1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Core economy model: Civ5 vs traditional (tax rate, Science and Commerce)

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by cuc, Dec 4, 2011.

?

What's your opinion on the Civ5 economy model?

  1. It's good, no need for any fundamental change

    59.1%
  2. The traditional model is plain better (splitting Commerce by tax rate)

    36.6%
  3. How about this new model... (please specify in reply)

    4.3%
  1. cuc

    cuc Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    Civ5's new core economy design (completely decoupling Science and Culture from Commerce; Science from population, etc) is a change at least as significant as everything else. Yet the topic doesn't seeem to get enough discussion.

    Do you find the Civ5 model a hindrance to game depth, or a potentially viable model? If it has potential, what needs to be improved to better realize it?
     
  2. cuc

    cuc Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    Addenum:
    There's also the Civilization Revolution model:

    1) Each turn, each city can be switched to focus on either :science: or :gold:.
    2) The :commerce: output of the city on that turn is entirely converted into the chosen.
    3) A :science: or :gold: building only generates significant amount of output if the city is focused on it; otherwise it will generate a small amount of output.
    (e.g. a Library doubles a city's :science: output when the city is focused on :science:, but only generates a fixed amount of :science: if the city is focused on :gold:.)


    Obviously this model wouldn't fit for a main Civ game, but it still makes for a worthy reference point.

    We should also note that at root, CivRev involves the important decision of converting :commerce:, a first order resource that serves no purpose other than being turned into other second order resources. This makes the CivRev model closer to traditional Civ than Civ5.
     
  3. avdale

    avdale Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    60
    I found the older model to be easier to use as it was easier to focus your economy on science. With the current model the plan seems to be get a few highpop cities and build all the science buildings, then ignore that entirely and just spam research agreements. It might be nostalgia but Civ4 let your BPT really explode once all your cottages were mature.
     
  4. The QC

    The QC Quietly Confident

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    335
    I think neither of the models is perfect. In the old model, it was weird that money had only one purpose - to generate science. While you had a slider and, in Civ. IV B.t.S., several choices (science, culture, espionage, earning extra money for upgrades and trade), science was so important that you always wanted to push the slider towards science as much as possible.

    And there's no way to make science any less important in Civ, so the slider will always have that effect.

    On the other hand, in Civ V, science is too... default. Since it comes straight from population and population is always good, you never have to make choices in between science and something else.

    I selected the third option even though I don't have an idea for a new model, but this option wasn't available. I'll think about it :).
     
  5. Kerosene31

    Kerosene31 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    I like the Civ V model. You never had short term money problems in Civ 4, you just adjusted the slider for a bit until you fixed the problem. I like in Civ V that science is separate from commerce. You can't just magically buy science directly.
     
  6. cuc

    cuc Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    I haven't tried it myself, but isn't setting :science: to 0% a viable strategy when using specialist economy?

    Yes, this is the main problem I have with the Civ5 model. I think it's supposed to invoke the recent theory that technology develops at its own pace, regardless of any human intention, but it's no more true to history than the old model, since the number of population in a particular nation really doesn't simply correlate to its pace of science innovation throughout history.


    I'll post more info about CivRev:

    -Gold:
    You receive bonuses the first time your treasury gold reach certain milestones, such as a free settler at 100 :gold:. The last milestone is 20000 :gold:, which allows you to build the World Bank wonder, resulting in an Economic Victory.


    -Culture:
    Culture serves two purposes: expanding borders (culture flipping is in CivRev) and generating Great People.

    A wonder generates 3 :culture: (even after obsolence), but the main source of culture is buildings: Palace, Temple (1 :culture: per population) and Cathedral (replaces Temple; 2 :culture: per population).

    A civ that has 20 of any cultural achievements can build the United Nations wonder for Cultural Victory. These achievements are: Great People; wonders; culturally flipped cities.
     
  7. homan1983

    homan1983 King

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    London
    The problem is that in almost every iteration, gold income is either wholly or nearly useless.
    Rush-buying gold was not even possible in civ4 until the end game. This meant gold was completely useless almost throughout expect to pay for negative science which is pretty much the same as running the science slider.

    Even rush buying was extremely inefficient unless someone completely specialized and wondered correctly.

    They tried to improve the situation slightly by bringing in random events, most of which gave very good results in exchange for :gold:. However the core problem was never fixed.

    Throughout history, wealth has always been of utmost importance - more often than not its the more wealthy side which ends up winning.

    This needs to be looked at in-depth at some point by civ designers. A tension needs to exist between science, culture and gold. Tension where each decision would have advantages and corresponding disadvantages.
    Civ5's way of trying to fix this was to bring in city states and research agreements. Which isn't really a good solution at all: its just another way of converting :c5gold: into :c5science:.

    City states were a different matter, except for one thing: there is still no tension or choice between :c5science: and :c5gold:. What ends up happening is people sell their luxuries to get gold and still get maximum science. There is no CHOICE, no TENSION.

