Economics in Civ 5

[Semmel]

Hi all,

I have red a lot about the changes in Civ 5. the hex fields, the one unit per hex policy and the new diplomatic mode. But I have not seen any information regarding the economic system. I loved Civ 4 very much until it hits the modern age. I love the economic hole my empire almost always got into when building the 4th city which I usually did before inventing curthouses. It was complex and the commerce system was easy to understand at the beginning (for beginners). But it was interesting and I loved it for that. I wonder how the economic system of civ 5 works. Does anyone has got a clue?

Best regards,
Semmel

 

[Modiga-Disabled]

I hope for something a little more complex. Even if it's just unautomated trade routes. I found Civ IV's economy a little too simplistic; just build cities in a way that maximises income and do what you can to minimise expenditure.

 

[Ahriman]

I am guessing that with all the focus on military and diplomacy changes, the economy is going to remain relatively unchanged.

Which is a good thing, IMO.

 

[krzysp]

I surely hope so. The fact that overexpansion posed serious problems made the game interesting

 

[Yakk]

From screenshots...

There are a number of "global empire resources".

Your empire has a global culture ticker, a global research ticker, a global gold count, and what appears to be a global golden age counter.

The "economic hole" was caused by the anti-city-spam code. In civ4, it breaks down after currency and courthouses -- and especially after free trade and corporation.

Basically, the thing that keeps your empire from growing is that the cost of maintaining additional cities scales up with distance (but this is bounded), and with count and population (but this is bounded). When the bound on count/population gets hit (and compensated for with economic technologies) you end up with the ability to have an empire that swallows the entire world.

I'm hoping they are tweaked, and better UI informs the user that they are hitting the point of diminishing returns on new cities...

 

[Camikaze]

I'm hoping that economics is much improved, because, IMO, it is one of the aspects severely lacking in Civ 4. Quantifying resources, or placing limits on their use, is a good idea, but unfortunately that is only being applied to strategic resources, rather than luxury resources, which would seem to indicate that they'll stick to the same old same old for economics.

 

[Yakk]

Oh yes, I remember something about an empire-wide happiness thing?

... why don't you think luxuries are quantified?

 

[Ahriman]

Oh yes, I remember something about an empire-wide happiness thing?

I think that is was generally agreed that the "happiness" counter in the UI was actually a golden-age counter, and that happiness was still handled individually by city.

... why don't you think luxuries are quantified?

Too complex. How do I allocate them across cities?

Also, it doesn't really work well, because happiness has no impact unless it is a binding constraint. So when is a happiness unit really being "consumed"?

[I think it was in one of the previews that strategic resources were limited, but luxuries weren't.]

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well there was mention that
Gold<=/=>Science which is good

I think it would be best if
Gold<=>Production
and
Science<=>Culture

In terms of both springing from the same underlying resource [of course culture would have to be sufficiently usefull... perhaps it Develops social policies... as well as Great People, Happiness, Borders, etc.]

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I can personally do without Micromanaging my Trade Routes-though perhaps an option to select which cities you trade with might be good. What I would like is that resources provide more than just Happiness or Health or Units-depending on the resource types. So Gold doesn't just boost happiness-multiple copies of gold also boost culture (gold in artwork & jewelry) & Commerce (the "Gold Standard") in all your cities. Similarly, having extra copies of corn might give you bonus food & commerce in all your cities-etc etc. That way having 1 copy of any resource isn't enough. Also, if the size of the bonus is related to empire size, then you have another counter to the "Bigger is Better" problem. i.e. having 3 silk will give +3 culture to 3 cities, but only +1 culture to 6 cities.
Another thing I'd like to see is what Krikkitone was on about-I'd like to see money used to boost production, happiness & health by using a slider-i.e. giving you much more control over the use of your domestic economy in the health & well-being of your population.

Aussie.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The alternative to micromanaging trade routes...
Make it part of diplomacy
All cities that use a Resource trade to the 'nearest' city that produces that resource. Taking the fastest (different hexes different move costs) allowable route.

The "Trade route benefit" to a city then goes to

All the cities that Trade route passes through (not counting the initial city)

So Trade is actually part of Diplomacy.... You want foreign Trade Routes... Buy a Resource, or Sell a Resource, to another empire, and benefit from the Trade.

The amount of benefit would depend on the 'consuming' city populations.. AND the distance to the nearest point along the trade route.

so silk traded to roman empire.... routes from silk sources in china to Roman Cities. The value of the route to cities Along the route is
Population of the Roman City
*(distance from last trade route city+distance to next trade route city)/2
* Adjustment Factor (map size, game speed)


It would automatically use the 'fastest' path, Certain buildings would decrease the "move cost"
Ie moving from City tile to water tile = high 'move cost' If the city has a harbor that move cost decreases.

Reasonably developed Cities should probably have "Move costs" that are less than a Road (so that trade routes will Slightly divert to go inside them ie a 'Stop' along the Silk Road.)

Water should be Faster than Roads (but not RailRoads)

Airports could connect Directly to other Airports. (and would have "Speed" as good as/better than Rails)

Trade routes would still be automated, but it wouldn't be 'spread out' in a wierd way.. It would be whatever is the fastest distance.

So the more roads you had, the more 'spread out' your trade benefits would be.

