Economics Modcomp discussion

[konradcabral]

well i'm not an economist so all my knowledge is based on newspaper articles and wikipedia. but yeah, i have general concept of what they are: rights to do something with the things they are derived from. but for what good they are it's hard to tell form me in some cases: derivates of the form of 'bets' on falling share prices. i really can't tell what good they serve. as for options i know how these can be utilized to minimize risks and stabilize prices.

Then you know what beneficts they bring! For "bets" you could translate in "different opinions and desires". I think that rice price will fall, you think that rice price will rise. We "bet". This is what gives the rice farmer conditions (liquidity) to start planting rice now to sell, at a pre-settled price, one year later. If the rice farmer couldn't guarantee that price, he would stay at home and your sushi would be far more expensive.

You might discuss some kind of weird derivative, but not to take the general good they cause. I guarantee you that if some kind of papers are proven to be bad in the long term, the FED and others CBs will quickly BANISH them.

 

[konradcabral]

So, back to work, I just edited the OP with some corrections and changes. I mixed Gold and Silver standards in Noble Metal Standard, like suggested by Killtech, and created a cool civic called "Assisted Barter". Let's see what are you capable of, Afforess!

 

[generalstaff]

So, back to work, I just edited the OP with some corrections and changes. I mixed Gold and Silver standards in Noble Metal Standard, like suggested by Killtech, and created a cool civic called "Assisted Barter". Let's see what are you capable of, Afforess!

The creation of the Noble Metal Standard is making me think that Private Coinage should have some effect with Gold, Silver, Copper, Gems, Pearls, and Clams (representative of Cowries). Those resources in particular had major impact on the monetary systems of societies where there was private minting of coins. I cannot explain why I it gave me this idea, it just did.

 

[sugarfree]

Spoiler :

Barter
- No upkeep
- -25% gold in all cities
- No inflation costs
- -10% gold from Market (total 5%)
- -30% gold from bank (total 0%)
- -25% trade routes yield
- -25% foreign trade routes yield

Assisted Barter
Reqs Trade
- Player will choose a resource to be the country's "currency", the country cannot have more than 1 of the chosen resource; if another unit of the same resource is discovered or extracted or traded in will cause +25% inflation per 10 turns
- Will consume 1 Fur or 1 Gems or 1 Gold or 1 Iron or 1 Ivory or 1 Lead or 1 Marble or 1 Obsidian or 1 Pearls or 1 Salt or 1 Silk or 1 Silver (didn't put any post-calendar resource because Currency generally comes before than it)
- Low upkeep
- -15% gold in all cities
- +5% inflation
- -5% gold from Market (total 10%)
- -30% gold from bank (total 0%)
- -10% trade routes yield
- -25% foreign trade routes yield

State Coinage (sugarfree’s National Mints)
Reqs Currency
- Low upkeep
- +5% gold with gold
- +5% gold with silver
- -25% foreign trade routes yield
- +10% inflation

Noble Metal Standard
Reqs Aesthetics
- Medium upkeep
- +2% per gold or silver resources (up to +10%)
- +5% foreign trade routes yield per gold or silver resources if partner uses Noble Metal Standard, max +25%
- -10% inflation
- +2% inflation per gold or silver resources (up to +10%)
- -5% from Jewellery (total 5%)

Private Coinage (sugarfree’s Market Enterprise)
Reqs Guilds
- No upkeep
- +25% hurry cost
- Goldrushing has no effect on inflation
- -10% inflation
- +10% from Bank (total 40%)

State Bank
Reqs Nationalism
- High upkeep
- +10% gold
- +10% inflation
- -50% hurrying cost
- Goldrushing, if possible, has double effect on inflation (+2% inflation per x turns)
- -10% from Bank (total 20%)

National Reserve System
Reqs Applied Economics
- Medium upkeep
- +10% gold
- +10% from Bank (total 40%)
- -10% inflation
- +25% foreign trade routes yield with each partner if they use National Reserve System

Well, I can't say I really dislike the changes u made, but you actually removed some of the basic strategic elements of the civics that I intended. First af all, it seems to me that civics are now just getting better and better towards NRS at the list. When i compare the numbers, last civic is just absolutely best (thou state bank has its significant + also, but still we are talking about paper standard). Are you really convinced that today's monetary system is absolutely best? 2 years ago, I thought so too. Now my thoughts are dubious. I am starting to have some serious trouble praising debt-driven economy now, especially when we talk about long-term sustainable growth.

