Economy and Trade 'Manifesto'

OK, I'd like to start off by saying that I agree with the post of Trade-peror regarding the trading system. Roads and rivers, instead of directly creating commerce, should be commerce 'multipliers' instead (so a river might give a x2 boost, a road a x3 boost and a RR might be a x4 boost!)
The bulk of income your city generates should be based on the factors listed in Trade-perors thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85582

The other main source of income should be TAXES!!!

1) Have your society broken up into demographics-workers, bureaucrats, wealthy elites, private sector, military etc.

2) Each demographic group will have a certain % of influence, a % happiness and an average earning (in gpt). This last 'trait' determines the amount that group produces at a 100% tax rate.

3) Influence will also increase the base earnings of a demographic group.

4) In your economic screen, you can set a flat income tax rate, which will effect all of the demographic groups. If you double click on this tax slider, it will bring up an ' income tax list' for all demographic groups-which will allow you to adjust each groups tax rate, up or down, according to preference.

5) In addition, within each city screen is a seperate tax slider. It starts at zero, but you can adjust it upwards to increase the tax rate for JUST THAT CITY!

6) Obviously, the more you increase taxes, the more money you recieve-but the more unhappy your people become!

7) Your tax screen will also have other potential tax types:

(i) Luxury taxes: Generates income based on the number of luxury resources you have (internally or via trade). It will reduce, however, the no. of people that each luxury can make happy!

(ii) company tax: Generates income based on the wealth generated by your private sector. The downside to this, though, is that they are likely to try and 'harm' you, in some fashion, for taxing them too much.

(iii) VAT: Generates income based on the number of production shields your civ has. Downside is that production rates are slowed down.

(iv) pollution tax: generates income based on pollution levels. Money comes from two sources-the private sector and increased cost for pollution producing improvements. (Not sure if this is such a great idea!)

Obviously, many of these taxes will only become available as you devlop certain technologies.

For a better understand of the 'Private Sector' see the thread on the private economy at

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84859

The flip side to income, of course, is costs. This is where a budget screen comes in (on the same screen as taxes). Basically, you'd have a series of sliders for different 'sections' of your society-like defense, foreign affairs and trade, industry, welfare, science and education, environment, health-care, law and order and public works.
The base amount that you would have to commit to each section of your budget would be based largely on the maintainance cost of the related improvements. For example, say you have an income of 2500gpt, and you have production improvements which cost a total of 500gpt. This means that you would have to commit a minimum of 20% of your budget to industry. You can commit less, but this will slow your rate of production, and there is a chance of one of your production improvements 'disappearing' each turn (shutting down, blowing up, whatever). In addition, underfunding sections of your budget will lead to increased unemployment, higher crime and corruption or other negative effects. On the plus-side, though, increasing the budget allocation ABOVE the minimum will have additional, positive bonuses, like increased production, less unemployment, greater happiness and the like! Again, it's all about BALANCE.
If you prefer NOT to micromanage your economy, then it should be possible to let the AI 'Treasurer' do it. He will set taxes and allocate resources according to the best acceptable outcome. This can be modified, however, according to demographic influences!

Anyway, just a few thoughts-I'd be interested to get some feedback on this!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Demographics and the Economy:

In CIV, as I’ve mentioned before, I would like to see your civs broken down into its ‘Demographic Components’. This might consist of:

(i) Workers-The backbone of the society. The farmers, miners and factory workers. They have greatest influence in Industrious and Agricultural Civs.

(ii) Middle-Classes-Those who oil the wheels of society. The bureaucrats, financial workers and merchants. They have greatest influence in Commercial and Seafaring civs.

(iii) Wealthy Elite-The ‘ruling classes’ who run society. Entertainers, nobility and Industrialists. They have greatest influence in Commercial and Industrious Societies.

(iv) Religious-Those who soothe the soul of society. Bishops, high-priests and lay-people. They, OBVIOUSLY, have greatest influence in Religious Civs.

