Possible early Economy Civics

[whitelaughter]

Until Banking, the Economy Civics are unavailable, leaving a boring hole in the civics. But the ancients did have ideas on how to use wealth beforehand; so how about economy civics available early, that become obsolete as you progress up the tech tree? Here are some thoughts, linked to the civics they'd proceed:

Patronage Precedes Mercantilism. Requires Aesthetics; obsolete with Banking. High upkeep, but allows a specialist in each city.

Tribute Exacting Precedes Free Market. (Straight forward - your nation bases its' economy on exacting tribute form weaker nations). Requires Bronze Working; obsolete with Currency. Allow you to demand payment of in return for peace. Low upkeep.

Palace Economy Precedes State Property. (This is where *everything* is run from the palace; frex farmers hand over their grain after harvesting it, and are given the needed seed during planting season). Requires Pottery, obsolete with Monarchy. Gives access to the Bureaucracy Legal Civic as long as you only have one city; however Bureaucracy+Palace Economy has no benefit if you have more than one city. High upkeep.

Gift-based Economy Precedes State Property. (This is where rather than paying taxes or gettting services, subordinates curry favour with the ruler by giving gifts, and the ruler retains power by redistributing the gifts across the nation). Requires Monarchy. Obsolete with Scientific Method. Only the capital can have foreign trade routes; all your other cities gain an extra Trade Route with the capital.

Religious Ritual Precedes Environmentalism. (Where the major force improving hygiene is the need to obey religious rules regarding washing etc). Requires Theology. Obsolete with Medicine. All cities with the state religion gain

Thoughts?

 

[mariogreymist]

I wouldn't mind seeing one civic swapped out for Enviro, which is a fantasy land civic to begin with. (but would obviously require some other mods, like changing Mass Transit) Banking is far into the game, and it would be nice to have at least one weak, early econ civic. The one I would like to see:

Religious dispensation sales: Requires state religion. +1 , +1 trade route in all cities with the state religion. +1 in cities without the state religion. High upkeep.

 

[whitelaughter]

Religious dispensation sales: Requires state religion. +1 , +1 trade route in all cities with the state religion. +1 in cities without the state religion. High upkeep.

This is effectively part of what you're getting when you build the religion's Wonder - gold coming in from pilgrims, indulgences, donations etc.
Indulgences though are interesting twice over: they were contrary to the churches teachings (being Simony) and the funds were going to Rome not Jerusalem, so it's a hijacked Holy City.
Hijacking a Holy City would be interesting. Perhaps a National Wonder that gets the so long as you follow that state religion and the owner of the Holy City does not?

 

[TheLazyHase]

Indulgences though are interesting twice over: they were contrary to the churches teachings (being Simony) and the funds were going to Rome not Jerusalem, so it's a hijacked Holy City.

It could be argued that Rome were another holy city for catholicism. Maybe "just" because pope reside here, but still.

The fact that the holy city must be the first to discover the religion and cannot move alway bother me a little.

 

[whitelaughter]

Although the Popes left the city for Avignon for centuries...

Still, if the game allowed for a religious equivalent of colonies, with civilizations able to create a splinter sect, this would reflect a lot fo real world politics: so Rome becomes a Holy City thanks to 'Saint' Damasus and the absurd claims he made after slaughtering his rival pope; the Islamic split between Sunni and Shiites and so forth.

Rather than either a National or Great Wonder, I'd make budding a sect require a Project: that keeps it expensive, stops people whipping it up, but still leaves it as an option, especially in cities that already have two national wonders.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Still, if the game allowed for a religious equivalent of colonies, with civilizations able to create a splinter sect, this would reflect a lot fo real world politics: so Rome becomes a Holy City thanks to 'Saint' Damasus and the absurd claims he made after slaughtering his rival pope; the Islamic split between Sunni and Shiites and so forth.

I totally agree with the idea. Maybe auto creat some sect that spread unhapiness in some city, too.

 

[ac106]

I was thinking about this recently:

I would like to see economic civics go something like this

Ancient: Bartering- opens up trade between cities in your own empire (Copper can be shared etc)
Classical: Foreign Trade- opens up trade routes between different civs
Medieval: Manorialism- Bonuses for pig, horse, Lower unhappiness http://www.kvhigh.com/learning/history/manorialism.html
Renaissance: Mercantilism - Similar
Industrial: State Property - Tweak it to reflect RL problems
Modern: Free Market - Similar, bonus for banks maybe
Future: Wealth Redistribution- Forced sharing of resources between cities. Still thinking about the specifics for balance though.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Industrial: State Property - Tweak it to reflect RL problems
Future: Wealth Redistribution- Forced sharing of resources between cities. Still thinking about the specifics for balance though.

Those two are based upon the same concept : communism, community before individual, this trend of thinking.

 

[mechaerik]

Those two are based upon the same concept : communism, community before individual, this trend of thinking.

Which is actually quite a good idea.... on paper.

In practice, people don't like putting themselves second, however better it may be for everyone.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Which is actually quite a good idea.... on paper.

In practice, people don't like putting themselves second, however better it may be for everyone.

With selfless people, communism can be the better form of gouvernment.

Capitalism, on the other hand, had been build to work well with self-centered people. (capitalism I mean, not liberalism or other batardized version than run in some place)

They may be reason for wich one had been more successful than the other.

 

[mechaerik]

With selfless people, communism can be the better form of gouvernment.

True, but it will be a while before people put the needs of the many before the wants of themselves.

 

[ac106]

While they are based on the same concept, Soviet style Communism is worlds apart from the wealth distribution that modern liberals would like to see implemented.

 

[morchuflex]

Lots of good suggestions here, especially from the OP.

 

[Badtz Maru]

Pure Communism and pure capitalism are both unfeasible due to human nature. Communism needs people to care about their long-term best interests by contributing to the community. People who don't think much about their long term future disrupt it by taking advantage of the system for their short term benefit, even if that will lead to the weakening of the society they are a part of and may lead to personal ostracism or worse.

Pure capitalism (ala libertarianism) only would work if people worked towards what was best for them in the long term - the free market and competition would work everything out, and nobody would abuse their freedoms because it would lead to competition stepping in and taking away their business. But when you add people who are willing to get a short-term gain without concern for their future financial stability, or people who will throw away money and resources towards irrational goals (e.g. buying up all the property around a community and only allowing people of a certain race to cross your borders), you have big problems.

That's why you need a blend of the two, and an overseeing body that looks out for the people's best interest because you can't always trust individuals to do so.