The Unified Economic Theory, 2nd Edition

[Trade-peror]

Oh, I would never expect the UET II to be implemented immediately, since it is such a radical change from current Civ, but I hope to see parts of it, and its general gameplay philosophy, eventually make its way into Civ. Presently, I do not know which parts of the UET II would be currently implementable, since I do not know how much of Civ4 has been solidified, so I am leaving that to the developers to decide.

Meanwhile, I will continue the UET II discussion, and the UET II's comprehensiveness should demonstrate that the entire model is workable within the context of a complete game, not just a certain aspect of it.

 

[Aks K]

Thanks for the quick reply

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
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.

That would work very well and even better than my suggestion.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
My original idea for converting a Village into a City square was to build a City Hall, or some cultural improvement.

Have to say that I am not in complete favour of this. The idea in it self is good, but I see the consequence that every square/title could contain a temple. This might be funny, but ... Hope you get my drift .

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
Have you read Section VII of the UET II summary yet?

Yep. Just wanted to summarize my idea without being to concrete. When I read the section in question, I would like to have query function working on villages as well as a mapdisplay in colours of the different properties of the villages - just to get a overview.
Actually that is in my opinion what civ3 needed. More usefull statistics so one would immediately find what he/she wanted to change.

I also think of cities as an overlay on villages. Thats why a settler should carry a citizen and a villager. When building the city the villager gets "consumed" by the title (just become a village under the city). The village would be able to expand to adject squares as normal.

When all titles next to a village is occupied by other villages (and the square is fully upgrated - dont know if this should be) then the village would "expand" if inside borders as a worker in the nearest city.
If outside borders then either no expansion should occur or an upgrating of the title should begin. I am in favour of the first (no expansion) - because the village is "free". "free" to be lazy .

Also villages outside any territory can be claimed by barbarians as a dublicate warrior (meaning 1 horseman + 1 village -> 2 horsemen + 0 village).
Inside territory villages are "just" killed/looted/pillaged. This would cause an atrocity if comitted by other civs.

Aks K

 

[Trade-peror]

I like the direction of this discussion! Please consider these points:

idea in it self is good, but I see the consequence that every square/title could contain a temple. This might be funny...

Actually, this would generally not occur, since villages themselves will never automatically try to build cultural improvements or City Halls. The player would have to order a village to do so, and upon becoming a city, would then have the ability to begin developing itself to the next level with city improvements. Also note that villages in a city share the benefits of the city's improvements (since villages as part of a city are treated as part of the city, not as independent villages). Therefore, this consequence is possible...but only if the player wills it!

I would like to have query function working on villages as well as a mapdisplay in colours of the different properties of the villages - just to get a overview.
Actually that is in my opinion what civ3 needed. More usefull statistics so one would immediately find what he/she wanted to change.

I absolutely agree--the interface should be altered to allow for viewing "layers" of information on the map to allow for easier assessment of situations and problems. In addition, the "Demographics" feature should offer more useful information.

I also think of cities as an overlay on villages.

An "overlay" is a good way to describe cities. In the beginning, villages are unorganized and independent, but can later be absorbed into cities. Politically and administratively, the villages would be parts of cities, and would be affected by city-wide policies/actions. Later on, cities can then be organized in a similar fashion into provinces (by ordering the construction of a Governor's Mansion in a city to be the provincial capital). The final stage, constructing a Palace, would even more tightly bind the provinces together into one nation--one civ! In all of this, however, note that the village does not disappear--it remains the basic unit of population, and all of the other administrative entities are simply "overlays" on the villages.

Thats why a settler should carry a citizen and a villager. When building the city the villager gets "consumed" by the title (just become a village under the city). The village would be able to expand to adject squares as normal.

In case this was not really clear, I mean for settlers to be composed of one population point (or one village, so building a settler is "uprooting" a village). When building a village (that may eventually become a city), the settler is "consumed" and becomes the village. When growth occurs for the village, the new population primarily consider two factors to determine settling location: productivity of land, and distance it takes to get there. Usually, then, new villages will spring up near their parent villages, but may not always be adjacent if some very attractive terrain is just a few squares away.

When all titles next to a village is occupied by other villages (and the square is fully upgrated - dont know if this should be) then the village would "expand" if inside borders as a worker in the nearest city.
If outside borders then either no expansion should occur or an upgrating of the title should begin. I am in favour of the first (no expansion) - because the village is "free".

