The Unified Economic Theory, 2nd Edition

[Aussie_Lurker]

The key issue here, T-P, is that BASE production rates from tiles would remain fairly similar to what they currently are in civ3. The key difference is that you, the player, have the power to under or overexploit the tile-each decision carries an 'inherent' cost and benefit. Underexploitation reduces pollution output from the tile, and lessens the chance of tile degredation and any resource on the tile disappearing, but causes a pool of 'unemployed' citizens, who must either be redirected elsewhere OR left to increase crime and reduce the wealth of the city! Overexploitation helps to use up 'excess' population AND potentially gives you extra food and/or shields to boot, but at the cost of increased pollution and an increased chance of tile degredation and a resource on that tile disappearing! Now, using domestic advisors and governors in such a fashion won't amount to micromanagement, as you are only really setting BROAD policies in regards to your city management. If, however, you want to control 2-3 KEY CITIES, then my model allows you the option of switching off those governors, and taking direct control for as long as you like! I see it more as a 'station keeping' excercise for your older and better developed cities, whilst leaving your 'frontier cities' under your direct control!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

Again, I do find that under your system a management strategy of assigning governors to all but a few key or specialized cities to be managed by the player would be convenient and effective. However, I continue to note that what the governors actually do, exactly, is not always clear unless the options for setting them are extremely clear and specific. More importantly, many players players micromanage to get the very most out of their cities, and that means making EVERY city specialized in order to make sure that not a single food or shield is accidentally wasted through less-than-perfect management! An example is when players have to go through every city every turn to find those that are about to grow in population, and manipulate food production to be only sufficient for the growth, so as to further boost other resources. The same idea goes for when a unit or improvement is just about to be finished. In these cases, it may be difficult to make governors able to handle such situations as a micromanaging human player would, and for some, that makes all the difference.

Fortunately, most Civers would do just fine with your system. However, the small segment of hyper-micromanagement type players are generally the hardcore, elite players that completely immerse their lives in Civ, and they are no doubt the most vocal (something that can affect Civ's reputation, say on the Internet through CFC, and that could affect sales). Therefore, their views must also be considered.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, T-P, though I am no fan of MM myself, I say if people wanna be that 'anal' , then more power to them !
That said, though, my model does allow for some 'fine-tuning' of the automated system. Basically you can 'prioritise' the Domestic Advisors agenda on a scaled basis. So, for example, lets say your top priority is job creation, whilst your secondary agenda is having wealthy cities. In your DA screen, you would put 'Employment' as priority "1", and 'City Wealth' as Priority "2". This means that the DA will 'instruct' cities with governers set to maximise employment, whilst also trying to maintain high wealth. This would probably be done by placing commercial improvements high on the build queue, and overspecialising your cities with Merchants.
Of course, with your military, foreign affairs and trade advisors all playing their respective roles, you could end up with some really intriguing personality conflicts arising -conflicts which only you, as the 'head of state' (in a manner of speaking), can solve!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

p.s.: hmmm, what if you could 'assassinate' the advisors of other civs in Civ4, or even 'corrupt' them to your side? Could be interesting too!

 

[Trade-peror]

There has recently been quite a bit of discussion over borders in several other threads. My suggestion would be using my old Integrated Interface/Urbanization model (link to thread is in my signature) and then incorporating culture into determining borders. Can anyone guess how I might integrate the UET II and Urbanization models? I would welcome any suggestions, and will be posting the integrated version within a few days.

 

[Trade-peror]

First, here are some sections that summarize the basic tenets of my Urbanization model as applied to the UET II:

Population Organization and Placement

XX. Basic Unit of Population – the Village
The basic unit of population is one Settlement, which will be represented on the map as a cluster of houses taking up the space of one tile. These units are equivalent to the current citizen “heads” in Civ. However, each population point, initially, can only extract a total of three units of any resources from a tile. Each unit of population consumes one food for survival, and demands (although does not consume) one shield for purposes of calculating market demand. In addition, each Village has a “food box” of 5 food to fill before growing into two population units (spreading onto an adjacent square as another Village).

XXI. Cities
Although Villages may function separately, often they are absorbed into the cultural spheres of nearby City squares. A City square is any square that contains a City Improvement or Wonder. Primary differences between City and Village squares include the fact that City squares have City Improvements and therefore special advantages over less developed squares, and also that they generate their own culture (due to these improvements). A City is also on a higher level of organization than a Village, having its own administration, treasury, and cultural tag that affect units or products that originate from the City.

