Economy and stability...

[IwerZ]

Greetings fellow Civ-fanatics!


I have played so far more than a dozen games of Rhye's... But most of them end quite abruptly when my empire collapses thanks to a lack of stability.

I have thorougly read the wiki concerning stability and I still don't understand what's happening.

---

When I try to figure this issue, the main cause is Economy, while other sectors usually remains at three or four stars.

The wiki is telling me about my GNP, but what is perplexing is the fact that my GNP is usually number 1 (This is one of my main goal). In one game, it was actually three times larger than the closest rival (with about the same number of cities).

I earn vast amount of money, but still I collapse thanks to the economy factor.

For instance I played the greeks once, built only two additional cities, but thanks to my vast number of wonders improving my trade, I was earning +80 gold each turn with 100% science.

I trade a lot of special ressources, buy them, sell them, it doesn't change anything, I collapse circa 1600 AD. Multiple golden ages aren't enough.

---

I tried the opposite strategy, with a vast persian empire (11 cities). Again, I manage to have a few incredibly rich cities, and around 1400 AD, my net profit is positive with 80/90% science.

And I collapse... again... Even in the middle of a golden age!

---

I can switch policies from the start, it just doesn't change the outcome (they affect only other factors, with the sole exception of economy).

---

It seems that in Rhye's, you can't play as a perfectionist. Why?

Have you the slightest idea what is happening?

So far, I fear that "old" civilizations are scripted to collapse, no matter what you do, so new ones can arise.

What shall I do?

Any suggestion?

 

[Rhye]

no they're not scripted.
But the system works so that when your economy grows you gain stability, when you stagnate or shrink you lose stability. This might me the most important factor. For all the others, read the strategy guide in the wiki

 

[IwerZ]

I may build dozens of banks, markets, nothing changes...

---

I guess that when you have a super-rich city already, its economy can't improve since it is already near maximum.

And thus you are supposed to decline, and then collapse.

---

For the computer, you are stagnating, even if your GNP remains several times larger than the closest rival on earth.

---

It seems quite absurd, doesn't it?

Being too efficient seems to be a dangerous idea.

 

[meril]

My impression from reading the stability code is that it is much easier to lose economic stability points than to gain them (until you can switch to Commonwealth). If you lose 3 GNP points (weighted sum of commerce, production, food) over 3 turns you'll lose one stability point; if you gain 18 GNP points over the same span you'll gain one stability point. Base stability calculations for per-capita commerce and food also don't favor the perfectionist since commerce and food grow linearly when you work more tiles whereas population increases on a much faster curve (degree 2.8 with respect to city size, I believe?).

 

[IwerZ]

My impression from reading the stability code is that it is much easier to lose economic stability points than to gain them (until you can switch to Commonwealth). If you lose 3 GNP points (weighted sum of commerce, production, food) over 3 turns you'll lose one stability point; if you gain 18 GNP points over the same span you'll gain one stability point. Base stability calculations for per-capita commerce and food also don't favor the perfectionist since commerce and food grow linearly when you work more tiles whereas population increases on a much faster curve (degree 2.8 with respect to city size, I believe?).

I can switch to Commonwealth, no positive change seems to occur...

In fact, according to my simulations, the result is even worst, and my civilization declines even faster.

---

I fear there is something wrong or absurd within the "economy" factor...

 

[Whitefire]

I tried the opposite strategy, with a vast persian empire (11 cities). Again, I manage to have a few incredibly rich cities, and around 1400 AD, my net profit is positive with 80/90% science.

And I collapse... again... Even in the middle of a golden age!

You need to expand further at that point. As Rhye pointed out, when you economy stops growing, you lose stability. The major way to grow your GNP score is to increase your population, not construct buildings that modify your commerce output.

Why you ask? Well, first you need to realize just how little impact your buildings are making. Say you build 3 markets between stability checks. These markets give +25% to gold, but you're running at 60 % science. We'll be generous and say that each city was producing 16 , giving a total of 48.

48*40% = 19.2*25% = 4.8

So the net gain to your economy was 4.8 , which is hardly anything to talk about. If you were to instead capture a city and grow it, you would see greater growth from population increase, without the need of constructing buildings. Every population point will give 3-4 more , or . If you turn that population into a specialist, it will give anywhere from 1 and 1 to 6 . Not to mention the increase in trade from trade routes, any resources you gain or possible diplo bopnuses for having a common enemy.

----------

Short answer: No, it's not broken. You're playing the game wrong.

 

[IwerZ]

The major way to grow your GNP score is to increase your population, not construct buildings that modify your commerce output.

But you should have guessed that my super-rich cities have already reached max-population...

So the issue is similar: If you get too rich too quickly, the computer then considers you are stagnating and eventually you will collapse.

Absurd!

It means you get a reward from not playing too well.
Because if you try to maximize your output, you're doomed!

 

[SadoMacho]

I am a builder myself, but I don't suffer a lot of collapses (unless playing with Japan). Try trading exces recources for gold. Graceland, Hollywood,... wonder a very important. Build them and trade te recources. Somethimes you can get up to 20 for them and people will like you more for trading them. Trade is important (and that's whats missing with Japan).

I have noticed that the newer RFC (those playing since BtS) all have trouble with stability.

 

[Whitefire]

But you should have guessed that my super-rich cities have already reached max-population...

So the issue is similar: If you get too rich too quickly, the computer then considers you are stagnating and eventually you will collapse.

Absurd!

It means you get a reward from not playing too well.
Because if you try to maximize your output, you're doomed!

