Supply OR Demand... function over form with Oolite's economies

[Redspear]

While I struggle to remember my wiki password, I was pondering economy and how it works in Oolite.

Most players are familiar with the furs to industrial, computers to agricultural monotony but at least it's simple.
We know what agricultural means (they love their computers) and we know what industrial means (even on a tropical hotspot inhabited by rodents they go crazy for furs). Currently Industrial/Agricultural determines which one you buy, while rich/poor/etc. determines optimisation.
It kinda works, it's just very samey.

When trying to shake thinks up it's easy to make things (much) more complex for little benefit.

So what is the player experience of trading?

Buying goods at a known price to sell elsewhere at a (usually) unknown price in the hopes of making a significant profit.
So the player's experience is largely that of trying to predict demand rather than supply.

Demand is the unknown and is therefore of the most interest to the player.

Currently demand is both:

• consistently predictable
• consistently the same

Only one of the above is useful from a gameplay perspective.

Predictability makes the profit reliable. Too much risk and a hard fought journey to the station is rewarded only with disappointment. There is already risk, it's just provided by the pirates.

Shipping the same two goods however is dull as dishwater, Rather than scooping something and thinking, "I know where to sell that to make a nice profit!", we're more often thinking in similar manner to pirate's collecting their ransom only to discover food. Sure, it's nice to feel you've occasionally scooped something really valuable but when you're more often ejecting it back out again, that's encouraging player's to be 'spoilt'.

So, I'm suggesting keeping the predictability: the player knows that any industrial produce will sell for a profit in any agricultural sysytem and vice versa.


But I'm also suggesting varying the demand and not the supply

That way the player's present system does not restrict their choice of destination any more than it already does, i.e. I'm in an agricultural system, what's nearby in the way of industrial systems as I know I can make a profit there?

However, instead of looking for the optimal poor agricultural to rich industrial milk-run (again: samey), the player can either buy X and therefore head to Y or, much more conveniently, decide they're heading to Y and therefore buy X. This is much harder to do if making both supply and demand more variable.


So what of the demands?

Rationale for 16 different goods spread over 8 economy types leaving one good left: alien items - hike the price and let non human's sell it in small ammounts



I could explain each one in detail but, crudely (and desirably simplistically - no claims to be an expert in any of this)...


Poor economies would be about establishing themselves, rich ones stabilising themselves.

e.g. a rich agriculture is already booming but advanced computers help it to predict and compensate against poor weather and other variables.
Platinum investment, meanwhile, offers some proof against particularly poor harvests, and the rich are inclined to insure themselves.


Mainly's would be about complimenting what they already have.

e.g. mainly industrials already have some agriculture and, being industrialised have long exploited native textiles with this presenting a stable export, however (being more balanced and less needy than some other systems) impotring non-native textiles enables them to further exploit their expertise. Luxuries are desirable everywhere but 'mainlys' are likely to combine have an inability to supply/manufacture them with a sufficiently balanced and stable (mainlys should arguably be the most independant systems) existence to appreciate them.


Industrial/Agricultural would be much as it is, it would just be that the profit is higher or lower depending on the rest.

I don't know how to programme almost any of this yet but I think I might be onto something with the supply/demand distinction.
The player would be no more likely to be 'bottle-necked' than with the current model, they'd just be encouraged to think more about their purchases.

Which variety of industrial/agricultural was within jump range needn't restrict your ability to trade, rather it would guide your choice of goods to ship and crucially needn't limit them.

And yes, I'm aware that pricing and availability would need tweaking but two different 'desirables' per economy type helps with that.

It's still fairly fresh in my mind and, as usual, I may not have explained myself adequately so thoughts and questions welcomed.

[Cholmondely]

Nice to have another perspective on the matter - thank you, Redspear, for taking the trouble.

Initial comments: the only real advantage of the vanilla game system to me, just now, standing on one leg, is its simplicity. It is utterly unrealistic. Taking on board your comments about equally unrealistic more complex models which are still simplifications (there is no way that we will find in a modern game the massive selection of 50 varieties of salt which Taj supermarket had on sale in Hove a few years ago...), I'm also dubious about the realism of all mainly agriculturals having the same economic basis. And who is going to remember that mainly agriculturals want minerals while mainly industrials want luxuries.

