The Unified Economic Theory, 2nd Edition

[Sir Bugsy]

I think the idea here is that we add some of these in-depth concepts to the Civ game without necessarily having the player worry about every aspect of it. While certainly these builder type games come with a lot of complexity, I believe it is merely a result of the narrow scope of the game and not necessarily because the concepts exist.

The ideal, then, is to add some of these concepts in such a way that they add to the Civ experience but do not burden the player in minutae and do not steer the player away from running the nation as a whole.

One of the biggest complaints about the present game is the need to MM every city every turn in order to win at the highest levels. If some of these concepts were introduced you would just be trading a concept like corruption or happiness for the individual wealth of citizens. Either way, in order to success at the highest levels, you will probably need to do some sort of MM.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Sir Bugsy:

Colonel Kraken has expressed my take on the UET's level of micromanagement well. In many cases, micromanagement is due to faulty implementation of concepts, rather than the concepts themselves. My main idea in reducing micromanagement in concepts with a lot of depth is to have the computer always and automatically find the optimal settings for the player, but only in the conditions that the player has made possible. This way, players cannot be performing the tedious minutiae, but can still directly influence the development of their civs.

I do also see the very valid point that automation does exist, but the higher-level players will nevertheless micromanage. My method of preventing that is simply NOT ALLOWING players to directly control anything lower than the general policy level. For example, the player will not need to go through every city to ensure that tiles are being used properly when growth occurs; the citizens will not even be movable unless it is directed to unsettle, move, and then settle again, thus making this micromanagement not worthwhile for its steep costs. However, the control has not been eliminated, because the player still has the option. Basically there will be no more "tricks" to get more out of your cities; every move is legitimate, known, and will have appropriate costs and benefits.

In addition, I am actually not too sure hwo the citizen wealth factor will work yet. Any suggestions would be welcome!


@EddyG17:

I do envision a system of management that has vaguely the same concept as city governors, although it is not the same because the city governors in Civ actually govern policy. The type of automation I would tolerate is, in Civ for example, the moving of strategic resources to all connected cities, rather than the player moving caravans around.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm liking the general direction, but just throw up one more new but still related cautionary note...

There are interfaces with a learning curve and those without. War is very easy to understand and has a simple learning curve. Not to mention people are highly motivated to learn because, well, it's war, and pretty much everyone thinks war is really interesting. Hundreds of Hollywood movies can't be wrong.

Economics can potentially have the worst of all worlds. It's hard to understand how the economy works, and hard to understand how giving a tax cut to the rich could stimulate your whole economy, as much as understanding how imposing a tax on a foreign resource could make you an economic powerhouse. To make matters worse, only a select few are highly motivated to learn. People love money and that can motivate them, but playing with the economy for a lot of people is like looking for porno in your high school biology text book: somehow not as fulfilling as you hoped.

But the key word is "potentially". There can be improvements to the economic model that make the learning curve less steep, to make it more fun to want to learn, or both.

Automation is not a solution. If someone who keeps getting their butt kicked wants to know how they can get ahead, and someone tells them "master your economy", you can practially hear the disappointment coming out of their ears.

But I'm not against this idea in the least, I really want someone to make it work.

There are many strategies in Civ that take a bit to master, but they are easy to grasp or seem highly appealing to learn, or both. We can take cues from past Civs as we imagine our ideal Civ 4.

 

[Trade-peror]

@dh_epic:

Once again, I find your points to be valid, and it is unfortunate how economics is sometimes difficult to grasp, and only a few will bother to try beyond the first attempt.

I rather suspect that the general population may not seem interested in economics simply due to its lack of exposure. A typical student, for example, will not even encounter an economics class until the 12th grade in much of the U.S.! Many subjects take a long time to "sink in," and exposure when young appears to play a role in making this process easier.

Anyway, I mention automation only for those who complain the UET may be too much work for the player in terms of micromanagement. As I have explained in the previous post, there will be a degree of automation that is built into the game, just as in Civ, where the player need not manually move strategic resources around due to automation. This "built-in automation" should cover enough levels that the player only needs to set policies and not have to constantly tackle specific tasks.

