The Unified Economic Theory, 2nd Edition

Not getting off-topic, however, it is not necessarily related directly to UET.

I would like to see industry structures. For instance, the base unit could be riflemen (or infantry). This would mean that whatever becomes this would be the base unit for earlier ages. In order to produce any other units, you would have to build a structure allowing those units. In addition, you could make it that these structures automatically produce units at a fixed rate (for instance 1 horseman every 5 turns) and have a significant upkeep. If the owning player no longer wishes to produce the 'specialty' unit, he could stand down the structure to a lower cost or sell it to the city for a one-time benefit of gold.

This would much better simulate the actual production of nations in wartime footing. If you want tanks, you have to have tank factories, if you want bombers-bomber factories, etc. The only units you would get to build or draft would be the base units (e.g. spearmen, pikemen, musketmen, riflemen, infantry). All other units would have to come from the production structures. Making the upkeep of the structures a significant cost would prevent most players from trying to build all structures in all cities (they simply can't afford it!).

WOW!

What a wealth of responses! I will start from the beginning and try to answer all posts, although this may take several installments. Please be patient with me!


@dh_epic and ShadowWarrior:

You bring up a good point in mentioning that this intriguingly complex model would be unmanageable without a sleek interface and careful implementation. This is true, and I have thought about this, however, and my answer is that the player will only be responsible for the "big picture." In other words, the computer will take care of the actual, individual trades and deals, but only in the circumstances the player provides. The way the computer will figure the optimal combination (and I have thought about this process, which will not be as complex as it seems after I explain it later with a Comprehensive Example) will not be an advantage for the AI, because the player must use it as well. The difference lies in how the AI decides to allow these trades to happen compared to the way the human player allows trading to happen. Let the computer take care of the details and figure out the optimal combinations; but let the rulers decide how much configuring is possible.


@Sir Schwick:

As I read your introduction, I notice that you have grasped one concept that will make the UET II much more manageable than it seems--most of the details are calculated behind the screens. The player needs to worry only about broad policy, and the AI will have no advantage in its ability to work out optimal combinations, since that is not the player's responsibility and wil be handled automatically by the "private sector."

As for your market definitions, I agree with all of them, but I would like to add that I define the maximum distance in movement points, so two cities sufficiently close even WITHOUT roads may still be considered connected. In addition, researching technology that increases the effects of roads, as well as upgrading them to railroads, will benefit trade.

The trading and resource ideas are adequate simplifications that I would be content to see in the next Civ, but they do not represent what I regard as ideal. But realistically, I would not mind Sir Schwick's simplified UET for Civ4 at all!


@EddyG17:

Very true! The UET II does indeed allow for the physical presence of trade routes (which I shall explain in greater depth later), and guarding these trade routes is critical.

I am glad that you understand that I implied that cities will have their "own" treasuries. This is essential for the concept of taxation, which I shall post shortly.

In addition, railroads will NOT have infinite movement points. I currently imagine them to be using 1/9 or 1/10 of a movement point. That detail can be refined later, however.


@dh_epic:

I consider trade routes to be a byproduct of trade, rather than something that is manually and deliberately constructed. I do think there are many exciting possibilities with your system, however, so I will see if I can work them into the model I am currently considering. I will be posting the section relating to trade routes soon, hopefully.


@ybbor:

As EddyG17 has mentioned, the city treasuries are independent of the central government. This will make more sense when I post the section on Taxation.


@Colonel Kraken:

I have played Caesar III (which is similar to Pharaoh, and, by the way, 1602 A.D.) and I think that model is excellent as an approximation of economic effects, but not necessarily the actual flow of the economy itself. Please allow me to explain:

If mere access to a greater variety of commodities will create a wealthier class, what intuitive limit exists to prevent one unit of commodity from enriching large numbers of citizens? Such a (currently hypothetical) situation would not be reasonable, especially if it made no difference whether 1 or 100 units of a commodity were available to a market.

I believe you noted, however, that I mentioned that a greater variety of food commodities, regardless of amount, would increase happiness. I am not refuting myself, however, because the happiness benefit is immaterial, and therefore can be considered qualitative. With variety increasing the wealth of citizens, however, is mixing the qualitative aspect of variety with the quantitative aspect of actual wealth.