XXII. Provinces
Provinces are large tracts of land that are initially organized by the player, who selects the cities that are to belong in a Province. Provincial Capitals, however, function much like cities--they are the center of culture for that Province, and house the provincial administration and treasury. As a result, the designation of Provinces in the beginning is important, since later on any changes would be due mostly to cultural shifts, and while the player can manually change the provincial boundaries, culture would determine the ultimate result of such changes.

XXIII. National Capital
The National Capital is generally the cultural center of a civ, and houses the central administration and treasury. Most functions relating to foreign civs will also generally be performed or accessed here.

XXIV. Population Density
There is no hard limit to the number of population units that can occupy a single square, but squares will tend to house only one unit of population unless the square is being underutilized, or the population cannot find any empty land to settle.

XXV. Coastal Villages
If a population unit is using a water square, then the population itself will be housed on a coastal square closest to that water square being used. This is a special case of high population density that will be common even in the beginning of the game.

XXVI. Workers and Settlers
Workers are special construction units that are essentially mobile Villages, except that they cannot grow. They still require food for survival and may indirectly contribute to the demand for shields in the area they are stationed, because terrain improvements do require shields for construction. Settlers, which use up only one population point each, are also comparable to mobile Villagers, except that they cannot grow and do not demand shields, requiring only food for survival. Their function is to found cities that are far away, and they are able to resist foreign cultures as well as the cities they originated from.


So what do you think? Any suggestions are welcome!

 

[Trade-peror]

Here are some sections describing the basics of culture:

Culture

XXVII. Levels of Culture
The levels of culture in a civ depend upon the levels of population organization in the civ. For example, a civ with only villages a few cities would have only some local and mostly national culture, while a civ with villages organized into cities organized into provinces would have local, regional, and national culture. Having more levels of culture, however, does not increase the actual amount of culture in a civ; having more levels simply increases the cultural resilience of components of the civ when threatened by other cultures.

XXVIII. Source of Culture
The fundamental source of all culture is the urban infrastructure of a civ, specifically the City Improvements that generate culture and the Wonders. The placement and concentration of these buildings ultimately determine the cultural patterns of a civ.

XXIX. Culture and Trade
Trade is critical not only for the wealth it produces but also for its ability to spread a civ’s culture to other cultures. When a foreign culture consumes the products of a civ, then the foreign culture becomes more tolerant toward the civ’s culture, a factor that can make cultural domination, diplomatic relations, and even military conquest easier.

XXX. Culture and the Military
Since all units are derived from the population, and all population units have culture, military units also carry the cultures of the population from which they were recruited. When dealing with foreign civs, this usually only involves national cultures, but stationing troops to quell rebellions or resistance in provinces or cities of the same civ can involve exchanges of local and regional culture. In any case, culture spread through the military, unlike trade, does not always increase toleration. Generally, if a military unit’s culture is stronger than that of the culture the unit is occupying or suppressing, then the military unit’s culture will become more tolerable to those conquered. If the occupied population’s culture is stronger, then there will be significant resistance, both militarily and culturally, against the military unit. One important exception to these two rules is when a military unit pillages or otherwise destroys improvements or any part of the population being occupied--in these cases, the victimized population will also resist.

XXXI. Cultural Rebellions
When a portion of a civ is sufficiently overwhelmed by a nearby foreign culture, it will attempt to “flip” over to the foreign culture. To do so, this portion rebels against the civ it is currently part of, and as soon as peace is made between them, the rebellious portion becomes a part of the civ that overwhelmed it culturally.

XXXII. Cultural Adherents and Sympathizers
When a nearby foreign culture is stronger than the culture a Village is originally part of, the Village can become tolerant of that culture, and eventually even become an adherent of that foreign culture. In the case of scattered Villages, these adherents would immediately join the admired culture. However, with Villages part of higher administrative organizations such as cities or provinces, the entire city or province must be overwhelmed for a switch of political allegiance, which would involve a Cultural Rebellion. Even with such non-independent Villages, a cultural “conversion” is still possible. In such a situation, the Village would become a “sympathizer” with the foreign culture that it admires, but would remain under the political control of the original civ. Note, however, that war against the admired foreign culture would spark a rebellion among these sympathizers, and any propaganda efforts on the part of the admired foreign culture are much more effective in areas with many sympathizers. Considering such possibilities, these intercultural elements of the population would significantly influence diplomacy.

XXXIII. Immigration
When immigrants settle, either in a different part of their native civ or in a different civ, they carry their culture with them. Within a civ, a lot of immigration could promote cultural unity, and with foreign civs a lot of immigration could increase the number of sympathizers in that civ.