As for "mastering the economy" as advice, I definitely agree that it would be most unhelpful and discouraging, to say the least, especially as the word economy has almost a bad connotation when it comes to management. However, it need not be that way. For example, if someone is "getting their butt kicked" due to a chronic shortage of money, then the answer could be raise taxes. Or have new taxes. Or sell off improvements. All of these possibilities should be quite intuitive, and one major advantage is the connection to reality, where all of these possibilities are real and in fact have been tried out throughout milennia of history.

Looking at a bit of history, in other words at the record of human behavior, players should be able to see many strategies that the ancients used successfully (and not so successfully) have similar effects when applied in a historically authentic game! Then would players truly feel as if they are making history, in the "historical what-if" game of Civ.

Back more directly at the topic at hand, the only alternative I can think of, as I have mentioned previously, is to allow "Advanced Taxation" be the feature that would allow this level of depth. Though I am not too fond of the idea of making every controversial idea an option, I suppose it would not hurt.



EDIT: How about the three sections I have proposed regarding city improvements?

 

[Lewsir]

Wow, heavy thread. I haven't worked through all these ideas, but thought I'd comment on one thing: people keep mentioning the need to avoid "complexity". Now, I understand the point of avoiding micromanagement, but I LIKE complexity - at least to the extent that it means a deeper gaming experience. I really don't agree with the "rule", that I guess comes straight from Firaxis, that CIV 4 can't be any more complex than CIV 3.

I realise that one risk with complexitiy is that it makes the game harder to learn and could turn off the newbies. But this could be handled by having the higher game levels reflect increasing complexity (and not just cheating by the AI). I suppose it would be a hassle to program, but it would be great to have additional layers of complexity come in at higher levels. And as someone above said, you might find that as the mental gymnastics get harder, the computer gets an advantage - well that's fine isn't it - if it is also related to going to harder levels?

So I say let's push for increases in complexity, and only avoid increases in micromanagement. And I hope Firaxis is listening.

 

[dh_epic]

Whew, I think you have something Lewsir. But I'm worried Firaxis won't see it that way. There's already a low enough probability that they'll take any idea on these forums. That's why I'm trying to follow "their vision" as much as possible when I come up with ideas.

Just throwing out something here,

A good economic advisor could be a huge benefit. "Sire, Germany has much more money than us!" "Sire, we recommend raising taxes on a luxury." Or even "Sire, Germany's oil is outselling ours!" "Sire, we recommend lowering the price on our oil." When you put it in simple terms like that, even the average player can get into the game. The user is encouraged to try playing with the tax rate, and they experience small rewards for it. This can lay the foundation for them playing with their economy more and more as they try to get more advantages.

Or maybe I'm just getting my hopes up.

 

[GeZe]

What happens when you have a command economy (change gov type to communism)? Or is the civ system already a command economy?

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree that complexity should not be analogous with complicated. A complex trading system could be implemented, providing that the player need not make more than one or two decisions in a game then they do now. Also, a good complex system should offer the player a way to further define their strategy. A good example is Medieval: Total War. The combat and strategic systems are both full of complex ideas and interactions. Also, there are multiple strategies, some of which cancel out others. I understand how to play MTW, but I am always learning new things.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK T-P, I have FINALLY had a look at your new UET, and I MOSTLY like what I see, but would like to add the following 'caveats', if I might:

1) I think that resource consumption by a city should depend on the 'wages', 'working hours' and 'Rations' that you set in the 'empire manager' (think CtP I and II), this average would then be varied by 'government type' and 'demographics'! If an 'Environmentalism' SE setting is incorporated, then this will effect consumption as well!

2) Although I agree with 'resource diversity' I think it can be a little less 'specific' than you want it to be. For instance, with food, you could have 'marine produce', 'cereals', 'livestock', 'fruits and vegetables' and 'forest products'! For shields, it might be 'metals/alloys', 'stone/minerals', 'rare earths', 'wood/pulp' and 'forest products'. What proportion of each type of shield/food you have would depend on what proportion of your shields/food you were deriving from a specific tile! For instance, a city surrounded by hills and mountains might have lots of 'stone/minerals', 'rare earths' and 'metals/alloys', as well as a small amount of 'livestock' and 'fruits/vegetables', but be lacking in 'wood/pulp' and 'forest products'. A city with lots of the latter would earn a great deal more money than trading to a city with equal or greater amounts of this produce!