Village expansion does not limit itself to cultural or political borders (usually), so in some cases a village may expand outside of a city's cultural border, and the new village would not automatically be part of the city (the village would have to be culturally absorbed just like the original villages of the city).

Also villages outside any territory can be claimed by barbarians as a dublicate warrior (meaning 1 horseman + 1 village -> 2 horsemen + 0 village).
Inside territory villages are "just" killed/looted/pillaged. This would cause an atrocity if comitted by other civs.

Barbarians are an interesting topic. I would like to see them more as "minor civs" that are not as organized as the "primary civs." Therefore, they should have culture, and that culture should determine the results of confrontation. I mention in other sections that military units "carry" the culture of the population unit they were produced from. A barbarian unit, then, carries the culture of the barbarian village/camp/city with it, and when it attacks a village outside any of the player's cultural boundaries, then the village automatically joins the barbarians (because villages have no culture by themselves--remember that culture is the mark of cities!) because the barbarian culture is greater than that of the village. If a barbarian unit attacks a village within the player's cultural bounds, then the same thing would happen if the barbarian's culture was greater. If the village's culture is greater, however, it would desperately resist the invader, although the invader would usually end up destroying the village and perhaps lose a small amount of health. These also apply to other civs, and such actions would be indeed be considered atrocities. Culture would clearly have much more effect and be much more interesting with this model!

 

[Aks K]

Thanks Trade-peror. Have some more ...

Originally Posted by Aks K
Thats why a settler should carry a citizen and a villager. When building the city the villager gets "consumed" by the title (just become a village under the city). The village would be able to expand to adject squares as normal.
+
Originally Posted by Trade-peror
In case this was not really clear, I mean for settlers to be composed of one population point (or one village, so building a settler is "uprooting" a village). When building a village (that may eventually become a city), the settler is "consumed" and becomes the village.

Maybe I was a little unclear. I think of settlers as citizen who wants to construct an new city (obviously), but also carrying a "hidden" villager with it.
+
Using the idea that villages themself construct title upgrades together with a players abillity to "uproot" it, should for me be the only control, that a player would have on a village a part from "recruiting" or obliterateing it. I know you think of it otherwise. Therefore building a settler would take two citizen from the city and "make" one a villager and one citizen in the settler.

One "problem" (effect) about this idea is that in the beginning the city only consists of the centersquare, which in some cases may produce too little food for the citizen resulting in starvation. This could limit the extreme production of new cities on awkward (unfruitful) locations in the beginning of a game. Cities could still be build on these awkward locations, but would need the uprooting of 1 or 2 villages, which had to "settle" in more productive adject squares to the city. Hope you get my drift.

I previously mentioned a "governor" unit which therefore should consist of 1 citizen (cost 1 pop point obviously). I previously said 0 citizen.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
Village expansion does not limit itself to cultural or political borders (usually), so in some cases a village may expand outside of a city's cultural border, and the new village would not automatically be part of the city (the village would have to be culturally absorbed just like the original villages of the city).

Agree! I was thinking of villages outside any borders which was completely surrounded by other villages.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
I would like to see them more as "minor civs" that are not as organized as the "primary civs." Therefore, they should have culture, and that culture should determine the results of confrontation.
I mention in other sections that military units "carry" the culture of the population unit they were produced from. A barbarian unit, then, carries the culture of the barbarian village/camp/city with it, and when it attacks a village outside any of the player's cultural boundaries, then the village automatically joins the barbarians (because villages have no culture by themselves--remember that culture is the mark of cities!) because the barbarian culture is greater than that of the village.
If a barbarian unit attacks a village within the player's cultural bounds, then the same thing would happen if the barbarian's culture was greater. If the village's culture is greater, however, it would desperately resist the invader, although the invader would usually end up destroying the village and perhaps lose a small amount of health.

Have to admit that I totally agree. I also think of barbarians as citystates or "minor civs", which should of cause have 0 culture from the beginning.
A "governor" unit could build new cities on villages outside any of the player's cultural boundaries for the barbarians in question. Inside cultural boundaries one should remember that villages have different "resistance" but same culture.
As I suggested that any unit could convert a village to a conscript unit of the same type, but this should be very hard for players (but easier for barbarians) inside cultural boundaries of other civs. This should be a "do or die" option I think.

