Cetrix
Merovingian
Damn economy in RFC. Always 1 or 2 stars and still going down !
Anyone can tell me how to have a nice economy (high GNP I guess) ? Thanks
Anyone can tell me how to have a nice economy (high GNP I guess) ? Thanks
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Economy in RFC : how to ?
- Thread starter Cetrix
- Start date
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,431
Read the stability article on rhye's of wiki.
An important factor in economic stability is growth in the total food, hammers, and commerce you get from worked tiles. Ideally you want that total to increase every three turns.
But too much growth will create problems. Occupying too much ahistorical or contested land gives you instability. Owning more than ten cities incurs a research penalty.
So ideally you will grow, but slowly. You can do things like
* work cottages
* don't let grow your population too fast
* such as by adding cities to your empire gradually, not all at once
An important factor in economic stability is growth in the total food, hammers, and commerce you get from worked tiles. Ideally you want that total to increase every three turns.
But too much growth will create problems. Occupying too much ahistorical or contested land gives you instability. Owning more than ten cities incurs a research penalty.
So ideally you will grow, but slowly. You can do things like
* work cottages
* don't let grow your population too fast
* such as by adding cities to your empire gradually, not all at once
Arkaeyn
King
Making a beeline towards Liberalism and its Commonwealth civic helps a lot, too. Build markets and banks wherever you can.
Some people prefer to hold off on building cottages until later in the game, as their growth only continues so far.
Some people prefer to hold off on building cottages until later in the game, as their growth only continues so far.
Cetrix
Merovingian
Ok, thank you. i've already read the wiki, but I think I grow too fast and I have too much cities... I like conquer a lot in late games, so I use police state/nationhood,occupation, and so on.
Damn economy in RFC. Always 1 or 2 stars and still going down !
Anyone can tell me how to have a nice economy (high GNP I guess) ? Thanks
Your number of imports/exports in the info screen also matters. So secure more foreign trade routes via open borders can help too.
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,406
This is Russia on Emperor year 1904 AD, only 17 cities. WWI just started (Russia+UK and vassals vs Germany+Spain and vassals), so I lost lots of trade from Germany block. And still my Economy running 5 stars. I was stable/solid during the entire game, while my expansion was sinking me, foreign relations and economy was helping me a lot. I was expanding very slow as you can tell from 17 cities. Almost never conquest.
Attachments
Power_of_Beer
Prince
Were you running state property? If you do so as Russia, your economic rating is very high (if you have a lot of watermills+workshops of course) and this allows you to do "bad" in the other areas. I had a +99 economic rating once as russia which allowed me to conquer huge areas in europe and asia
Tigranes
Armenian
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,406
No, on the contrary, I was running FM for the entire period. I went through GD (lasted 8 turns) without much damage. Siberia allows you to grow every turn, you just have lots of tiles to improve, did it slowly but steadily. However my score after the 3rd UHV was not high at all 
Maybe because I stopped teching after Rocketry. Spent all the taxes on Russian culture I wish the stability rating were a part of the score, what do the people think, would it be appropriate?
Maybe because I stopped teching after Rocketry. Spent all the taxes on Russian culture I wish the stability rating were a part of the score, what do the people think, would it be appropriate?
Wessel V1
Emperor
Not really. Raising score is done by conquest and having a huge population, and conquest CAN (I know, I know) be bad for stability. Linking stability to score would mean that there are 2 ways to increase your score: A) conquest, with the risk of collapsing, being conquered etc. or B) doing nothing.
Wessel V1
Emperor
That's not what I meant. Doing nothing means doing nothing to raise your score (become more powerful, own more land), so in other words: turtle around. And in my experience, if played well, this results in a pretty high stability. If stability is part of the score, even if it has a tiny impact, doing nothing has the same result in score as conquering the world. So in other words, a player can do anything he can to get a nice result, or do nothing to get the same result. I'd rather have the first to be honest.
In CIV 4, the highest results were achieved by expanding as fast as possible. I'm not very experienced with that, never visited these forums but when the HOF results get published, I want to know who has the highest score. Just to know what's possible. Immortal Domination games seem to do very well. In RFC, that tactic doesn't work, there is always a point where stability takes control of your previous conquests. The challenge is, to balance both things to get the best result. I really like to do that, since it actually makes a difference to play several games when attempting to get the highest score.
To make this clear with a scenario:
Scenario A, with score-boosting stability: Player 1, let's say Turkey has a positive stability, let's say +20. However, it's already 1850 AD and his stability is going up (levees, factories). He decided to wait and continue his economic progress.
Scenario B, without score-boosting stability: same story. However, stability is high enough to sacrifice something, by conquering Germany for example.
