Meleager's Economic Model

[Meleager]

Also, I wish you good luck on this mod. I may wait for it to be completed before I actually buy Civ4!

Better be carefull... it might never get done. But hopefully it will (if we dont find out during the testing that it actually sucks).

It might be a good idea to start up a moding thread seeing how so many people are asking for it. It is quite possible to start moding before the game comes out.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I will be happy enough if I can go into the script and say something like:

Resource size=(x) Number of units=(y), and City Number (N)=3x-y.
Then say if N>(3x-y), then resource disappearance=(N-(3x-y)/100).

So, if you have a resource of size 4 and you have 6 units, then your maximum safe city limit is 6. i.e. (3*4)-6. If you have 12 cities, then there is a (6/100) or 0.06 chance (out of 1) of the resource in question disappearing.
Its simple and dirty, but at least it might make multiple resource deposits worth having. Then it is just a question of the AI understanding it too!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

I will be happy enough if I can go into the script and say something like:

Resource size=(x) Number of units=(y), and City Number (N)=3x-y.
Then say if N>(3x-y), then resource disappearance=(N-(3x-y)/100).

So, if you have a resource of size 4 and you have 6 units, then your maximum safe city limit is 6. i.e. (3*4)-6. If you have 12 cities, then there is a (6/100) or 0.06 chance (out of 1) of the resource in question disappearing.
Its simple and dirty, but at least it might make multiple resource deposits worth having. Then it is just a question of the AI understanding it too!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm still not completely convinced that depleting rescources are nessesary (feel free to argue the point), but the AI will definately be the hardest part.

 

[Trade-peror]

Better be carefull... it might never get done.

Well, the UET2 has no better chance...and I would be loathe to buy another Civ with the same grossly superficial "economics" as the current Civs.

Anyway, regarding Aussie_Lurker's sample formula, I prefer non-determinism to randomness, so I am not too keen on the "percent chance of disappearing" method, and would prefer something where the player could theoretically predict things exactly, but would likely would be unable to. One reason would be a likely lack of information, and another would be that the web of factors is so dynamic that these "predictions" are ultimately, at best, only estimates. Quite unlike how in Civ, there are so few factors anywhere, that everything is not only easily predictable, but actually comes true exactly as predicted! How boring...

 

[apatheist]

And then procede to suggest a model with far more to do than my own.

Dude. Chill out. Don't be so adversarial. It's not you or me in a death match.

3 civs is enough to have a lot of movement in the supply and demand. More civs may provide more stability - but also in some cases more "jumpiness". All you really need for a growing economy is for supply to be less then demand.

In some ways, sure, but if you're in a game with 3 other civs, you're not going to want to treat them equally. You're going to want to be especially nice or mean to one or the other. Yes, you can modify the default to have special treatment for certain civs, but I figure you'll do that for every civ for games with less than 6 or 7. I figure you'd have to be in contact with 10 or more civs before you're willing to take the "market price" most of the time. So if you're going to be meddling with the market most of the time, I don't see much benefit in having a market that sets default prices.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here? The debt system does have some advantages over the civ3 model...
1. It takes away the work of going into diplomacy
2. It makes going into dept easier

Same reasoning as above.

I think a city based model is far to complex. Though I am sure trade preror would disagree.

I guess it depends on how the complexity is constructed. I see complexity arising from having many cities each trading with each other, but each individual city's economy is relatively simple. The model you suggest has the complexity at a higher level. It's hard to be objective about complexity when you're just using plain old English. However, if we were to write code to implement our ideas, then it might become more apparent.

The way I envision it, a player wouldn't ever purchase luxuries or special food types. The player would just attempt to set up the conditions where such things would happen. The citizens would do the rest and the player would tax the trade thus generated. If luxuries make people happy, unhappy people will try to buy them. You don't have to think, "oh, the citizens of Nottingham are unhappy, so I'll buy them some silks." It just happens (assuming you have the agreements).

The spreadsheet "player" would exist no matter what you do. The easiest way to take it out is to increase the amount of data the player is given but tuck it away somewhere. A budjet forces the player to do more higher-level stratagy.

Increasing the amount of data until it's unmanageable is certainly an easy way to do it. Another way to do it is to make the calculations really simple and intuitive so you don't need a spreadsheet to figure out what's going to happen. You suggest making it more complicated than a spreadsheet can reasonably handle, while I suggest making it simple enough that a spreadsheet is unnecessary.