For example, a more Pharoah-istic model might have a city of 5 with 3 types of food have 3 wealthy citizens. This means that the wealth of the city has incresaed by 3. Yet if the actual food is considered, how can 5 Wheats be considered greater wealth than 2 Wheats, 2 Fish, and 1 Cattle? The answer obviously depends upon the prices of each commodity. But that theoretically means that with the greater variety, the wealth might actually decrease, if the Wheat cost more than both fish and cattle. If all food prices are uniform, then 5 of any food is just as valuable as 5 of any other combinatinon of food. These quantitative concerns have led me to having greater variety increase happiness (proportionally), so that the benefit of greater variety remains, but the quantiative loopholes with calculating wealth are eliminated.


Anyway, time runs short for me, so I will continue this discussion with you a little later, Colonel Kraken. Even though I have highlighted a possible shortfall, your model still has many benefits that I would hope to work into the UET II model.

I find the food ideas intriguing. I don't think that game found on a tundra square should run out/convert to farm since that wouldn't be consistent with real usage of tundra. If there is game on a non-tundra forest tile, there should be a chance that the game will run out each turn after the forest is cleared. If it is left as forest, the animals should stay.

Chocolate (cacao) should be added as a luxury/food.

@Colonel Kraken:

I am glad that you find my food diversity idea appealing. I had two purposes behind it--allow for more robust trade through increasing the variety of commodities available, and through encouraging economic diversification.

I was thinking of dividing the food types by terrain, so that terrain diversity would be beneficial, and eventually no particular terrain would necessarily be "better" than another. (By the way, I also decided upon shield diversity to solve the problem of Civ players always eventually cutting down every tree in sight).

I like the idea of worked tiles automatically building tile improvements such as roads, irrigation, and mines over time. Although the worker should still be able to perform such functions, they would only be used in special cases, since it would be a waste of effort to manual build if it will automatically happen.

I also agree that technology should improve productivity, although the amount and whether upgrades are necessary are debatable.

As for the player choosing tiles to work, I think it should be possible, but be rather costly, since it would be a forced moving by the central government. While I will better explain my Urban Sprawl model in a later section, I will simply mention, for the moment, that the player would order a citizen on the map to "unsettle," move the citizen to the desired location, and then "settle" to begin working the tile. Clearly such moves would waste at least 2 turns that could otherwise have been productive for a particular citizen. In addition, tile improvements built by citizens but then abandoned when the citizen moved out would begin to deteriorate after a number of turns from lack of maintenance. Only manually constructed improvements will not deteriorate even when not worked, because they will incur a small maintenance fee!


@sir schwick:

The idea of gaining culture through trade is an excellent idea! I do not necessarily think it should be limited to "luxuries," however, because luxury status has been quite relative throughout history. (Is salt as valuable today as the salarium of ancient Rome? Likely not.)


@rcoutme:

The idea of production facilities is one of the main features that distinguishes the UET II from the first UET. I am surprised and glad that you have already picked that up! I will include more detail in a section later.


@ManofMiracles:

With what I currently have in mind, no resource would be exhaustible (the rare exceptions, such as oil, may be discussed perhaps later). Therefore, Tundra would provide Game for as long as the forest survived. In fact, it would be a specialty of tundra--food from Grasslands would be Rice (?) and food from Plains would be Wheat, so the Game from Tundra would actually be quite valuable if it was in much smaller supply than Rice or Wheat. The same applies for shield production--only Forests can supply Wood, so they are still valuable in the face of more plentiful Stone from Hills or Mountains.

I ran out of space on the original summary post, so here are the rest of the sections:

VII. Culture

A. Levels of Culture
The levels of culture in a civ depend upon the levels of population organization in the civ. For example, a civ with only villages a few cities would have only some local and mostly national culture, while a civ with villages organized into cities organized into provinces would have local, regional, and national culture. Having more levels of culture, however, does not increase the actual amount of culture in a civ; having more levels simply increases the cultural resilience of components of the civ when threatened by other cultures.

B. Source of Culture
The fundamental source of all culture is the urban infrastructure of a civ, specifically the City Improvements that generate culture and the Wonders. The placement and concentration of these buildings ultimately determine the cultural patterns of a civ.

C. Culture and Trade
Trade is critical not only for the wealth it produces but also for its ability to spread a civ’s culture to other cultures. When a foreign culture consumes the products of a civ, then the foreign culture becomes more tolerant toward the civ’s culture, a factor that can make cultural domination, diplomatic relations, and even military conquest easier.