Any comments or suggestions yet? Please feel free to post!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As it so happens, T-P, there has been an extensive debate surrounding a different model for culture spread. The problem as I see it at present is that culture simply 'accumulates' within each city-which is NOT how it happens in real life (don't get me wrong, though, simply ADDING a culture concept to Civ3 was a stroke of BRILLIANCE, IMHO, now they just need to finesse it a bit more!)
In my model, culture was more...'Organic'-flowing along trade routes in an almost osmotic way, from areas of high to low culture. So, for instance, two cities are next to each other on a trade route-one with 1000 culture, the other with 100 culture-1% of the former city's culture would flow to the latter city-and so on and so forth.
In addition, in my model each citizen and manufactured good in that city carried a small percentage of that city's culture at all times. If you trade these goods, or if your citizens move, then they carried with them part of that culture to their new destination. Understand, though, that you would still have a national culture level too, and this would effect any goods that you traded from the central trade area!
Also, aside from the passive culture flow I mentioned, you would also have a semi-active and active culture system. The semi-active system is essentially encouraging trade and emigration to foreign nations in order to push more of your culture onto their cities. The active culture system involved a sub-set of espionage, where you could establish 'cultural enclaves' within specific cities, which would make them targets for greater culture flow from your nation than would otherwise be possible via the passive or semi-active systems! These enclaves would also make it easier to attempt future 'cultural conversion' of said city.
Lastly, the model we debated also had a system for 'cultural corruption' whereby culture would become increasingly 'corrupted' the further it got from its source, and 'cross-culturalisation', where a city with a roughly equal mix of two different cultures could, at certain times, evolve into a wholly new culture distinct from either of its 'parents'.

So, as you can see, I think we were all pretty much on the same page !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Using these culture determinants can be helpful from both builder and warmonger perspectives. For example, the builder can garner many supporters in neighboring, politically hostile civs and develop a strong sense of nationalism and resistance should the civ attack. For a warmonger, maintaining a level of culture higher than the target civ would aid in easing a potentially hostile population and in more quickly gaining their political allegiance and building up resistance against other civs.

In any case, the two primary factors determining borders are culture and political allegiance. While culture is more important in determining "actual" borders, political allegiance can sometimes prevent a culturally-overwhelmed area from rebelling and joining the admiring civ.

For example, civ A has 20 Villages, and civ B is nearby, with a lot of culture. Civ A, being politically fragmented as Villages, would be easily susceptible to assimilation into Civ B, since every Village can decide for itself which civ to be a part of.

However, if Civ A's Villages are organized into 5 cities, then no culture-induced rebellion will occur unless the majority of Villages in a City are subverted by Civ B's culture. In this situation, the City would disintegrate into its component Villages, with the culturally-subverted Villages becoming, temporarily, Civ C as it withdraws political allegiance to Civ A. Then, after a peace is concluded, Civ C (if it has not been reconquered) will petition Civ B to join it; with Civ B's permission, Civ C then fuses with Civ B, with its political allegiance to Civ B. If Civ B rebuffs them, then Civ C becomes an independent civ.

If Civ A's 5 Cities were organized into 1 or 2 Provinces, however, then a culture-induced rebellion becomes even more difficult. Civ B's culture would have to overwhelm a majority of cities in a Province in order to topple that Provincial government and allow each component city to select its political allegiance. For this example, the minimum number of Villages that have to be culturally-subverted for a rebellion to occur is 4 Villages, and they have to be of two diffierent cities in the same province. If it happens, however, the province disintegrates, but further cultural divisions can force some of the component cities to disintegrate as well. Clearly a cultural rebellion can be difficult to spark, but it can cause a lot of turmoil!

Finally, in no way can a Village be characterized as having "flipped" to another civ. In all cases, a full rebellion occurs, and its outcome is determined militarily and/or diplomatically, and no side gets anything for "free," like in Civ3. This UET II model of culture and borders would be a deeper, more balanced way to reflect the significance of culture in politics.

 

[Trade-peror]

I note that there has been a lot of discussion about city layout and population organization lately. The greatest advantage of the UET II's population model (a few posts above this one) is that it allows for decentralized populations in the beginning, and allows for increasing centralization as time progresses. This most accurately reflects the progression of civilization from consisting of scattered villages to sprawling metropolises.