But that's not the point of our talk here I just wanted to point out that I was trying to make every civic not only historically accurate, but also having some specific strategic usage. For example the gold and silver standards. The idea was to create 2 competitive monetary systems that have same modifiers, but different global context. My effort here headed towards diplomacy, international trade, and persuation to seek for strategic resources. Also, state bank was'nt just about rushbying, but could have temporarily helped the whole economy, boosted the science aswell (when you really need to get that tech fast).

 

[konradcabral]

Yes, I'm convinced that the current monetary system is the better available for long-term sustainable growth, at least in comparison with the other ones we are trying to simulate on these civics. So, IMO, monetary civics should improve through time. But, as you correctly appointed, in Civ the coolest idea is having different options to achieve different results and strategies. Maybe we should increase the attractivity of State Bank and Noble Metal Standard to create options, then. Also, remember that what I post here are just suggestions, the final decision is made by Afforess, the person who actually get his hands dirty in the code.

 

[wolfigor]

Only if I could simulate economic cycles. In the long-term, stocks and derivatives will always be a progress and a help to economy growth.

About the first part I agree, it's probably very hard to directly model economic cycles in CIV4.

I've been playing quite a lot the RFC mod.
There is a system that monitor the different growth of wealth.
When the delta between produced goods and produced wealth passes a predefined delta thrashhold , you get a "great depression"....

Just an example to say that in some indirect ways economic cycles can be included in the game.
However these mechanics are rather difficoult for the player to understand and control.

 

[sugarfree]

Ok, fair enough.

I had a brief thought about the inflation mechanics. Maybe it could work somehow like this:

Spoiler :

Goldrush= sum of gold spend on goldrush this turn
Income = Total income this turn, obviously. Should be international trade included?
Costs = Total costs this turn
Budget volume = bigger number from either Income or Costs
Deficit = Costs-Income
Goldrush modifier = hurry effect modifier from monetary civics (0 with Private coinage, 2 with State Bank)
Goldrush range = (Goldrush/Budget volume)*Goldrush modifier; in other words: what part of budget does the goldrush make
Deficit range = Deficit/Budget volume; in other words: how serious the deficit is

Base Inflation Rate = set at the beginning of the game by difficulty
Net Inflation Rate = (base inflation rate+goldrush range+deficit range) + modifiers from civics (note that this value represents a percentage)
Inflation = total inflation cost, kept in integer, is 0 at start

Now the simple formula:

Inflation next turn = Inflation + (Goldrush+Deficit+Budget Value) * (Net Inflation rate/100)

The intention was to involve also budget deficit. Assuming I wrote it without mistakes, the depth of deficit affects the inflation rate and also the inflation base itself, so it has multiplicative effect. This means that having little deficit for 10 turns should cause less total inflation than running balanced budget for 9 turns and then make huge loss in 1 turn (shock inflation). Again, assuming that i didn't screw up something Same mechanism works for goldrushing - especially rushing expensive stuff like wonders will cause astronomical inflation. This way player is persuaded to keep somewhat balanced budget as long as possible. Notice that if you run surplus economy, the inflation can be severely reduced (Deficit is negative), or in extreme cases you could even happen to see deflation.

 

[civ_king]

Ok, fair enough.