Clases of citizens sound elitist!? I didn't expect it to be controvesial, it is just exists to represent changes in citizen wealth. The rescources are to increase the work (challenge) that has to be done to get the rewards (more money). I shall wait till I get to your section below though to see if you have a better idea.

I guess I read that part a little too quickly. I assumed (incorrectly) that there was an effect on other types of productivity also.

Posting in new threads would be more confusing...
1. I only changed the trade in this recent change and putting that in a new thread and linking back would be confusing...
2. Coping over all the info would be duplication of information
3. It would be difficult for people to keep track of it
4. You could end up with several versions alive at the same time
5. It almost equates to spamming

You could ask the mods to close the old thread. You could also post a new version at the end of the thread and edit the first post to be a pointer to that so it is clear what's old and what's new without making later replies incomprehensible.

Trade is "semi-automatic", your trade advisor can calculate the cheapest luxury combination and buy strategic rescourses as you need them. Nations can make special trade agreements through the use of futures. Dont want to sell iorn -> just tell your advisor not to (stop all supply).

I want to eliminate purchasing of commodities at a top level in favor of something that models (at a macro level) the actions of private parties in a market-based economy. I believe your attempt to merge a state-controlled economy with a market is neither fish nor fowl.

Futures would mess people up. I don't think people would know how to deal with them.

Sounds like "more to do".

Or less to do, since you wouldn't have to worry about getting ahold of a particular resource and the realism clash. But those are smaller things that I'm not very attached to.

Sounds like UE2 (linky on trade preror's sig not far above).

I'll have to read about that.

 

[Meleager]

Dude. Chill out. Don't be so adversarial. It's not you or me in a death match.

I wasn't trying to be adversial, sorry if i came off that way. I was just pointing out an apparently hipocritical comment in your post. (I dont like hipocritical comments -> even though i can be a hipocrite)

Anyways, if you ever wish to develop your ideas into a full thread I would be quite interested. I just dont think it is quite right for this one.

 

[Trade-peror]

The way I envision it, a player wouldn't ever purchase luxuries or special food types. The player would just attempt to set up the conditions where such things would happen. The citizens would do the rest and the player would tax the trade thus generated. If luxuries make people happy, unhappy people will try to buy them. You don't have to think, "oh, the citizens of Nottingham are unhappy, so I'll buy them some silks." It just happens (assuming you have the agreements).

Actually, this is one of the most fundamental concepts in the UET2, the idea that the player is guiding an economy that exists independent of the player/government. Meleager's model seems to instead keep more of the Civ player's ability to directly control the economy on a microeconomic level.

 

[Meleager]

@ Trade Peror - That was Athiests quote not mine

edit: beat me to it

 

[Trade-peror]

Sorry, I realized immediately and changed it. You'll notice that it was so quick that there is no indication I even edited my post!

 

[Meleager]

Actually, this is one of the most fundamental concepts in the UET2, the idea that the player is guiding an economy that exists independent of the player/government. Meleager's model seems to instead keep more of the Civ player's ability to directly control the economy on a microeconomic level.

You hit the nail on the head, BTW. The Unified Economic Theorm (which seems to be like athiest's idea) has more underlining game mechanics also but more upper level automation. My Model has less game mechanics but less automation (note: automation does not nessesarily mean AI).

There really just 2 different sides of the same coin ( coin - get it ).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think a 'resource depletion' system would be effective for several key reasons:

1) It is very easy to understand, with a few key variables which even newbies will be able to easily understand.

2) It can tie in neatly to any pre-existing system of resource depletion (like the one in Civ3).

3) It makes resources infinitely more important, but without imposing more Micromanagement on the player or being excessively punative for players.

4) It allows for resource quantification (sort of), but without a need for stockpiling.

5) If the script is as easy as what I quoted above, then it would be easy to put the system in place, and easy to adjust it as needed.

There are other elements I feel it needs to be tied to in order to make the system even better. For instance, resources which do not automatically appear once the required tech is discovered, and a system which benefits players who keep the city number well below that allowed for by the size of their resource deposits.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

Maybe I'll get around to posting that in a more organized fashion in its own thread one day.

