Considering the CIV series is one of the few games that doesn't insist you warmonger your way to victory, there should really be more emphasis on the economy. I don't have it very thought out but simply more control over banks and the markets, and more indepth trading. This would also open opportunity for more variations in government: Democracy give you less control while Fascism and commuinism gives you total control.

Hi Kudos,

I understand what you are getting at, and I do agree with you in principle! In some ways, though, I think it should be possible to have LESS control over your economy!! The current game assumes an almost 'Soviet-like' State-controlled market-irrespective of your government type.
My idea is that, as you build specific improvements-like marketplaces, guilds, banks etc-you increase the amount of 'private-sector influence'! You can also increase it further via your social engineering settings! This will have the benefit of improving your economy, but comes at a 'cost' of increased Private sector 'wealth' and a higher chance of Private Sector reps coming to you seeking access to resources, techs, improvements, tax breaks etc. They can use what you give them to: make money, trade to other civs, build improvements, research techs, seek out new resources and the like! In my system, your private sector operates much like a seperate nation WITHIN your nation-giving the potential of having a WHOLE sector of your economy which is not within your direct control! You could, of course, eliminate PSI altogether, but this could potentially increase unhappiness AND harm your economy!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I really would like to see a Civ where economy matters.

Where you can have the world's largest economy while having quite small borders.

Where having a huge economy within small borders can buy you whatever you want -- the best military, the best quality of life, or simply economic dominance.

And, above all, where you can win with any single one of the above (military, quality of life, or economic prosperity).

I like your ideas about the private sectors emerging with markets and banks or maybe all economic improvements Aussie, I hope it gets implemented somehow. Epic I agree with you too but you probably already knew that since we have both been advocating the point (for a long time now) that it should be possible to have the smallest nation with the best economy, military, production or social structure.

That's really all I want from the economy -- any system that accomplishes that would be tremendous, in my mind. Waging a "virtual" expansion by growing your economy, as opposed to a real expansion (that's why they call it real estate).

Hope there's someone out there who cares about this, too.

You make a VERY good case, DH_Epic, and this is why I feel that the model I present above, in part alleviates this discrepancy! It is the one area where the Civ series has continuously fallen over (in what is otherwise a BRILLIANT FRANCHISE though, might I say ;) :)!!) Just look at RL-the Soviet Union after WWII was a great deal larger than the United States, yet today the Soviet Union is no more, but the US still stands! Why, because the Private Sector was wealthy and powerful enough to really stimulate the nations entire economy which, in turn, allowed the US government to grow its military to vast sizes, buy large amounts of mfg'd and luxury goods for the people, subsidise un-profitable sections of its economy and to buy-off innumerable smaller nations ;)! The Soviet Union, however, in spite of the huge land mass it covered, had a staltified economy, and one which collapsed when it tried to Keep pace with US military build-ups! In the Civ system, though, the Soviet Union would have won the cold war HANDS DOWN!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

You make a VERY good case, DH_Epic, and this is why I feel that the model I present above, in part alleviates this discrepancy! It is the one area where the Civ series has continuously fallen over (in what is otherwise a BRILLIANT FRANCHISE though, might I say ;) :)!!) Just look at RL-the Soviet Union after WWII was a great deal larger than the United States, yet today the Soviet Union is no more, but the US still stands! Why, because the Private Sector was wealthy and powerful enough to really stimulate the nations entire economy which, in turn, allowed the US government to grow its military to vast sizes, buy large amounts of mfg'd and luxury goods for the people, subsidise un-profitable sections of its economy and to buy-off innumerable smaller nations ;)! The Soviet Union, however, in spite of the huge land mass it covered, had a staltified economy, and one which collapsed when it tried to Keep pace with US military build-ups! In the Civ system, though, the Soviet Union would have won the cold war HANDS DOWN!!!


To add to your point, Germany and Japan, real-world economic powerhouses, would be wiped out in civ world.

Very good point, Khan! I should note though that making your nation an Economic Powerhouse through stimulating your private economy shouldn't just bring benefits, but must also carry risks-for both realism and gameplay balance reasons!!!

Firstly, the more PSI you have, the much less control you have over your economy! This could mean trade deals with countries you wish to have nothing to do with, or having to buy shields, food, resources and technology from your own people!!
Secondly, increased PSI brings a risk of increased Waste and Corruption, an increased risk of economic downturns and depressions, and greater penalties if you refuse the requests/demands of the private sector!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

OK, I have found other ways to disconnect wealth from empire size:

1) In another post http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96853 I have discussed a very different way to do energy! In this system, a number of improvements have their effectiveness imcreased by being 'electrically powered', as well as certain improvements NEEDED 'electrical power' to operate. These factors have the overriding effect of boosting a city's and, therefore, a nation's, wealth! Thus a small industrialised nation connected to a 'power grid' will be much wealthier, on average, than a non-industrialised one-irrespective of the latters size!

2) In the economic model I presented in the UET, a cities wealth, amongst other things, is tied to its size! So half a dozen very large cities will create a wealthier nation than a dozen or more small cities (hopefully this will help to limit ICS even more!)

3) Another method which could be used is to give a city a 'base maintainance cost'! Add to this a much smaller cost based on population and, once again, quality will be of greater significance than quantity!

4) The easiest one is to add a maintainance cost to roads and rail! After all large empires require a LOT of connective infrastructure which, in turn requires a lot of money! This way smaller empires can become very well by having tight little amounts of road/rail connecting their 6-12 cities! This would be even more important if you had more gradual types of networks, with ever increasing costs per turn (so a road in the Classical era will cost less to maintain than its late middle ages counterpart!!)

If all of these ideas were combined, then we would truly have a new route to victory, and one that in no way rewards ruthless expansionism throughout the game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I really would like to see a Civ where economy matters.

Where you can have the world's largest economy while having quite small borders.

Where having a huge economy within small borders can buy you whatever you want -- the best military, the best quality of life, or simply economic dominance.

And, above all, where you can win with any single one of the above (military, quality of life, or economic prosperity).


That is exactly what I meant. You should be able to be the number 1 economic power in the world and be no bigger than Japan.

Emphasis on the economy, and allowing builders to compete against warmongers through economic warfare and manipulation, as opposed to militaristic expansion, is the idea behind the UET II (thanks to Aussie_Lurker and dh_epic for contributing ideas!). Although I have not directly posted the effects of the UET II on economics and diplomacy, the possibilities should be evident in the basic model that I lay out. If you are interested, please visit the link in my signature for the UET II.

And, yes. A civ should be able to dominate the global economy but be only as large as Japan (or Britain, in its heyday).

Yeah, I think this would make for a tremendously more realistic AND strategic game. Japan and Germany would be nothing in Civ, and the USSR would certainly have won the cold war.

2) In the economic model I presented in the UET, a cities wealth, amongst other things, is tied to its size! So half a dozen very large cities will create a wealthier nation than a dozen or more small cities (hopefully this will help to limit ICS even more!)


This is already the case in Civ3, even in terms of military maintenance.

Having said that i agree with you and dh_epic regarding economic power and size. Civ3 requires too much expansion from players.