(v) Military-Those who defend the Society. The generals, soldiers and strategists. They have greatest influence in militaristic civs-again, Obviously !

(vi) Legal-Those who keep Society safe. The Judges, police and diplomats. They have greatest influence in Commercial and Expansionist Civs.

(vii) Foreign Nationals-Those who don’t quite yet ‘belong’. Their base influence is solely dependant on their numbers, proportional to the rest of the population.

(viii) Environmentalists-Those who want society to Survive. This group don’t appear until ‘Environmentalism’, and their base influence is determined by the level of pollution.

(ix) Criminal-Those who feed off society. They have influence based on the level of corruption and waste in the society.

(x) Scientists-Those who help society to advance. The doctors, educators and researchers. Their influence is greatest in Scientific Civs.

Once you have the base influence you can increase, or decrease, it by your own actions. For instance, if you build a lot of agricultural and industrious improvements, then you will increase the influence of your Workers and, to a lesser extent, that of your Wealthy Elite. Commercial Improvements will lead to an increase in the influence of the Legal class and, again, the Wealthy Elite.
Other factors which would effect influence are:
Resources-Luxury resources increase the influence of the Wealthy Elite, and Strategic Resources increase the influence of the Wealthy Elite and Workers. Bonus agricultural resources increase the influence of Workers, and precious metals increase the influence of the Wealthy Elite.
Terrain Improvements-mines increase the Influence of Workers and the Wealthy, as do farms, colonies increase the influence of Workers and outposts and forts increase the influence of the military.
Specialists-Tax Collectors increase the influence of the Middle-Class. Scientists increase the influence of the Scientific classes. Entertainers increase the influence of the wealthy elite, civil engineers increase the influence of the Workers and Middle-Class. Police increase the influence of the Legal Class.
Units-military units increase the influence of the military. Workers increase the influence of Workers (obviously!)
Diplomatic Agreements-Trade Agreements (resources, gpt, luxuries) increase the influence of Middle-classes. Military Alliances increase the influence of the military, and tech trades increase the influence of the Scientists.
Other factors which can change influence are Government/Religion type, enactment of certain laws, building certain Small and Great Wonders and manual increase/decrease of influence.
As you increase a demographic groups influence, their happiness will increase accordingly, and vice versa.
Essentially in the early game, when you have governments with a high ‘Absolutity Factor’ (AF), the player can get a lot more achieved-free from interference. As you progress through the ages, however, and (AF) declines, so does your ability to rule without interference from different sections of your civ. Influence also affects how your AI governers, treasurers, Foreign Advisors etc operate. If a sectors influence is great enough, then they can try and force you to build certain improvements, units or Wonders-or even try and STOP you from building them.
Demographic Influence normally effects goverment and religion choices, which laws you can/cannot pass, and the types of diplomatic agreements you can make-and WHO you’re allowed to make them with (though this final issue will be decided by other factors like culture, War Weariness and government types)! At the end of the day, though, each demographic group will seek to maximise it’s influence, or improve its lot in any other way! My key reason for wanting something like this, though, is because I believe that it can help to create the impression of ruling a REAL civ, instead of just a mob of idle bystanders!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