Perhaps one of the greatest changes with the UET II model is that the "City Screen" is eliminated (all city-wide functions and information should be accessed from a sidebar). Instead, all population now appears on the map, reinforcing their physical existence. This means that cities actually now have a size, and are not confined to only one square (although the City Square will still be important for other purposes). Because the City Screen has been eliminated, there is no reason for limiting city development to the traditional 21-square pattern. Terrain (and terrain infrastructure) will be the most important factor in a city's development, as is logical, and the uniqueness of cities will become more obvious due to the diversity of terrain.

Terrain drives development according to its potential economic value. For example, a grassland square capable of producing 2 food and 1 shield will have an economic value of 2 food and 1 shield (or 3 gold, if the prices for food and shields are 1 gold each). By comparing the economic values of various nearby squares, new population can most productively decide the best place to settle. In cases where many squares have the same economic value, ease of transportation to the square and its proximity to culture will determine the final position of the new settlement (or Village, as the smallest population units will appear on the map).

Terrain infrastructure often increases the economic value of terrain, and thus also influences development. For example, irrigation and mining that increase food or shield production increase the potential economic value of terrain by the amount of extra food and shields produced. Note that irrigation and mining improvements automatically come with roads built by either the civilian population of the Worker units that built the improvements. However, roads can also be independently constructed by workers. In any case, roads work differently in the UET II in that they do not automatically generate trade, but they can do so if the transportation of other products uses that road to get to its destination. The amount of revenue realized from this facilitation of trade will add to the potential economic value of terrain as well. The result is that busy trade routes will often find towns developing and flourishing nearby.

However, cities are limited in their ability to encompass a large land area, and the primary factor involved is culture. Without a high level of culture, villages that stray too far from the city’s cultural center will break away to become independent villages, or form other cities. Since city improvements take a long time to build, relative to growth, and terrain economic values are more important than cultural proximity in determining new settling locations, few large cities will be possible in the beginning, but more centralization can occur later as city improvements become easier to build.

Also, settlers become much less important than they traditionally are in Civ. With the UET II model, population growth will naturally lead to the spread of villages and cities across a large area, and the natural tendencies of the population to settle where they can be most productive will reduce the need of the player to make those decisions. Even so, there are many cases in which a player has special plans or priorities. In these cases, it is possible to “uproot” a village to become a settler, who can be directed to any square the player desires and ordered to establish a village there. This can allow the player to claim far away regions that would take long to reach otherwise, but note that it can be costly--settler units do not contribute to population growth or resource production, but require food to survive. This prevents players from trying to use this tactic to micromanage when the computer’s judgment, based on terrain economic values and other factors, should be sound enough.

Overall, the UET II population model reflects the more organic, rather than planned, growth of civilization throughout most of history. Not only would this impart a much more historical “feel” to playing Civ, but it would tackle many gameplay problems such as micromanagement and the “snowball effect” of expansion.

 

[Trade-peror]

I have been silent about corruption's effects in the UET II for a long time, trying to think of something viable, but have not come up with anything until now.


Crime, Corruption, and Waste

XXXIV. Crime
Crime is primarily petty theft, and results in the loss of taxable items. Note, however, that not being able to regulate the item does not mean that its effects are not felt. Social and economic conditions, such as civil disorder or poverty, can increase crime levels.

XXXV. Corruption
Corruption refers to embezzlement and other corporate/government crimes, and results in the loss of tax revenue. Again, this may not have as dramatic an effect on the affected economies as on the affected tax revenues. The primary factor concerning corruption is political conditions, such as government type, although social and economic circumstances also have some effect.

XXXVI. Waste
Waste is mostly economic inefficiency, and results in the loss of production. Thus, waste directly impacts the industrial capacity and economic state of affected areas. Technology determines waste levels, although certain political situations (i.e. command economics) can also affect waste.


That's pretty simple so far. As I ponder the gameplay effects and consequences of this system, I will post some more. Anyone wishing to comment or contribute is welcome!

 

[Trade-peror]

Actually, I've decided to expand the previous sections into more general categories.

Crime

34. Crime and Economic Conditions
The fundamental cause of crime is unsatisfied demand. This occurs when there is not enough money to purchase needed commodities, and tends to be a result of poor economic conditions in a city. When a city's income and production are too low to supply its population with the goods that it demands, then crime may occur as the products are simply seized. If food is too expensive, crime may occur as food supplies passing through a starving population are seized. In addition, high population density and unemployment contribute to crime. Depending upon the level of trade-related improvements in the city, crime can also damage city infrastructure, resulting in the diversion of funds for repairs.

