In the name of peace, love, and ... Socialism!?!?!?

[Falcon02]

Communism has always been overpowered in the Civ series and the State Property civic is no different.

Have to disagree, yes in Civ 3: Conquests Communism became VERY powerful.

However, Civ 3 Vanilla and PTW it tended to be underpowered in my opinion, it really wasn't useful unless you had a relatively small but segmented Empire with large distances between segments.

Once you had a relatively large Empire, the overall effect of corruption tended to drive all of your cities down.

In C3C they revamped the corruption rate, added the Secret Police and Communism became defacto in many situations, especially for large empires.

Don't think I've played with State Property in Civ IV... though looking at the effects again, I have no idea why not. Gonna have to try that in my next game, cause yeah it does seem very powerful.

 

[Watiggi]

But don't forget that if the distance cost was reduced rather than eliminated, it would also help reducing the abuse of this civic.

This is going around in circles now.

To me, State Property *is* a production based civic first and foremost. The zero distance maintanence, to me, *is* required in order to build an effective production based empire. A 5 city production powerhouse is nothing and isn't really worthwhile. 40 production based cities = 40 production choices at once. State Property needs zero distance maintanence because it needs many cities for it to fullfil the production based empire role. The maintanence benefit isn't the problem. It's when people use State Property solely for its maintanence benefits and that alone, that is, they don't build workshops and instead keep their cottages (towns). That results in an unbalanced economy.

By giving people another option that allows them to expand, slowly overcomming the distance maintanence issues (my example/idea was the "Regional Governor") and then forcing people to convert to a production based setup when using State Property would, in my opinion, stop the abuse of State Property as it would allow for different choices. People could go for a large Free Market civ then as they can now work at actually overcoming the distance maintanence without needing State Property. If people want a production based civ, then they could go for State Property setup if they wanted to. They could also build a large production based empire without using State Property (which would mean they wouldn't really be able to take advantage of the workshops). The point is they have choices (provided they are willing to work for it).

Right now, the only choice for a large civ is State Property, and if you have a lot of cottages (towns), then you are going to be raking it in far more than with a small Free Market civ.

Thinking about it some more, I am starting to like the negative health for towns in State Property idea. Workshops, by default, could give negative health instead of negative food (it would make more sense) and then State Property could eliminate the negative health problems with workshops, but give negative health to towns instead. Transition would still be difficult though.

Maybe instead of reducing maintanence by 50%, courthouses should eliminate the distance cost? The number of cities cost would still rise as it does in State Property.

EDIT:

Communism has always been overpowered in the Civ series and the State Property civic is no different.

Communism was rather weak in Civ2.

Watiggi

 

[Grey Fox]

Maybe they need to make the trade route income grow faster and up the cap on it with Free market.

I mean if you have alot of cities, and if you have had open borders for a long time, you can have like 5 trade routes bringing in like 8 Commerce each. (dont forget this gets multiplied by banks/libraries etc). If the income from the Trade routes would grow faster with Free Market (it does grow over time, doesnt it?) then it would be a more attractive Civic for a Commerce based larger empire. Where State property would be more attractive for a Prodoction based economy. (or for a civ with a spread out empire, with colonies etc).

 

[Grey Fox]

Don't think I've played with State Property in Civ IV... though looking at the effects again, I have no idea why not. Gonna have to try that in my next game, cause yeah it does seem very powerful.

Same here.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Trade routes don't grow over time, they depend on population (and THAT grows over time)

The fact is a Foreign Trade route in a City with a Bank, Marketplace, Grocer and a Courthouse, in a Forbidden Palace civ is Easily worth more than the cost of Distance Maintenance and Low Civic Maintanance.

The Problem is a Domestic trade route is not Easily worth more that Distance and Low Civic Maintenance... However,

a Domestic Trade route in a Large Empire can reach 2 to 3 commerce (without a harbor) This is probably enough to overcome distance maintenance (since Courthouses+FP can reduce that) However, it is Not enough to overcome the Civic maintenance, especially at
1. Higher Difficulty levels
and
2. Higher interest rates

But IF the Maintenance for State Property was increased to Medium, the Best net commerce output for any well developed civ would be Free Market. In a very large. mostly landlocked empire that has few foreign trade routes per city, it would be close.

This is regardless of what the terrain improvements are... since neither affect cottages/Towns. So a Pure Town State Property would do nicely, but not as well as Free Market, once all the cities were developed.