Another area effected by influence, in my model, is the economy. Each demographic group has a certain Earning Potential (EP), a number which determines how much each group is worth. The Wealthy Elite and the Middle-classes have the highest EP, and Workers and Scientists have the lowest. EP’s vary between the rest of the groups.
The EP*Influence gives you the base ‘value’ of that group-the amount you would get from them if you taxed them at 100%. These values also determine the ‘Purchasing Power’ of your cities AND your nation. Purchasing power would effect how much a city earns for its commodities-i.e. surplus food and shields. By the same token, it also effects the value of these commodities at the international level. At base level, each kernal or shield will get you X% of your cities or nations purchasing power in trade. This base level would be further boosted according to tech level differences between civs, the percieved military might of the civs involved, and other pre-existing diplomatic agreements between them. The max. amount of shields/food you can trade, internationally, would be 5% of all the cities connected to the trade network by road, and 10% of all the cities connected by rail. Beware, though, cause if your trading partner imposes a tariff, then you will pay HIM for each shield/kernal you trade-equal to the tariff %*purchasing power of the other civ! You can choose, within the previously stated maximum, the amount of commodity you actually trade. For example, if 5% of your cities total, excess production is 35 shields, then you can choose only to trade only 10 shields-or even less. Tariffs also apply to resource trades, costing the same amount as the commodity trade per turn. For instance, lets say you’re trading resources, and commodities (the 10 shields) to a civ with a PP of 1000. If that civ imposes a tarrif of 2%, then each shield the other civ recieves will cost YOU 20gpt (or 200 gpt for all 10 shields), plus the resource you trade will ALSO cost you 20gpt. Of course if your purchasing power is 2500, then even 1% of this is 25gpt per shield, or 250gpt-a net benefit of 50gpt! This is why wealthier civs will always do better in trade than poorer nations-because their PP allows them to absorb the costs of foreign tariffs, but rarely vice versa . Wealth and PP should also somehow allow civs to Subsidise their commodity/resource trades, but I’m still not certain how that would work!
Still, I think that this model, whilst being fairly simple in implementation, will help to link demographics, better, to both overall wealth and 'Balance of Trade'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The other Aspect of the Economy which needs a shake up is in the area of Private Sector influence. Within your government screen, you can set the level of ‘Private Sector Influence’-up to the level allowable by that government type AND your current tech level. Altering this influence alters the influence of your wealthy elite. It also alters how ‘cashed up’ that sector is (and, hence, how much you can derive from this sector through company tax). This influence also effects the chance that this sector has of trying to influence your policies. For instance, they may ask you to increase their influence, or the influence of the wealthy elite-either directly or indirectly. They might try to influence your tax and budget strategy or even your resource management or foreign affairs. Their main role, however, will be to seek to take some of your improvements ‘off your hands’. For instance, they may offer to buy some of your production improvements, commercial improvements or even educational improvements. The benefit for the player is the one-off cash injection and the lower maintainance costs, whilst the downside is the loss of control of your improvements.
The private sector can use these improvements much the same way as the player can. They can build improvements and/or units (like workers, for instance), research techs and even exploit resources. They can also sell shields, food or beakers-either back to the player, or even to foreign nations. In addition, there is nothing to stop the player from accepting money from foreign ‘private sectors’. All dealings with the private sector occurs the same as dealing with a nation. For example, the private sector of China (if they have sufficient influence to do so) might come to the Germans to offer to buy 10 of their factories for 2000 gold. This would effectively be a FRANCHISE in that nation. You will have SOME control, though, as you can lobby the private sector NOT to research, or sell, certain techs or units-or to build certain improvements or exploit particular resources. Of course, the amount of clout you have with the private sector is dependant on your government type, and the amount of influence you’ve given them.
Anyway, I feel that the role of the private sector-especially in the modern economy, should be better reflected in future civ games-whilst avoiding the horrid 'corporate boss' unit approach adopted by CtP!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Another aspect of the economy that you, as the player, should be able to change is the 'Earnings' of each social group.
So, each group will start with a BASE 'Earnings Number' and, within the limits proscribed by technologies and Government type, you can raise or lower this Earnings Number. Raising the Earning number of a specific Social Group will increase both its happiness and its influence, the downside is that, for each point (say) that you raise it above the average, you will increase your total Welfare/Wages budget costs by, say, 5%. For instance lets say that your current Welfare/Wages budget allocation is approximately 30gpt, and you increase the 'Earning Number' of your workers by 6. Now your budget allocation will have to increase by 9gpt! Of course, the amount you pay is defrayed by the % of Private Investment you allow within your society. For instance, if you've set the slide bar for private investment to about 50%, then your Wages/Welfare bill will only increase by 5gpt (with the rest being taken up by the Private Sector!) Of course, with more PSI comes more clout for that sector-so it really comes down to checks and balances!
If you lower the 'Earnings Number' you reduce your costs, by a similar amount, but you also lose Puchasing Power (which effects your tax take) and will also reduce the happiness of the social group whose wages who hit. Of course, as I've said before, though this might sound like Micromanagement HELL, you can leave some, or ALL, of it up to your treasurer-who will try and achieve all settings for maximum benefit-for minimim cost!
Also speaking of happiness, I feel that a social groups happiness should effect certain aspects of your society. For instance, if your workers happiness falls below 50% (to pick a number out of the air), then your civs productivity should fall according to HOW MUCH below 50% it falls. If this occurs within your legal group, then the amount of 'crime and corruption' they prevent will decline, and so on and so forth! Just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