Both scenarios offer the same score in 1870 AD. But I think scenario B is much more fun and rewarding than scenario A.
(I know that this post is a little bit longer than it should be, I just wanted to illustrate my opinion, sorry.)
In CIV 4, the highest results were achieved by expanding as fast as possible. I'm not very experienced with that, never visited these forums but when the HOF results get published, I want to know who has the highest score. Just to know what's possible. Immortal Domination games seem to do very well. In RFC, that tactic doesn't work, there is always a point where stability takes control of your previous conquests. The challenge is, to balance both things to get the best result. I really like to do that, since it actually makes a difference to play several games when attempting to get the highest score.
To make this clear with a scenario:
Scenario A, with score-boosting stability: Player 1, let's say Turkey has a positive stability, let's say +20. However, it's already 1850 AD and his stability is going up (levees, factories). He decided to wait and continue his economic progress.
Scenario B, without score-boosting stability: same story. However, stability is high enough to sacrifice something, by conquering Germany for example.
Both scenarios offer the same score in 1870 AD. But I think scenario B is much more fun and rewarding than scenario A.
(I know that this post is a little bit longer than it should be, I just wanted to illustrate my opinion, sorry.)
Cetrix
Merovingian
I'm back.
I did a Rome game (monarch difficulty) but I collapsed near 1675, due to ratherbad economy (1 star (-75)). Here are some screenshots of my game.
Please, doctors, tell me what I have to do to cure this economy
I really need a detailed report on the state of it. I enjoy a lot playing RFC but I still fail in economy.
screenshot 1 = overall view of the empire. Take a look on the improvments (cottages, and so on).
screenshot 2 = example of a specialized city (gold). Notice the merchants and specialists.
screenshot 3 = the same, but specialized in research.
screenshot 4 = stability.
screenshot 5 = civics.
screenshot 6 = GNP (PNB in french)... dammit, it's growing very well ! I don't understand why there is only 1 star.
(I have two vassals : spain and mali, which I can trade with)
(I don't let cities grows too fast, only 7 pop per city at this time)
I did a Rome game (monarch difficulty) but I collapsed near 1675, due to ratherbad economy (1 star (-75)). Here are some screenshots of my game.
Please, doctors, tell me what I have to do to cure this economy
I really need a detailed report on the state of it. I enjoy a lot playing RFC but I still fail in economy.screenshot 1 = overall view of the empire. Take a look on the improvments (cottages, and so on).
screenshot 2 = example of a specialized city (gold). Notice the merchants and specialists.
screenshot 3 = the same, but specialized in research.
screenshot 4 = stability.
screenshot 5 = civics.
screenshot 6 = GNP (PNB in french)... dammit, it's growing very well ! I don't understand why there is only 1 star.
(I have two vassals : spain and mali, which I can trade with)
(I don't let cities grows too fast, only 7 pop per city at this time)
Attachments
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,431
Unfortunately the quantities used in stability calculations are different from the GNP shown in F9.
About your specialized cities:
1. You need to let them grow. The tile income will add to your research and wealth and the growth will help your stability.
2. There's no point in specializing that much unless either
2.1. You need to generate specific types of great people at certain times.
or
2.2. The buildings in those cities are highly specialized compared to your other cities. For example if you have an Academy, you'll get 1.5 more beakers per scientist. 1.5 beakers is 1.5 beakers. It helps but not that much. Personally in most of my RFC games I find that I usually can build basically all buildings in all cities. I need to work hammer tiles for stability (since hammer tiles count toward economic stability, and slows growth, which also helps stability), so I have hammers to build buildings. And I don't need to spend a ton of hammers on units, because if I try to conquer too much I will just collapse, or kill my research rate. So there is no point in specializing my cities very much. Obviously this is not going to be true for all games. If you are going for the Mongolian UHV, maybe you'll build military in all cities except for one city with science buildings and one city with wealth buildings. Anyway, once you get the Stock Exchange, it might make sense to run merchants in that city, depending where your science slider is. But you probably don't have the Stock Exchange yet in your screenshot.
About your specialized cities:
1. You need to let them grow. The tile income will add to your research and wealth and the growth will help your stability.
2. There's no point in specializing that much unless either
2.1. You need to generate specific types of great people at certain times.
or
2.2. The buildings in those cities are highly specialized compared to your other cities. For example if you have an Academy, you'll get 1.5 more beakers per scientist. 1.5 beakers is 1.5 beakers. It helps but not that much. Personally in most of my RFC games I find that I usually can build basically all buildings in all cities. I need to work hammer tiles for stability (since hammer tiles count toward economic stability, and slows growth, which also helps stability), so I have hammers to build buildings. And I don't need to spend a ton of hammers on units, because if I try to conquer too much I will just collapse, or kill my research rate. So there is no point in specializing my cities very much. Obviously this is not going to be true for all games. If you are going for the Mongolian UHV, maybe you'll build military in all cities except for one city with science buildings and one city with wealth buildings. Anyway, once you get the Stock Exchange, it might make sense to run merchants in that city, depending where your science slider is. But you probably don't have the Stock Exchange yet in your screenshot.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I agree with Jet. Specialization is a must for vanilla BTS, but absolutely not RFC.