D. Culture and the Military
Since all units are derived from the population, and all population units have culture, military units also carry the cultures of the population from which they were recruited. When dealing with foreign civs, this usually only involves national cultures, but stationing troops to quell rebellions or resistance in provinces or cities of the same civ can involve exchanges of local and regional culture. In any case, culture spread through the military, unlike trade, does not always increase toleration. Generally, if a military unit’s culture is stronger than that of the culture the unit is occupying or suppressing, then the military unit’s culture will become more tolerable to those conquered. If the occupied population’s culture is stronger, then there will be significant resistance, both militarily and culturally, against the military unit. One important exception to these two rules is when a military unit pillages or otherwise destroys improvements or any part of the population being occupied--in these cases, the victimized population will also resist.

E. Cultural Rebellions
When a portion of a civ is sufficiently overwhelmed by a nearby foreign culture, it will attempt to “flip” over to the foreign culture. To do so, this portion rebels against the civ it is currently part of, and as soon as peace is made between them, the rebellious portion becomes a part of the civ that overwhelmed it culturally.

F. Cultural Adherents and Sympathizers
When a nearby foreign culture is stronger than the culture a Village is originally part of, the Village can become tolerant of that culture, and eventually even become an adherent of that foreign culture. In the case of scattered Villages, these adherents would immediately join the admired culture. However, with Villages part of higher administrative organizations such as cities or provinces, the entire city or province must be overwhelmed for a switch of political allegiance, which would involve a Cultural Rebellion. Even with such non-independent Villages, a cultural “conversion” is still possible. In such a situation, the Village would become a “sympathizer” with the foreign culture that it admires, but would remain under the political control of the original civ. Note, however, that war against the admired foreign culture would spark a rebellion among these sympathizers, and any propaganda efforts on the part of the admired foreign culture are much more effective in areas with many sympathizers. Considering such possibilities, these intercultural elements of the population would significantly influence diplomacy.

G. Immigration
When immigrants settle, either in a different part of their native civ or in a different civ, they carry their culture with them. Within a civ, a lot of immigration could promote cultural unity, and with foreign civs a lot of immigration could increase the number of sympathizers in that civ.

VIII. Crime

A. Crime and Economic Conditions
The fundamental cause of crime is unsatisfied demand. This occurs when there is not enough money to purchase needed commodities, and tends to be a result of poor economic conditions in a city. When a city's income and production are too low to supply its population with the goods that it demands, then crime may occur as the products are simply seized. If food is too expensive, crime may occur as food supplies passing through a starving population are seized. In addition, high population density and unemployment contribute to crime. Depending upon the level of trade-related improvements in the city, crime can also damage city infrastructure, resulting in the diversion of funds for repairs.

B. Crime and Markets
With crime, a certain percentage of demanded or traded products are "stolen" and then either consumed or sold. If sold, then these products still affect supply and demand for the concerned commodities, and affect pricing.

C. Crime and Government Regulation
Crime does not affect the net economic activity of a city nearly as much as it affects the ability of the government to regulate trade. The primary distinction between crime and normal trade is that crime is illegal, and that it is therefore not subject to government interference in the form of taxes or regulations. In other words, crime is much more damaging to the government than the population.

D. Crime and Social Disturbances
Crime increases during periods of social turmoil, such as during civil disorder, rebellion, or anarchy.

E. Crime and Citizen Unhappiness
Crime causes unhappiness according to how many citizens are involved in crime, and how many citizens are affected by it. The percentage of affected citizens unhappy is the percentage of the population involved in crime. Usually, this means increasing crime leads to increasing unhappiness; at very high levels, however, unhappiness may actually decrease, as the number of criminals outnumbers the number of non-criminals. The criminals are not distressed by crime!

F. Crime and the Black Market
Crime associated with a particular item is a function of that item's unsatisfied demand. The greater demand that is unfulfilled, the higher the percentage of that product illegally traded. Smuggling is crime that crosses borders. With drug and arms trading, the clients are those citizens with unsatisfied demand for those products, and the suppliers are foreign citizens that produce the desired products and then sell them to the clients. Since the products are most likely banned or otherwise regulated, but are being traded illegally, all of this counts as crime.

G. Reducing Crime
Education, police stations, and courthouses can all decrease the level of crime in a city. The base percentage of criminals in a city is the percentage of traded goods stolen in a city. Education reduces the pool of potential criminals, and police stations and courthouses reduce the percentage of stolen traded goods.