So, where does your empire get all of its money from, and how can you spend it?

Well, each city gets money from the following:

1) Each Surplus food and shield (see Trade-perors thread) earns the city about 10% of its total 'Purchase Power' (PP) per turn, from internal trade.

2) The number of operational 'farm' and 'mine' imrpovements earn the city (no. of improvements*tech level of imrpovement*PP) gpt. Certain city imrpovements can increase the earning potential of terrain improvements.

3) If your city is connected to the trade network, then it gets xgpt/Y cities connected up, double if the city is connected by a Railroad. In addition, if your city is on a river, then the gpt you get from the trade network is increased by +50%-per RIVER!

4) For each bonus, luxury and/or strategic resource you have, within your city radius, you get Xgpt based on the relative scarcity of the resource, the size of the resource and the total # of that resource you have in your Civ (for instance, if you have 6 grape resources in your empire, one in your city radius will not earn you as much as if you had only 3!

What can a city use its money for?

1) It can be used it to rush an improvement/wonder.

2) It can send it to the national treasury.

3) It can be allocated to your citizens to improve their happiness-for a time.

How does a nation earn its money?

1) Each city automatically sends a % of it's total income to the national treasury. This amount increases each age. You can increase this amount above the base-but this will upset your people. You can also increase the contributions of specific cities, above the baseline-but again this may upset the residents!

2) Taxes: You recieve money from income tax, VAT, luxury tax, company tax, pollution tax etc, as mentioned in my above post. As also mentioned their, you can increase the tax contribution, of a specific city, above the baseline (using the same slider as in (1)).

3) Resources and Trade: You get Xgpt for every resource your nation possesses PLUS, of course, you get money for your trade routes. Also, every city connected to the trade network ALSO earns you extra gpt.

4) Interest: You can set an interest rate on your nations earning. Although this increases the amount of extra cash you recieve, per turn, it can have adverse effects on Purchase Power and Productivity-again, its all about checks and balances. Interest rates also effect the extra cash, per turn, that foreign civs must pay you on loan repayments or gpt deals.

So, what can you nation spend this money on:

1) Defense: The minimum amount of your budget you have to allocate is based on the number of troops you have, and the number of militaristic improvements/wonders you possess-including forts, airbases and outposts. If you 'overfund' defense, you build units quicker, the units heal quicker at baracks and their chance for promotion increases. Also, the influence of your military increases and War Weariness is decreased. If you underfund, you get the opposite effects.

2) Science and Education: Base allocation is dependant on the number of Scientific/Education Improvements you possess. If you overfund, then literacy improves, the influence of the middle-classes and Scientists increase, and the rate of tech advancement increases. The opposite occurs if you underfund.

3) Public Works: Base allocation is dependant on the no. of workers you have, and the amount of infrastructure you have-both within and between your cities (i.e. internal infrastructure, such as public transport and telecommunications, and the number of hexes of roads and RR you own). The amount you allocate also is a factor in how many PW points you get/turn for 'terraforming'. If you overfund, then the positive effects of infrastructure and worker speeds is increased, and the opposite occurs if you underfund them. Plus, underfunded infrastructure has a chance of 'disappearing' each turn!