I'd be tempted to go for more logical desires based on broad economical trends (not the fine divisions of the 8 varieties) and those of the main species inhabiting the planet. Using all 17 commodities just for the sake of using up the 17 commodities seems silly. Go for obvious ones which are easy for players to remember, and stuff the rest. Look at Arquebus's videos and witness his far-reaching fascination with fine details and memorising minor minutiae, and then work out how many others will share those passions.

The basic idea seems excellent. But I think that a more broad brush-stroke approach will do better. Gold and gems for avians. Luxuries for cats. Food for industrials. Obvious stuff.

And then more recondite stuff for specific planets with hints in their F7 descriptions: Ontimaxe (This planet is reasonably famous for its inhabitants' exceptional love for food blenders) should pay well for machinery. Ceedra (This planet is most fabled for its inhabitants' ingrained silliness but scourged by deadly civil war) wants firearms. Anarlaqu (This world is mildly famous for its hoopy night life and its exotic night life.) - luxuries. Begeabi (Begeabi is very notable for its inhabitants' weird silliness) - textiles. Isveve (The planet Isveve is reasonably noted for its inhabitants' eccentric shyness and its inhabitants' eccentric shyness) - obviously desperate for computers...

[arquebus]

My basic feeling is that the matrix of prices needs more complexity to feel realism-adjacent. Commodities need to be priced and quantitied on the basis of a number of things all calculated together:

* industrial/technological axis
* population size and type
* political type
* tech level
* distance to other markets of similar or different type
* number of adjacent accessible systems within jump range
* semi-random galactic and local events

...and so on. With enough factors included in the calculation, you get diversity with reliability. If I can analyze the galactic map and make decisions about the commodities from the data I have access to (not just looking at the commodity prices themselves), I will naturally feel like the economies are more realistic. So basically, I agree.

My ideal Oolite 2.0 would include this complexity built-in to the vanilla game. Trade is one of the central pillars of this type of game and it deserves more attention to detail.

[Redspear]

The basic idea seems excellent. But I think that a more broad brush-stroke approach will do better. Gold and gems for avians. Luxuries for cats. Food for industrials. Obvious stuff.

Well, thanks.

I nearly suggested one item for economy type and one for inhabitant type but... I thought it might be best to limit it to one factor (government = risk, economy = trade, tech = shipyard) for player convenience AND (what really dissuaded me from doing so) I remembered that the vast majority of systems are inhabited by human colonials.

I take your point re broad strokes however. My specifics above are somewhat...specific and likely unnecessarily so.

With enough factors included in the calculation, you get diversity with reliability.

You're right of course but you also risk confusion. Even my model above risks that. My prior argument elsewhere is that we should have enough variables to make it more interesting even if only using the industry-agriculture axis:

• economy type
• price
• quantity

For example, we could do it almost the opposite way around to what I was suggesting above and just focus on supply.

So only rich industrials sell computers in bulk; averages sell machinery, Poors sell alloys etc. The market screen would tell you all this so there's be no need to remember anything. Suddenly you'd be trading in more varied items out of necessity rather than choice. Instead of buying slightly less computers (at a slightly higher price), you might be buying machinery. The profit could even be identical (i.e. with computers from the same economy type) but the variety from a gameplay perspective would have improved.

I completely agree that adding tech, population, inhabitants, government, description etc. would be more realistic but I also think it would be undesirable.

To be brief (for the sake of those who've suffered it before), when neighbouring system governments were used to influence system safety along with the given system government itself, we got more complexity but also more of an averaging and more confusion. The largely random distribution of governments didn't support the idea IMHO and the gameplay value of that distribution was reduced.

Although I think there is a demonstrable link between some of the variables you mention (even within the game itself), I'd be wary of integrating them for this purpose. As I said earlier (and arguably demonstrated) adding complexity is not difficult.

I think that variety is actually the goal, complexity is more like the cost.

So if the player just needs to consider economy then that really is simple, but that's currently used to vary profit rather than also choice of goods. So rather than poor economies producing less of everything, maybe they just produce (significantly) less of the high profit items, partly explaining why they are poor.

You could expand it with whatever subsequent oxp iterations you like but the fundamental model is missing something from a gameplay rather than realism perspective; or at least that is my argument.

[Cholmondely]

Redspear, you will find that SW Economy does some of what you suggest. Stranger's concerns are primarily with astronomy - he jiggled the galaxies to make the systems more liveable and then moved on to work out the relevance for economics (no useful agriculture on small worlds like Laenin, so that they become mining economies instead).

