On Great Depression

[blizzrd]

I used to sit in Free Market for most of my games under the older patches, but in the last 2 months or so I have changed this approach due to many Depressions.

Infact, I had not experienced a Great Depression ever until about 2 months ago. Did something change with the more recent updates to increase the chance of Depressions? I haven't really changed my tactics that much in the last couple of months, but I'm a lot more 'depressed' that I used to be.

 

[onedreamer]

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it's just not worth it to go for Free Market because I get a great depression nearly every time I do so. Skipping to State Property seems to be the way to go.

IMO corporations are too good to give them up with State Property. Unless you live in a land full of rivers, where you will build many watermills and workshops, I'd stick to Mercantilism, especially since the AI tends to do it as well. Some civs like Egypt, Mali and Russia though are very suitable for State Property.

 

[GeneralSpecific]

GeneralSpecific you're beeing too general and too few specific
what you described as the cause of inflation is only one of at least three possibilities, probably the one of years 20/30th but unlikely the one that we're living nowadays.

Come now, onedreamer. Why would I address either cost-push or built-in inflation when they have little to no bearing on the game's mechanics? I'm just cutting out the fluff.

I am taking this from a Monetarist perspective, as that is how I believe it is implemented in the game mechanics, or should be.

 

[onedreamer]

Well honestly I don't see how printing excess paper currency is more represented in game than cost-push prices. The problem is that the "inflation" implemented by Firaxis is not Inflation. It is a game balance mechanic that the player doesn't even have much control on (if any at all) but that they still wanted us to see and didn't know how to call other than "inflation".

 

[chococid]

IMO corporations are too good to give them up with State Property. Unless you live in a land full of rivers, where you will build many watermills and workshops, I'd stick to Mercantilism, especially since the AI tends to do it as well. Some civs like Egypt, Mali and Russia though are very suitable for State Property.

Well, if you're planning on a Corporate strategy, you can go Mercantilism -> Environmentalism; the extra upkeep doesn't really matter much compared to the extra health and happiness, which will result in bigger cities and therefore more gold (more cottage use).

 

[onedreamer]

chococid, I haven't understood your comment. I mean, I understood it, but not in which context you mean it.

 

[chococid]

If you're building corporations, then sure, rejecting State Property is solid. In that case, I'd seriously consider skipping over both Free Market *and* State Property and going straight from Mercantilism (if you used it) to Environmentalism. The 25% penalty you pay on corporations isn't a big deal because you're going to get a huge amount of health and happiness in cities, which lets them work more tiles, which means you can work more cottages, which means more gold.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

This is probably because of their dykes (and the fact they like coastal cities) and the fact that they are the ones that get economics first. I have never been able to see a game recently without a Dutch depression.

 

[Aramil799]

Even with the chance of great depressions (which I think should be lessened), Free Market still seems significantly better than Mercantilism; in my newest game as America, I switched from Mercantilism to Free Market in the 1800s, and saw my gold jump by +80, allowing me to raise science by quite a bit. That seems to outweigh the effects of a depression.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

I play on Monarch and I've never had a great depression, ever. Trust me, I've been playing for a while.

 

[blizzrd]

I think I managed to finish all the Monarch UHVs before I ever experienced a Great Depression, but they are becoming quite common for me now.

I don't think I did much to alter my playing style recently, was there an adjustment with any of the recent patches to increase the likelihood of Great Depressions?

 

[Úmarth]

I never got one until the last update, now they're common.

 

[coko]

France constantly gets one in my game...so . .. .. .. .ing annoying!

 

[Dabur]

I play on Monarch and I've never had a great depression, ever. Trust me, I've been playing for a while.

Hi ,

at least one other player

it all comes down to settings and micromanagement

so even with the new patch you dont have it


Have a nice day

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Hi ,

at least one other player

it all comes down to settings and micromanagement

so even with the new patch you dont have it

I almost never have Great Depressions now (since I stay away from Free Economy), but what I meant was it's inevitable that the AI gets a GD and depresses my economy. (Especially France and Netherlands)

 

[kbk]

They are definitely more common with the recent builds. I used to love free markets, but now I get a lot of great depressions. I usually play with more of a focus to cottages than to production, so its kind of baffling. I wonder if some of the production heavy nations are much more likely to get one of these.

It almost killed my German game, until I reloaded, delayed my English invasion, built Cristo, and switched to state property. Got to love no Anarchy.


Is there an immunity to a depression after you get one? I thought there was supposed to be, but it seems there isn't.

 

[Dabur]

Hi ,

are there others who feel that the ' depression ' is to much now , .... ?

Have a wonderfull free market day

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I'm trying a domination game as Carthage. The turn I discover communism, I get a great depression; and I counted the number of windmills and cottages which was MORE than the mines and farms that I have. (Tultan was all windmills). The fact that I was unstable before means I took a gamble to switch to communism, which forced me to concentrate on happiness and spreading religions around to combat the depression (lasting a good 6 turns after I switched to communism). It's a miracle I didn't lose a city or collapse.

 

[kbk]

I'm trying a domination game as Carthage. The turn I discover communism, I get a great depression; and I counted the number of windmills and cottages which was MORE than the mines and farms that I have. (Tultan was all windmills). The fact that I was unstable before means I took a gamble to switch to communism, which forced me to concentrate on happiness and spreading religions around to combat the depression (lasting a good 6 turns after I switched to communism). It's a miracle I didn't lose a city or collapse.

Carthage is a ludicrously hard domination already. I had similar problems before I gave up on them. Thing is, as Carthage you're about as built for trade as is possible, and I still get depressions despite virtually zero mines and a crapload of Mediterranean sea tiles.

The way its coded, it just has to be an inevitability, and it seems to have little to nothing to do with the ratio of gold vs. hammers.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

The other problem is that I'm trying to buffer my stability with golden ages (had 5 already with the 2/3 UHV, 2+3+4 great people, and Taj Mahal), and it's the inevitable slumps after the GA that gets me from solid (50 economy) to shaky (10 economy). Is there any way to "soften the landing"?

Also, as I posted somewhere before, before the renaissance, a static economy was probably not as "destablizing" as it is after, especially with banking and interest which is how economies grew. A medieval feudal state supposedly had more stability with religious conformity rather than lots of bankers (remember the expulsion of the Spaniard Jews?). So why not let RFC reflect this?