Aks

 

[Trade-peror]

It it nice that we have quite a few points settled in this discussion, Aks K. Here is some more to consider:

I think of settlers as citizen who wants to construct an new city (obviously), but also carrying a "hidden" villager with it.

I am interpreting this as meaning that a settler is actually made of two population units (villages), and will build not only a city square but also another village. Please correct me if this is wrong!

Using the idea that villages themself construct title upgrades together with a players abillity to "uproot" it, should for me be the only control, that a player would have on a village a part from "recruiting" or obliterateing it. I know you think of it otherwise. Therefore building a settler would take two citizen from the city and "make" one a villager and one citizen in the settler.

I currently see settlers purely as "mobile villages." Therefore, the player "builds" settlers by selecting a village and telling it to "pack up," essentially. The next turn, there is a settler unit in place of the village, and the player simply commands the settler like a normal unit. When the settler's destination is reached, the player orders it to settle, and the next turn, a village will appear where the settler once was. So actually a settler unit costs no shields to build, and would therefore not be ordered through the city like a city improvement or military unit. Settlers are not free, however, because they still require food as they travel to their destinations, and the settler is not working the land while it is traveling, which is an implied loss of resources otherwise produced.

One "problem" (effect) about this idea is that in the beginning the city only consists of the centersquare, which in some cases may produce too little food for the citizen resulting in starvation.

When using settlers, note that it results in a village, rather than a city square. Any solitary city square established by a settler would still have no culture and thus would not expand to encompass more villages, and one-square cities are no different from villages. This is because culture is the basis of city influence expansion, while a City Hall is the granting of city-wide administrative privileges. Neither culture nor a City Hall by itself does much, and a settler would not come with either one.

I previously mentioned a "governor" unit which therefore should consist of 1 citizen (cost 1 pop point obviously). I previously said 0 citizen.

A "governor" unit seems to me like a settler that comes with a City Hall. I mentioned above that these would not really be that useful, but I could again just be misinterpreting your idea...

As I suggested that any unit could convert a village to a conscript unit of the same type, but this should be very hard for players (but easier for barbarians) inside cultural boundaries of other civs. This should be a "do or die" option I think.

I had not thought about conscription, and now I am envisioning it as a matter of selecting an option that turns the mouse cursor into a "draft card" cursor and the player just clicks on what villages should be converted to militia-type units!
That, of course, would be the case only for a player's own civ, but for other civs, I suppose it can be possible to "draft" occupied villages into militia-type units as well, although it would count as an atrocity (since the village is "eliminated").

 

[Aks K]

Nice that you are interested in some of my ideas.
I like your idea about the city hall - please do elaborate it. When can a village construct it (does it need to have a number of adject villages)? Please be very concrete even if the idea is not completely finished.

My general idea is to "split" the population in two. One in which you should have a high control of and the other a low. Thats why in my idea the village should not be able to build cities by themselves - maybe that is a bad "rule".

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
I am interpreting this as meaning that a settler is actually made of two population units (villages), and will build not only a city square but also another village. Please correct me if this is wrong!

You are partly right. Settler would consist of 2 population units 1 villager and 1 citizen. This settler would build only on the city square.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
So actually a settler unit costs no shields to build, and would therefore not be ordered through the city like a city improvement or military unit.
Settlers are not free, however, because they still require food as they travel to their destinations

My settler unit would cost shields but no food while traveling, because they are constructed to be selfcontained - therefore being able to travel great distances. Villagers on the other hand should not be able to travel far - only a few squares at most (in ancient times - they should be able to travel farther when the appropriate techs are discovered).

My idea was to "create" to different populations: citizen and villagers. Villagers could be produced from citizen only by the construction of settlers, and citizen should be produced from villagers, only if the village expands inside a city sphere and all adject squares are occupied by other villages. This village should produce a citizen in form of a worker (not a villager!). This would be the way to change population from citizen to villagers and visa versa.
Villages will of course be produced from other villages and citizen from other citizen (this will be the "normal" way to produce population).
I would therefore suggest that settlers should cost more than double the amount of shields to produce than governor units.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
A "governor" unit seems to me like a settler that comes with a City Hall. I mentioned above that these would not really be that useful, but I could again just be misinterpreting your idea...

Yes and no. A governor would be a "½ settlers unit" else you are right.