Look at his treatment of Machinery vs Computers - his restrictions on where Computers are available (higher TL) and the impact of GDP on the numbers for sale.

Code: Select all

"use strict";
this.name				= "market_tweak.js";
this.author				= "Stranger";
this.copyright				= "Creative Commons: attribution, non-commercial, sharealike with clauses - see readme.txt";
this.description			= "Script for selecting market preset";
this.version				= "3.7";

this.startUp = function()
{
	//log(this.name, "this OXP initialising!");
}

this.shipExitedWitchspace = function()                      // Welcome to system!

    {
    if (system.isInterstellarSpace) return;                 // oops... we have a problem with navigation

    var industry_adjust = (25000 + system.productivity) / 50000; // production of industrial goods vs GNP scaling
    var agro_adjust = (10000 + system.productivity) / 25000; // production of agro goods vs GNP scaling
    var goods_store;

	if((system.techLevel + 2 * system.government) > 12)     // illegal goods prohibited in (tech OR social) advanced worlds
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("slaves", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("narcotics", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("firearms", 0); 
        }
        
	if(system.economy > 4)                                  // items unavailable in agrarian worlds    
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("computers", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("machinery", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("alloys", 0);        
        }

	if(system.economy < 3)  // items unavailable in industrial worlds
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("food", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("textiles", 0);               
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("liquor_wines", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("furs", 0);
        }

    if(system.techLevel < 4 && system.mainPlanet.radius < 54250)    // too harsh conditions to produce by archaic methods
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("food", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("textiles", 0);               
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("liquor_wines", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("furs", 0);        
        }

	if((system.economy > 2) && (system.techLevel > 3))      // items available only in archaic tech OR industrial worlds    
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("minerals", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("radioactives", 0);        
        }

    if(system.techLevel < 7)                               // items unavailable below median tech limit
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("computers", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("medicine", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("luxuries", 0);                
        }
    else
        {
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.computers.quantity * industry_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("computers", goods_store);
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.medicine.quantity * agro_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("medicine", goods_store);
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.luxuries.quantity * industry_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("luxuries", goods_store);
        }
 
    if(system.techLevel < 4)                                // items unavailable in archaic tech worlds
        {
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("machinery", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("alloys", 0);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("oxygen", 0);
        }        
    else
        {
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.machinery.quantity * industry_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("machinery", goods_store);        
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.alloys.quantity * industry_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("alloys", goods_store);
        goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.oxygen.quantity * industry_adjust);
        system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("oxygen", goods_store);
        }
                                                        // low tech production, but needs some investments 
    goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.liquor_wines.quantity * agro_adjust);
    system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("liquor_wines", goods_store);
    goods_store = Math.floor(system.mainStation.market.furs.quantity * agro_adjust);
    system.mainStation.setMarketQuantity("furs", goods_store);   

    }
 

My basic feeling is that the matrix of prices needs more complexity to feel realism-adjacent. Commodities need to be priced and quantitied on the basis of a number of things all calculated together:

* industrial/technological axis
* population size and type
* political type
* tech level
* distance to other markets of similar or different type
* number of adjacent accessible systems within jump range
* semi-random galactic and local events

...and so on. With enough factors included in the calculation, you get diversity with reliability. If I can analyze the galactic map and make decisions about the commodities from the data I have access to (not just looking at the commodity prices themselves), I will naturally feel like the economies are more realistic. So basically, I agree.

My ideal Oolite 2.0 would include this complexity built-in to the vanilla game. Trade is one of the central pillars of this type of game and it deserves more attention to detail.

Arquebus, Phasted's Real-Life Economics does a lot of this. With some extra goodies added -such as real-time price fluctuations. The problem is, on my AppleMac it is decidedly wonky - if the prices fluctuate for too long (ie I don't leave quickly enough) they end up settling at zero! And it is just the prices which fluctuate, not the quantities. But the idea is brilliant.

I'm afraid that Oolite 2.0 probably awaits another cim. While CSOTB says he's written one, his is based on Oolite v.1.77 - and so omits the graphics improvements of a_c_ (when you admire the graphics in your YouTube videos, a_c_ is the one who made it all possible - and he created the ANA which you enjoy using too!).

