your points on GDP calculation are worth exploring, but I think are dependent on the implementation of the currency model in the first order – and at this stage I’d rather see currency before producing somewhat abstracted macroeconomic figures. I also think there is some risk that GDP also becomes a form of “ranking,” with players seeking only to produce RP which maximizes their GDP per capita "rank" relative to others, and using that for force projection/power playing/etc. Otherwise, I think your explanation and emphasis on how these are measured relative to the in-game unit makes sense, though in practice I still don't quite see how absolute GDP figures over millennia couldn't still reach massive scales that feel unrealistic if anyone tries to map them loosely onto real-world economic intuition. Moreover, unless everyone agrees on the TMU’s scaling and relative value, comparisons could become inconsistent, especially for players joining mid-game or for historical records over the thousands of years of game time. I’d also be interested in your thoughts as to how we address GDP figures in inactive countries (take Istapali which I reference a few times): if a country goes inactive, should its GDP decline or stay the same? If a country have very little activity overall, should it stagnate, decline, or be assumed to modestly grow? Though to return to my first line in this section, perhaps I just need to see it in practice.
On 3(c): "Credits Proposal"
I think I understand your point about “cliques” a bit better in this practical example. I would just note that I intentionally use the vague term “momentum” than “growth” per se, and that this system isn’t intended to generate hard macroeconomic figures (i.e. GDP) taking the game more as it is now than as it would be with the effective implementation of any of these other ideas.
I do think you raise a good point though, and I think the model probably needs to account for costs, returns on investment and diminishing returns for investments (particularly in highly developed economies). This is a bit difficult since the model is intended to be as open as possible for interpretation of how the spending of credits materializes in RP (since the credits are more symbolic and OOC), and as simple as possible given its aim to incentivize collaborative RP than to directly model financial/economic exchange.
Some loose thoughts on how this model could be improved:
I think I have to go back to the drawing board a bit. I still like this proposal in theory and think it could be made workable but you’ve given me stuff to think about. Note: modifiers, exact numbers of credits, costs, etc., are not final.
I like that proposal and it comes across a lot more clearly now that it’s broken down practically than it had seemed on the surface. It’s reminiscent to me of a proposal I made in Classic that didn’t attract much interest (and which, admittedly, was worse): there would be a “Universal Standard Dollar” or USD (pegged to the USD) that all currencies would be valued in relation to; countries could set an exchange rate in USD or peg their currency to a real world currency other than USD; additional modifiers could be added at regular intervals reflecting the economic performance of that country as judged by RP (if I peg Hanzen’s currency to the Thai Baht, it could be impacted by a modifier of +/- X.XX% depending on RP). Again, not ideal, but my thinking was that at least it would be something to replace the inherently broken currencies in Classic (relatedly, I was going to propose pricing commodities in a similar way – pegged to RL prices in USD, with in-game modifiers – though I feel this is even more problematic...).
This is all to say: interesting, I’d like to see this work. I think with the game's new approach to AI integration and so on, your model is both better and a bit more feasible long-term.
On Sanctions:
Generally agree with everything you said, and I think to an extent we’re just repeating the same view. But I found this point more interesting for further discussion:
Quote:However, if you do agree to the RP, there should be some mechanism for carrying it through whether I do anything with it or notI think this is also something I alluded to in the Discord: perhaps it would be useful to provide a sort of “guideline” for players as to how this sort of RP should be conducted, best practices, things to consider, etc.? Of course, I would not want this guideline to be prescriptive necessarily (I.e. “if you want to do sanctions, do X, Y, and Z for it to be recognised as good RP”) but simply to aid players in thinking about how to make this sort of arc as effective as possible, and indeed, perhaps outlining what could be part of an agreed-upon sanctions arc ("if you agree to this sort of RP, X, Y, and Z are fair game). I know you’ve written similar guides before (Jamescfm used to highly praise your “kayfabe” analogy for RP in a guide you once wrote), which is not to say “hey Doc, give it a go,” but that perhaps you – and others, of course – might have some useful advice or thoughts to this end which could be compiled into such a guide?
I also think this topic somewhat bleeds into another related though distinct area I've sought greater clarity on in the past, which is (a) whether companies are free to invest in other countries, and to what extent this can be the case prior to or without the explicit consent of a player in that country (likely dependent on the laws of a given country), and; (b) how we understand the base state of global trade (do nations import/export products from other nations without this explicitly being stated? Would it be fair to assume, for instance, that a fair amount of high-quality Hanzenese silk ends up in the fashion houses of Kalistan?).