What state property is really good for is the Domination bid, because it allows you to take over cities and have them be profitable Faster... not More profitable, but profitable faster... Plus with Domination you are likely to have fewer Foreign trade routes that benefit from the 'crowding factor' (the more of your Foreign trade routes that go to your high population developed cities the better than if they are spread out.)

The -Food on Cottages->Towns seems like it would work well, I think now that -Health wouldn't be strong enough. In any case it would fit with the massive die offs from the large scale transitions to Communist economies in China and Russia. Perhaps even let them keep the +Food from Workshops and Watermills as well. (just this way it keeps the No Civic Maintenance)

 

[chauism]

I'd have to disagree, it's not just the corruption of the people who control the system that dooms the concept of state ownership, corruption can be a problem in a free market system too (corrupt courts & corrupt lawmakers doom free market systems.)

State ownership is ineffective because no ruling group makes the right decisions all the time. Letting individual consumers and individual producers make their own decisions in a free market is more effective in the long run.

Actually in the concept of either state ownship or free market, all information is assumed to be free of access. So the desicions that to be made is all base on the same information. However with state ownship in reality, those information can be more easily to be block from the decision maker due to the corruption of the people in the middle, so after all, every problem with the stateownship still lies with the corruption of people who are in control of it.

 

[Zhahz]

Civ works well precisely because the game designers are smart enough to ignore debates about whether this or that game element is realistic. It's a game, not a simulation -- so game balance is 100% of what matters. The designers make this clear in the Civ IV manual when writing about religion, and they clearly get it with things like civics too. (I wish they didn't actually, maybe if they'd worried about things like whether State Property "should" be as powerful as Free Market the damn game would be unbalanced and hence less addictive!)

For game balance, the point made above about huge maps seems right.

Agreed. A lot of people want to maintain strong ties between Civ and reality and that's just not how it is. Civ is a game, not a simulation of reality.

 

[Pawel]

The problem of state ownership is not corruption, but lack of flexibility. If the state decides to make one million tooth brushes per month, is that good or bad? If they make more, will people clean their teeth better? These problems of central planning create waste and shortages, even given the best of intentions (which are usually questionable when someone says - give me all your stuff, I will take care of it for you ). In communist economies these inefficiencies often led to paralysis. The only thing you really knew every communist state had lots of was tanks.

EDIT: Huge maps means more civs. You shouldn't have more space. If so, you picked too few opponents! State property should not be a free ticket to world conquest. It didn't even work out in real life.

 

[Watiggi]

For a Communist government to really work, the leaders would need to listen and listen really well (and then make decisions on such). When laziness creeps in or a leader just doesn't listen (for a variety of reasons ranging from innocently not understanding to an apathy of the peoples needs), the communist system falls apart.

If a good leader reaches a conclusion that they can't know what everyone wants and that it would be better for the leader and all people concerned that the responsibility was given to the people so that they were responsible for solving their problems, then that would head towards Democracy.

Its rather oversimplified, but all in all, it's about the people with the power and what they do, not the system itself.

(I haven't been reading your part of the thread, so I appoligise if I have stated something that has allready been stated by someone else.)

Watiggi

 

[SLM]

IMO State Property should have a negative effect on the research of _new_ technologies. Not on technologies already invented by other civ's they're in contact with.

IRL all goverment types are ideologic and are never completely implemented, mainly because of the human factor. There is no such thing as a completely free market. In communistic states there always seem to be a favoured few.

In a lot of european countries nowadays we see a mix of state property (state owned companies) and free market. Since EU regulation to open up the markets of these government owned companies, we see a tendency to monopolize these markets by ever growing take-overs, thus rendering the free market principle useless. In an ideal free market there are lots of companies/suppliers and lots of consumers, i.e. a lot of competition. In order for companies to compete with an ever growing number of suppliers in an eventually stabilizing market, they have to take over their competitors. A free market without state impediments is in fact self destructing.

On the other hand, State Property impedes on the development of new technologies, because of the lack of incentives. It doesn't however stand in the way of researching new technologies already existing in other nations and because of the law of advantage of being behind they don't lag behind long (when you first develop something it is by trial and error, when you copycat it, you can skip most trials and most errors and can learn by example). However, I don't think State Property is the same as communism, because then it would totally be impossible to have SP + CS at the same time.

All in all it's hard for a game to accurately and correctly implement these political/economic ideologies as governments IRL can't even accomplish that completely.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

My apologies if this title seems a little vulger or weird, but dos any one notice that the state porperty civic is over powered? I myself find that every time my government is run like so-
1. Representation
2. Freedom of Speech
3. State property
4. Freedom of speech
I'm basicly making oodls of money and running a welfare/socialist/communist state. I thought that state property was supposed to ruin an economy not help make it the most powerful thing on earth... next to my army of course
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't hate dictate

I know they should remove it.

