A suggestion for a new economic model

Civ 5? Some mod to civ 4? I dunno... Anyhow, here's the idea:

The "commerce" generated in civ 3 is illogical. Why do I get richer just by virtue of having a lake next to my city? And why do I have to spend the money I earnt there in the same city? Seems illogical to me...

Wealth of a civilization
We should consider the wealth of a civilization as a whole when determining the per-turn budget.
After all, it is really this which determines how much tax can be collected. This wealth will affect happiness (if your citizens are wealthier than their neighbours they will be happy). If you overspend your per-turn bugdet, however, the people will be angry!

So, where does this wealth come from?
Dig it up
Gold and silver mines - the old fashioned method
Trade
You automatically trade all resources that you have (apart from any which you have specified) with all of the civilizations which you have contact with, are not at war with and do not have a trade embargo on. The value of these resources increases with demand (the total size of those civs who need to buy this resource) and decrease with supply (the number of civs they are able to buy the resource from). Each resource traded per turn increases your wealth. Of course, each you have to buy decreases it...
Get it from your opponents
Need I explain?

That sounds a bit complicated...
Actually there would be less micromanagement than with the current system - having to negotiate trade deals for each resource with each civ every 20 turns? No thanks. With this system, you only have to specify which resources you don't want to trade and to whom, and that only once (or whenever you change your mind). Perhaps strategic resources will not be traded by default?

Won't the large, rich civs get ahead and stay ahead?
What, like they do now? Actually, not so much. It would only take a newly discovered civ that had 5 or 6 resources that they didn't have and they'd be sucked dry.

My idea was also quite simple. For each city, 1 food point=X gpt and 1 hammer=X*2 gpt. Roads and rail worked by granting a bonus shield or hammer to improved tiles-depending on the tile improvement (thus increasing the amount of money the tile was worth).
In addition, each city had an inbuilt 'wealth', based on its population and demographics. So a size 3 city, comprised almost entirely of civil servants and entertainers would have an equivalent wealth to a size 6 city comprised entirely of workers and/or farmers. Commercial improvements in a city would ALSO boost that city's wealth. Wealth would be used to multiply the BASE value of food and hammers. Bonus, Strategic and Luxury resources would ALSO add food and/or hammers to the square, whilst also boosting the base value of those food/hammers. So, a gold resource might multiply the value of hammers in that tile by 5, wheras silver might boost them by 4.
Each city would automatically tithe a % of its income to the national treasury, dependant on tech/organistion level. However, a player could raise or lower this tithe on a city by city basis (boosting/decreasing health and happiness accordingly).
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

We have to give credit to the current model in that it is easy to understand what is going on, and it is easy to control. It is similar to almost every other stratagy game -> you "mine" gold. Unforntunately it is not realistic, and does not allow civilizations to play peacefully.

My problem with Gangor's idea is that you can't really see what is happening. It seems that you make or loose money based on luck(?) each turn. How would you be able to "see" that a civ is sucking you. Also why would you ever want to stop trading rescources with a player? It seems that that would help them. Also it seems that bigger is still better in order to get gold. I might not be understanding your system properly but it seems that you have removed the players ability to CONTROL their economy. Also some people would end up with a negative income even before adding unit costs, building costs, science etc

Aussie_Lurker, your idea isn't much different to the system that civilization currently uses. If your bigger you still have a bigger economy, even if everyone in the world has a trade embargo with you. Also I don't understand why specialist units have a higher base value. Do policemen somehow add bundles of money to the city tressury.

I'm sure I've only seen a handfull of the economic ideas out there, we all agree something needs to change, but of the ones I've seen none work better than the currnet mining gold method.

I haven't really come up with an economic theory myself. But i have had an idea for trade multipliers which i will copy to this post so that you can rip it to bits like I just did to you. Feel free to debate my responce, cause I might not undersatnd your systems 100%.