3) Connected to (2) I still feel that vectoring shields and food is a very good idea, and that a city's food/shield diversity will be reflected in the diversity of the 'central trade pool' which, in turn, will effect the value of shields/food in international trade!

4) As I have said in your previous UET, I think that especially rare shield/food types should act as 'pseudo-luxuries'-in that they generate happiness if delieved to a city that doesn't have any of them! So, for example, you vector 3 units of 'forest product' shields to a mountainous city-boosting happiness there by, for example 6%! This might work as the first 4 units of an 'exotic' commodity will each boost happiness by 2%, and the following 4 units will boost it by 1% each! After a city is recieving 8 units of a resource, it is no longer considered a 'luxury'! The pseudo-luxury status of exotic commodities will, however, effect the base price asked and offered for it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Lewsir:

I very much agree! Complexity, as long as it is not cumbersome and tedious, is what separates the excellent games from the mediocre, for depth and replayability are the hallmarks of games worth playing for years to come.

Of course, as a veteran Civ player, I could handle more than newbies, but it would obviously be a mistake to alienate such a substantial share of the market. Therefore, lessening micromanagement will be key. Such a goal is not easily reached, however, and I recommend modifying core concepts to allow for streamlining, rather than trying to fix fundamentally flawed features.

That is why the UET II is necessarily so radical in concept. I doubt that Firaxis would adopt the UET II in its entirety, but I would expect ideas here to seep in eventually.


@dh_epic:

YES! A powerful economic advisor (perhaps even split into tax, infrastructure, and foreign trade advisors) would be essential for newbies to more quickly pick up the nuances of the economic engine. Although I am confident that basic concepts should not be too difficult to understand (especially because reality may be used as a reference!), the advisor could help players develop deeper strategies.


@GeZe:

The Civ economy for certain is a command economy as it stands. In the context of the UET II, however, a command economy would still keep players from managing the lowest and most tedious levels of their economy, for the sake of reducing micromanagement. While that is more of a topic of governments in the context of the UET II, to be discussed in greater depth when I find time to posts sections on the matter, I would say for the moment that a player that uses a command economy would not have to deal with the "private sector" mentioned throughout the UET II, in that the private and public (player-controlled) sectors would merge.


@sir_schwick:

I completely share your view that complex is not synonymous with complicated, and the former is most desirable for offering strategic depth and abundant replayability.


@Aussie_Lurker:

Actually, the idea of wages, working hours, and rations rather reminds me of the Pharaoh and Caesar series. The problem with incorporating some of the concepts from those games into Civ is that Pharaoh and Caesar are narrow in scope and historical focus, but Civ needs to be general enough to cover the whole history of the earth. Therefore, wages and working hours may be too specific for the ruler of an empire to set for all of the individual production facilities under his general jurisdiction. The concept of modifying rations does not even apply in more modern eras. It would be very interesting, however, to somehow generalize such considerations and apply them to Civ!

As for resource diversity, I actually do not want specific products (for the same reasons of scope mentioned above), but I am just using specific names to represent broad categories of products, in that familiar names such as simply "wood" and "iron" may be easier than saying "forest products" and "iron alloys" (considering there is "pig" iron, cast iron, steel, etc.). In Civ, I assume that "spices" covers cinnamon, rhubarb, peppercorn, and whatever other spices are used for similar purposes.

Cities with different products would naturally benefit more greatly from trade than cities with similar products due to the mechanism of supply and demand determining price. I doubt a hard-coded rule needs to be imposed to allow for such effects.

As for the idea of rare food types acting as “pseudo-luxuries,” I am currently thinking of having the variety of food commodities affect happiness, which means that your idea is indirectly implemented, in that increasing the level of rare food types would most likely boost the variety of food in a city anyway. In addition, my suggestion avoids the rigidity of having to designate what and how much food is considered rare. Also, I am thinking leaving the price level to be determined solely by supply and demand. Other factors would influence the price through modifying either demand or supply.

