I think the economic climate would depend a lot on the political climate. If they're at a mostly medieval technological and social level, trade would largely be for raw goods. There probably wouldn't be a lot of currency exchanging between nations, and it's possible some nations might not have adopted a common currency at all yet. Back then it was all precious metals and various goods that formed the basis for international trade. I imagine the first nation mentioned would have a lot of influence economically, as basic industrialization would give them a production scale other nations couldn't easily match. Things like firearms and refined metals would be valuable to trade with.
In terms of how it would affect the P Cs, if they're mostly traveling between nations having currency on hand wouldn't be as valuable as having things to barter with. Any currency they had might not work everywhere they go, but barter works basically everywhere.
They should have sent a poet.
The Best Worst Psychonaut
Gotcha. This helps me refine things a bit more. I like the idea that they may have to rely on bartering. 
I should probably elaborate on some finer points - Nation #5, the neutral one, is in fact the most advanced, both technologically and socially. Nation #2 is in an ideal place to trade with them, being on the coast, but they prefer to stay out of the area's political and military affairs, leaving that to Nation #1.
Nation #1 is roughly analogous to the last years of Tsarist Russia, in that its industrial sector is fairly new and neither the economy nor the style of leadership has properly adapted yet, leading to much social unrest that the other nations seek to capitalise on. The military is also somewhat disgruntled, leading to fears that a coup d'etat might take place.
Speaking of advancement, both technological and social advancement are all over the place, due to a sporadic application of technology - much of which was adapted from old blueprints from before the apocalypse. Same goes for social development, adapted from history texts and so forth.
edited 9th Nov '17 9:03:17 PM by PresidentStalkeyes
"If you think like a child, you will do a child's work."
At that level of advancement it's possible there would be some currency exchange. I would think it would be somewhat limited though. Back in our own medieval era currency exchange basically worked through gold and silver standard, the original exchange rates were how much metal was in each country's coins. Any sort of large-scale international commerce would probably be based around simple exchange of goods, trading with resources and manufactured products.
If two countries had friendly enough relations with each other they could set up joint banking, that happened with some powerful bankers in Europe in the late middle ages. It would probably be on a somewhat ad hoc basis though. A country that was interested in commerce like country 2 or 5 might make agreements with other large countries to accept promissory notes or trade coins just to simplify the process.
I would assume most of those countries would also have common internal currencies, though they'd be a lot more simplistic than modern currencies. Currencies were originally basic units of account, like one gold coin to represent a bushel of wheat and stuff like that. A more modern country might issue paper currency, but before paper currency was universally accepted it was a fairly iffy proposition and governments would occasionally screw themselves up by issuing more paper currency than they had stuff to back it up with. Additionally, a lot of times back then currencies were only so good as the military enforcing them, so a country with an unstable military could possibly have an unstable currency.
An enterprising adventurer might carry a variety of coins or notes if they were traveling between countries frequently. They might also have an account in a country with a banking system that offered those, though since they'd have to actually visit the bank to deposit or withdraw that would mostly be useful for holding large amounts of money or valuables. A country with a banking system like that might offer an adventurer a vault of some kind and give them a bank note based on the assessed value of whatever treasure was inside, though that kind of currency would probably only be useful for big transactions with companies or governments and not good for say buying lunch at an inn. Small transactions would probably be done with whatever local currency they could get their hands on or exchange of services.
edited 9th Nov '17 9:36:44 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.
Honestly it sounds like nation #2 would be a good middle man for #1's external trade, using their existing trade networks to distribute any trade excess that #1 has, especially in manufactured goods. How well this would work would depend on geography though and also if the trade is by land or sea.
Alternatively #1 could see #2 as a competitor, especially if they control all the good trade routes.
Country #3 has a problem. #1's industrialisation is likely to bleed over into them, at least when it comes to exporting stuff like better farm equipment made cheaper. #1 is going to a migration from the countryside to the cities as industrialisation heats up as fewer workers are needed to maintain a food surplus while factory workforces grow. #3 doesn't have that option if it's using slavery based labour system and it can't really industrialise properly since economies of scale really require middle and even lower class with actual purchasing power.
Their best bet would probably to find some sort of raw material, be it mineral or cash crop, that is not easily mechanised that and become an exporter of that to #1 (or #5 if that's an option).
Edit for formatting
edited 10th Nov '17 3:44:24 AM by KnightofLsama
Hm, when I first read the post, #1 reminded me strongly of Russia as well, so we are on the same page. #2 reminded me of Great Britain, #3 of China, #4 of (an idependent) India, and #5 of the US.
If this is psudo-1800's, then history provides you with a reasonbly detailed guide. In our world, 5 supported 2 due to historical cultural ties, which might not exist in your world. 2 and 4 (as well as 2 and 3) were largely opposed to each other due to a history of exploitive colonization, and again, that might not have happened either. In General though, if 1 and 2 are going to war, then 3, 4, and 5 will have to decide what outcome they favor (one of the two sides winning, or both sides being weakened). In our world, 5 would support 2 (mostly behind the scenes), 4 would support 1 (known historically as "The Great Game"), and 3 would ignore the others as beneath their concern.
In our world, this all tended to support the economic rise of 5 (the US), mostly because 2 (Great Britain) was pretty unbeatable, so US currency started becoming more valuable as a result ("official" neutrality would help support it's acceptance on political grounds).
However, geography is a powerful driving force in international politics, as distance tends to act as a barrier to direct aggression. So who is next to whom?
edited 14th Nov '17 8:25:15 PM by DeMarquis
The Best Worst Psychonaut
Guess they are a lot like those countries, now that you mention it - though nation #5 was always intended to be the 'America' of the group, so to speak. This might help me with subtler cultural details.
Since you asked, these nations are all very close to each other. In fact, the first four actually border each other, while the fifth is across a passage of water about the width of the Meditteranean Sea. Given how this is all taking place in post-apocalyptica, the known world has gotten much 'smaller' than we're used to, shall we say.
While we're making historical comparisons, I figured that Nations 1 and 3 would be similar to the Union and the Confederacy, respectively, during the American Civil War. In the sense that the Confederacy, IIRC, saw slavery as an economic necessity, which played into their secession. The situation is much the same here, as 3 used to be a part of 1 before seceding when 1 decided to abolish slavery. 2 also used to be a part of 1 a while back before striking out on their own when they realised they could get away with it (and they were the richest part of the country by far). However, 2 and 3 also had a bit of a historical rivalry when they were still united, possibly even more heated than their opposition to 1 - part of the reason why 2 pushed for independence was because 3 got it, so why shouldn't they?
Speaking of rivalries, 5 had a rivalry with 1 back when it was still one whole country, and it's an Open Secret that they're backing 2 in the hopes that they might grow more powerful after the war's over - so your assessment was right on the mark. :P
Meanwhile, 4 used to be an uninhabited backwater that none of the other three were interested in, until the collective underclasses and exiles of those three set up shop there, specifically for this reason. The harsh geography is a big difficulty for them.
edited 15th Nov '17 4:36:24 PM by PresidentStalkeyes
"If you think like a child, you will do a child's work."
So, continuing on from the Schizo Tech post-apocalyptic RPG setting I spoke of in my last thread here, I've established in my mind that this game takes place across four different nations that don't trust each other very much and are very likely to go to war with each other. Without wishing to go into too much detail, the four nations are:
With all this in mind, I'm wondering what the economic climate might be like here and how it might affect the lives of the average traveller between these nations - ergo, the player character. In particular, the state that each nation's currency would be in, as I understand the 'role' that a state plays would affect its currency.
"If you think like a child, you will do a child's work."