Idea for individual currency system-would this be too complex?

What if each civ traded not in gold, but in game currency that varied from nation to nation.
It would allow the player to "print" money. If they wanted to, they could get a massive cash infusion. After a certain number of turns, they would have to pay it back, with interest (to the computer) in the form of -x gold per turn.

If someone did not want to pay, that would weaken their currency. A player with weak currency would have to pay more when trading or paying off CS allies.

Someone with a strong currency would be able to trade favorably with weak-currency players.

I think this would add a nice level of realism, but I worry it may be too complex.

Of course, Shafer thinks that anything more complex than a smiley face would melt the flea-sized garbanzo bean brains of civvers

It's not so much a question of complexity. It's a question of whether or not it would make the game more fun.

I don't think it would make it that more complex because a lost of it would be done automatically. You would just have something say the strength of your currency.

I think that a more sophisticated economic system would add a lot to the game. Separate currencies would be part of that. Unfortunately it would be extremely difficult to do correctly and have a balanced game.

Good automation should be able to make anything easy enough to use. It should be intuitive, too, so I don't think complexity would really be a great problem with having it in the game. The problem would be how the AI uses it, and how it is actually implemented in place of the current system. I'm not sure we'd get a satisfactory result out of that.

Its definitely a bit complex.
Also, this wasn't really done in Ancient times.
I really don't think it would work in the game, but would make for maybe an economics scenario?
Anything is possible...

Well, to be fair, in ancient times bartering was more widespread. Though I believe ancient china used paper currency.

The problem with the idea is that Civ V does not have enough micromanagement in the game, which is a bad thing IMO. Heck there isn't even any economic incentive, barely, in the game regarding strategic resources, trade etc.

I must resurrect this thread because I was just thinking about this the other day. It would obviously be an idea for CiVI now, but introducing varying currencies with foreign exchange rates for trade between empires, choosing to adopt another country's currency for trade and vice versa, having city-states adopt certain currencies for trade (making their special resources only tradable through that currency) etc. would make for some interesting gameplay.

Resources would have to be revamped and play a significant role in the determination of value of the currencies. Their value would be based on their rarity, number of resources that have been improved across all countries, and number of resources that are available for trade (ie not being used by its owner).

Happiness would be ousted in favor of economic stability. Economic stability is more or less determined by value of your currency and the resources available to your country for export.

I haven’t really thought about the math behind all this, but I know one thing, the AI would need to be significantly improved and it would be pretty taxing on hardware constantly adjusting exchange rates while factoring in resource development, use, and trade. But it would be well worth it to explore!

If you are going to do that, rather than having different currencies, why not just have some kind of modifier based on the number of economic advances, or something similar? In other words, if I am 5% further along in economics, then in any deal, I make 5% more.

Civs that build trading posts/banks/stock exchanges not only develop more gold on their own, but do better when dealing with others. It could work in what you are trying to do without too much added.

The varying currencies would bring an additional element of possible war escalation and stronger DoFs. And the stronger emphasis on resouces (of all types) being that their value is based on their rarity, would increase the push for land claims. Your economy would not be as strong without a fair amount of resources or a monopoly of a particular resource, as it would not be as strong if you are the only one actually using your currency.

When you DoF, being that your currency is stronger, it would be easier to persuade the AI to trade in your currency, meaning that all of their resources would now be valued under your currency, which would reduce their price of import and greatly increase their profit from export for them, while further strengthening the value of your currency.

If your currency is valued by the number of resource items being traded through it (and the total amount of hammers per turn), then bringing in an additional country to trade in your currency would improve it by the number of resources they have and the overall output of production from them.

As other large countries increase the number of resources traded in their currency and their total hammer output, their currency's value raises in comparison to your own and creates a currency war. At this time, any city state or lesser country changing the currency they trade in would greatly irritate the "loser" of this transaction.

Your spies could tell you about impending plans of currency changes, so you could proactively reduce the threat.

Actions that would cause your currency to lose value would be losing territory/resources or building too many resource-required units (as that would reduce the number of resources you have for trade). Luxes and bonus resources would be requirements for certain buildings, so building certain buildings could have a negative impact on your trading power, but strengthen your country in the effects of that building (ie, using bananas, citrus, and cow to build a supermarket would increase your population growth, but reduce your trading power and thusly your currency strength).

I would think of it as something like religion. But with a currency system, you can choose to take on the currency of another nation (as many African countries have taken on the US dollar for instance), make your currency the only one allowed in your nation, or allow a mixture of different currencies.

They all have pro's and cons. Currency competition is actually an important piece of the world economy. It also adds another level of empire customization, which would be a nice addition to the series in general.

Another example of how a currency system in CiVI would make the game that much more interesting.

cavilier210 said:

I would think of it as something like religion. But with a currency system, you can choose to take on the currency of another nation (as many African countries have taken on the US dollar for instance), make your currency the only one allowed in your nation, or allow a mixture of different currencies.

They all have pro's and cons. Currency competition is actually an important piece of the world economy. It also adds another level of empire customization, which would be a nice addition to the series in general.

Click to expand...

I've thought of that as a silly "tiny yield per every +X of bonus", where you choose a variety of designs for your currency, a bit like a weak Founder religion.

Like Patriotic currency with the face of great men of the past giving a tiny GP boost, or currency with the current ruler's face on it giving some bonus in the capital.