On resource scarcity, oil, climate change:
Since we’re in agreement I have nothing to add, other than to underscore that I do genuinely think this would be an interesting topic to further explore and discuss… It might be nice if the game had a more “official” stance on certain issues like this so that current and future players can be on the same page about our world – similar to how there's an official line on technology like nuclear fusion. On the one hand, climate change in-game cannot be at a catastrophic rate, despite this being the most likely scenario given PT world history, but on the other, it shouldn't simply be hand-waved away nor unaffected by human action in the game world. Perhaps some sort of authoritative "degree of warming" metric could be published, and could be adjusted up or down depending on state actions? Could be pegged to current rate of pre-industrial global warming, with modifiers?
On proposal 3(a): Resource register, or Economic Protocols
To be clear, my stance on matters such as these is generally: let's just try it and see where it goes. That said, I am still hesitant to enthusiastically support this proposal, if only because with our current state and limitations, I think it would cause more headache than it’s worth and probably generate some player resentment in its implementation. Of course, these objections do not delegitimize the proposal on its merits. As I suggested in the Discord thread on this topic, in the short to mid-term, I would strongly encourage the more widespread use of the Wiki and specifying these things in “Economy of [Country]” articles to at least begin to publicly publish some information on the products/resources imported and exported into a given country, as per the player's determination. To my mind, this would make the eventual project of building out EPs/Resource Registers easier.
Your points on GDP calculation are worth exploring, but I think are dependent on the implementation of the currency model in the first order – and at this stage I’d rather see currency before producing somewhat abstracted macroeconomic figures. I also think there is some risk that GDP also becomes a form of “ranking,” with players seeking only to produce RP which maximizes their GDP per capita "rank" relative to others, and using that for force projection/power playing/etc. Otherwise, I think your explanation and emphasis on how these are measured relative to the in-game unit makes sense, though in practice I still don't quite see how absolute GDP figures over millennia couldn't still reach massive scales that feel unrealistic if anyone tries to map them loosely onto real-world economic intuition. Moreover, unless everyone agrees on the TMU’s scaling and relative value, comparisons could become inconsistent, especially for players joining mid-game or for historical records over the thousands of years of game time. I’d also be interested in your thoughts as to how we address GDP figures in inactive countries (take Istapali which I reference a few times): if a country goes inactive, should its GDP decline or stay the same? If a country have very little activity overall, should it stagnate, decline, or be assumed to modestly grow? Though to return to my first line in this section, perhaps I just need to see it in practice.
On 3(c): "Credits Proposal"
I think I understand your point about “cliques” a bit better in this practical example. I would just note that I intentionally use the vague term “momentum” than “growth” per se, and that this system isn’t intended to generate hard macroeconomic figures (i.e. GDP) taking the game more as it is now than as it would be with the effective implementation of any of these other ideas.
I do think you raise a good point though, and I think the model probably needs to account for costs, returns on investment and diminishing returns for investments (particularly in highly developed economies). This is a bit difficult since the model is intended to be as open as possible for interpretation of how the spending of credits materializes in RP (since the credits are more symbolic and OOC), and as simple as possible given its aim to incentivize collaborative RP than to directly model financial/economic exchange.
Some loose thoughts on how this model could be improved:
- Specialized credits: create different classes of credits and identify countries according to their specialisation(s) (i.e. a country with a large financial sector has more “finance credits” whereas a country with a large productive base has “manufacturing credits,” and so on; certain projects require different combinations of credits/inputs).
- Caps on transfers: no more than 50% of a country’s credits can go to one recipient, or a combination of external recipients (arbitrary percentage, can be adjusted).
- Reconsidering the 10-credit reset: to more accurately simulate capital accumulation and accomodate for the introduction of maintenance costs, a country could get 1-3 extra credits in addition to their base 10 for completing and/or investing in a productive project, relative to the scale of their investment and where that project is located, over a fixed term.
- Diminishing returns: thinking more critically about how "momentum" is calculated, the concept of diminishing returns on investments in highly developed economies could be considered so that the super-charging of similarly placed economies couldn't quite proceed as you identified (i.e. an investment of 5 credits in a low development/momentum economy could be multiplied by by 1.2, resulting in a momentum score of 6; an investment of 5 credits in a high development/momentum economy could be multiplied by 0.7 resulting in a momentum score of 3.5).
Maintenance costs: maintenance costs could be integrated into the distribution of credits per term (Maintenance Cost=Base Size×Momentum Multiplier; A 6-credit national project in a highly developed economy might cost 6 × 1.5 = 9 credits in upkeep, reducing by a certain amount over a fixed term). This could also produce debt-like conditions and the financing of debt by global partners?
I think I have to go back to the drawing board a bit. I still like this proposal in theory and think it could be made workable but you’ve given me stuff to think about. Note: modifiers, exact numbers of credits, costs, etc., are not final.
"Everything's computer!" – President Donald John Trump ✝️
wuhan.particracy@gmail.com
wuhan.particracy@gmail.com