 

[Trade-peror]

Here are some new proposed sections concerning scientific advances:


XVI. Education and Scientific Progress
The education level (or literacy rate) of the population will play a central role in scientific progress. For the sake of simplicity, the Civ method of having beakers accumulate to create a scientific advance will be used; the beakers will not be generated from trade, however, rather from the collective level of education in the civ, enhanced by facilities such as libraries, universities, and research labs.

XVII. Trade and Scientific Progress
Trading with another civ that knows of an advance being researched will contribute beakers toward the discovery of that particular advance. Trade with another civ that is more scientifically advanced in a category being researched would also contribute beakers toward the discovery of an advance in that particular category, although to a lesser degree than in the above situation with a specific advance.

XVIII. Research Facilities
Although an uneducated citizen will still generate 1 beaker, a Library will increase the per person output of the city the Library is in by 1 beaker, and the other facilities will have the same effect on the beaker output per person. The maximum number of beakers a single citizen can contribute (under normal circumstances) is 4 beakers. Scientific wonders and special funding can change this number.

XIX. Research Direction
When harnessing the beakers of uneducated citizens, the research goal may only be set as a category, and a random available tech in that category will be researched. Beakers from a Library can be directed toward a specific goal, however, and a University can also receive research funding from the central government to speed scientific discovery. The most advanced facility, the Research Lab, allows Researcher specialists to be assigned to the facility to enhance the Research Lab’s effects.

 

[Deathgoroth]

Great thread!

What I miss in this theory is an elaborate concept of unemployment.

In Civ3 unemployment is at best represented by waste (inefficient shield output), corruption (inefficient trade output), government (variable output on tiles) and resisters (angry non-priducing citizens) in occupied territories.

I would like to see all this consolidated in an unemployemnt rate displayed in the demografics chart. This rate effects the output rates of production, trade, science, luxury and food. But of course not so that 30% unemployment cuts 30% of income. That is way too hard.

I think it can work this way:
The unemployment rate has a general drive towards 0% for each turn that passes, but there are a number of things that can make the unemployment rate increase, such as: (these are just suggestions)

- Sudden break in trade deals.
- Long term use of producing growth (not buildings or units) in the cities
- Loss of special resources
- Incredible rapid population growth in highly developed cities
- Destruction of city improvements
- Rapid changes in taxation
- Rapid changes in spending
- ???

This will work as an incentive to plan and think many moves ahead, but I don't want this effect to be very influential in the game play. One should be aware of the dangers of getting a too high long term unemplyment rate, though, such as unhappyness and all that comes with that.

 

[Trade-peror]

Wow, it just so happens that I have a spare second right now to look at CFC (I have been away for months), and the UET remains!

Anyway, I have heard from others wanting to introduce a definite factor of unemployment. I, however, consider this is to be more of a resulting statistic than an actual economically significant factor. Please allow me to elaborate:

It may appear that unemployment is a factor unto itself. For example, when Wall Street hears that unemployment has increased, stocks fall. This, however, is not due to some factor called "unemployment" that is causing damage. The fact that unemployment increased simply signals the fact that population growth has outpaced economic growth, or that the economy is not vibrant enough to support the current population, or some other economic/production problems. These factors causing unemployment are what are actually affecting the bottom lines of the Wall Street firms and causing their stock to lose value. No "unemployment" has directly caused damage--in fact it may be easier to think of unemployment as a measure of how much damage other concrete factors may be causing overall.

Therefore, I would consider having unemployment as a "barometer" of the strength of the economy. In a way, that is the reverse of what you are arguing, since policies should not attempt to reduce "unemployment" directly, but should try to remedy factors leading to the unemployment rating. However, this would still incorporate your fundamental tenet of concern for maintaining a low unemployment rating, since high unemployment would carry negative consequences. The difference is that "unemployment" is not causing the consequences directly, but whatever is causing the high unemployment rating is causing consequences. Either way, lowering unemployment (by fixing its causes) would be a priority.

In a game context, the unemployment rating would be an indication of whether the economy is keeping pace with the population. Therefore, a lower unemployment rating means that there is enough food going around, and the civilization is engaged in fruitful trade and production. A higher unemployment value would indicate that the average amount of food available to each citizen has decreased, and possibly that important industries are not are productive as they should be.