Trade Multiplier: Trading rescources increases the income of the home city of that rescorse by a given factor (say 1.5). This is a very simple and quick way to fix the economy. An Example:

Civ A is an aggressive civ which has expanded to include 18 highly productive cities. Civ B is a more peacefull civ with a much smaller empire or 10 cities.

Civ A, not trade cause no one likes them
Capitol - 50g
City A - 30g
2 x City B - 20g
4 x City C - 10g
10 x City D - 5g
Total: 210g

Civ B, trades cause people like them
Capitol - 40g + Silks (1.5x)
City A - 30g + Iorn (1.5x)
2 x City B - 10g
6 x City C - 5g + Oil (1.5X) + ivory (1.5x) (total 2.25x)
Total: 120, with trade multiplier: 193

Although this is an oversimplified example (no civ of 10 cities has that much trade), we can se that being friendly is no longer the "handy-cap" it used to be. It's quick to implement, uses "sugar" rather than "vinigar", its not complex (almost no aditional micromanagement). It would require some balancing though. Using this system it is still alright to be a war mongurer as well.

How about the idea of having a Stock Market, which is basically an economic histograph, and how much money you earn is supplemented by how well you compare to other civs. This would allow for real economic competition between you and other nations, measured on a real scale.

Its not that policemen necessarily put 'more money in the treasury', its just that a civil servant or wealthy executive has more disposable income to spend on the goods which flow into that city.
There ARE key differences between my system and the existing one. In the existing one, certain squares grant you income, and some don't-yet this seems to have almost NO relationship to what the square produces. In my system, a square which produces 4 hammers earns the city a lot more than a square which produces only 1.
Also, a city's Wealth is more dependant on its size/population than the income of its inhabitants. So a size 20 city will generate more cash for its food and hammers than a size 8 city, even if the latter city has NOTHING but corporate executives in it.

So, to summarise my ideas:
1) Each Hammer, Food, Culture Point and Beaker a city 'generates' produces X gpt.
2) This base value is multiplied by the city's wealth-which is based on size, demographics, culture AND the number of commercial improvements in the city.
3) Building improvements on tiles brings in additional hammers/food and/or boosts the value of those which are already being collected.
4) Building roads and rail increases the number of food and/or hammers which are brought in from that tile.
5) The value of the hammers/food brought in from a tile are boosted by the presence of a specific resource.
6) Money earned from the local 'trade' of goods goes into the city treasury, where it gets (a) tithed to the national treasury, (b) is used to cash rush units and improvements, (c) is used to pay maintainance of city and tile improvements, (d) is used to purchase food and/or hammers from the national pool.
7) How RICH a city is determines how much an invader gets if said city is captured.

So, that pretty much sums it up. I hope that convinces you Meleager !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I especially like meleager's trade multiplier idea. It increases the value of seeking and promoting trade, and approximates the benefits of trade to a society (efficiency, access to new goods, etc.) that could make peaceful civs more viable, if not just by making war more of a relative economic sacrifice.

Meleager said:

My problem with Gangor's idea is that you can't really see what is happening. It seems that you make or loose money based on luck(?) each turn.

Click to expand...

Effectively, it's a function of your civ's size, how many resources you control and how exclusive that control is (ie do other civs have access to that resource). Rather easily manipulated by war or colonization. And a decent trade report would make it pretty transparent, too.

How would you be able to "see" that a civ is sucking you.

Click to expand...

Via the trade report.

Also why would you ever want to stop trading rescources with a player?

Click to expand...

Not giving the Romans Iron, perhaps?

It seems that that would help them.

Click to expand...

Each resource has another purpose, remember: Health, Happiness or Building options

Also it seems that bigger is still better in order to get gold.

Click to expand...

Well, the bigger your civ, the more demand there is for resources, and thus the more you must pay for resources you buy. Also, a larger civ will be more in need of the benefits given by the resources and thus can less afford to not import one.

I might not be understanding your system properly but it seems that you have removed the players ability to CONTROL their economy.

Click to expand...

I hadn't actually discussed that yet. I would invisage this being largely done with civics, and adjustible science/culture rates, perhaps on a per-city basis.

some people would end up with a negative income even before adding unit costs, building costs, science etc

Click to expand...