35. Crime and Markets
With crime, a certain percentage of demanded or traded products are "stolen" and then either consumed or sold. If sold, then these products still affect supply and demand for the concerned commodities, and affect pricing.

36. Crime and Government Regulation
Crime does not affect the net economic activity of a city nearly as much as it affects the ability of the government to regulate trade. The primary distinction between crime and normal trade is that crime is illegal, and that it is therefore not subject to government interference in the form of taxes or regulations. In other words, crime is much more damaging to the government than the population.

37. Crime and Social Disturbances
Crime increases during periods of social turmoil, such as during civil disorder, rebellion, or anarchy.

38. Crime and Citizen Unhappiness
Crime causes unhappiness according to how many citizens are involved in crime, and how many citizens are affected by it. The percentage of affected citizens unhappy is the percentage of the population involved in crime. Usually, this means increasing crime leads to increasing unhappiness; at very high levels, however, unhappiness may actually decrease, as the number of criminals outnumbers the number of non-criminals. The criminals are not distressed by crime!

39. Crime and the Black Market
Crime associated with a particular item is a function of that item's unsatisfied demand. The greater demand that is unfulfilled, the higher the percentage of that product illegally traded. Smuggling is crime that crosses borders. With drug and arms trading, the clients are those citizens with unsatisfied demand for those products, and the suppliers are foreign citizens that produce the desired products and then sell them to the clients. Since the products are most likely banned or otherwise regulated, but are being traded illegally, all of this counts as crime.

40. Reducing Crime
Education, police stations, and courthouses can all decrease the level of crime in a city. The base percentage of criminals in a city is the percentage of traded goods stolen in a city. Education reduces the pool of potential criminals, and police stations and courthouses reduce the percentage of stolen traded goods.

Corruption and Waste

41. Corruption and Government Revenue
Corruption, primarily a function of political efficiency, occurs as a certain percentage of government revenues is diverted. These funds go back into the city, but are only used for illicit purchases. Therefore, corruption contributes to crime.

42. Corruption and Political Conditions
Corruption also increases with civil disorder, rebellion, and anarchy. Since only corruption is directly related to government, distance from capital (and/or Forbidden City) and number of cities only affect corruption.

43. Reducing Corruption
Courthouses and more efficient government forms are the primary ways to reduce corruption; sometimes, reducing the number of tax collectors can also cut down on total corruption, since the percent of taxes siphoned away with corruption is based on the amount of tax each tax collector collects. With an insufficient number of tax collectors, however, tax collection and receipt may become somewhat sporadic.

44. Waste and Economic Output
Waste determines the percentage of base production that is actually successfully manufactured without defects. Regulating waste is therefore important for economic production and activity. In addition, waste can manifest as pollution on squares close to their sources. Although waste is always dumped onto unsettled squares first, too much waste and overpopulation could force waste to be dumped onto settled squares, with social consequences such as health deterioration.

45. Reducing Waste
Waste is primarily a function of technology. Higher technology results in lower waste, although higher education levels can also help.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I really like your ideas regarding crime and corruption T-P! Here is another thought, though, to consider.
If social engineering is included in the game, then libertarianism and legalism could also influence the levels of crime and corruption. Increasing Libertarianism reduces crime (as far less activities become illegal-like drug use and gun ownership) but increases corruption (as workers and those in authority become lazy and less accountable to the public). Increased libertarianism also increases happiness, though, as people feel more free to do what they want, when they want!
Increased legalism improves the effectiveness of courthouses and police stations etc in reducing crime and corruption, but also increases the cost of maintaining said improvements (more police, more judges and lawyers). Also, if Legalism gets too high, it can also decrease happiness, as people see the law as being too brutal. How unhappy high legalism makes the citizens would also depend on your Libertarianism (i.e. with low libertarianism, high legalism would have a major impact on happiness, as even minor crimes like littering are punishable with imprisonment!) You can, though, have a very high libertarianism AND a high legalism level (for an example of this, consider the world that Enterprise visited in ST:TNG, where people were free to do almost anything they wanted, but where the few crimes which did exist were all punishable by death!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

So from where I am standing, T-P, the key issues are as follows:

1) Crime, Corruption and Waste should be in % terms-the reason being that this would eliminate the current, pointless function of these elements being used to reduce expansion (which should be achieved by other means!)
My point is that a city with only 3 food and 6 shields is going to be almost unaffected by a 10% crime rate, wheras a size 22 city with 50-60 shields will be hit MUCH harder!!