I had a brief thought about the inflation mechanics. Maybe it could work somehow like this:

Spoiler :

Goldrush= sum of gold spend on goldrush this turn
Income = Total income this turn, obviously. Should be international trade included?
Costs = Total costs this turn
Budget volume = bigger number from either Income or Costs
Deficit = Costs-Income
Goldrush modifier = hurry effect modifier from monetary civics (0 with Private coinage, 2 with State Bank)
Goldrush range = (Goldrush/Budget volume)*Goldrush modifier; in other words: what part of budget does the goldrush make
Deficit range = Deficit/Budget volume; in other words: how serious the deficit is

Base Inflation Rate = set at the beginning of the game by difficulty
Net Inflation Rate = (base inflation rate+goldrush range+deficit range) + modifiers from civics (note that this value represents a percentage)
Inflation = total inflation cost, kept in integer, is 0 at start

Now the simple formula:

Inflation next turn = Inflation + (Goldrush+Deficit+Budget Value) * (Net Inflation rate/100)

The intention was to involve also budget deficit. Assuming I wrote it without mistakes, the depth of deficit affects the inflation rate and also the inflation base itself, so it has multiplicative effect. This means that having little deficit for 10 turns should cause less total inflation than running balanced budget for 9 turns and then make huge loss in 1 turn (shock inflation). Again, assuming that i didn't screw up something Same mechanism works for goldrushing - especially rushing expensive stuff like wonders will cause astronomical inflation. This way player is persuaded to keep somewhat balanced budget as long as possible. Notice that if you run surplus economy, the inflation can be severely reduced (Deficit is negative), or in extreme cases you could even happen to see deflation.

when one conquers in late game you typically use rush buy to make the city worth anything, how about you devalue the goldrush by inflation because introducing massive influxes of cash has diminishing returns buy to an increased amount of money so the increase is a smaller percentage of gold in supply therefore it increases inflation by a smaller amount

also can the deficit be a negative deficit, so when you are getting money you are pulling it out of circulation so the value has increased?

but that would do insane inflation-deflation because you would be getting money to goldrush but then you would spend it

 

[sugarfree]

when one conquers in late game you typically use rush buy to make the city worth anything, how about you devalue the goldrush by inflation because introducing massive influxes of cash has diminishing returns buy to an increased amount of money so the increase is a smaller percentage of gold in supply therefore it increases inflation by a smaller amount

Wow i just didn't understand a word of yours Could you please try it again, so that even european like me can understand? Thanks

also can the deficit be a negative deficit, so when you are getting money you are pulling it out of circulation so the value has increased?

but that would do insane inflation-deflation because you would be getting money to goldrush but then you would spend it

Well, yeah that's the point. I don't see anything insane about that. The numbers aren't going to be gamebreaking. When u keep making reserves, the inflation rate will drop a little bit, then when you spend the reserves instantly, it will rise again, this time even more because of the shock effect. You can imagine this as part of an economic cycle.

Problem with my formula is, that it doesn't take into account non-budget income. Like u mentioned in your first article, when you keep conquering, pillaging or trading away techs for money, these money aren't involved in the formula, hence every pillaged buck moves the equation towards higher inflation. This generally doesn't have to be wrong, since it reflects history (again, example with the spanish conquests in America, which increased inflation in whole Europe), but right now I have no idea how this will influence the balance in long, elaborate games.

 

[civ_king]

Wow i just didn't understand a word of yours Could you please try it again, so that even european like me can understand? Thanks


Well, yeah that's the point. I don't see anything insane about that. The numbers aren't going to be gamebreaking. When u keep making reserves, the inflation rate will drop a little bit, then when you spend the reserves instantly, it will rise again, this time even more because of the shock effect. You can imagine this as part of an economic cycle.

Problem with my formula is, that it doesn't take into account non-budget income. Like u mentioned in your first article, when you keep conquering, pillaging or trading away techs for money, these money aren't involved in the formula, hence every pillaged buck moves the equation towards higher inflation. This generally doesn't have to be wrong, since it reflects history (again, example with the spanish conquests in America, which increased inflation in whole Europe), but right now I have no idea how this will influence the balance in long, elaborate games.