Overall, I would say that we are on the same plane in terms of the fundamental concept, but different in its representation in the game. What do you think about my proposal? I am very interested in hearing your critique and suggestions.

And another thing--you may note in my signature that I said that I would not be back on CFC until July of 2005. Well, I am still quite busy, so my CFC visits will be pretty sporadic, but I still encourage new posts and will eventually get around to replying!

 

[Deathgoroth]

I like that idea very much, but...

The structure of your idea, as how to calculate the unemployment rate, is perhaps closer to reality, but I would actually like to "simplify". My suggestion is structurally wrong on the mathematical level, as many things in CIV are, so we just have to pretend that if A happens, something in the line of B would occure, even if we know that in CIV, what happens in terms of math between A and B is so far from reality as you can get. In my proposal, the mechanics in the game make unemployment a real cause in the way that a certian mishaps work as triggers, and then the output of production is calculated with unemployment as a part of the equation. This could be implemented easily.

Certain mishap ----> unemployment ----> output
(Trigger)...............(part of eqation)........(result of calculation)


In your suggestion the mechanics are as follows:

..........................------> unemployment (as a measure of econ. strenght)
..........................|
Certain mishap---------------> output
(Part of the equation).............(Result of the calculation)

The strength of your idea, is that it grasps the fundemental causes of unemployment. The weaknesses are that

1) unemployment itself is not a part of the eqation anywhere. How would you like to see 30% unemployment be represented in the game other that by a number on the demographics chart? You'd like to see that, based on the economics of the game, unemployment is not needed as a part of the equation as it is already represented in all the other factors that you would like to include. Structurally, I too would like to see this kind of advanced equation in place! But why is unemployment no part of the equation at all? Why shouldn't it be? The basics in the game should ideally be what the sims do. Pieces of actions. Unemployment will then be the number of Sims that potetially could be a productive part of the economic system (your great scheme!), but instead are wandering around doing other things. God knows what they'll be up to! But they're up to something, and those action should be a part of the eqation some way or another.

2) There is no trigger mechanism anywhere. This system is too stable! With an unemployment rate based on everything, there must be a major disaster to influence the rate very much, like anarchy or atomic pollution. It may very well be that stock fall due to the underlying factors of the unemployment rate and not the rate itself. That alone does not, however, lead to the assumption that unemployment is not a factor to be included in the output equation.

To conclude, in your suggesion we have a number - the unemployment rate. It is a measurement of something. The higher it gets, the worse we are off in certain respects, and it tells us to take some form of corrective action. I like that. That could work. And I like that to be the interest rate of the central bank. What do you think of that? My suggestion is therefore: Let us have both! Your idea and mine, and they will simulate somewhat different concepts.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, if they used REAL numbers to represent a city's population then it would be VERY EASY to represent unemployment. This way, you could have tiles require a certain # of people per shield and/or food it produces. If a resource is on that tile, then it requires even more people to work it (as it produces more food/shields than a base tile). In my model, you can also adjust the amount of food/shields you get from a tile-though the amount is limited by the 'base production value' of the tile AND your population! If you build a tile improvement, it reduces the amount of people you need on a tile, per shield/food it produces (plus, it gives you more leeway in over or under-exploiting the tile).
Now, if you also give units and buildings a population cost, then you actually SEE what % of a city is employed or not. Employment costs you money in terms of maintainance and wages, but unemployment also costs you in terms of increased crime and unhappiness, and poorer cities (until you build 'The Welfare State', all unemployed people would be assumed to have an EP of 0-irrespective of the average wage you set for your empire!) So, it becomes very close to the real-world situation of balancing your budget, against the social problems created by unemployment!
Sorry if that all seems a bit garbled, but I hope you like my idea !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Deathgoroth:

I am glad that you see space for some compromise and improvement upon my ideas, rather than immediately rejecting them for being different from your own ideas. It looks like we are all set to have some logical and reasonable conversation!