Aks K

 

[Trade-peror]

I would be glad to elaborate!
A City Hall is simply a city improvement that confers the status of a city square upon a village. Basically, villages are considered city squares by virtue of having a City Hall. Any village can constructure a City Hall, and in fact any other city improvement, but generally city improvements are reserved for city squares because the improvement otherwise benefits only the village that constructed it, rather than the entire city.

My general idea is to "split" the population in two. One in which you should have a high control of and the other a low. Thats why in my idea the village should not be able to build cities by themselves - maybe that is a bad "rule".

I am not really sure what you mean by a portion of the population with "high control" versus one with "low control." As for villages not being able to build cities by themselves, that I agree with. Note that in the UET II, villages can expand and cover increasingly large expanses of land, but it requires the intervention of the player to order a City Hall built somewhere and start cities. Similarly, villages can expand as far as the land will go, but these villages cannot order themselves to build a City Hall and become cities.

My settler unit would cost shields but no food while traveling, because they are constructed to be selfcontained - therefore being able to travel great distances.

While not my original idea, I suppose it would be interesting if settlers could "store up food for the journey," although actually it seems that you are alluding to settlers being able to "forage." This could work: if a unit (such a settler) is on an unsettled tile that produces at least two food, then it will be able to support itself entirely from "foraging" on that tile. If that is not possible (while the unit is on hostile terrain or on seas/oceans), then the unit must have food shipped to it, or can start using some "stored" food the unit brought along. The stored food max could be 5 food or some other relatively small number, which simulates the inviability of an endless ocean voyage.

Villagers on the other hand should not be able to travel far - only a few squares at most (in ancient times - they should be able to travel farther when the appropriate techs are discovered).

I see villages as population units that have settled down permanently, so I do not think they should normally be able to move at all. However, a village can "move" by first being converted to a settler and then moving (at the player's command).

My idea was to "create" to different populations: citizen and villagers. Villagers could be produced from citizen only by the construction of settlers, and citizen should be produced from villagers, only if the village expands inside a city sphere and all adject squares are occupied by other villages. This village should produce a citizen in form of a worker (not a villager!). This would be the way to change population from citizen to villagers and visa versa.
Villages will of course be produced from other villages and citizen from other citizen (this will be the "normal" way to produce population).
I would therefore suggest that settlers should cost more than double the amount of shields to produce than governor units.

It may be possible to differentiate between citizens and villagers, but would there be a need to do so? Currently, the UET II has one citizen = one village = one villager = one settler = number of people to build one military unit. This has worked well so far, being simple and straightforward.

 

[Aks K]

Thanks for your reply, Trade-peror .

So how much production/shields would it circa cost to construct a city hall? Could adject villages outside city sphere contribute to the production?

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
I am not really sure what you mean by a portion of the population with "high control" versus one with "low control."
+
It may be possible to differentiate between citizens and villagers, but would there be a need to do so? Currently, the UET II has one citizen = one village = one villager = one settler = number of people to build one military unit. This has worked well so far, being simple and straightforward.

You might be right. Why overcomplicate things. What I ment by high control and low control was: That a player/AI would have high control over their citizen (to get unit production, improvements, wonders, ect.) but less control over the villagers. What I simply ment was, that I didnt like the control that one would have over their population. I would just like to reduce the control - I hate the feeling that I am babysitting or playing god with the population. That was why your idea was appealing to me.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
However, each population point, initially, can only extract a total of three units of any resources from a tile.

But units can still only be constructed in cities, right? And should the support of units be national (like civ3) or that each city support its own units (civ1, civ2)? I have to say that i like the national support best. What if the number of villages became too low - would units be then be lost?

Aks K

 

[Trade-peror]

So how much production/shields would it circa cost to construct a city hall? Could adject villages outside city sphere contribute to the production?

An approximate cost for a City Hall could probably be something like 20 shields. Since a village must construct such a structure by itself (other villages cannot contribute to other villages' production, only to their city's production), the cost is fairly high, but can be alleviated with subsidies from the player. Please take a look at Section IV (City Infrastructure), and see if that makes sense. I can explain if it does not.

You might be right. Why overcomplicate things. What I ment by high control and low control was: That a player/AI would have high control over their citizen (to get unit production, improvements, wonders, ect.) but less control over the villagers. What I simply ment was, that I didnt like the control that one would have over their population. I would just like to reduce the control - I hate the feeling that I am babysitting or playing god with the population. That was why your idea was appealing to me.

