what if the concept of both protectionism and free trade were introduced for 1)stratagy resource section 2)luxury resource section and 3) a newly designated necessities/food or clothing etc resource section.
these resources shouldnt be traded just by a players decisions in foreign policy but by economic policies which as technology adapts, more options are opened, however, an alternative for every economic policy decision should always be available, otherwise it just become too bland
this would transform the gameplay economic section as well as technology because even civs with less natural resources could arguably if they kept protectionism up and had good tech, become in the future a leader of free trade because of their own economic powerhouse of productivity on certain goods or services
Germany, Japan, USA and Britain are reknown for having done this in economic history
however, economic ideologies should be restrained, many are too complex for players to properly control and should be limited to certain advantages and disadvantages eg,
starting economy
<primitive bartering economy> normal civ economy, nation leaders choose what resources should be traded but fear that during wars they'll be quickly eliminated if they dont keep a strong domestic economy and hence rarely trade resources unless they're in ridiculous surplus,
then ancient to classical economy
<slave>
(good) rapid construction, short term boosts of growth,
(bad) hinders technological research (eg Alexandria under Ptolemy produced the first steam engine but never even attempted to use it for production as slaves were so cheap instead it was the royal courts toy), unhappiness due to high unemployment/(see roman history bread and circuses) and population rises too quickly for food to control
then from classical to medieval economy
<feudalism>
stable income, happiness isnt as big of an issue, production gains a higher boost and growth rate than slavery, stable population growth
as the game moves on to the renaissance
<Mercantilism>, higher immediate taxation rate and population rate, less harm from massive fluctuations in trade/the loss of a trade route due to war or foreign nations policies (good) but restrained growth and less longterm income for the state(bad)
or
<early liberal economy>,
(good) large growth, productivity and longterm state income bonus, also, ifa nation can specialize in a certain resource (eg, has heaps of iron or banannas) than massive boost to growth, productivity and longterm state income
(bad) but unstable, if trade routes are suddenly lost or roads connecting them or sudden wars with former trade nations or fellow trade nations destruction, than horrible affect of growth and productivity, short term income state lower
then a choice between the 2 big heads of 19th-21st century economic ideologies
<socialism>,
(good) fairly stable, economy may quickly adapt from peace to war economy and prone to rapid increases of growth in a shortperiod of time, takes minimal affect from sudden international economic changes (good)
(bad) but longterm growth and production difficulty, corruption, unable to adapt to technological changes
or
<capitalism>, the opposite to socialism except economic growth has a series rather than short term rapidly planned economic growth, also, less micromanagement should be needed for this option
this system of positive and negative affects for economic ideologies/policies specifically for trade only (which should replace the old system were single resources were traded by nations leaders as if they controlled all resources which unless it was socialist, isnt true)
also, players can adapt their economies to both their playing style and situations in the game, making it all the more enjoyable
for example, just as european nations had before WWI been capitalist, they swapped to a "war socialist" economy in Germany "war socialism" England "DORA" (thats just the initials, i cant remember the full name) France and pretty much every nation except for the USA due to the affects of "total war" on a nation and the absolute "necessity" to adapt a consumer economy to a military one
such economic options as already stated, would allow players to spice up their playing methods, adapt to situations and if the designers decide to, even create a mixed socialist/capitalist economic policy like china,
ofcourse, it shouldnt be too complex otherwise it'll confuse players, best to keep it simple just as civics did in CIV IV but make policies adaptable from the renaissance onwards to players situations
(note, for this to work, the diversity of resources such as food, will need to increase with the fertility of land often determining how much of a certain crop can be made, their shouldnt be any difference in quantity but definatly a bonus if a variety of foods exist, probably happiness)
these resources shouldnt be traded just by a players decisions in foreign policy but by economic policies which as technology adapts, more options are opened, however, an alternative for every economic policy decision should always be available, otherwise it just become too bland
this would transform the gameplay economic section as well as technology because even civs with less natural resources could arguably if they kept protectionism up and had good tech, become in the future a leader of free trade because of their own economic powerhouse of productivity on certain goods or services
Germany, Japan, USA and Britain are reknown for having done this in economic history
however, economic ideologies should be restrained, many are too complex for players to properly control and should be limited to certain advantages and disadvantages eg,
starting economy
<primitive bartering economy> normal civ economy, nation leaders choose what resources should be traded but fear that during wars they'll be quickly eliminated if they dont keep a strong domestic economy and hence rarely trade resources unless they're in ridiculous surplus,
then ancient to classical economy
<slave>
(good) rapid construction, short term boosts of growth,
(bad) hinders technological research (eg Alexandria under Ptolemy produced the first steam engine but never even attempted to use it for production as slaves were so cheap instead it was the royal courts toy), unhappiness due to high unemployment/(see roman history bread and circuses) and population rises too quickly for food to control
then from classical to medieval economy
<feudalism>
stable income, happiness isnt as big of an issue, production gains a higher boost and growth rate than slavery, stable population growth
as the game moves on to the renaissance
<Mercantilism>, higher immediate taxation rate and population rate, less harm from massive fluctuations in trade/the loss of a trade route due to war or foreign nations policies (good) but restrained growth and less longterm income for the state(bad)
or
<early liberal economy>,
(good) large growth, productivity and longterm state income bonus, also, ifa nation can specialize in a certain resource (eg, has heaps of iron or banannas) than massive boost to growth, productivity and longterm state income
(bad) but unstable, if trade routes are suddenly lost or roads connecting them or sudden wars with former trade nations or fellow trade nations destruction, than horrible affect of growth and productivity, short term income state lower
then a choice between the 2 big heads of 19th-21st century economic ideologies
<socialism>,
(good) fairly stable, economy may quickly adapt from peace to war economy and prone to rapid increases of growth in a shortperiod of time, takes minimal affect from sudden international economic changes (good)
(bad) but longterm growth and production difficulty, corruption, unable to adapt to technological changes
or
<capitalism>, the opposite to socialism except economic growth has a series rather than short term rapidly planned economic growth, also, less micromanagement should be needed for this option
this system of positive and negative affects for economic ideologies/policies specifically for trade only (which should replace the old system were single resources were traded by nations leaders as if they controlled all resources which unless it was socialist, isnt true)
also, players can adapt their economies to both their playing style and situations in the game, making it all the more enjoyable
for example, just as european nations had before WWI been capitalist, they swapped to a "war socialist" economy in Germany "war socialism" England "DORA" (thats just the initials, i cant remember the full name) France and pretty much every nation except for the USA due to the affects of "total war" on a nation and the absolute "necessity" to adapt a consumer economy to a military one
such economic options as already stated, would allow players to spice up their playing methods, adapt to situations and if the designers decide to, even create a mixed socialist/capitalist economic policy like china,
ofcourse, it shouldnt be too complex otherwise it'll confuse players, best to keep it simple just as civics did in CIV IV but make policies adaptable from the renaissance onwards to players situations
(note, for this to work, the diversity of resources such as food, will need to increase with the fertility of land often determining how much of a certain crop can be made, their shouldnt be any difference in quantity but definatly a bonus if a variety of foods exist, probably happiness)