Aussie, I think you're tilting at windmills with your suggestion on resources. If you want to quantify resources, you should go all the way. The 1-5 pseudo-infinite model you suggest has issues. Why do I say "pseudo-infinite?" Suppose you have one city with production of 10 and two other cities with production of 5 each. The first is connected to an Iron supply of size 1 and the other two are connected to a single Iron supply of size 2. All three cities are building Swordsmen. The first city turns out 1 Swordsman every 3 turns, while the other pair also turn out 1 Swordsman every 3 turns. Yet the second pair has to have an iron source twice as big as the first city to turn out the same amount. Imagine that first city has a production of 30. Even then, that 1 iron is sufficient.

I say make it completely finite. Every resource deposit produces one unit of that resource every turn that it is connected. Resources either don't deplete, deplete randomly, or deplete when they are exhausted (with their total quantity being either hidden from or known to the player). Resources either can or cannot be stockpiled, assuming the difficult questions I listed above can be answered in a satisfactory way. If resources can be stockpiled or resources never deplete, then each deposit produces every turn regardless, while otherwise it only produces if there is demand. If you need more of that resource, you have to buy it from someone or secure another deposit. Perhaps there can be a map generation parameter for scarcity of resources, so you can have games where there are 3 iron on the whole map (and thus 3 iron resources per turn), or 33 iron on the whole map. Those could be pretty different games from each other.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Apatheist-I have a one word answer to completely dismiss your idea-its called MICROMANAGEMENT , and I mean big time, RTS-type Micromanagement. My system is NOT 'pseudo-infinite', as you will find your resources very quickly running out if you exceed the 'resource limit'. In the meantime, you could also make it that exceeding the limit causes either production times and/or maintainance costs for cities to increase-even without the resources depleting.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

I don't see where you see the micromanagement. What's there to micromanage? The various options I listed aren't all in the same game; they're just examples of different ways to do it that I don't have a strong preference about. In the simplest version, I have some number of resources that each produces 1 unit of that commodity every turn that I cannot stockpile. In that case, all I have to do is make sure I have enough sources online for the number of things I'm building. That's a pretty simple thing to figure out. It's certainly a lot simpler than counting up the number of resources of each size, the number of cities I have connected to those resources, and the number of units I have that need that resource, then making sure the numbers add up properly. And if they don't, trying to guess what the probability is of my resource getting exhausted so I can decide if over-use is worth the risk of losing that resource in a particular situation.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes and, if that is the case, then how is what you are calling for really any different from what I am suggesting? What I am talking about is the idea that 'not all resources are created equal'. For instance, both the US and the Middle East have oil, but the latter area has a heck of a lot more of it. This isn't just because they have more individual deposits, but because each single deposit is larger than those in the US. Giving resources a 'size' rating simply illustrates that fact, and can allow for interesting situations where a small-and possibly even impoverished-nation just happens to control 2/3 of the worlds oil-simply because they ended up with about four size 4-5 oil deposits. Suddenly things get very intriguing . If one oil deposit simply fuels one oil-requiring unit, then size doesn't play a role and you simply have the old 'bigger=better' system (i.e. I have more land ergo I have a better chance of controlling more resources).
Also the system I propose, in its entirety, is fairly intuitive as a player doesn't need to know exactly how much of a resource he has (or make a lot of silly little calculations). If he exceeds his resource limit, he will notice when his productivity begins to drop or when his cities start to cost more (or become less happy/healthy). Its at this point that he will know that he needs more of a specific resource-and a halfway decent graphical interface will tell him instantly which resource(s) it is that he is lacking (and how far from total depletion it is).
So, effectively, my system simply takes the existing Civ3 system and imposes genuine order on it-and tweaks it to make the process more 'graduated'. Your system isn't that much different, it simply requires the player to keep a much closer eye on his resource screen, and doesn't allow for size variability.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

Apatheist or Aussie: Is rescourse depletion really good for gameplay? I mean do we really want an end game with barely any rescources and a growing population?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Meleager, do you really want a game where one resource deposit is still enough to fuel the growth and success of an ENTIRE empire? This is one of the things in Civ3 which has contributed to both the 'Bigger=Better' syndrome and the lack of importance of trade. Though not perfect, at least my system reflects the fact that resources are a major driver of trade, conflict and diplomacy-even if the nations involved have the resource in question. If you look at the example 'script' I put up, Meleager, you will see that what I am suggesting is not overly harsh-as I certainly don't want a system where NO resources exist in the Modern Age (I want something, though, in between the two extremes cited). As I have stated in other threads, I would be perfectly happy to see technology and improvements which can actually increase (or decrease) the resource limit of an empire-on a resource by resource basis. This way, building a recycling plant might double the resource limit of things like coal, gas and iron-to name just a few, wheras industrialisation might lead to a lower threshold for coal (because of increased demand!)
These are just a few examples of how the system could be tweaked, but I am happy with the overall concept of resource depletion.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