1) I conquer a city and lots of buildings get destroyed
2) I rush buy to make the city usable in a reasonable amount of time
this leads to my suggestion

1) you rush buy
2) inflation goes up because of lots of money introduced
3) you rush buy again for the same amount,
4) This increases inflation by the same amount

BUT it increases the money supply by a smaller PERCENTAGE therefore it causes less inflation (diminshing returns)

so my request is thus: goldrush contributes a smaller amount because the more inflation is because the money would increase the increase the amount of money in circulation by a smaller PERCENT therefor less inflation

so goldrushes increase inflation by a smaller amount because of higher inflation

 

[sugarfree]

so my request is thus: goldrush contributes a smaller amount because the more inflation is because the money would increase the increase the amount of money in circulation by a smaller PERCENT therefor less inflation

so goldrushes increase inflation by a smaller amount because of higher inflation

Man, u live in US, I suppose u should be able to write english so that everyone can understand u. If i got your point right, this is solved by the "range" variables, which describe what percentage of your economy does the goldrush represent. After all, it depends on where did you get the money from. If you got it from previous surpluses, the overall inflation from the goldrush will be almost none. If you got it from conquests, this will raise the overall inflation adequately.

 

[Afforess]

I have some concerns about this mod idea, after following this thread. I like most of the general changes to Inflation, but the mechanics with civics and techs bother me. Let me explain...

Until Modern Economics, rulers of the day often did not understand the economic forces at play, which is why Medieval Countries often experienced wild inflation and a quickly cycling economy. Spain in particular didn't understand that bringing back tons of gold from the New World would destroy the value of gold, and thus, there gold-based currency.

Which leads me to a question, should the player know the Inflation Mechanics? Should the civic screen, and tech screen reveal that certain civics will affect inflation? Even if we make it so it's revealed after Economics, the player can memorize the information for the next game. I'm partial towards revealing it, but that reveals another issue...

Bias towards common sense. I know that sounds idiotic, but If I was to code the AI to make the best decisions possible, it would avoid inflation at all costs, and probably do better than the player at doing so. But this does not simulate reality. Making the AI aware of Inflation after Economics (or any tech), won't work either, because of the above issue. And I don't want to code the AI to make poor decisions, because that's... ludicrous.

Also, I think you guys are ignoring the fact that for some people, Inflation is a good thing. People who are in debt and have a lot of money in loans in particular, enjoy inflation, as it makes there future wages worth more than their debt. Farmers often were the key group here, as they often owed banks a lot for the land, and would do better when the currency inflated, but would get hammered when deflation occurred. The banks, enjoy deflation, as it makes their loans worth more. I'm not sure how to simulate this at all, but I think it should be factored in at some level.

 

[civ_king]

Man, u live in US, I suppose u should be able to write english so that everyone can understand u. If i got your point right, this is solved by the "range" variables, which describe what percentage of your economy does the goldrush represent. After all, it depends on where did you get the money from. If you got it from previous surpluses, the overall inflation from the goldrush will be almost none. If you got it from conquests, this will raise the overall inflation adequately.

1) pple in teh US spek liek dis!
2) I'm a walking catastrophe I have: dyslexia, dysgraphia, AD(H)D, Autism and bipolar
3) I guess I'm just hopeless

 

[konradcabral]

Until Modern Economics, rulers of the day often did not understand the economic forces at play,

Your fears are certainly valid, Afforess. But similar things already happen in Civ. How do we know that Monarchy tech allows Monarchy civic before researching it? Beelining techs is exploiting information too. How do we know that Banks give +30% gold, not +29% or +31%? Which leads me to answer...

Which leads me to a question, should the player know the Inflation Mechanics? Should the civic screen, and tech screen reveal that certain civics will affect inflation?

Yes and yes. According to the thinking above, more manageable information, more fun to me.

... but If I was to code the AI to make the best decisions possible, it would avoid inflation at all costs, and probably do better than the player at doing so.