4) Industry and Commerce: Base allocation dependant on the number of production and commerce improvements you possess-including mines! Overfunding improves the output of these resources, and the speed at which you build workers. It also decreases unemployment rates in your empire. Underfunding has the opposite effects.

5) Law and Order: Base allocation is dependant on the number of corruption reducing improvements you possess. If you overfund, it increases the effectiveness of these improvements, underfunding has the opposite effect.

6) Arts, Culture and Religion: Base allocation dependant on the number of cultural/happiness improvements/wonders you possess. Overfunding increases the cultural/happiness effects of these buildings-and the effectiveness of your entertainers.

7) Agriculture and resources: Base allocation dependant on the number of farms and agricultural improvements you possess-as well as the number of resources you possess. Over funding increases the speed at which you build agricultural improvements, and the amount of food they produce. It also reduces the disappearance rate of resources. Underfunding has the opposite effect.

8) Welfare and Wages: Base allocation based on the number of unemployed people, and the average Earning potential of your empire. If you overfund, you improve happiness and increases the amount by which you can increase Earning Potential. Underfunding has the opposite effect.

9) Environment: Base allocation based on the net amount of pollution you produce per turn. Overfunding increases the speep at which you rehabilitate polluted terrain, and reduces the amount of pollution that improvements produce. They also improve the speed at which pollution reducing improvements are built. Underfunding has the opposite effect.

10) Foreign Affairs and Trade: Base Allocation dependant on the number of embassies and trade deals you have. Overfunding improves your international rep-and the overall chance of getting favourable trade deals. It also increases the number of embassies you can found, and increases the value of existing trade deals. Underfunding has the opposite effect.

Spare National income can also be used to subsidise trade, rush a tech advance, rush improvements, units and/or wonders, to loan to other nations, or for UN dues (if applicable)!

Please remember that many of my ideas are still in their 'embryonic stage' so any advice you can give to help me HONE my ideas would be very much appreciated! Thank you !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Wow, Aussie_Lurker, I am much honored to see references to the trade system I have long advocated! Most these posts are quite long and detailed (actually so are mine )--quite interesting reads, except for the unfortunate fact that I have not had time to read them all. What I have seen so far, however, constitutes a rather significant departure from Civ's economic system--and therefore it is excellent! I do note that it has integrated a few of the basic concepts in my economic system with essentially a socio-economic recasting of Civ's fundamental structure. What a complex feat!

Have you seen my Unified Economic Theory (UET) thread lately? It has expanded rather dramatically in the past few days--I doubt that anyone could possibly find the time to read it all in one sitting, but once everything is comprehended, you will see the philosophical and intellectual coherence, besides the startling simplicity, of my Unified Economic Theory (perhaps you could even figure out the meaning of the name ). I will soon be adding new posts discussing the role of specialized resources; if you find the time, see if you can find anything interesting from reading the (lengthy) posts discussing the UET, perhaps even to add to your own economic system.

Here is the link to the UET thread.

And, of course, please post any comments or questions there! I welcome criticism and opportunities to discuss my views.

Hi Trade-Peror,

As the saying goes 'Praise from Caeser' ! I must say that I think it's GREAT that you like my ideas. I have taken a long, hard look at your original post, but I confess that I haven't had enough time to look at all the rest ! Like you, though, I do feel that a RADICAL overhaul of the Civ 'economic system' is required for the cIV. I also have longed believed that a link between social and economic factors should be modelled in the game (after all, in the real world, we're ALWAYS hearing about socio-economics!) Lastly I also believe, as you do, that greater internal complexity does NOT have to create greater difficulty or micromanagement for the player-it all depends on how its implemented, and how much control the player actually WANTS over this aspect of the game (hence the need for a 'Treasurer/Economic Advisor for this part of the game!)
Anyway, thank you again for your kind words and, if you want to see some more of my ideas please check this thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86172

Id' be interested to see what you think!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I haven't gotten involved in Civ x, next iteration of the same game discussions because it seems that everyone just wants to add a little of this and little of that, but essentially have the same game. Then I stumbled upon this gem!