I agree--I want to guide my population toward what I would like them to do, but I don't want to be the population.

As for control, the UET II allows the player little direct control over villages--only ordering them to become settlers. Through the city, however, the player can order construction of a unit, or a city improvement, or anything else a city can do. Since the city does not exist independent of the villages, the city's villages will have to provide the population units, production, or whatever is necessary for completing a requested task.

But units can still only be constructed in cities, right? And should the support of units be national (like civ3) or that each city support its own units (civ1, civ2)? I have to say that i like the national support best. What if the number of villages became too low - would units be then be lost?

Units can only be constructed in cities, due to the many components of a unit necessary to combine into one functional unit. Even though a super self-sufficient village theoretically could also produce a unit, it would be pointless because the village would then disappear and become the unit itself (because the village would have to spend itself to fulfill the population cost of a unit). Maybe a way to think of military units is that they are mobile villages with weapons.

As for support, that depends on who built the unit, and what government is in power. If a city builds a unit, it will have to pay for supplying the unit with food and possibly shields. If a province builds a unit, the costs go to the province. If the nation builds a unit, the costs go to the national treasury. Wherever there is a administrative center, it can perform functions just like a city! A Governor's Mansion does not simply allow a province to form, but allows the province to act as a city--the province can be ordered to build units, or province-wide improvements, and so forth. The province would then draw from the cities and ultimately the villages of the province to complete the task. A national Palace allows the same thing--national improvements would be similar to Civ3's Small Wonders. Units are also part of this system. It is possible, however, for the player to change the ownership "levels" according to need, however. For example, to facilitate easier monitoring of military expenses, the player can convert all local or provincial troops to national troops that draw from the national treasury. On the other hand, the player may find the national treasury sinking rapidly and convert all national troops to the provincial or local level, so that the provinces or cities of origin would pay for the troops. The possibilities are endless!

 

[Gogf]

While these are all great ideas, and I tend to agree with Colonel Kraken, remember, Firaxis needs to tread a thin line between cool new features, and or complicated micromanagement.

I mean, it have explainanations nearly as long as yours posts! Think about people spending a long time reading about economics in Civ4 in the manual. Think about people reading the manual !

 

[Trade-peror]

I very much agree, Gogf, that keeping micromanagement down would be a necessity. That is why I started the thread "The Fundamental Cause of Civ Micromanagement" (with the purpose of eliminating micromanagement)

While explanations of the UET II may be lengthy, the micromanagement is minimal in that the computer carries out most of the calculations, as well as the actions. The player's job is to decide which actions these will be. The basic gameplay philosophy of the UET II: the player only decides on actions to take, and has the computer perform them.

 

[Aks K]

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
An approximate cost for a City Hall could probably be something like 20 shields.

Sounds good .

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
Please take a look at Section IV (City Infrastructure), and see if that makes sense. I can explain if it does not.

Did that - got that . Will the ownership of units/improvements be optimated in a way that the player doesnt need to worry about it? Having the computer to decide on basis of a player selected setting. I have a feeling that you have something like this in mind.

Originally Posted by Trade-peror
The possibilities are endless!

You are quite right.

How many Provincial Capitals should a player be able to build? Will it be determinded by the city size, number of cities, total number of villagers or ... ?

Aks K

 

[Trade-peror]

Will the ownership of units/improvements be optimated in a way that the player doesnt need to worry about it? Having the computer to decide on basis of a player selected setting. I have a feeling that you have something like this in mind.

Well, ownership patterns are entirely based on the player's preferences and playing style. If the player never intervenes, there were usually be a mix of ownership levels--some units are supported by cities, some by provinces, and some by the nation. If a player wants stricter control of military expenses, converting all units to national support is possible, and if the central treasury is going bankrupt, relegating support responsibilities to the provinces or cities is also possible. It all depends on the situation and playing preferences of the player.

For improvements, the mix of ownership levels will probably also be true, and it is also possible to shift the ownership responsibilities around, although for improvements it can only go up the levels of administration. For example, a local Library is usually owned by the city the Library is in, and is also supported by that city. Yet it is possible to have the province assume responsibility or the nation assume responsibility. The reverse is not possible, however, because the National Military Academy cannot be fairly relegated to any single province or city, since all provinces and cities benefit from the improvement. For units, the situation is different in that all units must come from a population point that lived in a particular city and/or province.

How many Provincial Capitals should a player be able to build? