Economic Cycles

[Gary Childress]

Maybe this was overlooked before due to the fact that all the various installments of Civ so far were released in relatively prosperous times, but there are such things as economic cycles and I don't think they've been represented very much in game. There should be random periods of time when your economy collapses or prospers, sort of like random disasters. Maybe building a temple during good times would take 5 turns and then when bad times hit it takes 10 turns. I know there are golden ages but what about economic depressions and such? I realize it's a complicated phenomena but there must be some way to represent economics in a more realistic manner.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I've proposed this before. Twice. The boards hate it.

 

[Hail]

I've proposed this before. Twice. The boards hate it.

that's right!

any random events, that effect the game in any non-trivial way (earthquakes, depressions, falling asteroids, etc.) are a No-No!

depressions should naturally arise from the economical model and player's actions. if that is not possible, than there should be no depressions.

secondly, any negative events are generally not fun

 

[Tee Kay]

depressions should naturally arise from the economical model and player's actions. if that is not possible, than there should be no depressions.

secondly, any negative events are generally not fun

Agree and agree.

I think the Golden Age model works well enough, however instead of portraying periods of economic depression, it represents periods of exceptional prosperity.

 

[Camikaze]

Randomness to the degree that it would effect the outcome of the game is bad. So economic cycles, if they were to be implemented, would either have to be so insignificant as to be redundant, or would have to be not the result of randomness, but the result of the players actions. And the latter of these is actually a viable option, although simply implementing random ups and downs is not.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

All boosts and crises were not random, they had a cause and that's were the effect...

 

[Camikaze]

Well the argument behind having cycles based on randomness rather than cause and effect is that the business cycle is affected by factors beyond the control of the government, which is you in Civ. So it is reasonably realistic to make economic cycles largely beyond your control, but it doesn't make for good gameplay, especially when there is no way you can do anything to avert the consequences or minimise the negative impacts.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

As I remember well we are not a government in civ... but a deity so I think we have pretty much in our control... anyway we could add this in the Randomness thread.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, you are a deity type figure, rather than a government accountable to the people, but you are not a deity in the sense of having supernatural powers to control the business cycle. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that the game does not give you the tools necessary to manipulate the business cycle.

 

[frizzy]

What Soundwave said. Real-life economic cycles are not random and unpredictable. Real-life Civs that handle their economy like AI and noob Civs get caught in these cycles, but that doesn't mean they're random.

If, in Civ, you build bazillions of units, run high-maintenence civics, overexpand, underbuild your economic infrastructure, rush-build improvements you don't need, sign huge gpt trades for resources like oil, and run deficits, then what happens to your in-game economy? Happens in real life, too - the Western democracies have been doing all of the above for decades - and it's not anymore random or unpredictable than it is in the game.

 

[Camikaze]

Well there is no simulation of a proper economy in Civ currently, so not economic cycle is present, so you as the leader of a Civ cannot have control over it. Simply because it does not exist. And it cannot be implemented realistically as a function of numerous causes without a huge change to the entire economic system of Civ. So it could only really be implemented currently as a random element, or at least an element beyond the player's control.

 

[Naokaukodem]

True, it is already represented in Civ4. And it was represented in Civ2 in some way, by establishing a government (Fundamentalism) that had all the advantages, recognizing by that that Democracies or Republics were not the ultimate type of government. (even if I think the type of governments does have little to see with economic regime, like Capitalism/Communism)

I think that the OP wanted to simulate the limits of Capitalism, rather than the limits of Democracy. Now, in term of Civ4, that would be something about Civics.

As said frizzy, it is possible in Civ4 to go bankrupt, but it's IMO a little too early. A matured civ does not suffers from bankrupt. Maybe it should change; Maybe, things like Inflation should play a stronger role. And possibly add some more variables. Government changes may have to happen in order to counter some of those variables going nuts. Could be interesting.

For example, add a viariable "private benefits" that goes very high under Capitalism. (need to change some civcs if it goes too high)

Also, make the switching between civics more costy. Indeed, 1 turn of anarchy seems very cheap in comparison of all the administration changes it requires. For example, to switch from capitalism to communism, it would be needed to build some building in all or 5 of our cities.

Also, add a limit to the Research output. This to represent that one should not suffer too much from Science drawback in a time of economic crise. And most importantly, we should be able to do a lot more things with Gold. Like hurry/buy unit production in ALL types of government. And I don't know what.

 

[Camikaze]

I really don't see how, beyond Golden Ages, there are economic cycles already in the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well it's not "cycles" but economic variables. And... that's all what you think about my ideas?

Re-read my post and you will see how variables could become cycles.

 

[Soundwαvє ▼]

There are pretty good ideas Naokaukodem!

I also suggest that some moves by the player could cause a boost or crises.

Rapidly industrialization: If you build a lot of factories too fast you enter in a depression due to lack of jobs and a lot of productions with too little demand. By the law of supply and demand this is a problem, and was several times the cause of crises.


I don't have more ideas... try to include more

 

[Camikaze]

Well it's not "cycles" but economic variables. And... that's all what you think about my ideas?

Re-read my post and you will see how variables could become cycles.

Well your ideas are very good (introducing more economic variables to effect an economic cycle of sorts), but I just don't see how an economic cycle already exists in Civ 4, as you say in your first line.

 

[mattigus]

I read an interview where Sid originally planned to have dark ages in the first Civ game, where the economy would turn bad and production would slow down. He realized that people hated it, and that it was an unfun part of the gameplay. So he decided to turn it around and have it instead boost the economy and production. That's how golden ages started in Civ.

It would be interesting to see this revisited. With the current economic recession, maybe economic cycles can be created based on whatever economic civic (or whatever they'll be called now) you are using. If you have an unrestricted economy, you can be treated to an overal boost in production, but risk the bubble bursting and having a couple of unproductive turns.

 

[wolf_brother]

ITT: random events? Ooooooooooooooooooh nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Seriously guys, random events = fun. For the game to be dynamic and challenging, it needs to have things happen that you can't predict with accuracy and have to react to, and how you react to it effects the game.

Honestly, I don't see any difference between a random event such as a volcano, earthquake, etc, or economic boom & bursts, and the stupidity that the AI makes you go through.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well your ideas are very good (introducing more economic variables to effect an economic cycle of sorts), but I just don't see how an economic cycle already exists in Civ 4, as you say in your first line.

Well each time you go to war cripples your economy, that's a start of economic cycles...

 

[Naokaukodem]

Rapidly industrialization: If you build a lot of factories too fast you enter in a depression due to lack of jobs and a lot of productions with too little demand. By the law of supply and demand this is a problem, and was several times the cause of crises.

I do not think that a system relying on offer/demand would be relevant if you do not truly simulate it. Indeed, in term of gameplay, why should building too much of some building be penalizing? That would be IMO too much penalizing and not enough integrated into the gameplay system so that it to be obvious enough for the player.