I kind of avoided this topic in my UET2, but allow me to take a preliminary jab at it:

1. Resource deposits should have different sizes that are broadly definable (for example, a "large" deposit would have several times more resources than a "small" deposit, but the exact numbers would not ordinarily be known to the player. Refer to my post #44 in this thread for why I don't feel this makes the game predictable).

2. The limiting nature of resources will be that the supply itself is limited, but the demand is potentially not. Thus, while newly discovered resources may be plentiful, their increasing demand/use will lead to higher prices and competitive tension. The nature of the resource deposits themselves, however, is usually not affected by demand.

3. Resource deposits are not special overlays on top of "default" generic terrain types. In fact, they are not treated differently than any other terrain type in terms of use. Their strategic importance only comes from their relative rarity (or demand/supply ratio).

4. In certain circumstances, it will be possible to "over-exploit" a resource to increase the per-turn output, but this will lead to depletion at a rate proportional to the level of over-exploitation. For example, this could occur with a prolonged and severe shortage of the resource, or when the player actively boosts the production of a certain resource (either through subsidization or direct orders, depending on the government/economy set-up).

 

[apatheist]

I could go either way on depletion. Resources could be permanent or they could get depleted. As long as it works and is interesting, I'm content. I don't believe it's such a stark choice. I think what would be more interesting than finite vs. infinite is diminishing returns. In the real world, we will never, ever run out of oil. It will just get increasingly expensive and consumers of oil will switch to other energy sources. You have to put more and more in to get less and less out. I don't have a suggestion for how that should work in the game, but it's something to shoot for.

The situation is not as polarized as you state it, Aussie. There are ways to implement strategic resources where an entire empire isn't supplied by a single source without resorting to depletion. That doesn't mean depletion is a bad idea, just that you're discarding options prematurely.

I'm more reluctant to do variable size resources than I am to have all resources be the same size. There are certain questions for which there is no consensus answer. Is the size of the resource what varies or is it the production? Can I make a resource produce more while risking greater depletion? Can resources get depleted at all? How is the amount measured? Is there production if I don't use any of that resource that turn? I have my preferred answers to those questions. The size of a resource means the size of its production. All resources get tapped once and then there's some amount of production that is fixed for the duration. I am indifferent to resource depletion, as stated above. I would assign arbitrary units to the various resources. Perhaps my empire produces 43 oil units per turn from 4 sites. I consume 21 of those with my 21 armor units and my 11 cities with super-highways (numbers arbitrary). If I don't use or sell any of the resource in a turn, then there is no production.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, for my part I am happy to come in from the polar end of the debate and say 'rather than have a chance out outright depletion, how about we just have a system where if your city number exceeds your 'resource limit' ((Lr=Xn-Y), where n=combined resource size; X is based on difficulty and Y is the number of 'resource dependant' units/improvements), then your 'efficiency' is reduced by (Nc-Lr)/100. In this case, efficiency can be a question of Health Production and Maintainance costs.
So, as a case in point, lets say you are playing a warlord game (X=8) and you have a combined coal resource size of 5 (2 size 2's and a size 1). This means that you can support 40 cities from this coal resource without difficulty. However, you have recently built coal power stations in half of your 40 cities. This means that you are currently exceeding your resource limit by 20 ((8*5)-20). What does this mean? Well, it means that all of the production times of your cities are increased by (40-20)/100 or 0.2. Thus, that unit which once took 10 turns to build will now take (10*0.2)=2 extra turns. Doesn't sound like much, but it could make all the difference, especially if you have several resources in a similar state of 'depletion'. This way, there is no arbitrary disappearance of resources, but the effect of building a successful nation of a limited supply of resources is properly modelled. This, in turn, will have the desired impact on trade, conflict and diplomacy! As I said above, now its just getting the AI to understand it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.