I find it hard to believe that you're playing well when you are able to produce gold beyond your maintenance expenses with the slider at 100%. In fact, that's one of the major signs that you're doing something wrong with your game.

 

[Panopticon]

Hmm. I was plagued by economic instability for quite a while. (As well as being plagued by Plague.) The solution seems to be constant expansion using the appropriate expansion civic, or Commonwealth. I imagine Persia would work especially well with that strategy, but I've never played as them.

 

[IwerZ]

I am a builder myself, but I don't suffer a lot of collapses (unless playing with Japan). Try trading exces recources for gold. Graceland, Hollywood,... wonder a very important. Build them and trade te recources. Somethimes you can get up to 20 for them and people will like you more for trading them. Trade is important (and that's whats missing with Japan).

Explain me how I could build Graceland and Hollywood before 1600 AD?

I have noticed that the newer RFC (those playing since BtS) all have trouble with stability.

Interesting...

 

[IwerZ]

I find it hard to believe that you're playing well when you are able to produce gold beyond your maintenance expenses with the slider at 100%. In fact, that's one of the major signs that you're doing something wrong with your game.

So what's wrong?

With the greeks, my economy was super-efficient... I had so many famous peoples as super-citizens in my cities (Parthenon+Pisa Tower+National Gallery+Pacifism), multiple golden ages, plus the sea trade...

No other Civ was as advanced as the greeks were, technologically... They seemed promised to a bright future... and then "Collapse!"

---

What did I wrong, I mean, as the pure perfectionist I am?

 

[Whitefire]

Power and wealth are based in land and people. When you stop accumulating those, you start to fall apart =P.

 

[Refar]

Well from the realism point of view there is nothing wrong. When you stop growing - even if it is because you are already so big, that you just can't grow further - you start falling.

There are limits how far a civ can grow, so fall is inevitable. The history proves it. Every great civ fallen eventually.


I agree however, that from the point of view of play-ability and fun this is kind of demotivating.

 

[Whitefire]

It's not demotivating at all, really. It just forces you to expand or die. Or settle your Great Persons ad Super Specialists.

 

[IwerZ]

Well from the realism point of view there is nothing wrong. When you stop growing - even if it is because you are already so big, that you just can't grow further - you start falling.

That's not realistic AT ALL!

Many countries did not see the point to expand forever (unless you think imperialism is a vital need for every nations on earth), and there's always a limit to it.

Stability rather means continuation...

---

And losing a few territories doesn't mean your country will suddenly vanish out of thin air.
History is far more complex than that...

This "economy" factor is not only frustrating and demotivating, it is absurd!

This factor should rather be based on how powerful your GNP/capita is compared to other civs. Again, a young or growing civ could retain some kind of free bonus, but a super-powerful civ should not collapse, this simply makes no sense at all!

 

[LuKo]

Because great empires like Alexander's Macedonia or late Roman Empire shows us that most powerful countries won't ever collapse!

 

[das]

For the computer, you are stagnating, even if your GNP remains several times larger than the closest rival on earth.

The most infamous examples of imperial stagnation were precisely for the nations that had indeed grown so powerful that they lost both motivation and ability to change.

Because if you try to maximize your output, you're doomed!

If you go faster, you reach the end faster. Slow and cautious growth is generally more easy to keep up for a long period of time, and is much more secure, both in game and in real life; whereas rapid advancement can indeed lead a nation into a dead end, when the economy, thirsty for additional growth (which would be simply no longer feasible internally), will either necessitate imperial/colonial expansion or stagnate and break down. There are all reasons to believe that this was at least one of the main reasons behind all the great historical outbursts of expansion.

So no, it's not at all unrealistic.

Many countries did not see the point to expand forever

Those were the countries that did not generally grow very fast, for whatever reasons.

there's always a limit to it.

It is a moving limit.

Stability rather means continuation...

Continuation of growth. When you have climbed so high that you can no longer grow, said continuation becomes impossible.

 

[onedreamer]

I have been playing Persia only once trying its historical victory but I failed, because getting the expansion goal was too much for me in too few time. I haven't tried again, but that time I decided to continue. I had conquered Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and north India. Then I continued expanding and took Arabia when it declared war to me after spawning and Egypt and southern India and Turkey. If I remember well I had Ethiopia and Mali as Vassals, that helped me with stability (Viceroyality), as well as 3 holy shrines. I didn't grow much in territory (I took one city from Mongolia some tiles east of Samarkand in the Renaissance) from the Middle Age till my cultural victory in 1972 (I didn't actually want to win that way, I didn't know that legendary is at only 20k culture ) but still I didn't collapse. What helped were golden ages, vassals, holy shrines and probably the fact I didn't expand too much outside Persian highest extent. Of course my cities grew, but not skyrocketed in this, since the area I was holding isn't exactly a grassland paradise. I was shaky at times but never unstable. In short what I'm trying to say is that I doubt that continued expansion is what is a key to not collapsing, you can do a lot of things to help. You can even have 2 extended (Mausoleum) golden ages with Nationhood if you build Taj Mahal and Olympic Games. These helped me alot with research, since I was researching at 20-30% most of the game.

 

[IwerZ]

Because great empires like Alexander's Macedonia or late Roman Empire shows us that most powerful countries won't ever collapse!

1) Alexander's empire had grown too fast during a very short time, and he died way too young to become an efficient ruler.

So I don't see the point.

--

2) The late Roman empire was not stagnating economically, it was losing trade and population everywhere, the cities were shrinking. And it was impossible to rule because it was way too large.

So I don't see your point either.

Wrong examples.