 

[NP300]

this actually seems pretty accurate to me. in small empires, it's somewhat wasted, but over a large empire, state property + communism are tremendously powerful. the USSR's demise had more to do with corruption and mismanagement than it's communal nature. in civ terms, they built more units than they could afford to maintain. china's doing alright with this system right now (the chinese people, not so good, but we're all leaders here).

You've got to be kidding. The reason the ussr "built more units than they could afford to maintain" was because they were trying to keep up with the US militarily. But because their economy was so inefficient they needed to spend a very high percentage of their gdp to do so. In other words, their economy was so inefficient that they couldn't afford to spend as much on their military as the US did and thus could not keep up.

It's kind of silly as civ represents it. State property, if anything, ought to increase building maintenance costs because now the state is responsible for all the buildings. But it's just a game. If it were realistic you would have little control over what buildings were built under a free market. So in reality, the economy in civ games is actually communistic regardless of the civics you have.

 

[Watiggi]

I don't see State Property as a "let's save on maintenance costs" civic, I see it as a "less economic focus, higher productivity (hammer output)" civic. IMO, the reduced maintenance is there because it is meant to support a serverely reduced economy which has bugger all income because less focus is placed on the economy.

I played a game where I loaded workshops everywhere and the economy worked just right. It had enough to stay afloat and advance somewhat, but it wasn't a great economy (lower income / expenses all round, generally less commerce running through the empire), but had a great hammer output. It felt balanced.

I personally think that that is how State Property is meant to be used. It works well that way and it feels right. I don't think it should give bonuses to great economies, it should alleviate the costs of bad economies and increase productivity (hammer output).

Watiggi

 

[naterator]

In other words, their economy was so inefficient that they couldn't afford to spend as much on their military as the US did and thus could not keep up.

right, but this is, as i said, more due to MASSIVE corruption starting essentially with stalin's death, reaching a crescendo in the 70's, and spilling over under weak leadership. if the soviet leaders of the 70's and 80's had shown the quick decisive ruthlessness that stalin would have, or like china did in the uprisings that culminated in tienanmin square, and exercized the necessary control that a state property style government needs to be successful, then there's a good chance that they would've done a bit better. i'm not saying it's right, but it is certainly effective. again i poiint to china... today china is militarily and economically a powerhouse. do you think el salvador could commit the atrocities that red china commits, refuse to admit that these tactics are wrong, repeatedly and flatly refuse to respect the basic human rights that the rest of the international generally demands, and be rewarded with "most favored nation" trading status? no. and this is largely due to the fact that when you combine expansive tracts of land with enormous population, and a government that has total control over the population and resources AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, it is extremely powerful! the failure of one doesn't mean that the system is broken, just an individual failure. i'll admit that "more units than they can afford" is an oversimplification, but there's no way you can reward your friends and organized criminals with positions of power in your empire, i guess what i should have said was that in civ III terms, their cities produced 1 food and 1 shield due to corruption and waste. also they neglected to tend their cities before they went into disorder, and this caused their collapse.

 

[slightlymarxist]

What people tend to "conveniently forget" when analyzing the economic structure of the USSR is where Russia was BEFORE it turned red and where it has gone AFTER it turned blue (or, as some would say, brownish).

Russia was far behind other european nations in terms of industrialisation and living standards before 1917. Thirty years later, Russia is actually competing with USA for world domination, which already had centuries head start on industrialization. You can't compare already industrialized nations with backwater societies like Russia, China or Cuba. If you want a fair comparison of Cuba, for example, you should compare it to a capitalist banana republic in the same region, not a well-developed, economic powerhouse like USA, England or even Sweden.

Look at Russia now. Better economy than before 1989, or worse? In terms of human rights, certainly better (if not by much), but in terms of economy?

 

[naterator]

What people tend to "conveniently forget" when analyzing the economic structure of the USSR is where Russia was BEFORE it turned red and where it has gone AFTER it turned blue (or, as some would say, brownish).

an excellent point! i think people get a little wrapped up in the morals and politics of it all to see the larger picture. if the argument is that state property is overpowered in a large empire, then it should be judged by the power of large empires running state property!