The only specializations I take care to remember are to put Trading Company, Stock Exchange and Channel Tunnel all in my best commerce city and to put Iron Works and Red Cross in my best (military) production city.
Other than those specializations, in RFC most cities have plenty of production and commerce available and so can (and usually should) build most if not all buildings.
Only perhaps some production poor cities don't get all the builidngs, just the commerce ones.
The only specializations I take care to remember are to put Trading Company, Stock Exchange and Channel Tunnel all in my best commerce city and to put Iron Works and Red Cross in my best (military) production city.
Other than those specializations, in RFC most cities have plenty of production and commerce available and so can (and usually should) build most if not all buildings.
Only perhaps some production poor cities don't get all the builidngs, just the commerce ones.
Cetrix
Merovingian
Thank you for your precious advices.
I do not have to specialized my cities, exept for some minor Wonders, and the hammers are the keys for a better economy. That's good to know.
- Do I have to raise my hammers in all cities (build mines,...) and never produce gold or research like I did ? Because it transform all hammers in gold or research.
- What is stock exchange ? You mean a bank ? (50% gold in city)
- Hammers is the key, OK. Do I have to build mines instead of windmills, or sawmills instead of fields ? (exept for city growing) The more hammers I have, the better it is ?
- Economic stability also depends on the relationship between city growing and hammer production ?
- I've read on the stability guid that agriculture is important too. Is it right ? And how to manage it ?
Thank you again. I really have to know the RFC economy secrets to enjoy my games
I do not have to specialized my cities, exept for some minor Wonders, and the hammers are the keys for a better economy. That's good to know.
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand all of this, due to my english level.
- Do I have to raise my hammers in all cities (build mines,...) and never produce gold or research like I did ? Because it transform all hammers in gold or research.
- What is stock exchange ? You mean a bank ? (50% gold in city)
- Hammers is the key, OK. Do I have to build mines instead of windmills, or sawmills instead of fields ? (exept for city growing) The more hammers I have, the better it is ?
- Economic stability also depends on the relationship between city growing and hammer production ?
- I've read on the stability guid that agriculture is important too. Is it right ? And how to manage it ?
Ok, I didn't know that. We are blindfolded without that precious indicator board !
Thank you again. I really have to know the RFC economy secrets to enjoy my games
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,431
I had two main points:
1. I usually have enough hammers to build a lot of buildings. So I am not forced to choose between one kind of building or another. I can build them all. (More or less.)
2. When I have mines, I work them. I often also build workshops. One benefit of this is that since these improvements give less food, I grow more slowly. Growing slowly is good because I can keep growing, rather than quickly growing to full size and then stopping growth. Stopping growth causes instability.
The important thing about tiles for economic stability is the growth in the total food, hammers, and commerce from all worked tiles in your empire. I don't think it's worth it to worry about one kind of tile yield compared to another. The important thing is to control the rate of growth so that you are always growing.
Stock Exchange is the RFC name for the Wall Street national wonder.
Cetrix
Merovingian
Ok, Jet. You make it more comprehensible for me.
I've started a new game with Rome again, I'm in 1555. Economy is better than my previous game, but less strong as I wish. I have to train myself again and again to perfect my economy management in RFC.
My cities have a really good level, 4 stars. Thanks to the hammers and big production !
But sometimes, until I get a new technology I have nothing to do in my towns, buildings are already done. Can I produce research, or gold ? Does it shrink my stability ? (because it change hammers into beakers).
I've started a new game with Rome again, I'm in 1555. Economy is better than my previous game, but less strong as I wish. I have to train myself again and again to perfect my economy management in RFC.
My cities have a really good level, 4 stars. Thanks to the hammers and big production !
But sometimes, until I get a new technology I have nothing to do in my towns, buildings are already done. Can I produce research, or gold ? Does it shrink my stability ? (because it change hammers into beakers).
Wessel V1
Emperor
It's entirely up to you. I've found that Gold production and 100% science is better than Research production and whatever science rate you can afford. Also, don't forget to build some units that you'd otherwise never build, like cheap anti-plague units, or spies. And if you're still running HR, build some troops to raise happiness, that helps both in growth and city stability.
