Economic 'weight' of different regions - is Egypt under represented?

[bigdaddy1204]

The geography of the Middle East can basically be divided between areas that offer fertile agricultural land, and those that don't. In the pre-industrial world, it was the quality of the land that decided how much wealth a society had.

In the Middle East, there were basically two regions that mattered: Egypt, and Iraq. Both of these were based on the vast wealth that came from farming the fertile soil along the banks of the river Nile, and the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. A state that controlled either of these areas was always going to be a major power. A state that controlled both, would wield overwhelming power and dominate its neighbours. Although they both had their fertile areas, Anatolia and Iran were relatively poorer than Egypt and Iraq.

However, this isn't necessarily represented in the game.

For example, Egypt only has four regions along the Nile - in SSHIP, these are Damietta, Alexandria, Cairo and Luxor. If we compare this with Anatolia, it has a lot more regions. This means the income collected from those regions is greater. I noticed in my Turks campaign that even if I only control roughly half of Anatolia (Konya, Ankara, Attaleia, Caesarea, Sivas and Melitine), all of these settlements offer me a significant income, roughly 3,000 each. That's roughly 18,000 florins per turn. If we compare this against Egypt, we see an income of roughly 12,000 per turn for the four Nile provinces.

So, to break it down:

Income

Egypt: 12,000
Central Anatolia: 18,000

And that's just a comparison of half Anatolia against Egypt. If I were to control the six additional Anatolian provinces which were held by Byzantium and by the rebels, we could expect to add another roughly 15,000 florins. So the numbers would then look like this:

Income

Egypt: 12,000
Anatolia: 33,000

That means that according to this game, Anatolia is nearly 3 x richer than Egypt! Yet according to Mark Whittow's book on the geography, it should be the other way round - Egypt should be much richer than Anatolia.

So, is Egypt under-represented in the game? Perhaps its existing cities could be made richer, or alternatively one or two more Nile provinces added to balance out the income a bit?

[+Marius+]

Ancient Egypt =\= Arab Egypt

Provide sources that prove that Egypt was as populous and rich as you claim in the middle ages.

Also, gameplay wise, it would be completely ludicrous so increase Egypt's province numbers on expense of Anatolia.

[bigdaddy1204]

Ancient Egypt =\= Arab Egypt

Provide sources that prove that Egypt was as populous and rich as you claim in the middle ages.

Also, gameplay wise, it would be completely ludicrous so increase Egypt's province numbers on expense of Anatolia.

Whittow's book is about the middle ages.

[jurcek1987]

That's because income from farming is quite insignificant compared to trade and taxes. Maybe we could have extra farming buildings available in Egypt and Iraq that significantly increase income?

[bigdaddy1204]

That's because income from farming is quite insignificant compared to trade and taxes. Maybe we could have extra farming buildings available in Egypt and Iraq that significantly increase income?

This is a good point.

The economics of Medieval 2 total war vanilla are a bit historically inaccurate. Revenues from the land made up the vast majority of wealth in the middle ages. Trade wouldn't have been more than about 10% of state income.

Income from farming is too low in Medieval 2 Total War, and farming improvements make little difference to economic prosperity whereas from everything I've read, they should make the biggest difference. I remember in the original Medieval TW (2002) there were buildings which could significantly increase revenue from farming, as well as buildings such as the Abbey which make a big difference by providing substantial income from their lands.

The source for this is Alan Harvey's book 'Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900-1200', which goes into detail about the medieval economy, making comparisons with Byzantium, western Europe and the Middle East.

[+Marius+]

Whittow's book is about the middle ages.

These disagree;

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140512497/...ackoverfl08-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140510761/...ackoverfl08-20

Egypt's population stagnated from the 760s all the way to the 14th century,
By the time of the High Middle ages, it had roughly 3.5-4 million inhabitants compared to Spain's 9 million.

The economics of Medieval 2 total war vanilla are a bit historically inaccurate. Revenues from the land made up the vast majority of wealth in the middle ages.

Revenues from the land?
You do not mean farming?
How could wheat be counted as (mainly)monetary revenue in the middle ages?

Trade wouldn't have been more than about 10% of state income.

Depends where and when.
It very often could go much beyond that number.

Income from farming is too low in Medieval 2 Total War, and farming improvements make little difference to economic prosperity whereas from everything I've read, they should make the biggest difference.

Now were talking.

But the problem still remains;
As you said, trade during this time was nothing like that within the Roman Empire, there were no large scale transactions of wheat and grain between political entities.
So how could you justify converting farming to monetary income if most of what was farmed remained within the borders of where it was farmed from?

It resulted in either a lack or an excess of food, not really a huge trade factor that would result in coins flowing into someones pockets.