Interestingly, I did consider the fact that unemployment, as I have defined according to real economic theory, would merely be a statistic in the game, with no direct influence on any game factors. However, I also considered what the effect of the figure of unemployment has on the economy and society of the real world, and the answer is fairly obvious--the direct material effect is none, but the psychological effect is dramatic. As much as Civ is only a game, I want it to be a game with logic, where things can be figured out because they make sense, and therefore the logical next step upon realizing this aspect of the effects of unemployment is to consider how it might affect game factors in Civ that are psychologically based. The most obvious would be the happiness of the population, and for more modern times, the "confidence" of investors in the stock market.

In other words, I propose that the unemployment rate indeed be part of the equation for psychological factors in the game, particularly citizen happiness. This could easily apply throughout history, for even when people did not have the media and information of modern times, they could still see if half their villages were idle and starving. A more modern phenomenon would be the "investor confidence" factor that may affect the effectiveness of stock markets. Unemployment, among other things, would be appropriate as direct "parts of the equation" in these cases. Thus, the unemployment rate actually would have a tangible effect in terms of gameplay.

However, I would like to, if possible, avoid "random" relationships that bear little connection to logic or reality. For example, the unemployment rate should not lower production, because generally the process is the other way--lowered production results in unemployment. With your previous post, it appears that you suggest using the unemployment figure as the interest rate of the central (national) bank. While I do not see unemployment as being directly proportional to prevailing interest rates, and therefore would hesitate to implement this specific equation, I DO agree that unemployment should be part of the central bank interest rate equation, since the rate is essentially a psychological/judgment/evaluation-type figure. In short, someone makes it up, and that person could feel that unemployment is having an effect, and therefore the interest rate should go up/down.

Thus, I believe, I do keep most of your ideas, just not the specific implementations. And, as is probably true, I have made the equations more complex in the process. As far as I am concerned, though, this complexity is desirable, not because the real world is also complex, but because complexity allows for more possibilities. I honestly do not believe that the fundamental concepts are difficult to grasp; only the specifics might be tricky. This position is perfect--beginners can start without too much trouble, but veterans can continue to explore new aspects and new strategies to improve their game (as well as their understanding of economics ). In other words, I would like Civ to be easy to learn, but difficult to master.

@Aussie_Lurker:

I do like the general idea in your suggestions regarding a "welfare state." In this case, the only non-psychological situation I can think of, including the unemployment rate as a direct part of the equation would be very reasonable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thanks for your support on my idea T-P ! I thought I might lay it out, step-by-step, to explain it a bit better.

Lets say you build a city, that starts with 1000 people. At first, this city will not work any tiles except the one its situated on. Then, when your city doubles its population, you can begin assigning your population to surrounding hexes. At this point, lets say that you decide to work a forest tile (worth 2 shields and 1 food), this might cost you 1000 population (400 per shield, and 200 per food). Lets say, though, that you want to extract more food from this tile. You double-click on the hex and it will come up with a 'food/shield' slider. You adjust it up to 2 food, which causes shield output to drop by 1 (as you don't have sufficient population at this time to get 2 shields/2 food from this tile). You now have 200 extra people, though, which you could use to extract 1 food from a plains or grassland tile. Later in the game, you build a 'lumber yard' on this forest hex, which halves the population cost of shield extraction from this tile (200 per shield). You can also now increase or decrease the shield output of this hex by +/- 2!
Improvements and Wonders also require population-both a minimum and a maximum. As you build improvements of a certain type, you increasingly specialise the population of the city. 'Overspecialisation' can also be done to increase shields, food, income etc, AND use up a certain number of your free population. How much this costs you will depend on the type of specialists you have (and their current Earning Power, or EP). So, say you want to increase the number of merchants in your city (which increase wealth). You increase it by 20%, which will cost 20% of your current population, and which might cost you 5gpt per 10% (or 10 gpt total)! Though this subtracts from that city's per turn income, it also increases the 'Wealth of the city', as the average EP of the city has now slightly increased! This is why unemployment is so bad for a city, as they have an EP of 0, which can drag your city's wealth down. Unemployment can also effect culture, emigration and crime/corruption. The issue for the player is balancing the cost of keeping everyone employed, versus the cost of NOT keeping them employed. Of course, if you also have the private sector buying up your improvements and tile improvements, then they will decide the level of employment that these produce-which might lead to increased unemployment that YOU, the player, would have to deal with!
Lastly, of course, units will cost a certain amount of population to build, which leaves the player with another big decision-does he sacrifice population growth, wealth and productivity in order to pursue a militaristic agenda? Or do you possibly leave yourself open to attack by your enemies? All of this makes, IMHO, a much more interesting game!
Anyway, hope this makes sense to you guys!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

