Humble economic requests

[Lockesdonkey]

A lot of people have heard of my little economic plan...it's buried in this forum somewhere...but overall, and barring that, this is what I'd like to see...

Specifically, I'd like to see some representation of private business; this is totally left out of Civ3. Also, no Stock Exchanges or Wall Street for Communism! It makes no sense! And an open market. So I can say, "I'm willing to sell X amount of oil and this is my asking price...who's buying?" or "I need Y amount of Aluminum, and this is what I'm willing to pay for it...who's selling?" (I'll flesh this out in another post....)

Also, even if it has no bearing on gameplay, give each civ its own currency name. "Gold" is so...blah.

In general, I'd like to see more ability to use economics as a means to get to one of the victory conditions, though I wouldn't mind seeing an Economic Victory condition.

And I now declare that this is the thread where any civfanatic can beg for economic reform, general or specific.

 

[Harbringer]

ye i agree with the gold thing, i mean really, what coundtry still uses gold(if you can think of any please tell me), also it would be nice to be able to rule the game through economy, such as stock exchanges open markets, private buisnesses, heck, microsoft could be a gret wonder in civ 4.

 

[Idylwyld]

After the discovery of economics (and possibly nationalism) I agree that civs should be able to "shrug off their cross of gold". The only problem is how to mediate between commerce production and currency. The production is still going to come off the tiles as "gold". The next step is currency speculation and the trouble that will cause in trade. Remember, even though IRL most countries have gone off the gold standard, within 40 years or so the American Dollar became the defacto "gold standard", especially after the Breton Woods conference of 1944. How would you model a pegged currency (set to equal another currency {China is/was for a long time/ pegged to the US$}) versus a floating currency (traded on its own)? Imagine in a currency market system that you could conceivably corner the market on your opponents' currency and then sell short on them causing massive, destructive devaluation. Or a system where your opponents' pegged their currency to yours and you deliberately cripple your economy(selling all your marketplaces/banks/stock exchanges) dragging them down with you. All in all while giving currency a flavored name would be nice you couldn't do much more without exponentially increasing the micromanagment immensely. Then again if there was hooks for modding this in it would be great.

The Economic victory condition would be a good addition, if you have 60% or more the worlds economic production per turn, similar to the size/population conditions, you win by Economic domination.

Finally, advanced economic improvements should, I think every rational player agrees, not be buildable under a communist goverment. Now the question becomes how under the current model do you limit production based on government type? How does SPHQ do it? I'm at work and can't pop open the editor to see if that's a settable flag.

 

[slightlymarxist]

You might as well forbid Communist civs from building Banks and Marketplaces too... they don't make much sense in a planned economy either. All money is allocated by the state, so no need for banks. No free market = no marketplaces.

The current Commerce system is an abstraction, and I agree it's not entirely satisfactory. But if not Gold, then what? Nothing?

EDIT: Here's an idea: "Taxation" instead of "Gold".

 

[dh_epic]

I definitely think that economics should be overhauled. But the only suggestions I can come with either forces the player to be a "bean counter", or are very "uncivlike" and maybe even "abstract".

Whatever people come up with, you shouldn't have more money just because you pay more attention to every little resource and gold and tile. It should be determined by high level decisions and bonuses.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I do have to strongly disagree in the sense that seperating out private activity is probably a bad idea, it identifies the player to much with the government rather than the Civ as a whole.

And Gold is well... you could just retitle it money.

Some form of 'economic' means of control and power might be good, but definitely not having players needing to understand macroeconomics for it to work.

Under a Communist system...well you still have
'Marketplaces' ie Distribution centers
'Banks' ie Planning Offices where you decide where to invest Capital
'Stock Exchanges' ie Central Planning Offices where you make large scale decisions where to invest Capital

The only difference in a communist system and others is that in a communist system all the people making such decisions are government employees (with whatever penalty that gives under Civ 4)

 

[Lockesdonkey]

And Gold is well... you could just retitle it money.

That is even more blah. There's no flavor. I'd much rather say, "give me two hundred denarii per turn, and I'll give you Nationalism" than "give me two hundred gold per turn, and I'll give you Nationalism" or (heaven forbid) "give me two hundred money per turn, and I'll give you Nationalism" even if there is no substantive difference between them. It's a style and aesthetic issue. Not a gameplay or realism one.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I guess having a unique civ linked name for your currency would be interesting

 

[Kosez]

Something shoul be done with macroeconomics and international economics. There is no such a thing now in Civs.

 

[bri365]

Economics is what drove civilization in the 19th, 20th and now the 21st century. Economics needs to be improved upon. I'm not a programmer so maybe it hard to do in simulation games. I am an economist and the economic principals of Civ3 is disappointing to say the least. Again maybe it is just to hard to program. Anyways I still am playing Civ3 which has given me many years of enjoyment.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the biggest challenge with developing any economic model for Civ 4...

... is that most suggestions will end up rewarding those who do all kinds of microcalculations. The question -- "what does the player do" -- is answered by "play like scrooge". (E.g.: quantify resources --> scrooge players win... or adding currency and inflations --> accountant players win...)