Besides, farming does create a lot of income in M2TW.

[jurcek1987]

This is really an interesting topic and I agree that M2 economy is not very realistic. It's something I never fully realized and just took for granted because the economy hasn't changed much since vanilla days. But that is obviously something for Lifthrasir and MWY to consider because overhauling the entire economy would take a lot of work and testing. Also the current SSHIP model is excellent, it's quite a bit more challenging than in SS or most other mods.

One thing I would like to see implemented, from k/t's RR/RC compilation for Broken Crescent, where you have separate buildings for recruiting feudal units, but those buildings reduce settlements tax income. Which is realistic because feudal lords kept a lot of taxes for themselves. This is just one of things that would improve realism, empires in medieval times were not as nearly as centralized as this game would have you believe.

[bigdaddy1204]

As you said, trade during this time was nothing like that within the Roman Empire, there were no large scale transactions of wheat and grain between political entities. So how could you justify converting farming to monetary income if most of what was farmed remained within the borders of where it was farmed from?

Well, it isn't being exported overseas. I was thinking of taxes collected from the peasantry. Hearth tax. Also, wine and other crops grown by peasants could be sold at market, usually to townsfolk or occasionally to other farmers and landowners. Tax could then be collected. I suppose it depends how we think of this in the game - does it count as 'farming' revenue, or 'trade' revenue, or taxes?

The 'taxes' in Medieval 2 TW are based on the population of the city, they don't include the rural population. Trade is calculated between settlements, both inside and outside your borders.

​

Besides, farming does create a lot of income in M2TW.

Nah, it doesn't. See the picture. It's barely 10% of the total, when it should be a lot higher than that.



I miss the old Medieval TW: Viking Invasion set up, where you could build various types of farms, and they had a big impact on your income. So for example without anything built, you'd get maybe 150 florins. With a couple of upgrades, you'd get something like 800 florins. It really felt rewarding to invest in the land and build up agricultural wealth. Also you could build an Abbey, which gave something like 300 florins a turn. It was a lot of money, and a major boost to any province. Maybe we need more agricultural buildings. They tried adding some in broken crescent, but they didn't seem to make any difference whatsoever to your income. I'd like to see buildings that make a real difference, a bit like how a successful merchant in SSHIP can bring in big money.

[bigdaddy1204]

I just loaded up SSHIP and I found that Egypt's income at the start of the game is 27,000. By comparison, the Byzantine Empire's income at the start of the game is 44,000. This doesn't seem right to me, Byzantium was certainly rich, but richer than Egypt? Either Whittow's book is completely wrong about the relative wealth of those regions during the high middle ages, or the numbers in Medieval 2 Total War are not right...

I was wrong in my estimates of Egypt's wealth along the Nile, however. The actual wealth of the four Nile provinces is 20,000 at the start of the game. Nevertheless, this is still less than the 30,000 available in Anatolia. Whittow categorically says Anatolia was poorer than Egypt at this time.

[jurcek1987]

ERE has more starting regions and subsequently higher population. Higher population means more taxes. ERE also benefits from sea trade in and around Bosphorus. I dunno about which empire was wealthier but I believe ERE was stronger than Fatimid Caliphate in 1132.

[+Marius+]

Well as you said(and proved), trade is far more lucrative in M2TW.

Byzantines have far more trade than Egypt.
Thus it has more cash.

Without a properly implemented way of simulating the value of having better crop yields, the current system cannot be claimed to be incorrect simply because the current system simulates the faction having actual money as profit.
Money that farming cannot create in the simplified economy of this game.

You see, the M2TW economy is the faction getting revenue, that means that, in order for your version to be implemented, the state would have to sell wheat and receive money in return for it to be revenue.
However, I only see the opposite being realistic, namely the state buying wheat and spending money on it.

I simply do not see how in M2TW you would simulate a faction filling its coffers with money by having a very good harvest.

Only trade comes to mind.
Perhaps, make wheat a more lucrative trade item?

[Lifthrasir]

I basically agree with Marius Marich. The economic system during Middle Ages was a bit more complex than that and I don't think we can really represent it with accuracy in the game.

Adding a bonuses with specific buildings might bring back the original issue: too much money at some stage. That would unbalance the game again, having only 3 or 4 big factions at the end, because they have plenty of money and can build and recruit whatever they want. Not really accurate, is it?

I think we first need more sources to have a better view on that point.

[bigdaddy1204]

Without a properly implemented way of simulating the value of having better crop yields, the current system cannot be claimed to be incorrect simply because the current system simulates the faction having actual money as profit.
Money that farming cannot create in the simplified economy of this game.