IX. Corruption and Waste

A. Corruption and Government Revenue
Corruption, primarily a function of political efficiency, occurs as a certain percentage of government revenues is diverted. These funds go back into the city, but are only used for illicit purchases. Therefore, corruption contributes to crime.

B. Corruption and Political Conditions
Corruption also increases with civil disorder, rebellion, and anarchy. Since only corruption is directly related to government, distance from capital (and/or Forbidden City) and number of cities only affect corruption.

C. Reducing Corruption
Courthouses and more efficient government forms are the primary ways to reduce corruption; sometimes, reducing the number of tax collectors can also cut down on total corruption, since the percent of taxes siphoned away with corruption is based on the amount of tax each tax collector collects. With an insufficient number of tax collectors, however, tax collection and receipt may become somewhat sporadic.

D. Waste and Economic Output
Waste determines the percentage of base production that is actually successfully manufactured without defects. Regulating waste is therefore important for economic production and activity. In addition, waste can manifest as pollution on squares close to their sources. Although waste is always dumped onto unsettled squares first, too much waste and overpopulation could force waste to be dumped onto settled squares, with social consequences such as health deterioration.

E. Reducing Waste
Waste is primarily a function of technology. Higher technology results in lower waste, although higher education levels can also help.

I don't know if a game like (and on the scale of) Civ can handle (or would want to handle) taxation on several levels or in several different types.

Yet if the actual food is considered, how can 5 Wheats be considered greater wealth than 2 Wheats, 2 Fish, and 1 Cattle?

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me concerning how citizens become wealthy. This is not what happens in Pharaoh. As the variety of food increases (along with more infrastructure and facilities!), wealthier and wealthier citizens move in (and come into existance?). If only wheat is available (no matter the quantity!!), you will not see wealthy citizens. If Wheat and Fish are available, you will see well-to-do citizens. If you have Wheat, Fish, Meat available, some of the wealthiest citizens will be satisfied --and I emphasize: AS LONG AS OTHER FACTORS ARE PRESENT. (entertainment, jewels, beer, education, courts, temples, etc). Blending this concept into Civ, I think, would make the game very interesting.

I'm not saying the model I presented (or from Pharaoh) is optimal, it was just an idea. I believe we are actually on the same page. The idea is simply that wealthier citizens desire a greater variety of commodities (as you suggested!). If these commodities are not available, wealthy citizens will live elsewhere (or not come to exist).

I know this is simplistic and may not benefit us for the Civ game. I don't like, however, merely having more variety of commodities only affect happiness. I think it would be interesting to make it necessary for there to be a variety of food and an influx of luxuries (and access to desired facilities, entertainment, etc!) in order for a city to maintain (and attract!) wealthy citizens. I think that would just add a wonderful richness (no pun intended) to the game.

I'm liking the ideas that are coming out, here. And yet, I can't help but think that many tax rates would really mess up the game. Would it be any less complicated if there were three modes for any resource / luxury?

- free market
- taxed
- illegal

So you could tax greek silks, or all greek luxuries, or all foreign silks. You could tax tobacco within your own borders, and make all opium illegal.

And because these laws change so very little in reality (although the tax rate varies a lot, which we make no distinction over) it would be the kind of thing you could decide on once and leave alone for centuries.

Or is this still too complicated?

@Colonel Kraken:

Sorry for misstating the Pharoah link (it just shows how long I have not played it…), but I think you have grasped the essential problem I have with that model anyway—the fact that wealthy citizens “move in” upon supplying food variety and other accommodations. While this works well within the context of Pharaoh or Caesar III, where the player is controlling one city out of many, in Civ what the players have IS all there is in the world (barbarians are a different matter for a different discussion).

I do agree that wealthier citizens demand greater amenities and will move to where such amenities are available if the need arises for them. I will discuss this further when I post my section on immigration.

Anyway, I think ultimately we have something very similar in mind. It may simply seem that we are currently thinking in different directions simply because I have not quite decided how I want demographics to be worked in yet. Notice I have yet to say anything about citizens being designated as “wealthy” or “poor” or any other class. This will require some thought. Any new suggestions, even as I consider your current ones, are welcome!


@dh_epic:

It seems as if I have not presented my taxation concept correctly, for I think I have confused you (and Colonel Kraken as well). Please allow me to clarify.

There basically will only be one tax rate, most likely the income tax, but the other taxes and their rates are there if the player wishes to derive more revenue. In addition, the option of having the specialized taxes gives players another tool to influence conditions for their civs. It is perfectly possible (and probably much safer) that players maintain a single, reasonable tax rate and then spend accordingly, rather than invite fiscal chaos and economic instability with wild and impulsive tax policies. Yet in emergencies, players may find special taxes to be invaluable. In any case, I think more gameplay options, especially for experimentation, would enhance the strategic depth of Civ.

Here is some elaboration on my taxation concept:

VIII. Taxation
As trade occurs between cities, local populations generate and accumulate wealth. This wealth may be taxed by the central government through a number of taxes of various rates. While the income tax is the standard tax, there are also population, commodity, and trade taxes to provide additional revenue. Since actual sources of income are targeted in such taxes, robust trade is generally necessary for healthy tax revenues. Heavy taxation will reduce the ability of cities to make purchases, thus damaging the economy, and light taxation will reduce the ability of the central government to make purchases, possibly threatening the maintenance of infrastructure and troops. A balance, adjusting to changing circumstances, would work best.

IX. Tax Collection and Transportation
Tax revenues take time to reach the capital city, and this time depends directly upon the transportation available. Although tax collectors will not be visible on the map, they will essentially be traveling from each city to the capital to deposit their revenues. This process is automatic, but will further encourage improvement of infrastructure, as well as discourage early overexpansion, before proper transportation technologies have been researched.

X. Tax Collectors
The central government may also convert citizens to Tax Collectors, which increase the speed at which tax revenues are collected and deposited at the capital city. An extra Tax Collector in addition to the local tax collectors will double tax traveling speed; two extra Tax Collectors will triple tax travel traveling speed, and so forth.

XI. Tax Collection and Provincial Capitals
Establishing Provincial Capitals may ease tax collection because revenues may be deposited there instead, speeding the collection process. These funds are only usable within the province, however, as opposed to the central treasury that may be used anywhere in the civ. The only way to “transfer” these funds to the central treasury would be through a special provincial tax. Notice that the player fully controls the provincial treasuries as well as the central, so that may not be necessary.

XII. Negative City Accounts
When a city owes tax revenue but has no funds to give, its balance will become negative to indicate that when funds do arrive, they are to be directed toward paying the taxes that the city still owes. With no tax revenues collected, tax collectors would not deposit anything in the provincial or central treasuries, in this situation. For example, a city owing 5 gold but without the funds to do so would have a balance of –5, and the tax collector would have nothing to deposit (since there was nothing to collect). There is no interest, no bonds have been issued—in other words, this “debt” is more of simply a “negative account”—and once the city receives funds, the tax collector will be sent out with the amount owed to restore the account to a positive state.


Here is a portion of Section I. that I would like to add:


I. Resource Production
…
In order to be consumed or exported by the city, the goods have to be delivered there; this causes a delay in the arrival of the goods at the city from the time they were produced. Therefore, far-flung cities should be avoided in the early stages of the game to avoid inefficiency, and improving transportation infrastructure becomes very important.

While I agree that more tax rates offer strategic depth, you have to concede the possibility that many people aren't interested in it, not to mention that players who master it will have an advantage over those who show no interest. Adding more options doesn't give more freedom, to point out the paradox of making gameplay more complex.

I think there needs to be a middle ground for warmongers who just need their economy to roll so they can build troops, not for those who want to build an economic powerhouse.

Your points are well taken, dh_epic. Perhaps some may not find the taxation concept interesting enough to engage their attention. Therefore, possibly having it set as an option might be better (I am beginning to notice how this is proposed to fix just about any problem! )

The fact that players who learn to master this will be better than those who do not does not bother me to any considerable extent, however. Certainly players who have explored their options more extensively and found more tools for success should be thus rewarded. This is the case in all games, in any case, including Civ. If I mastered tech brokering, for example, and competed against a player that did not, then I would certainly have an advantage.

I do understand your point regarding whether the taxation idea is interesting, however. This I do not know, but I for one do not find tech brokering to be particularly entertaining or relevant to the role the player assumes in a game like Civ. Yet rulers, in reality, are expected to have financial policies that include taxation.

