stratozyck
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 24
I have played the Civilization series since the first one. This game is truly amazing in that it will change your life. It drew me to history, which drew me to economics. I credit it for being a major part of who I am.
Civilization is the ultimate economics lesson. Most people think economics as money, but thats not true - that would be finance. Economics is the science of choices in a constricted environment.
In the game, you have a fixed time limit. You have a fixed amount of land, a fixed starting position, a fixed starting traits, etc... From 4000 BC on you are now officially constrained.
The beauty of the game comes in its focus on investment. What you spend time on is investment in the game, and good players will only invest in what brings them returns.
The previous games in the series had this - but I feel Civ IV takes this to the extreme. Often when you lose in Civ IV it is because you beat yourself; you consistently invested in something that brought little return.
Economic choices are everywhere in the game; do you spread religion adding a mere +1 gold (albeit with banks, etc it can become +3 in the extreme situations), or do you simply take that same city and produce wealth instead? Both choices offer their advantages - the fixed income versus the variable. In truth there is not clear cut way to say, "Always do this!" You have to make those decisions based on the unique situation. Sometimes it is better to add great people to a city, and sometimes it is better to hold them back for a golden age.
I've noticed over the year of playing it that Civ IV is a genius when it comes to setting up these decisions. I've noticed the AI uses extensive economic analysis as well. If the human player is a position where it is gaining relative to everyone else, and will continue to do so, one of the computer players will declare war (at the higher levels). It does this by reasonsing, "with each passing turn his chances of winning are increasing, so now is better than tomorrow." This is the correct decision to make, even if it results in a loss.
Everyone who plays this game well is an amateur economist. Think about the lessons this game has to teach us. First and foremost of these is strategic management. If you declare a strategy (to yourself anyway), and you stray from it, you will suffer. Keep to your strategy for the best chance of success. This is true in life also. Don't plan on becoming a doctor by dropping out of school to joing a hippie commune - it simply won't bode well with the admissions board. Don't plan on being a conqueror by delaying that bronze working for meditation.
There are many ways to win this game, but it mainly forces you to be strict in following those rules. To win a cultural victory, for instance, usually requires much planning and a little luck. All the same, usually people don't end up successful in life without a lot of planning (and that all important luck).
Civilization is the ultimate economics lesson. Most people think economics as money, but thats not true - that would be finance. Economics is the science of choices in a constricted environment.
In the game, you have a fixed time limit. You have a fixed amount of land, a fixed starting position, a fixed starting traits, etc... From 4000 BC on you are now officially constrained.
The beauty of the game comes in its focus on investment. What you spend time on is investment in the game, and good players will only invest in what brings them returns.
The previous games in the series had this - but I feel Civ IV takes this to the extreme. Often when you lose in Civ IV it is because you beat yourself; you consistently invested in something that brought little return.
Economic choices are everywhere in the game; do you spread religion adding a mere +1 gold (albeit with banks, etc it can become +3 in the extreme situations), or do you simply take that same city and produce wealth instead? Both choices offer their advantages - the fixed income versus the variable. In truth there is not clear cut way to say, "Always do this!" You have to make those decisions based on the unique situation. Sometimes it is better to add great people to a city, and sometimes it is better to hold them back for a golden age.
I've noticed over the year of playing it that Civ IV is a genius when it comes to setting up these decisions. I've noticed the AI uses extensive economic analysis as well. If the human player is a position where it is gaining relative to everyone else, and will continue to do so, one of the computer players will declare war (at the higher levels). It does this by reasonsing, "with each passing turn his chances of winning are increasing, so now is better than tomorrow." This is the correct decision to make, even if it results in a loss.
Everyone who plays this game well is an amateur economist. Think about the lessons this game has to teach us. First and foremost of these is strategic management. If you declare a strategy (to yourself anyway), and you stray from it, you will suffer. Keep to your strategy for the best chance of success. This is true in life also. Don't plan on becoming a doctor by dropping out of school to joing a hippie commune - it simply won't bode well with the admissions board. Don't plan on being a conqueror by delaying that bronze working for meditation.
There are many ways to win this game, but it mainly forces you to be strict in following those rules. To win a cultural victory, for instance, usually requires much planning and a little luck. All the same, usually people don't end up successful in life without a lot of planning (and that all important luck).