I think we've misunderstood each other. There are actually two separate elements here, which could relate to farming:

1). The value of the harvest (wheat, barley, etc) - I think this is what you are focused on
2). The collection of taxes from farmers, based on how much land they have and how many livestock, as well as the number of hearths present.

I believe farming in Medieval 2 is the harvest, since it goes up and down each year. However, in Medieval TW (2002), there is no doubt that farming made up a much bigger part of your income, since if I remember correctly there was no 'taxes' income at all! You only had two sources of income: trade, and farming.

Medieval 2 is more complex, because they added the tax income from settlements. But overall my study of medieval economics leads me to believe that farm income would still be the largest source of income overall, since the population was overwhelmingly rural and such towns and cities that did exist were extremely small by modern standards.

The medieval Domesday Book is a manuscript record of the "Great Survey" of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 by order of King William the Conqueror. In that survey, every piece of land in the kingdom is assessed for tax, with the value of every farm detailed down to the last ox. This is what I'm talking about.

The Byzantines also maintained a monetary economy during the middle ages, which did allow taxes to be collected from peasants in the form of coins, which were then ultimately brought back to the imperial treasury and used to pay for state expenditure. It's simple: your land is assessed, and you must pay taxes.

[bigdaddy1204]

Here's a picture of the old Medieval Total War (2002). In it, you can see the buildings that have been constructed in a province. One of the farms has been upgraded to 80%. This means it will offer 80% more income than the base income for that region.

Did anyone else play Medieval TW?

Farming was a big deal in that game. You could still earn more with trade in certain provinces (sometimes a lot more), but upgrading your farms was a lot more important as a source of income in Medieval TW than it is in Medieval 2.

In fact, at the start of the game farming was the only income you'd get from your provinces, since settlement tax didn't exist and there was no trade until you'd built up.

Oh the nostalgia!

[Lifthrasir]

Not sure to get your point
I'm trying to keep it simple:
Farming was the 1st source of incomes even if trade's incomes became more and more important.
The harvest was used to pay the tax to the local lord who paid an upper lord and so on up to the king.

So if I get it right, when the game shows the incomes, it basically shows the source of these incomes (that's how I see it but I might be wrong).
So now, if I get your point, the incomes coming from farming should be more important in % and also depending on the areas. But I guess that it also depends on the settlements: some of them relied mostly on farming when some others relied mostly on trade.

My concern is how to represent this without unbalancing the economy in the game

Edit: I forgot to mention that it also depends on the culture/religion of the factions. For instance, Muslim factions were "penalized" somehow due to the rules made by the Kuran. In Eastern Europe, peasants were "more free" but due to constant wars, local lords adopted a similar feudal system as the Western European Kingdoms. In exchange of protection, they had "regular" incomes.

[bigdaddy1204]

So now, if I get your point, the incomes coming from farming should be more important in % and also depending on the areas. But I guess that it also depends on the settlements: some of them relied mostly on farming when some others relied mostly on trade.

My concern is how to represent this without unbalancing the economy in the game

Yep, that's it.

I had a look at SSHIP last night and I was surprised to see at the start of the Egypt campaign in SSHIP, farming does actually earn more than trade. This means that SSHIP already increased the % a lot compared to SS6.4 and vanilla, so actually my original point about farming income doesn't apply to SSHIP so much (but does apply to the vanilla).

The only question to think about for SSHIP is, "Should the human player be able to build more farm upgrades?"

Because I noticed in SSHIP, most of the major cities already have the maximum farm upgrade built at the start of the game. This works, because that's how SSHIP increased farm income as a % of the total. But it does mean that the human player can't get that experience he had in Medieval TW (2002) of upgrading his farms through the game, getting the satisfaction of upgrading his economy.

So, it comes down to game play choice: should the economy be mostly already built? Or should the player need to build it himself?

[bigdaddy1204]

Also, the original purpose of the thread was Egypt. I found its income is 20,000 for the Nile provinces, versus 30,000 available in Anatolia. I agree with you Lifthrasir, the balance in SSHIP is very good. I even tested things like the Kingdom of England, and I found its income is lower, which is good. So that's perfect.

The question is, if we imagine a faction that controls Egypt, and a faction that controls Anatolia. In real life, the historian Whittow says that the faction controlling Egypt would be richer, because of the Nile. But in the game, the faction controlling Anatolia would be richer. So who is right?

Byzantium starts with 44,000 income, if it conquers Anatolia that's about 18,000 more. Its income would then be 62,000, versus Egypt at 27,000 (for the whole Fatimid empire). Yet the Arab historians noted that the Byzantines were poor and so were their lands. The Arab territories were richer than Anatolia.

