there was rudimentary free market appearing in the USSR in the 70's too, although it was essentially government endorsed criminal syndicates. so having elements of free market doesn't mean that you're not communists. it's not really in line with the marxist ideology that's the basis for communism, but as is the case for most ideologies, real life forces adaption. just because you're red doesn't mean you don't want a little american green, know what i mean?
In the name of peace, love, and ... Socialism!?!?!?
- Thread starter Grit
- Start date
Chamaedrys
Emperor
Crighton said:
Yeah, that's true. But hard to bring it in to the game...
Chamaedrys
Emperor
symon said:
The ancient Egyptian economy was based on the efficient usage of the nile and the priests/officials managed it. Such a specialist economy don't need enterpreneural spirit they just have to do what there ancestors do and pray that the nile play it's role.
But the nile didn't play it's role everytimes, what caused dramatic famines and the collaps of several dynasties.
Black Waltz
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 569
wardhali said:state property is what gave France thier rioters!(socialism to be more specific)
Free market is what gives US our great economies
Actually Free Market is what made the rioters. Nothing like being told you can be fired at will and all your rights to be taken away to make you angry.
Back to the topic at hand. Maybe one added drawback if you think you need one could be one less trade route? Maybe something to simulate the lack of Foreign Investment and such?
Pawel
Daimyo
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 625
I think that the whole idea that 'state property' should mean lower costs for the state is utterly absurd.
Forgetting about the name, however, there are certainly ways to fix some of the problems it creates in the game. Its main effect is that it makes infinite expansion possible - for which maintenance cost is the main game mechanism. Here are thus some option.
1. It can't eliminate the full distance cost. If it gave a reduction of, say, 50%, the basic idea would at least remain valid.
2. Since it allows more cities, a reduction in food (as suggested by Wattigi) would reduce their size. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be to cause unhappiness or unhealthiness.
3. Losing a commerce in any square with at least two (the financial trait reversed) is an alternative to high upkeep or loss of trade routes.
Forgetting about the name, however, there are certainly ways to fix some of the problems it creates in the game. Its main effect is that it makes infinite expansion possible - for which maintenance cost is the main game mechanism. Here are thus some option.
1. It can't eliminate the full distance cost. If it gave a reduction of, say, 50%, the basic idea would at least remain valid.
2. Since it allows more cities, a reduction in food (as suggested by Wattigi) would reduce their size. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be to cause unhappiness or unhealthiness.
3. Losing a commerce in any square with at least two (the financial trait reversed) is an alternative to high upkeep or loss of trade routes.
Marshall Thomas
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 700
How do you think Civ 4 reflects the economic downfall of the Soviet Union? In Civ 4 terms, how did her economy callapse?
Pawel
Daimyo
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 625
In short? Corruption, inefficient management, lack of maintenance of whatever was built, extremely poor working conditions leading to early death, political repression that lead to alcoholism (and death), a huge system of slave labor camps that lead to even quicker death. According to recent official statistics 52 million people were sentenced to the GULAG (under paragraph 58), 6 millions died in prison awaiting trial, and one million was shot outright. This survey did not include non-political victims or those that were killed outside the judicial system, for instance during the civil war or in the artificial famine that took the lives of millions of Ukrainian peasants. But above all, it is hard to sustain a society that spends half of its resources on military production.
EDIT: In civ terms? Hard to say. In Civ4 Communism is a good thing!
EDIT: In civ terms? Hard to say. In Civ4 Communism is a good thing!
acidsatyr
be water my friend...
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,166
I don’t think its overpowered. Powerful yes - but only if you have large empire. Otherwise -> free market + courthouses + 2nd palace + Versailles is MUCH better for commerce. It’s all circumstantial. It’s like saying Universal Suffrage is better then Heredity rule, etc. Both Democracy and Communism require you to sidestep from regular research path and on highest difficulties that s a bit of a problem…
Pawel said:
My suggestion about -1 food for cottages, hamlets, villages and towns was meant to force people to knock down those money making improvements because the city couldn't support them, not to restrict growth. When they are replaced with, say, a workshop, production increases at the expense of commerce.
State Property should be a large, production focused option, but it can be used as a large financial option. When everything in a large empire is converted to workshops, watermils and windmills, it will produce enough research to get by but it isn't abused. It researches slower but in a more realistic sense, it has less expenses, but it has less commerce/trade and also has less surplus. In the end it becomes a large production powerhouse with less income which is what I think it's meant to represent.
The problem I see with State Property, is that it allows you to build towns with state property that sends your income sky high, with very little resistance to it. If there was a penalty for building a commerce producing improvement (ie, town) then it would, I think, balance out.
Having said all this, the civic system is designed to allow people to come up with their own system of rule, like a benevolent dictator, or a nasty, oppressive democracy. We are all assuming that State Property = less income/trade. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it just equals less maintanence first and foremost and increasing your hammer output as a close second.
Watiggi
Isn't the problem more that trade routes dont bring in enough money, so +1 trade route is insignificant for any distant city when compared to it's maintenance? +1 trade route is definately insignificant compared to +1 free specialist when on representation or with the right wonders.
Really on free market resource trading should be automated in such a way that it benefits both civs if they are both free market.
Maybe free market could add 50% income from trade routes with other free market civs, or trade routes with free market civs are "free"?
I tend to play large & huge maps so admittedly I guess this reduces the impact of trade?
Really on free market resource trading should be automated in such a way that it benefits both civs if they are both free market.
Maybe free market could add 50% income from trade routes with other free market civs, or trade routes with free market civs are "free"?
I tend to play large & huge maps so admittedly I guess this reduces the impact of trade?
Black Waltz
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 569
Bloody hell. I just had a game today. I had a whole continent to myself. Under Free Market I was making 150GPT with fully developed cities. I switch to Free Market and it jumps up to 400gpt without a knock on science...
Pawel said:Watiggi, I am sorry I misspelled your name.
I agree with you. Reducing food for the cottage series would be a very good idea.
If combined with a reduction rather than elimination of the distance cost, it might even be perfect.
Yeah and maybe even a -1 from farms to... but oh wait ... that would just be over kill
Chamaedrys
Emperor
Cottages should just produce less commerce. In fact the Soviet Union build town and cities at the middle of nowhere. There should also be the option to hurry the production (with population). So the Kremlin wonder would make sense.
Similar threads