Perhaps a negative change to their civilization's wealth, but the per-turn budget would be based on that total wealth, so it would always be positive.

Thankyou Gangor and Aussie_Lurker, that explains your systems so much better. However I still have one issue: Just like in the current Civilization Ecomonic Model Bigger is still better.
Let me explain,
In Aussie_lurker's Model:
1) (your point 1, 3-5)The gold that they produce comes from the ground, meaning that territory (still) = wealth
2) (point 2) dessigned to prevent the above point it seems. My problem is a smaller peace full civilization would have to have a much higher population in order to get as much gold as a larger (less populated) civilization. However scince all cities effectively grow the same way (yess I know there is some things a player can do to change this) it means that the little civilization would never be populated enough to match the war mongers. I simply don't feel it is enough to reduce the peacfull civilizations hani-cap. If you can do that then I think I would be more inclined to support your system which is good otherwise.

In Gangors Idea,
1) The more resources you have = the more gold you have. Regardless to relations with other players.
2) Scine territory = rescources, territory (still) = gold.

Now, whilst in my system it is true that territory = base gold, smaller civilizations have a chance to catch up by being liked by the international community. (The idea here is that if you are not liked, people will not trade with you). War Mongers (like myself) can still be powerful, but peace full civilizations are still in the game.

I would very much like to a see a model in which the quality of an economy can easily make up for a lack of quantity. In other words, a model that considers the basic economic problem of supply and demand, and which is necessarily far more complex (not more complicated) than the current system.

Micromanagement is always a concern, so the key to an effective economic model is one that limits the player to making strategic and systemic decisions, and leave the game engine to calculate and run the details according to such decisions. Also, the economic model should be elegant, with very few ground rules, but complex in that those basic ground rules can generate a vast number of possible outcomes. That way, the player only has to bother with the learning curve for the ground rules, and then intuitively figure out the rest. It is for this reason that I tend to dislike multipliers, roads generating trade, or other artificial abstractions that would make little sense to someone not already playing the game.

Trade-peror, I agree. Quality must be just as important as Quantity. However I have yet to see (or think of) an idea which does this without adding too much micromanagement, removing players control of the economy, or making the economy a "consept" rather than something you can really see and manpulate.

If anyone has any good ideas for creating an economy like this, I will gladly look over them.

Meleager said:

In Gangors Idea,
1) The more resources you have = the more gold you have. Regardless to relations with other players.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're at war there'll obviously be less trade. Also if you upset a civ enough, perhaps they'll be willing to sign an embargo against you with one of your enemies...

2) Scine territory = rescources, territory (still) = gold.

Click to expand...

It all depends which territory you take. Getting a monopoly would give you a serious advantage. Likewise, colonizing many parts of the world and getting some of many resources would also be a sound plan.

Now, whilst in my system it is true that territory = base gold, smaller civilizations have a chance to catch up by being liked by the international community. (The idea here is that if you are not liked, people will not trade with you). War Mongers (like myself) can still be powerful, but peace full civilizations are still in the game.

Click to expand...

Except you're replacing crafty diplomacy with "being nice to everyone", are you not?

Trade-peror said:

I would very much like to a see a model in which the quality of an economy can easily make up for a lack of quantity. In other words, a model that considers the basic economic problem of supply and demand, and which is necessarily far more complex (not more complicated) than the current system.

Click to expand...

This is effectively what my suggestion aims to achieve. It includes supply and demand (albet in a rather simplistic way), and it rewards cleverness: consider, if you are the first civ on your continent to discover another distant continent (and it's resources) you are effectively the middleman. You can probably buy your resources from several of the civs on the other continent, but you'll be the sole supplier to your continent!

This is actually quite a good thread, lots of discussion

@Gangor, If one civilization embargoes you what is to stop your rescources from simply going to another civilization automatically. Alot of civilizations would have to have trade embargoes to have any real effect.