References:
*Economics: Analysis of the most imaginative oxp's in this area. (Switeck's Shipping OXP is omitted because it broke with v1.81, back before I discovered Oolite).
*Stranger's Roolite Essay on Economics & Trade: translation split between 2nd & 7th/8th posts (somehow I managed to edit the second half twice and currently lack the enthusiasm to clean up my mess...).

[Redspear]

Redspear, you will find that SW Economy does some of what you suggest. Stranger's concerns are primarily with astronomy - he jiggled the galaxies to make the systems more liveable and then moved on to work out the relevance for economics (no useful agriculture on small worlds like Laenin, so that they become mining economies instead).

Look at his treatment of Machinery vs Computers - his restrictions on where Computers are available (higher TL) and the impact of GDP on the numbers for sale.

No disrespect, but those are concerns of realism. Nothing wrong with that approach... if that's what you want.
Looks like variety has indeed been increased (what I was after) but at the cost of considerable complexity (not what I wanted). *

However, restricting what's for sale was very much in line with what I was suggesting here:

For example, we could do it almost the opposite way around to what I was suggesting above and just focus on supply.

So only rich industrials sell computers in bulk; averages sell machinery, Poors sell alloys etc. The market screen would tell you all this so there's be no need to remember anything. Suddenly you'd be trading in more varied items out of necessity rather than choice. Instead of buying slightly less computers (at a slightly higher price), you might be buying machinery. The profit could even be identical (i.e. with computers from the same economy type) but the variety from a gameplay perspective would have improved.

Using all 17 commodities just for the sake of using up the 17 commodities seems silly.

Well, quite, but it needn't (and indeed shouldn't) be for that purpose. The purpose would be variety and there are other ways to achieve it.

For example, using the supply model below, all goods have a distinctive niche and/or flavour. There would be nothing that the player needs to memorise other than to look to trade from one side of the economy axis to the other (in other words to pair the industrial with the agricultural, as is ilready encouraged within the game).



That's all 17 goods accounted for but by a very simple model.
I suppose it makes more sense if textiles were processed rather than raw product.

The above would add a modicum of realism, a smidge of complexity but (crucially) significant flavour at minimal cost.

* To be fair, as represented by the code snippet, it would be mostly complexity that was hidden from the player...

[hiran]

To be fair, trading with a station actually resembles transferring the goods for a whole star system. How much impact could a signle player with a single ship have?
But when I think of multiple players whose Oolite gets synced up regularly - why shoult their monotonous repetitions of always the same cargo for a star system not have any ipact?

We could even have economy reacy as in some milk runs deplete and others open up. Commanders had better keep watch on opportunities at any time.

[Redspear]

But when I think of multiple players whose Oolite gets synced up regularly - why shoult their monotonous repetitions of always the same cargo for a star system not have any ipact?

Well, it's monotonous for the likes of the cobra 3 pilot, but not so much for an anaconda pilot (then it's only monotonous in terms of all rather than which).

We could even have economy reacy as in some milk runs deplete and others open up. Commanders had better keep watch on opportunities at any time.

Again, that's the realistic approach. I'm thinking more like 8-bit, 1984 simplicity which has its merits I think.
The simple 8 economy types/non-humans/governments types are kinda cool from a design standpoint.

That might make the 17 trade items seem a little excessive but then seperate them in to agricultural and industrial and you'd have...

Meanwhile...

The definition of 'agriculture' that oolite seems to have inherited relates more to primary production than it does to farming.
This table elaborates considerably:  Trading Goods Profit Table

[Old Murgh]

Again, that's the realistic approach. I'm thinking more like 8-bit, 1984 simplicity which has its merits I think.

I think that's a great guiding star.

I am not up to speed about all that's available but reading what Cholmondely writes about what complex market OXPs already have been created, a lo-fi adjustment that would make trading slightly more dynamic but with the simplicity intact is the one I would prefer to play with.

[hiran]

Again, that's the realistic approach. I'm thinking more like 8-bit, 1984 simplicity which has its merits I think.

I think that's a great guiding star.

I am not up to speed about all that's available but reading what Cholmondely writes about what complex market OXPs already have been created, a lo-fi adjustment that would make trading slightly more dynamic but with the simplicity intact is the one I would prefer to play with.

My thoughts are not about crazy random modifications to the existing economy but more slow trends, and if may players are impacted in the same way they can start meeting in the space bar and discuss their findings. But I take it that lo-fi is preferred in this case.

