GDP & Debt

[helpless_writer]

With Diplomacy being more apart of ciV I think there should be a more established dependency on other civilizations. After all though a civilization can for a period of time get by in isolation in order to make money and grow as a nation they must trade both money and products.

Then as the game progresses and the world begins to come together this would give the UN power through sanctions and also when Wall Street is built (assuming corporations are still around) this can lead either to depressions or surpluses which depending on your resources can lead you to the top of the world and slip to the bottom.

As for Debt, one thing i never understood about Civ in all is why you can't go in debt? I mean though currently there are no revolution features, I'm surprised your not allowed to borrow money but only coerce the AI into (if they oblige you). I mean the reason so many countries exist today is based off a borrow system either in bonds or actual money. So why hasn't this been implemented in Civ yet?

 

[LastLegionare]

Corporations must've been trashed; religion and espionage were.

I agree. Debt, especially now, is everywhere.

 

[Insanity_X]

*slaps Helpless Writer* Dont use realism as a reason for anything.

Also, wouldn't going into strike count as debt?

 

[grant2004]

I think it would be too easily abused, if there isn't a penalty for being in debt then it will just be a way for people to avoid the consequences of poor financial management. Are there debt limits? Does being in debt cause problems for your economy in some way? Unless the idea is flushed out more fully I don't see it as a useful tool.

 

[Ahriman]

Oh god.... this is Civilization, not SimFinance. What possible design goal would this accomplish that would be worth such needless complexity?

 

[Camikaze]

Economic factors in Civ definitely need a makeover. And need to be complicated to a reasonable extent. However, introducing GDP and debt in a realistic way would go over the top. There are so many factors that you'd need to...well...factor in, that it would dominate the entire game. So, yes please to economic complication and a larger role to economics in the game, but no thanks to having too much complication.

 

[Herrhals]

choice 5: Sounds fine, but there is no way it's gonna be implemented.

 

[Disgustipated]

I think it would be too easily abused, if there isn't a penalty for being in debt then it will just be a way for people to avoid the consequences of poor financial management. Are there debt limits? Does being in debt cause problems for your economy in some way? Unless the idea is flushed out more fully I don't see it as a useful tool.

and yet it is abused by both the republicans and democrats today due to their poor financial management

sorry for the political talk, it's just something that annoys me (our current financial predicament).

It would be an interesting game mechanic, but might be too complex to implement in a useful way.

 

[HAND]

I think debt/loans are a good idea, and has been part of civ/smac previously. In games such as Sim City you can get massively in debt and its up to you to try and manage your way out if it and its very rewarding when you succeed. Debt/loans are pretty fundamental in a civ game in my opinion.
Maybe there should be an option to enable/disable debt if some players don't like it.

 

[Thormodr]

Loaning out your money at exorbitant rates was a good strategy in Europa Universalis. ^^

I'm not sure I'd like it in Civ though. Perhaps if I saw it in a mod first.

 

[Earthling]

You already CAN essentially manage debt and loans in civ4 - you can trade both lump sums and gpt with other civs. The only thing missing is you can't directly trade to an AI "500 gold for 52 gpt over 10 turns." But the reason things work that way is clearly to simplify the AI/avoid exploits of trading tech etc... for gpt. If you wanted this system full on it'd just be like civ III and maybe hope for AI improvements/them to not be so gullible.

But I wouldn't want to add in some new mechanic that requires too much micromanagement and I'd rather the AI worked than have a minor feature like this. I'm still not really seeing how it's not already in the game though considering you can manage gold, your economy, "payrushing" units and buildings etc... through various choices, especially if they keep a civic system like civ IV.

 

[Willem]

I think it would be too easily abused,...

Yeah, I can see it now. "Hey Monty old buddy how about lending me 1000 gold and I'll pay you back over 100 turns?" One turn later, "Sorry Monty, but I'm defaulting on my loan and declaring war on you instead of paying you back."

 

[Fire Bringer]

You could loan $ in civ 3. As for declaring war on a civ you're loaning from could give you a drop in reputation.

 

[Willem]

You could loan $ in civ 3. As for declaring war on a civ you're loaning from could give you a drop in reputation.

That's how it worked in Civ 3 IIRC, but alot of players just didn't care whether they took a hit or not. They planned on conquering the world anyway, why should a reputation drop bother them if they could pocket a bunch of gold to upgrade their troops for the next victim. It's just way too easy for the human to abuse something like that, which is why it was removed in the first place.

 

[bonafide11]

You could loan $ in civ 3. As for declaring war on a civ you're loaning from could give you a drop in reputation.

Reputation doesn't matter in multiplayer though, and they want to make single player rules as equal to multiplayer rules as possible.