I think now that Civ will be in its 4th iteration, it's time to think "outside the box" and actually take Civ to the next level. Ever since post-Civ II, I've been miffed that the same old model of: make a Settler, found a city, control all aspects of the economy (food, shields, trade), decide all buildings in the city, blah, blah, blah continued to be used. Essentially, the player having total control over his motley assortment of loosely related "cities" has seemed to me anything other than being the leader of a CIVILIZATION!

As you've outlined here, Aussie, is the idea that the player should be in charge of the government of a nations of peoples who go about their daily lives, making their own decisions, with their behavior affected by the policies of the government.

The citizens make marketplaces, build houses, mansions, gardens, and all matter of city developments. For a long time now I have considered that would seem much more fun (and feel like actually running a civilization) if I, as the head of the government, put in place certain policies, fund certain projects, provide certain subsidies, etc. that affect the behavior of citizens. But I dont' control them. And, they, depending on the type of government, etc., come and go as they please. They are the ones who decide to immigrate from city to city, depending on which one seems more attractive to live in (more luxuries, more jobs, more food, local government, etc.). They are the ones who decide to set up new towns along a trade route or near a newly demanded resource because it will be profitable to do so. It goes on and on.

The main idea here is that you, as the leader of a civilization, can only control things to a certain point and that the nation will flounder or flourish dependant upon government policies, the availability of resources, food, and trade.

I love your idea that there would be different classes of citizens. I think this is essential to a civ experience. The idea that there would be different percentages of the elite/wealthy, middle class, and poor depending on government type, policies, trade routes, access to resources, luxuries, etc. is simply too much an important aspect of a civilization experience to ignore.

This brings to memory playing Pharoah. Obviously on a much narrower focus, that game has all these key elements that make it so much fun to play. People are upset or happy based on access to food and religious facilities. People become wealthier as the access to better food and commodities increases. Crooks spring up when there are few "counstables" and courts. In each city, each can demand different commodities depending on what's available locally. Business automatically spring up to take advantage of trade opportunities!

To me, that would be the ultimate civ experience. I sincerely hope that the Firaxis team takes a long, solid look at NOT simply making Civ IV into Civ III on steroids. To me, that would be such an essential mistake. There needs to be some fundamental new ideas poured into Civ IV. There are so many great games to glean experience and ideas from: Sim City, Pharoah, Europa Universalis, even Call to Power and CtP II, and many more. I want Civ IV to be unique, but I don't want to see the Firaxis team get stuck on the notion that Civ must be Civ, using the same old formula, without any influence or ideas from other great games.

Excellent!

I am glad, Colonel Kraken, that indeed there is some support for a total overhaul for Civ4 as opposed to merely a "Civ3 on steroids"! A socio-economic model that is much richer than what Civ currently offers would be essential to prevent Civ from becoming stale. Therefore, Aussie_Lurker's demographics system would be a great step in this direction. I would like to add, however, that a more detailed economic system could pair well with this concept, and Aussie_Lurker is well aware of my Unified Economic Theory (UET) thread that discusses the implications of an economic overhaul in great detail. In fact, you should find it interesting that Aussie_Lurker himself has posted rather extensively there, and should you be interested in his economic vision as well, I suggest that you go to the UET thread (link in my signature) and read some of the discussions there, especially those with Aussie_Lurker's ideas. That would save poor Aussie_Lurker a great deal of time in trying to repost those ideas!

I think it's important to have the socio-economic, governmental, and even religious aspects of Civ to change into a much more engaging form. As these are fundamental aspects of civilization, it would seem imperative to me that these parts of the game receive the most emphasis (also see my response in "more governments" here ).

Such things, along with the nature of being able to interact with other civs (alliances and trade), are essential to a true civ experience. To me, thus far, these have been the most ignored aspects of the game.

--CK