    Its probably clear by now to everyone that the civ5 project was rushed at the end - perhaps due to the company needing a cash influx. Many features which were simply design concepts (such as city states, RAs, war mechanism, diplomacy) were in a state of being implemented from concept to reality but cut short and suddenly shipped as-is in what some would consider pre-alpha state.

    Regardless here's hoping future iterations will attempt to fix it.
    Ironically the most useful gold income came from civ revolutions where a gold focused civ/cities could produce significant income, and where gold have avenues of use in the game.
     
  8. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I think it works well. It's biggest effect is combined with the removal of tech purchases. Now everything has to be planned well in advance. It's probably a touch more difficult to balance, but they've got it mostly figured out now. Science comes from investment, not a slider (which, unless you planned things poorly, was always at 90-100% or 0 if you wanted to purchase techs).
     
  9. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    Since the poll doesn't talk about research agreements/tech trading, I ignored that. I prefer the Civ 5 model where science is based on population; gaining science because a tile happened to have a road, gold, or gems seemed awkward in Civ 3, while getting no science from working a mine (really? I'm not going to learn Iron Working or Steel from having a bunch of population in the mining industry?) was also irksome.

    All that they really need to do now is remove directed research (the ability to choose and beeline techs) and have each city contribute its beakers to a possible category (e.g. a production-based city would weight towards production/military techs, a food-based city towards growth and happiness techs, and a commerce-based city towards diplomatic/economic techs).

    Edit: I also agree that the treasury model is too simplistic. I think further iterations of Civ shouldn't even make you have currency unless you choose to adopt it.
     
  10. cuc

    cuc Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    To be fair, the intention of the traditional model is that :commerce: (don't forget that it's called Trade in Civ1, Civ2 and CivRev, with an icon of double arrows) represents exchange between people, including not only commodities, but also exchange of ideas.

    And it may be argued that :gold: in Civ represents wealth within the entire nation - or at least, savings of the entire nation, rather than the state treasury.
     
  11. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    That's a good point about trade, I hadn't thought of that. Of course, that was lost a long time ago.
     
  12. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    I'd still be more inclined to say that such exchange would drive social/governmental technology far more than the hard sciences. I would also say that base population accomplishes the same thing as far as the exchange of ideas go.
     
  13. Kurtbob

    Kurtbob Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    Arizona
    I agree with this. I think technology acquisition should be more fluid and natural. I think a civ's main objective should be to create wealth (power) and how it chooses to create wealth dictates what technology/ies it discovers. IE the player should not have power to choose which tech they wish to research but let their economic choices choose for them.

    How this sort of system could be created I am not sure, but I would very much appreciate such a system being implemented.
     
  14. snarzberry

    snarzberry Emperor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,240
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The problem I see with this is that at the end of the day the techs you get are going to be subject to a dice roll. You may be able to shift the odds in your favour but if you can't directly choose what you want to research then let's face it, you're at the mercy of the RNG. It'll change the game pretty drastically. Introducing much luck into such an important part of the game isn't something that I think would be an improvement. How would you plan for the future if you only know that in 30 or so turns you'll be getting Rifling, hopefully....perhaps Navigation, who knows? gl.
     
  15. tonberry

    tonberry Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,148
    Location:
    Québec
    What bug me about the Civ5 system is that it remove any form of taxation. The player can control everything in his empire, from the placement of cities to the movement of each units, yet it lack one of the most basic function a governement have: the power to levy taxes.
     
  16. Kurtbob

    Kurtbob Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    470
    Location:
    Arizona
    I see what you mean. I guess I envisioned the plan not really within the context of the actual game. Maybe I am just bored of the same old tech tree scheme. In every new civ game they change something dramatically, but the tech tree remains. I would like to see more emphasis on wealth = power instead of bulbs = power. Does anyone else see it this way?

    Since I have been going off the OPs topic I'll say this, I don't really care for the new system (bulbs = population, not wealth) and prefer Civ4's system. It wasn't perfect, but it makes more sense to me.
     
  17. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Well, there were always some natural limitations on taxation (after which, the whole system would collapse anyway). You can think of all gold you get as gold collected from taxation (arguably, there was more it just isn't taxed). Back in Civ2, merchants were called Taxmen. That would have been another alternative.
     
  18. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    It wouldn't necessarily be much luck. Combat has always been at the mercy of the RNG, but that didn't stop people from being able to plan and execute successful wars in a Civ game.
     
  19. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    Which explains why the government generates money off of trade . . .:)
     
  20. Ruler

    Ruler Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    443
    Step in the right direction in my opinion, now you need to build more trading post/cottages. I find myself building alot of them and that makes Civ 5 so fun its so easy to get lots of gold per turn. Test it yourself and use every specialist for Golden Age.
     

Share This Page