 

[meatwad4289]

I always play as a more communist state. Why? because theoritically Communism is the best form of government, i mean everyone has a job and eveyrone is equal no reason to complain. right? Well due to human nature, actual Communism is the supreme failure. However because itsa game and doesnt have the human nature it works. Especially if your going to dominate the world. Why? It helps support large armies, and empires. If Im proparing for war I'll make sure I'm at a Police State. If all is fine and i want to rush improvements, ill switch to Universal suffrage. I'll switch back and forth between Nationalism and Freedom of speech, pending on my needs. But the rest remain. Emancipation, State Prop, and depending on the rest of the world Theocracy or Free Religion. If I keep the rest of the world under my religion ill use theocracy, and but if they stray away from the path and refuse to rejoin ill submit and give into free religion.

 

[jar2574]

What people tend to "conveniently forget" when analyzing the economic structure of the USSR is where Russia was BEFORE it turned red and where it has gone AFTER it turned blue (or, as some would say, brownish).

This is basically a good point.

But I don't think you have to "conveniently forget" the economic structure of Russia pre-WWI in order to criticize Stalin's "modernization" techniques. They were not only immoral, but inefficient in the long run.

Russia was far behind other european nations in terms of industrialisation and living standards before 1917. Thirty years later, Russia is actually competing with USA for world domination, which already had centuries head start on industrialization.)

Here, I think you're on shakier ground. First, due to its size and resources, Russia was always a threat for world domination. That's why the Crimean War was fought in the 1850s and that's why Germany was so paranoid about its eastern neighbor before both WWI and WWII. WWII merely eliminated England and Germany as Russia's primary competition in the European sphere, and thrust it into competition with the USA.

Second, thirty years after the Revolution, Russia was still far behind the other countries in terms of living standards and in terms of the quality of its industrialization. Russia did not enjoy improvements to quality of life to the degree that Western Europe and the USA did. Its military and scientific acheivements were notable, to be sure, but those are only parts of industrialization, not the entire picture.

You can't compare already industrialized nations with backwater societies like Russia, China or Cuba. If you want a fair comparison of Cuba, for example, you should compare it to a capitalist banana republic in the same region, not a well-developed, economic powerhouse like USA, England or even Sweden.

Russia is an enigma wrapped inside a riddle. I think comparisons with any other country are difficult.

It is also unfair to compare Cuba to most 'banana republics' because of the USA's insane trade embargo. So comparisons are difficult.

But we could compare China to South Korea. That would seem to be a fair comparision. The level of development in China is far below that of South Korea. Is this the result of communism? Not completely. But state centered economic decision-making naturally results in dramatic inefficiencies, especially in a country the size of China.

Look at Russia now. Better economy than before 1989, or worse? In terms of human rights, certainly better (if not by much), but in terms of economy?

For those with talent and drive, Russia's economy is much better today than in 1989. The country's GDP is much higher than it was. Economic disparity has also increased, but one major factor is that no one could become a billionaire in the USSR. If your country is a free market system that doesn't tax billionaires until they are only millionaires, economic disparity will always exist. Regardless, for the average Joe, things are probably not much better today than they were in 1989.

 

[chauism]

But we could compare China to South Korea. That would seem to be a fair comparision. The level of development in China is far below that of South Korea. Is this the result of communism? Not completely. But state centered economic decision-making naturally results in dramatic inefficiencies, especially in a country the size of China.

China and South Korea is not a fair comparison. Because the difference of its size, population and problem that they have to deal with. Let put this way, while South Korea only has to think about how to thrive for its economic growth, China has to think about how to feed its 1 billion population to start with. After WW2, and even Korea War, South Korea still had better infrastrature(Schools, Railways, Factories and etc) that Japanese left them with during the occupation, while most of those were destroyed during the WW2 by Japanese in China. If you really want to compare China with, the best candidate is actually India. Because they almost have the same problem. India is the largest democratic and free market nation in the world by population, and China is the other way around. China is much better than india in every measures today.

 

[chauism]

For those with talent and drive, Russia's economy is much better today than in 1989. The country's GDP is much higher than it was. Economic disparity has also increased, but one major factor is that no one could become a billionaire in the USSR. If your country is a free market system that doesn't tax billionaires until they are only millionaires, economic disparity will always exist. Regardless, for the average Joe, things are probably not much better today than they were in 1989.

I don't know where you got those data from. After the broke up of USSR, the shock therapy left Russia with two digits or high single digit negative growth almost until Putin went into power. Look Russia's GDP standing in the world now, one can hardly imagine what it was 20 years ago. It went from a world Superpower to a second rated nation.