2) If I understand correctly, if we say that each city has a certain 'demand' for shields/food/beakers (or manufactured goods, which would be better!), then for each unit UNDER this demand, you get a slowly increasing crime rate.

3) In addition, for every gpt that a city's wealth is below the national average, and for every X population not used to work tiles and/or improvements, the greater the crime rate.

4) Lastly, overpopulation, illegal goods, distance from the capital, unhappiness and-under certain conditions-the presence of large numbers of unassimilated foreign nationals can also increase the crime rate.

5) Crime causes the cities food, shields and beakers to vanish-thus depriving your city of the income they produce (whilst the city itself will still cost to maintain). Crime can also be expressed as occasional population loss (murders etc) and damage to improvements (vandalism and reckless damage).

6) Corruption, OTOH, could result from the overabundance of food/shields and luxuries, presence of illegal goods, excessive #'s of civil servant specialists, excessive private enterprise and Optimal City Number/Government type.

7) Corruption causes a smaller % of the cities income to reach the national treasury AND reduces the wealth enhancing effects of certain improvements.

8) Waste, lastly, is caused by small city size and low technology improvements. They result in a smaller ratio of 'natural commodity' production to 'manufactured commodity' production. So, for instance, if your city has access to 8 shields in surrounding tiles, then a 10% waste will mean that the city only recieves 7 of them for example. All lost shields/food would be expressed as pollution instead!

How does that sound?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Your social engineering ideas are interesting, Aussie_Lurker, although I am not quite sure how social engineering in the UET II will work yet, so I will kind of let that issue slide for the time being.

Now, allow me to address the eight points you have brought up:

1. Yes. Determining crime, corruption, and waste in percentage terms will allow smaller empires to get away with higher rates in that absolute production is less severely affected. Thus, this should work to curb expansion.

2. Each citizen has a basic demand for 2 food and 1 shield, with 1 food being consumed, and the remaining 1 food and 1 shield to contribute to local development/growth. When a city is not producing enough food but is too poor to buy what it needs, crime may intervene and seize food supplies that may be passing through the city, to prevent starvation. This dynamic becomes more pronounced, however, when certain other commodities (i.e. drugs) are exposed to the population and demand increases until it becomes very difficult to supply a sufficient amount. Government regulation of certain commodities may also limit supplies and lead to unsatisfied demand that encourages crime.

3. This brings up the issue of unemployment, which is a factor I had accidentally overlooked. I will need to see how I have defined unemployment in previous sections to specify the effects, but unemployment should definitely increase crime.

4. Since illegal trade is a manifestation of crime, then crime is not caused by illegal goods, but rather the other way around. Rather than say overpopulation, I would say that high population densities would lead to increased crime (remember that the UET II's population model is not the one-squares-holds-all model of Civ). Distance from capital, however, has no effect on crime, because crime primarily refers to illegal activity occurring at a local level--corruption involves government and corporate embezzlers. I don't know about foreign nationals causing crime though.

5. Crime will only lead to the loss of taxable products, and therefore will not affect city income, but rather will damage government revenues. Perhaps city improvements can take damage from crime (although a hit point system would need to be worked out for city improvements), but crime does not affect population size--murders never amount to a demographically significant level!

6. Government type, distance from capital, and number of cities are the primary considerations for corruption, although the effects of corruption are amplified with too many tax collectors. Corruption actually contributes to crime, as corrupt officials spend their money on illegal goods.

7. Corruption has no effect on the effectiveness of "wealth-enhancing" city improvements, since they do not directly increase "wealth."

8. Waste is caused primarily by technology and education levels, although the idea of "technology improvements" is quite intriguing. I also like the idea of wasted production becoming pollution--or why not just call it waste? I suppose waste could appear on nearby unsettled squares, where it would not affect the citizens that produced them, but should that not be possible due to high population densities and urbanization, then health levels would decline as a result!

Overall, these are very good ideas! I will be making new sections incorporating these features as soon as I can find time. If more ideas come up, or you would like to comment on my points above, please don't hesitate to do so!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi T-P, Just wanted to add the following 'rebuttals' to what you just added.