By the way, I notice that Civ currently offers no inherent rewards for being a builder, but plenty for being an expansionist warmonger. Might it be too much to include this domestically-aligned concept to start balancing the scales?

Here are some possible sections regarding city improvements:

XIII. Public City Improvements
City Improvements may be constructed either by the central government or by the city itself. Should the construction be funded by the central government, the player may choose the rate at which it will be constructed, with a greater rate resulting in the project purchasing a greater number of shields per turn, and therefore costing more (but generally getting the project completed more quickly). Notice that a greater rate will not guarantee quicker construction, if all available shields have already been purchased. All public city improvements will draw their maintenance fees from the central treasury. The central government is free to sell or upgrade any such facilities, however.

XIV. Private City Improvements
Individual cities may choose to construct city improvements for themselves. In this case, the city will simply allocate any excess shields or excess funds it has to the project. The selected project will generally benefit commerce, education, or happiness, although the player may override and select a project for the city. Once completed, private improvements are maintained by the city, but may also be sold by the city in times of financial crisis, or upgraded when resources are available.

XV. Transferring City Improvements
Control of city improvements may be transferred from the city to the central government or vice versa, according to the player’s directives. Although ownership primarily determines who is to pay the maintenance fee (improvements will benefit the city they are located in, regardless of ownership), it also determines who has the right to sell or upgrade improvements.

Trade-peror, I'd be the first to endorse this idea for its ability to make a "builder" strategy interesting and rewarding... You never hear anyone say "maybe this expansion thing is the wrong strategy". I'd like to see a game where there are multiple equal strategies to win, multiple paths to victory that are equally profitable, with advantages and disadvantages.

But forcing someone to master a strategy that they don't find interesting is a surefire way to lose them, and kill off a huge part of your audience.

The tech trade strategy is annoying, I agree. But it's easy to learn and makes perfect sense right off the bat. The learning curve is very natural. You start when you realize you can make a lot of money off a tech, and move very quickly to "tech brokering".

Forcing the player to grasp the drawbacks and benefits of taxation is not something that comes naturally. Therefore, it has a steeper learning curve. And, for any interface, the steeper the learning curve, the more important it is for the user to be highly motivated to learn. (e.g.: people don't want to have to read a manual to learn how to program their VCR timer, but they WILL spend years mastering photoshop. one is clearly more engaging than the other.)

We need to find something that pleases us without alienating everyone else.

Trying not get off-topic, but I have point out, that these ideas (whether good or not) are questioning some basics of the Civilization. Namely, that there is no real private/autonomic/automated civil sphere in the Civs. All activity is controlled by the player or the AI. so, any radical trade and social reforms in Civ4 - if it is to be more REALISTIC - would mean that thousands of units (caravans, wagons, cargo ships, freight-trains, aircrafts, camions; immigrants, mercenaries) would move autonomusly (either invisible or visible); and dozens of private facilities would appear and disappear independently in your cities. It seems to be hardly available in a turn-based game, which grasps more then 6000 years and the whole world.
Anyway, food diversity, more tile infrastructure and trade routes are very intriguing ideas. i think, the creators of Civ4 should study the system of Caesar III, SimCities and Stronghold. Some parts of the foods variety (and commodities)were already included in SM's Colonization; and some parts of deeper tile infrastructure were included in SM's Alpha Centauri, not mention Civ1 and caravans.
Still, some vital questions are to solve:
immigration,
economic concessions in an other civ's territory,
smuggling,
social circumstances (like the Alpha Centauri's social engineering chart - as in many threads mentioned)
demographics (birth rate is determined by much more factors than food)
interceptable trade routes
raw materials processing facilities (thus making a cities production independent of shield amount in radius).
religion

some of these themes were spoken of here in this thread, but I am afraid, that the programmers won't change the basics of Civ, so leaving the game in a state of command based civilizations.

@dh_epic:

Of course, I must concede that taxation may indeed be uninteresting to some, but I had envisioned it as simply being a tool in time of need. Perhaps if I described the interface a little, this may appear less complicated:

Most likely there would be some kind of advisor in charge of finances, and the tax screen could simply list all the different types of taxes possible in the game, with checkboxes next to each one. In the beginning, only the Income Tax would have a check in the checkbox, and the player can set whatever rate might be suitable for the Income Tax. Perhaps the rate at which it starts is already a good one, so the the player leaves it alone, and does not bother about the rest of the taxes. It is a simple principle that taxes sap money from the cities, and the cities are the ones that fuel the growth of the civ.