I almost think that the question "what does the player do" should be answered first. What kinds of players should benefit economically? Maybe from there, you can work backwards and figure out a model that fit that answer.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

And the answer to your question, dh_epic, is peaceful ones, to make economics a viable alternative to the current military/warmongering strategy and possibly create an alternative to the land=victory paradigm.

 

[ledfan]

peaceful ones? look at the real world, the only countries left with any military might are the rich ones, even China's (communist!) economy is improving while their miltary does. America and Britain are so called 'peaceful' but because they're rich and have decent armies, they get what they want by taking it not asking (I'm English I'm not saying what they do is right or wrong, its just fact). hell can any one name a truly peaceful country?

if you dont want it to be called gold, just have it named differently and make 1 gold = 1 whatever. unless you want it really complicated with different fluxulating exchange rates, which would only benifit players who like to micromanage.

 

[dh_epic]

There's a difference between having a strong army and being aggressive. Or being respected and being hated. War is expensive. Imagine a country that wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on "pre-emptive defence", not to mention countless human lives. Their economy would probably end up in the ****ter. Sure, 100% pure pacifism is neither smart nor profitable, but my point is that pure war isn't profitable either.

If you currently win a Domination or conquest victory with 80% of your emphasis on military, and 20% of your empasis on building a basically functional country... then an economic victory should be the other way around. 20% on having a solid army and an early conquest or two, but 80% on building up internals. I think that's what Lockesdonkey was going for. So what we're looking for is a trade off -- a more war-driven mentality and strategy would preclude an economic strategy.

 

[rhialto]

The problem with every major economic suggestion made so far is that they are either hugely unblancing or unrealistic or complicated.

Take named currencies and currency trading forex (pun intended). For any domestic spending, such as rushing building and sci/lux spending, it is irrelevant anyway, as that spending is internal to your economy. So for the sake of adding a complicated feature (forex), you also have to add something to ensure that it won't affect domestic spending.

I think the best way to put economics in is to have economy bonuses for the appropriate governments. On top of that, in modern age certain economic warfare options should become available.

 

[dexters]

We've been through this before. The Civ3 economcis model make sense more or less and isn't in real need of fixing.

Economics options for the sake of having something new to play with isn't really that interesting to me. For an interesting economics option to work, you'll need to have an integrative approach to this. Perhaps luxuries and resources you have access to affect commerce generated in your empire? How would an economic warfare option work? There is already a rudimentary form of economic warfare in Civ3 and its called the trade embargo. If you want to take it a step further, what would we need to add, change and make more complicated?

Until those can be answered, I'm really skeptical about any suggestions of improving economics, because IMHO, its not really broken.

 

[mastertyguy]

peaceful ones? look at the real world, the only countries left with any military might are the rich ones, even China's (communist!) economy is improving while their miltary does. America and Britain are so called 'peaceful' but because they're rich and have decent armies, they get what they want by taking it not asking (I'm English I'm not saying what they do is right or wrong, its just fact). hell can any one name a truly peaceful country?

if you dont want it to be called gold, just have it named differently and make 1 gold = 1 whatever. unless you want it really complicated with different fluxulating exchange rates, which would only benifit players who like to micromanage.

1 I don't think amrica is peaceful
2 Fiji islands are peaceful

 

[sir_schwick]

We've been through this before. The Civ3 economcis model make sense more or less and isn't in real need of fixing.

Economics options for the sake of having something new to play with isn't really that interesting to me. For an interesting economics option to work, you'll need to have an integrative approach to this. Perhaps luxuries and resources you have access to affect commerce generated in your empire? How would an economic warfare option work? There is already a rudimentary form of economic warfare in Civ3 and its called the trade embargo. If you want to take it a step further, what would we need to add, change and make more complicated?

Until those can be answered, I'm really skeptical about any suggestions of improving economics, because IMHO, its not really broken.

I agree that economics has to allow you to compete/conquer somehow. We are complaining that it does not allow either in Civ 3. Trade embargoes are useless and trade in general is highly undervalued. Besides countering your entire arguement, I would have to agree with your premise that CFC consensus is that the economic system is adequate. Yes, the system is broke and is in bad need of fixing. I have made suggestions in many threads on how to begin remedying these problems.

 

[crimson238]

I think that the problems with world economies can best be adressed through the trade system.
not sure how, really, not sure why, but it seems like the right way to go.

 

[dh_epic]

Trade embargos are evidence that the economic system in Civilization does not work. It works if the game is a war game, which it is to a large degree. But a lot of people think Civ can make progress by charting its own path into new game play options... rather than being a Turn Based version of "Age of Empires".

But just because it's broken doesn't mean that you can just add anything and it will suddenly become better. Adding stuff has the potential to make it worse, if not thought out properly. And where I will agree with dexters is that you need an integrated approach to make economics work -- and that kind of undertaking may be too complex for Civ 4. Maybe Civ 5? Maybe someone could prove their concept with a mod?