2) How about you have TWO tab bars. One is next to each of your food and production bars, which allows you to determine how many food/shield units you send/recieve in the city. So, for instance, next to your shield bar you have a + and - sign. If you click on the plus, then this brings up a box in which you indicate how many shields your city wishes to IMPORT from the national store (the trade screen, essentially). If you click the minus bar, then a box comes up in which you indicate how many shields you wish to EXPORT to the national store! Importing costs money, depending on the distance to the Capital AND the wealth of the importing city. Exporting shields earns the city money, based on the same criteria! In addition, though, you have a tab bar in both your build box and your food store, which allows you to determine how much food/shields are going into supporting your peoples needs, and how much is going into 'growing' the population (via immigration and birth) and industrial production (improvements and units). If you don't put aside enough to support your population, then you get crime-which leads to your city's shields and food simply vanishing!!! Also, the amount of food and shields your cities need should depend on TWO factors-the government type AND-in the case of food-the national rations that you set! Increased rations boost happiness, but increase the food cost of supporting your population at current levels.

4) My issue, T-P, is that 'illegal trade' can result not only from scarcity, but from the banning of certain goods. For instance, lets say that you have tobacco in your empire. Well, though it makes your people happy, it is also causing your population growth to drop (due to premature death and illness). Therefore, you decide to ban it. Of course, doing this will increase crime rates in all the cities which had access to said material prior to it being banned, in line with what the current crime rate already was (so cities with lots of crime will suffer even MORE!) In addition, though, other nations that have tobacco can also set up illegal trade routes to your nation, which will at least increase the corruption levels of your cities-if not the crime rates too!

5) Sorry, T-P, what I meant by a cities income is what the city gains from having these resources bought and sold legally. So, for instance, if a city with a wealth of 30 has 8 shields and 4 food, then they give the city an income of 48+12=60 gold per turn. However, if the crime rate is 20%, then 2 shields and 1 food are lost to the city authorities, leading to an income loss of 15 gpt. Also, of course, this crime rate will reduce happiness according to the population of the city. Crime rates would, however, also effect both the % of income and the % of units of resources your nation recieves if a trade route passes through a city with high crime. So, for example, lets say that a city with 6 units of iron is connected to the capital via a city with 30% crime. This means that only 4 units of iron will actually arrive in the national pool.

Even if you kept the one tile keeps all model of cities, you could still model population density-namely by having a seperate city SIZE (a numerical value of, say, 1-10) and city population. I'm sure I don't need to explain how that would work!

Oh and rather than doing improvement damage, perhaps the % crime rate can add to the maintainance costs of ALL improvements in the city.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

I do hope we keep up this discussion--some very good ideas are coming through. Here is my take on several things mentioned in the above post:

2. Actually, the UET II does not use the national pool system, instead preferring a "pool" (or market) based solely on which cities are connected to which. As a result, it is not possible in the UET II control the amount of net eocnomic activity (i.e. imports and exports) for each city, since that is computed and carried out automatically according to demand, production, and pricing. This is more realistic and cuts down on micromanagement. Instead, the available funds for a city to spend on purchasing necessary commodities come primarily from its own sale of products, and from government sources such as administrative salaries and/or production subsidies. If a city does not have the funds to purchase demanded products, then crime may occur as the products are acquired otherwise.

4. I think I should explain more clearly how "drug trading" relates to crime. Let's use your example of tobacco. If tobacco were a luxury that also lowered health levels, then the goverment might ban it. Tobacco, however, is a "drug," which means its consumption stimulates even more demand. If tobacco is suddenly banned, then much demand will be unsatisfied. This unsatisfied demand leads to crime, which will illegally search for sources of tobacco (possible even from foreigners) and then buy it from the foreigners, if possible. Thus is the demand fulfilled, the happiness effect imparted, and also the health damage done. The difference is that the government cannot collect taxes or otherwise regulate these purchases, since the deals were illegal to begin with. One interesting connection to corruption is that corruption money is always used to buy illegal products (from crime), and the more corruption money is available, the more crime and illegal products will crop up to take up that money.

Also, the idea of paying more for city improvement damage due to crime is quite excellent! I look forward to further discussion.

 

[Spatula]

I must say this is all going over my head but the work is much appreciated

(If anything comes of it, of course)

 

[Aks K]

Great post Trade-peror ! I really like the village idea! So I will focus my reply on that.

In addition, each Village has a “food box” of 5 food to fill before growing into two population units (spreading onto an adjacent square as another Village).

The "food box" could be a function of terran, government, civtraits, years/turn, inside or outside cultural spheres and maybe even more. Perhaps even units stationed there - a SoD would make growth in a village under most governments be 0.

Although Villages may function separately, often they are absorbed into the cultural spheres of nearby City squares.

Villages should also have a "nationality" which will depent of the original owner. Nearby cities of large culture, atrocities comittet by other civs and by the original owner should change the "ressistance" of the village.
Each village should therefore have a "nationality" and "ressistance" setting.