It's a complicated problem and I've never seen Byzantium expand beyond Anatolia anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. But just a thought!

[MWY]

Most of the major cities don't have full farm upgrades build in. THE major cities with population sizes of 100.000+ have the full farm upgrades, and I already expanded the whole farming thing by one level. I can't split up the building tree because there is actually only one value for the farming level. So there are no + or - operations here, there is just one level. And it does kinda make sense that you just have all the farming possibilites of a region already in use, especially for regions like palermo, egypt, etc.. I mean there has to be a limit at some point.

I don't know.. The fatimids also had A LOT of corruption, almost civil war, etc. especially at that time, I mean the fatimid state was basically barely able to exist at all. If they were that prosperous and rhich, how would they almost get taken over by a bunch of crusaders? Meanwhile, the byzantines were doing pretty well at that time. Oh and the corruption is also reflected in the game, minimizing the income of egyptians a bit.
I think there are a lot more things to consider, even the tax levels possible for the conquered settlements, the traits of leaders, etc. which can affect incomes quite heavily.

To the whole balance debate: I read somewhere that 1/2 to 2/3 of a settlements income was based on taxes at that time, and 1/2 to 1/3 of trade and farming. Especially in rural settlements, trade really was a minor source of income. I don't know where anymore unfortunately but my implementation is based on this info. I think if we consider taxes as taxes no matter what sort, and the farming income as trading grains income, it should be alright right?

[Lifthrasir]

Incomes came from farming, craft, mining, trade and taxes. The proportions of each depended on the area, area's type (rural or towns) and time/period. For instance, during the economic depression during the 14th century, in England, some towns kept developping in spite of the fall of the farming incomes with the trade (especially for the textiles). During the same period, in Northern Italy, some towns kept developping with the maritime trade.

In rural areas, a part of the harvest was used to paid taxes by the peasants.
On the coasts, there was a tax on fishes.
On top of that, there were tolls on rivers, bridges, cities, etc...

Basically, I agree with MWY. Our actual system is not that bad considering the game engine. The only point we might improve are fairs. They were important at that time and are not represented in game.

[Lifthrasir]

To go a bit further on that topic (text translated from a French source. Hope it’s not too bad ):

The Western Europe is a civilization with rural dominance which evolves towards a position hold by cities and by their economic environment. That means a "renaissance" of plentiful exchanges from a great distance away, mostly based on the none agricultural production. From the 12th century, with universities and fairs, cities gets a leading position. The well urbanized regions, the pole of the networks of exchange and craft production, are going to make the backbone of the West: Central and Northern Italy, Flanders, North Germany and later on South Germany.

Note that there was a difference between Northen Europe where there were new settlements and Southern Europe where the Roman urbanization survived. The climat has to be also taken in account regarding the nature of the crops. The aristocracy is mostly rural in Northern Europe but mostly lives in towns in Southern Europe.

During the high era, the Western Society is rural. There are many not cultivated or not cultivable zones. Cities are fortified, retracted and survived with the religious function (bishop's palaces and monasteries).The economy is mostly autarkic and centralized on great domains. Some signs show the beginning of revival, f.e. the trade across the North Sea (starting at the end of the 7^th but mostly during the 8^th century). Stagnation demographic with big losses during wars or plagues. The Arabic conquest confirms the changes between the Northern and Southern borders of the Mediterranean Sea. From then, 3 major sets emerges:
the West, the Byzantin East and the Islamic East. Even if there’s no clear cut (there’s still trade and cultural influences), some major differences appears like religion, civilization, customs, intellectual level, politic system (feudal system in the West), economy (rural in the West, urbanized and trade in the East.

From the 11^th century and up to the 13^th century, there’s a demographic development and agricultural resources: clearing, technical improvement, ploughs, better iron… The not cultivated areas are reduced to the minimum. The West becomes more and more urbanized. Cities become more important economically (craft, trade) and socially (bourgeoisie rejecting the feudal system) and somehow politically as well (autonomous municipalities even independent sometimes). 2 great trade axes emerges: North-West / South-East (Hanseatic ligue, Flanders, Italy with Champagne in between them). The exchanges become more important in quantity and value, creating new payment system: banks, bills of exchange.
As the State insures the safety(security) and guarantees the transactions(deals), he tax levy becomes integrated into the economy.

The Byzantine Empire follows the same economic and demographic development as the Western Europe from the mid 8th century and at least up to the beginning of the 13th century (4th Crusade). However, there is growth but not real development or structural transformations. For example, unlike the west, there does not seem to be a technological innovation which transforms the production.

On contrary, the Muslim countries don't share that growth as the West becomes economically dominant (need more researches).

The Eastern Europe knows a later development (need more researches).