Behavioral economics deals with irrational and emotional decisions and the consequences for returns and resource allocation. The field is primarily concerned with bounded rationality and integrate insights from psychology and neo-classical economic theory. Some common themes of the field which may be of interest to civ-players are 1) the time preference hypothesis, 2) self control mechanisms, 3) the sunk cost fallacy and 4) the winner's curse.
The time preference hypothesis is the notion that people tend to have an ill-conceived preference for immediate over future returns. Experienced civ-players have learned the value of not rushing at first turn (50% penalty), overchopping forests pre-Math and pre-forges (50% and 25% penalty), and building Wealth in cities without forges (25% penalty). With regard to great people, don't start your first golden age prematurely, if you have a valid chance of completing the Mausoleum. Similarly, great people should not be "wasted" on bulbing cheap technologies, to rush cheap wonders (great engineer), for early trade missions (great merchants) or for Academies in secondary science cities (great scientists). Since the cost of subsequent great people is increased, don't commit too many specialists for great leader production too early, i.e. pre-National Epic and pre-Parthenon.
As I used to do, I suspect many players are often working the slider to just grab a new technology. However, if the new tech has no immediate benefits (it is often better to delay it in order to maximize the 20% research overflow bonus for the following tech.
Of course, many civ players may equally overestimate the long-run benefits of certain decisions. Some examples of these are
spreading missionaries way in advance before shrines have been built. Once the shrines are in place the automatic spread is tripled.
minimizing city overlap for the possibility of future super high population cities.
building of happiness and health buildings way ahead than needed. It will often be better to build Wealth (especially if no production/research/commerce multiplier buildings are available)
Self control mechanisms is the notion that people often rely on non-optimal rules of thumb to make decisions easier. However, at higher levels, you need to adapt to the situation rather than adhering to the 60% expansion rule, getting 1,5 workers per city, always granary first and following strict building orders.
The Sunk cost fallacy is the notion that people tend to have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). Sunk costs have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. The bygones principle argue that historic costs are irrelevant - the only relevant issue concerns future costs and benefits. In other words, dont throw good money after bad. While fail gold from wonders is a valid strategy (especially for industrious civs), other civs will be better off by shifting to building on wealth or infrastructure if a certain wonder seems out of reach. The sunk cost fallacy can also work psychologically in terms of future committed resources. I suppose some players wrongly decide not to build coal plants if they have already committed themselves to getting the Three Gorges Dam. Even if beelining Plastics (a questionable decision), many cities may benefit greatly from the +25% hammer bonus from coal plants until the Three Gorges Dam is complete.
The winner's curse is a term derived from auctions and describe the tendency for the winning bid to exceed the intrinsic value of what is being offered. In short, the winner's curse says that the winner will tend to overpay. With regard to wonders, people tend to underestimate the benefits required to justify an investment. This is especially the case for small empires where the critical mass of empire benefitting wonders cannot justify the costs.
The time preference hypothesis is the notion that people tend to have an ill-conceived preference for immediate over future returns. Experienced civ-players have learned the value of not rushing at first turn (50% penalty), overchopping forests pre-Math and pre-forges (50% and 25% penalty), and building Wealth in cities without forges (25% penalty). With regard to great people, don't start your first golden age prematurely, if you have a valid chance of completing the Mausoleum. Similarly, great people should not be "wasted" on bulbing cheap technologies, to rush cheap wonders (great engineer), for early trade missions (great merchants) or for Academies in secondary science cities (great scientists). Since the cost of subsequent great people is increased, don't commit too many specialists for great leader production too early, i.e. pre-National Epic and pre-Parthenon.
As I used to do, I suspect many players are often working the slider to just grab a new technology. However, if the new tech has no immediate benefits (it is often better to delay it in order to maximize the 20% research overflow bonus for the following tech.
Of course, many civ players may equally overestimate the long-run benefits of certain decisions. Some examples of these are
spreading missionaries way in advance before shrines have been built. Once the shrines are in place the automatic spread is tripled.
minimizing city overlap for the possibility of future super high population cities.
building of happiness and health buildings way ahead than needed. It will often be better to build Wealth (especially if no production/research/commerce multiplier buildings are available)
Self control mechanisms is the notion that people often rely on non-optimal rules of thumb to make decisions easier. However, at higher levels, you need to adapt to the situation rather than adhering to the 60% expansion rule, getting 1,5 workers per city, always granary first and following strict building orders.
The Sunk cost fallacy is the notion that people tend to have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources (loss aversion). Sunk costs have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. The bygones principle argue that historic costs are irrelevant - the only relevant issue concerns future costs and benefits. In other words, dont throw good money after bad. While fail gold from wonders is a valid strategy (especially for industrious civs), other civs will be better off by shifting to building on wealth or infrastructure if a certain wonder seems out of reach. The sunk cost fallacy can also work psychologically in terms of future committed resources. I suppose some players wrongly decide not to build coal plants if they have already committed themselves to getting the Three Gorges Dam. Even if beelining Plastics (a questionable decision), many cities may benefit greatly from the +25% hammer bonus from coal plants until the Three Gorges Dam is complete.
The winner's curse is a term derived from auctions and describe the tendency for the winning bid to exceed the intrinsic value of what is being offered. In short, the winner's curse says that the winner will tend to overpay. With regard to wonders, people tend to underestimate the benefits required to justify an investment. This is especially the case for small empires where the critical mass of empire benefitting wonders cannot justify the costs.
(not related to your article but to normal developement of my game, so I agree with what you write and don't make fun of it) .