If later, a war breaks out, the player may decide to raise the Income Tax level. Should the player also want to limit trading with the offending nation, perhaps a Tariff could be checked and imposed upon that nation's goods, or an Embargo. These measures would allow the player to raise more revenue and to punish enemies.

Or, the player may want to start a massive expansion program. Noticing that the largest cities have overflowing treasuries, the player may check the box next to the population tax, set a rate, and thus fund the construction of improvements in smaller cities.

In any case, taxation really requires very little management, since it is not a constant game concern except in special situations, and the entire procedure is a matter of clicking checkboxes and then setting rates for those checked taxes. There would be some column that would show how much could be raised, and perhaps figures like the treasury amount and current flow of funds would be available for easy comparison and planning.

K.F. Huszár said:

some of these themes were spoken of here in this thread, but I am afraid, that the programmers won't change the basics of Civ, so leaving the game in a state of command based civilizations.

Click to expand...

I think most of us in this thread have this concern as well. We would like to have the issues you bring up be addressed in Civ4 to add more depth to the game. But, I'd dare say, most of which we are discussing here is merely smoke in the wind. I fear also that all the basic tennants of the game (build Settler, make city, build improvements, food=pop, etc.) will remain virtually unchanged and only new "revolutionary" ideas will merely be pasted on top of this. In effect, I see that Civ4 will be "Civ3 Revolutions" or some such, where the new game is merely an expanded and revised version of the first.

Regards,

CK

The UET sounds a bit like the Caesar game series. And yes, that did require a huge about of micromanagement.

Trade-peror said:

@Colonel Kraken:

I think you have grasped the essential problem I have with that model anyway—the fact that wealthy citizens “move in” upon supplying food variety and other accommodations.

I do agree that wealthier citizens demand greater amenities and will move to where such amenities are available if the need arises for them. I will discuss this further when I post my section on immigration.

Notice I have yet to say anything about citizens being designated as “wealthy” or “poor” or any other class. This will require some thought. Any new suggestions, even as I consider your current ones, are welcome!

Click to expand...

As I thing about the matter more deeply, it seems to me (and I had actually considered this as I was writing it out) that you are correct: allowing for wealthy citizens only when there is access to certain amenities is not a good model for Civ.

Certainly, wealth is always a relative matter anyway. Locally one can be considered wealthy, but when compared to those in other societies (or even in the same one), they may not seem wealthy at all.

I think it would be fun and maybe even essential to have this distinction of class or wealth, as it were. Different strata of citizens demand different things and have different expectations --in addition: a more prosperous citizenry brings in more tax revenue. There's an added incentive here to ensure the safety, security, and infrastructure for a prosperous society.

The advantage of a wealthy citizenry is a stronger tax base. The downside is that such citizens have many more expectations and are more difficult to keep happy. This could have a BIG influence on war weariness. Lose the variety of food/luxuries/infrastructure and the citizens became discontent. Having a feudal society may not be as prosperous but it may have the added advantage of having little war weariness. Basically, the ideas that exist now, but in a more hands on, in-depth level.

I'm not sure at this point what game mechanic(s) determine how citizens become wealthy, etc. Perhaps things like Government type, Economy type, infrastructure, trade opportunities, local jewels/precious metals, government policy, etc. I think this sort of thing would bring out a much richer Civ experience, allowing the player to see and understand more clearly the different effects his/her policies and decisions make on the citizenry and the nation as a whole.

Sir Bugsy said:

The UET sounds a bit like the Caesar game series. And yes, that did require a huge about of micromanagement.

Click to expand...

I think the idea here is that we add some of these in-depth concepts to the Civ game without necessarily having the player worry about every aspect of it. While certainly these builder type games come with a lot of complexity, I believe it is merely a result of the narrow scope of the game and not necessarily because the concepts exist.

The ideal, then, is to add some of these concepts in such a way that they add to the Civ experience but do not burden the player in minutae and do not steer the player away from running the nation as a whole.

We could make it like the city-governors in civ.
I didn't know a bout them until i clicked in the green face icon by mistake. (not true)
What I'm trying to say is that at the start of the game every thing will be already set out, tax rates polices, Not too high, not too low. Only if you think you can do a better job than the computer is doing for you then you go ahead and mess around with the financial advisor.