[Redspear]

But I take it that lo-fi is preferred in this case.

And single player too... I think if the core is sound then options to expand present themselves logically.
If the leg were less broken (totally my opinion - guffaws and head-shakery optional) then it wouldn't need such elaborate casts as have been proposed before.

Back to the heart of it then...

What are the poorest systems doing paying the highest prices for some of the most expensive goods (computers/luxuries)?

They may particularly want those items but they're going to struggle to raise the funds for the standard prices, let alone exceed them.
If anything one might expect they'd be likely to by low-grade computers at lower prices and try to make the best of it.

AGRICULTURAL WORLDS need specialist food and raw materials, but mostly basic machinery and spare parts. If they are rich, they need luxuries and high tech industrial machines. They produce food in quantity, raw materials and specialized "organic" items, like some textiles.

INDUSTRIAL WORLDS need agricultural produce; raw materials (for refining); resource exploitation machinery; (if rich) high tech goods. They produce basic items of need for civilized worlds: beds, seals and gaskets, power storage units, basic weapons, mass produced fertilizer, mass produced medicines, etc.

Think about a planet's needs. Think what might make the society function. Don't trade expensive trivia to a hungry world.

If the profit isn't worth it, trade it somewhere else.

Sounds good but it looks as if it wasn't quite implemented, especially the 'if rich' parts...

So, again trying to keep it 'lo-fi', rich/poor could determine demand while agriculture/industry determines supply.
On the face of it, this would just encourage the player to trade between rich systems but demand isn't just about price.

Poorer systems might pay more for the less expensive goods but simply can't afford to compete for the expensive items. Sure, they'll buy those computers off you but you'd get more for selling them elsewhere. So, if the profit on computers and luxuries were reduced, then maybe alloys and machinery would be the more profitable items per TC to bring to a poor agriculture? Again, you wouldn't lose out selling computers there it would just no longer be optimal.

For example:

Industrial demand (rich/average/mainly/poor): furs; liqour/wines; textiles; food
Agricultural demand (rich/average/mainly/poor): luxuries; computers; machinery; alloys

Complex enough to have to choose what to buy for efficient trading according to your heading but crucially not so complex that you also have to change your route plotting in order to do so. I appreciate that some might prefer the latter but this is about fixing the most fundamental problem: that the same few goods almost always yield the highest profits.

Find a place for radioactives (maybe non-humans love 'em) and each trade good would then have a useful (if not unique) place within the game.

This seems dangerously close to cracking it, which makes me wonder what I might have missed...
Too much sherry perhaps

[Cholmondely]

What are the poorest systems doing paying the highest prices for some of the most expensive goods (computers/luxuries)?

They may particularly want those items but they're going to struggle to raise the funds for the standard prices, let alone exceed them.
If anything one might expect they'd be likely to by low-grade computers at lower prices and try to make the best of it.

Happens here too. Speak to anybody living in Eastern Europe: they pay more and get less. Ditto in Africa (I remember hearing that rolls of toilet paper were selling for £5 each in Nigeria back c.1990).

But maybe they would buy fewer than 127 units of computers when they sell at 100cr each... (Sorry, realism breaking in...)

AGRICULTURAL WORLDS need specialist food and raw materials, but mostly basic machinery and spare parts. If they are rich, they need luxuries and high tech industrial machines. They produce food in quantity, raw materials and specialized "organic" items, like some textiles.

INDUSTRIAL WORLDS need agricultural produce; raw materials (for refining); resource exploitation machinery; (if rich) high tech goods. They produce basic items of need for civilized worlds: beds, seals and gaskets, power storage units, basic weapons, mass produced fertilizer, mass produced medicines, etc.

Think about a planet's needs. Think what might make the society function. Don't trade expensive trivia to a hungry world.

If the profit isn't worth it, trade it somewhere else.

Sounds good but it looks as if it wasn't quite implemented, especially the 'if rich' parts...

Yes. Quite. I'd wondered about this too.

But then dear old Holdstock did not write Classic Elite, just the literature around it. But Holdstock does make more sense, to my febrile mind.

Only.

Luxuries. Defined in the Elite Manual (p18) as "Perfumes, spices, coffee." These sound agricultural, no? Perfumes tend to have many organic ingredients (myyrh, frankincense, rose, galbanum, etc - went to a lecture on this a couple of years ago). Again, this is presumably Holdstock. Maybe in Traveller or Space Opera luxuries are treated as industrial products. One can see both arguments. Maybe your earlier ideas about specific goods for Mainly Industrials/Mainly Agriculturals would fit Luxuries instead?