 

[sqdtnz]

I hope they will put a maintenance cost on roads/rail, etc... And make it possible to have road AND rail AND a highway or whatever connecting your cities and other important places seperately. This to stop the road spamming that simply annoys me (railroad on every single tile after long time of playing).

Then I hope city size will depend on economic factors, such as commercial trade routes (which then should depend on this limited amount of road infrastructure), instead of on food. If food would be a factor for city size Kansas would be full with metropoles by now. The food resources should be nationalised, and not be only local to each city (like the amount of gold is national in civ4).

This way your empires will be more managed, like having an urban, financial area in your empire, having a industrial area, but also having a farmland backarea, which could also become a buffer for military invasions, so you can set up defences along the way before the enemy forces can reach your financial/industrial areas.

 

[Michigamer]

I'm hoping that economics is much improved, because, IMO, it is one of the aspects severely lacking in Civ 4. Quantifying resources, or placing limits on their use, is a good idea, but unfortunately that is only being applied to strategic resources, rather than luxury resources, which would seem to indicate that they'll stick to the same old same old for economics.

It seems stange to me that the developers would make strategic resources a limited resource and introduce a new game mechanic, but luxury/food resources would a sort of "bottomless well." By keeping them the same, civs can trade strategic resources for luxuries (as in Civ III)...

Similarly, having extra copies of corn might give you bonus food & commerce in all your cities-etc etc. That way having 1 copy of any resource isn't enough. Also, if the size of the bonus is related to empire size, then you have another counter to the "Bigger is Better" problem. i.e. having 3 silk will give +3 culture to 3 cities, but only +1 culture to 6 cities.

...but more important than the international trade, this would have a good effect on the game's economic system IMO. A small civ would no longer be badly disadvantaged in lacking valuable economic resources, because a large empire would need lots more resources to maintain its happiness/health. Opens up opportunity for a smallish but expertly developed civ (think golden age-Holland or classical Greece) to shoot for cultural or diplomatic victory.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Certainly if multiple copies of a resource had a semi-additive effect on Happiness & Health too, then that might be good. So to extend my earlier example-you have 3 copies of corn in your empire-if, for example, you have 3 cities, then this will generate +3 food & +3 health per city. However, if your empire doubles to 6 cities, then that bonus will drop to +1 food & +1 health, & you lose all benefit if you go to 9 cities. This would better reflect issues of scarcity & force players to either maintain smaller empires or obtain more of the resources they require by war or diplomacy.

Point 2 is this: with strategic resources, demands on the resource from unit building should cut into the supply for the domestic economy. Example-if your 5 units of Iron are generating a bonus of +5 hammers per city, but you go & build 10 swordsmen, then this bonus might drop to only +3 hammers per city. This forces the player to make difficult choices between maintaining a large army & keeping his cities running efficiently.

Point 3 is this: as much as I like Krikkitones idea for resource based trade routes, I do believe that such a system can exist parallel with the one they had in CivIV. i.e. at the start of the game you have only your domestic trade-which will have the smallest monetary value. However this can be boosted depending on (a) population size, (b) being between multiple trading cities & (c) having a resource in your city radius. Then, as you contact foreign nations, some of your domestic routes will become foreign routes. These will be next up in value, & boosted in similar ways to domestic routes. Then you have resource-based trade routes, which will be the most economically valuable-using the formula Krikkitone suggested.
Another interesting idea would be having Social Policies relating to trade impacting on the number & value of trade routes you have, as well as the ratio of foreign to domestic trade routes you have (for example, Mercantile or Protectionist trade policies shouldn't eliminate foreign trade altogether, but should reduce the number of foreign trade routes, per city, by 1. However, it should boost the value of the remaining foreign trade routes-due to tariffs-& probably give a diplomatic penalty to civs you trade with).
Speaking of Social policies, it would be nice to see them effect the extent to which you can adjust certain sliders-sort of like in Civ2 but much more nuanced.
For example-although espionage has been dropped from the core game, if it was still in, then advancing along the Tyranny path might increase the maximum setting of your espionage slider (&/or boost the value of any EP generating activities). Another example is that advancing along the Tradition Slider might actually reduce the maximum setting of your science slider.
Anyway, just some examples to throw out there !

Aussie.

 

[SMA333M]

I hope there will still be corporations... and maybe improved ones too.

Also, I'd like to be able to set the trade routes as I like, sign trade agreements, etc...

 

[toft]

I have always thought that civ4 economics sucked. Those sliders for science, culture and espionage are based on your income. What if I have 30 millions in the bank, and I only have an income of 5/turn? That means I can only use 5 on science max per turn, and take a sad look at the 30 million, that I have to save for something else. It seems stupid to me.

I really hope theres a funnier and more complex economy system in civ5.

 

[tom2050]

Here's a couple observations I have had that are unknown, but seem plausible:

Your civilization size may have a direct effect on your economics, e.g. gold/turn (if it still exists)
- It was stated that the game will be balanced in a way to make smaller civilizations not be easy to wipe out by larger civilizations. This could mean many things, such as production bonus' for smaller civs, economic bonus' to keep up in research, or both. Also could mean higher city hitpoint bonus'. Not known, but something like this could be in play.

As was mentioned above, Social Policies that you choose may have a direct effect on your economic growth. Seems that they may be wide and far-reaching, allowing you to control many aspects of your civ's domestic policies, from religion to gov't, and probably including culture and economics.