This isn't my area, but why? The AI don't manage gold or trade better than players. Why this would be different or harmful in the inflation case?

Also, I think you guys are ignoring the fact that for some people, Inflation is a good thing.

Almost every economic variable has positive and negative effects, this is why economists cannot understand themselves. Indeed some people can be benefit from inflation, but the general effect to society is painful at some level. Again, we don't need to put in Civ every microeffect, the net effect is fine sometimes.

About the inflation formula: I recomend extensive beta-testing before releasing it to the broad public. I think the variables are fine. We need to guarantee that it has the same behavior through game turns than before, otherwise we'll need to twist all the other expenditure values (unit support and supply, city maintenance). This, despite being a great idea, is theme for another modmods.

 

[Afforess]

Your fears are certainly valid, Afforess. But similar things already happen in Civ. How do we know that Monarchy tech allows Monarchy civic before researching it? Beelining techs is exploiting information too. How do we know that Banks give +30% gold, not +29% or +31%?

The AI sees that info too. If you AI Autoplay, you can see that the AI thinks more than 1 tech ahead.

Yes and yes. According to the thinking above, more manageable information, more fun to me.

Well, that's the way I was leaning. Just wanted your answer.

This isn't my area, but why? The AI don't manage gold or trade better than players. Why this would be different or harmful in the inflation case?

True... I guess.

Almost every economic variable has positive and negative effects, this is why economists cannot understand themselves. Indeed some people can be benefit from inflation, but the general effect to society is painful at some level. Again, we don't need to put in Civ every microeffect, the net effect is fine sometimes.

I haven't looked closely at your recent civics outlines, so don't roast me if I'm wrong here, but I just don't want the civics to be 1 sided statements that "Inflation is Bad". I agree, inflation is bad, but I would like to have some semi-feasible alternatives.

 

[konradcabral]

I haven't looked closely at your recent civics outlines, so don't roast me if I'm wrong here, but I just don't want the civics to be 1 sided statements that "Inflation is Bad". I agree, inflation is bad, but I would like to have some semi-feasible alternatives.

My initial suggestion were one-sided thoughts, but with the brilliant contribution by sugarfree, we are getting two valid monetary behaviors, which I don't agree in the real world but support in Civ: tolerating inflation to get better results in the short-term, or being conservative about inflation. So, with this new model, inflation isn't a bad thing always.

 

[Afforess]

My initial suggestion were one-sided thoughts, but with the brilliant contribution by sugarfree, we are getting two valid monetary behaviors, which I don't agree in the real world but support in Civ: tolerating inflation to get better results in the short-term, or being conservative about inflation. So, with this new model, inflation isn't a bad thing always.

I just reviewed the civics, they seem pretty good actually. Just two suggestions, I would make (not manditory, but I would like to hear your opinion).

State Coinage seems a bit weak, Perhaps make it so that it gives 5% gold per Silver and Gold, not with?

Shouldn't State bank get a 50% boost of revenue from foreign trade (tariffs, currency exchanges?), but then give a diplomatic hit (-1?) with all trading partners?

 

[konradcabral]

Yup. I agreed, for the sake of alternative playing styles, with the powering of some civics in comparison to the last one, "National Reserve System". BTW, I renamed it from "Federal Reserve System" in order to not mixing or linking it to "Federal" civic. Tomorrow I'll prepare an edit taking this in account. Any more suggestions? All other features are feasible?

 

[Afforess]

Yup. I agreed, for the sake of alternative playing styles, with the powering of some civics in comparison to the last one, "National Reserve System". BTW, I renamed it from "Federal Reserve System" in order to not mixing or linking it to "Federal" civic. Tomorrow I'll prepare an edit taking this in account. Any more suggestions? All other features are feasible?

I believe so. I looked through, and I can add everything.

 

[konradcabral]

I believe so. I looked through, and I can add everything.

So guys, the time is counting. Any disagreements? Any addons? Speak now, or silence forever. I mean, not forever, at least to the next version of AND.