I find a lot of depth and possiblities in your allocation concept, with terrain and improvements "costing" population. The feature of upgrades halving these costs and the possiblity of overspecialization are also good ideas. However, there is one major caveat--how can these concepts be implemented on a large scale without requiring a significant amount of micromanagement to be effective? There probably is a way, but I can not think of it now. Perhaps you can be more successful?


@Deathgoroth:

Perhaps my views on the unemployment rate and other related concepts, especially in terms of the game as a whole, would make more sense in the context of the entire Unified Economic Theory. Have you read the first post in this thread, which is a summary of the portions finished so far? Any comments regarding any section would be welcome!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi T-P,

Well, after much consideration, the only way I can see of minimizing MM in my system is by giving greater power to your domestic advisor, via your city governors.

For instance, your domestic advisor will still give you advice and warnings, perhaps about the state of unrest, or crime or unemployment, culture, overpopulation etc. You can, though, also give him priorities which guide the manner in which he/she directs your governors. For instance, if you wish to maintain low unemployment at ALL TIMES, then you might give employment a ranking of 5. If pollution is not of great importance to you, then you might rank it at only 1!
Of course, you could have a similar system for your military, science and foreign affairs and trade advisors. Whilst on the subject of advisors, after playing 'Hearts of Iron', I would love it if you could change advisors, and that advisors had certain 'personalities', as dictated by bonuses they grant you when they control elements of your society. For instance, you might have a domestic advisor who has a 'tough on crime' personality-he reduces crime and corruption in your cities, but decreases happiness for his 'jackboot' approach (think Rudolph Guilliani !)
Another issue, though, might be that of advisor 'loyalty', where certain situations might make a particular advisor 'disloyal', such disloyalty could manifest in ignoring your prioritisations, giving you false advice and/or warnings or even leaking information to the enemy!! Loyalty would be based around a number of in-game factors, both things which you do, and things which other civs might do!
I think this could make for an even more intriguing game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

This system of using the city governors and/or domestic advisor(s) to manage your empire might be good for your system, but unfortunately, I have seen too many arguments against this type of management in general.

For example, some people say that the AI can never be as good as a human, so there is an advantage in micromanaging, and for that advantage, many players would dispense with automation, much as many do so with Civ, although at the cost of more time spent micromanaging. The UET II avoids this by having the computer take care of the minutiae without any POSSIBLE interference from the player, except in special situations where the gameplay costs are clearly spelled out and severe, and therefore eliminates the prospect of players being able to micromanage better than the computer. Therefore is the player limited to policy. For example, the player will generally not assign terrain squares with the UET II model; the citizens will move where they want, and that is determined by a comparison of the potential production and potential wealth that can be derived from possible spots. This alone would cut down dramatically on thetime spent micromanaging, but say the player has special plans for a certain square. In that case, the player could bother to uproot a citizen, move the group (as if a unit) to the right spot, and then order the citizen to settle. While a possibility, this strategy would not be micromanagement, because the costs are significant--the citizen must be supported during the transportation and unsettled phases, but will produce nothing meanwhile. Micromanagement depends on strategies that are "free" in terms of gameplay and that provide an advantage. In this case, the player's manual control is not "free" and therefore will remain a tool for special occasions, in accordance to the designer's original intentions. Policy-wise, players could more elegantly achieve their goals through, for example, ordering further development of regions where they want to promote settlement, or even offer tax incentives on certain products to raise the wealth potential of certain squares and thus promote their development! The general UET II player management philosophy is similar: the computer does all the actual carrying out of tasks, but the player can modify the environment in which these actions take place, promoting actions that are conducive to the player's goals.

Back to your model, Aussie. Since your model currently involves actually setting the "rates" of terrain production, and having these controlled by governors to reduce micromanagement, it is more of a policy-type decision that is being delegated to the governors, and I am not sure that many players would like that. Perhaps there is another way--I would like to hear any suggestions!