[Redspear]

Happens here too. Speak to anybody living in Eastern Europe: they pay more and get less. Ditto in Africa (I remember hearing that rolls of toilet paper were selling for £5 each in Nigeria back c.1990).

But maybe they would buy fewer than 127 units of computers when they sell at 100cr each... (Sorry, realism breaking in...)

And for what I'm proposing, both of those pheneomena would be represented:

Poorer systems might pay more for the less expensive goods but simply can't afford to compete for the expensive items.

So yeah they might pay over the odds for a relatively low proiced item but no way are the going to do so for a high-priced one.

But then dear old Holdstock did not write Classic Elite, just the literature around it

Some...

On an agricultural planet, a wily trader would normally fill his cargo bay with food, then make a large profit selling to a rich industrial planet. He would take high-tech goods to a low-tech. agricultural planet, making an even greater profit, and so on.

That sounds more like what we got, doesn't it?

Luxuries. Defined in the Elite Manual (p18) as "Perfumes, spices, coffee." These sound agricultural, no?

Absolutely but it didn't work that way in the game, even if,

Luxuries (Perfumes, Spices, Coffee...)

What is a luxury? Something you don't need but is nice to have. If it's nice to have then everyone would want one, so why don't they? Because they (or rather some of them at least) are expensive. That further suggests that any such trade goods might be either expensive to manufacture or consist of rare materials.

In elite's model, raw materials equates to 'agriculture', as you point out so making it an industrially produced item might seem odd.
I think I've made the point before but this is perhaps the category with the most potential for expansion with reference to Ma corn, evil juice, wolf cutlet etc. etc. Again, however, I'm more intersted in fixing the basics first and the current model does present more 'agricultural' produce than 'industrial'.

[Redspear]

Average Price data is from the  Oolite Trading
The modifiers are reappropriated from the  Trading Goods Profit Table

If I apply the modifiers * listed within the table then each economy type would have a distinct goods category for which it would be prepared to pay more than anyone else. Not only that, but the player would earn the most for delivering that cargo type to the system (highlighted). The relative value of goods is still respected; alloys will never outprice computers for example.

Rich systems pay the most for non-essentials (luxuries/furs) whilst poor systems pay the most for essentials (food/alloys). The big money is still to be made from trading the fancy stuff but (at long last) you'd be rewarded for following this advice from over thirty years ago...

Don't trade expensive trivia to a hungry world.

Textiles is a bit of a lost item in all of this, which is a shame, but I found it both easier to rationalise and that it required less modification with the goods listed above.

Now I just need to work out how to program it ...

* may need tweaking depending on the extent to which sales prices can be reduced by the current model, which I would be modifying.

[Cholmondely]

I prefer a system where, in the demand for the computers, the rich agri's would buy a full load at a lower profit while the poor agris would buy a handful but pay more (especially those which are dangerous & of primitive TL).

Excursus.

Looking at the leading issue with SW Economy, is it really impossible to have a mining extractive economy, clearly marked with it's own icon and it's own prices? To not to have it masquerading as a poor agricultural (so that it can be obvious to Arquebus that Laenin will not be selling cheap food & furs)? A mining system with the same low prices for medicine as the high TL agricultural systems which produce them (...and the poor TL agricultural systems which don't).

Where one can break away from the tyranny of the bipolar model and easily have prices which are not purely centred around the two agri/indi poles. And to have 13 models of economies rather than 8?

And what is the advantage of the new v.1.81 commodities .plist system? Is it really so much simpler? Or is it just simplistic? Switeck produced an oxp under the horrendously complex old system which was very popular for years. He can't manage to do the same with the new simpler system. And... Cim never managed to update New Cargoes to this new wonderfully simpler system, and - for heavens sake! - Phkb has been unable to do so either. It seems to this dumb pilot that there is something very wrong with the new commodities .plist. That the older version was indeed more complex, but somehow also much more sophisticated.

Would it not be possible to have a system where our economics boffins (now down to Stranger, Switeck, Phkb and our incipient Redspear) can easily achieve the effects they wish? Where Vincentz could produce a 4-polar economy with comparative ease? And that dumb pilots such as your humble servant can maybe even understand what is going on?