Gangor said:

It all depends which territory you take. Getting a monopoly would give you a serious advantage. Likewise, colonizing many parts of the world and getting some of many resources would also be a sound plan.

Click to expand...

Never the less territory = gold. And how is this version of strategic rescource control better than the current model.

Gangor said:

Except you're replacing crafty diplomacy with "being nice to everyone", are you not?

Click to expand...

I will give you that one. Maybe I should have replace "being nice to evryone" with "creating the impression of being nice to everyone" or something like that. Whilst I admit that I may have to have another look at the diplomatic side of my economy, my basic idea still stands.

Another think I thought of regarding you economic model is that it attempts to reflect the idea of exports / imports. With more exports being better. However this is not nessesarily true. Most western countried (my home country included) have a trade defisit, and yet they make up most of the worlds money. In your model they would be broke. However countries like china, and arab nations (export oil) are still relatively poor. Even though they are raking in money through exports. Your idea only reflects one part of real life economy, but doesn't relflect the ideas of buisness etc

Well, Meleager, you may be interested in my Unified Economic Theory (UET II) thread. I admit that it is quite an old thread and that some of the details for implementation I no longer advocate, but the general idea is there. It may seem long and complicated, but I think you will be able to see that there are only a few basic mechanisms that constantly reappear as motifs throughout the entire proposal.

(Also, don't expect to be able to get through the thread in one sitting! )

Gangor said:

This is effectively what my suggestion aims to achieve. It includes supply and demand (albet in a rather simplistic way), and it rewards cleverness: consider, if you are the first civ on your continent to discover another distant continent (and it's resources) you are effectively the middleman. You can probably buy your resources from several of the civs on the other continent, but you'll be the sole supplier to your continent!

Click to expand...

This aspect of your idea does have some potential. However I have yet to see a way in which you plan to stop all the other nations on your continent trading directly with them (and it seems that this would be done automatically anyway). Besides your model wouldn't work simply because at the start no one has any money to buy rescources with.

I do like the idea of supply and demand and using it strategically. However I have yet to see (or come up with) an idea that I think will work.

@Gangor, I had a quick read over some of you Unefied Ecomonic Theory 2 and whilst I don't think I will discuss it here I will say that I like the general Idea, I just think it is too complicated.

What we really need to do is combine some of our ideas. I like some parts of your system, and some parts of Aussie_lurkers system. We need to find a way to put them together. Actually I think I will start a new tread on this.

Ok i have set up a new tread for creating a combined economic model here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2831482#post2831482

Actually, Maleagor, I did not give you the ENTIRETY of my model. I have considered the 'bigger=better' problem in relation to the economic model.
This is how I propose the solution:

1) Wealth is partly based on demography, creating a more 'affluent' citizen requires converting him/her to a specialist (eg Tax collector, scientist, entertainer etc). However, this specialist means fewer people to bring in the more lucrative hammers and food (and probably requiring them to be 'imported' from other cities). This means that it is the overall composition of the city which determines how much net income it can generate.
2) The roads, rail and other terrain improvements required to bring in additional hammers/food COST gpt. Taken together, though, this all means that it is the overall QUALITY of the tile worked, rather than the sheer number, which is important.
3) The tech level and organisation of a civ determines the distance-from the capital-at which a city can reasonable export or import its goods. At low techs, a high % of goods transported would actually fail to arrive-particularly over long distances-making it important for early cities to be more self sufficient, wheras at higher techs, cities can become increasingly specialised.
The issue, though, is that very large nations will have to wait longer for their more distant cities to become more specialised (due to wastage)-not to mention the much higher infrastructure (road, rail and ports) cost that said nation has to pay!!

Again, I hope that helps to clarify things.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Meleager said:

@Gangor, I had a quick read over some of you Unefied Ecomonic Theory 2

Click to expand...

Just for clarification, Gangor's model and the Unified Economic Theory are not the same, although there are some similarities.

Anyway, I also want to point out that this would be primarily a Civ5 discussion, since I doubt the Civ4 economic model will be changing much anymore.