Also, settlers become much less important than they traditionally are in Civ. With the UET II model, population growth will naturally lead to the spread of villages and cities across a large area, and the natural tendencies of the population to settle where they can be most productive will reduce the need of the player to make those decisions. Even so, there are many cases in which a player has special plans or priorities. In these cases, it is possible to “uproot” a village to become a settler, who can be directed to any square the player desires and ordered to establish a village there. This can allow the player to claim far away regions that would take long to reach otherwise, but note that it can be costly--settler units do not contribute to population growth or resource production, but require food to survive. This prevents players from trying to use this tactic to micromanage when the computer’s judgment, based on terrain economic values and other factors, should be sound enough.

Agree. I think of a village like a settlement in which you have less control of. So when you uproot a village it becomes a worker - not a settler.
But if you build a (lets call it: ) govenor unit (doesnt cost a pop point!) in a city. You can move it to a village far away and press g (or some other letter) and the village becomes a city! Another new way of building cities.
You can even be able to govern other civ villagers, who are out of their territory.

Villages inside cultural spheres would contribute to a city (food, shields, trade).
When a village expands to a new square inside a cultural spheres the owner will a have the option (could be automated) weather the villagers should upgrate the square (resulting in no contribution to the city while being upgrated) or work the square without upgrating. This would to some extend replace workers - less micromanagement.

Hope you like the idears - expecially the Firaxis Staff .
If overlooked somthing while reading the previous post, the please bear with me.

Aks K

 

[Trade-peror]

Thanks, Aks K, and you do have a nice grasp of the direction I would like Civ to be going in, especially concerning cities and populations!

The "food box" could be a function of terran, government, civtraits, years/turn, inside or outside cultural spheres and maybe even more.

I am so far considering health and government as the primary determinants of the size of the food box; civ traits would be another factor if they are kept (but personally I am not really sure civ traits are a good idea). An intriguing addition to the list would be economic conditions, but I would have to see how that might turn out.

Villages should also have a "nationality" which will depent of the original owner. Nearby cities of large culture, atrocities comittet by other civs and by the original owner should change the "ressistance" of the village.
Each village should therefore have a "nationality" and "ressistance" setting.

Absolutely! Have you read Section VII of the UET II summary yet? These are the aspects of culture that I think would give it much more meaning than it has now!

But if you build a (lets call it: ) govenor unit (doesnt cost a pop point!) in a city. You can move it to a village far away and press g (or some other letter) and the village becomes a city! Another new way of building cities.

My original idea for converting a Village into a City square was to build a City Hall, or some cultural improvement. Actually, building City Governor units would also work for this. The whole idea is that a city square distinguishes itself either by having an extra layer of administration (City Hall or City Governor) or by being a cultural center (by generating culture through having cultural improvements). The interesting choice here is that a City Hall would make a village the local political center, in which included villages would be administered collectively as a city, while a cultural improvement would make a village the local cultural center, developing cultural and nationalistic ties with local villages. Usually both would be constructed in a city square, but the organic growth of cities could allow for interesting overlaps and strategies!

Villages inside cultural spheres would contribute to a city (food, shields, trade).

Villages will contribute to the political entity they are part of, so villages will contribute to a city after the village has been absorbed into it. In many cases, however, cultural and political borders are the same.

When a village expands to a new square inside a cultural spheres the owner will a have the option (could be automated) weather the villagers should upgrate the square (resulting in no contribution to the city while being upgrated) or work the square without upgrating. This would to some extend replace workers - less micromanagement.

I see village settlement and terrain improvement as separate aspects of the game, although they will often interact. When a village settles on a terrain tile, it will use the terrain tile as productively as it can. When the village accumulates sufficient resources for improving the terrain, it takes time off production to work on upgrading, and then returns to normal production after the terrain improvement is completed. The cycle then repeats until the terrain tile cannot be upgraded further. However, it is possible for the player, using workers, to upgrade terrain before it is settled. Then, when villages do settle on such tiles, they will already have the benefit of the upgrade, and will continue upgrading the land if necessary. This system makes player-directed terrain improvement less important, but does not eliminate the option, allowing for more strategies!

 

[searcheagle]

No offense, but with the current complexity level of the UET II, which is incredibly long, it will not be implemented. I can't say how long the Economic item would be, but it would be pages long. The economic system would have to be Short (a few paragraphs long at most) and simple. The UET is too long and complex. Keep only your favorite parts and shorten and simplify the plan.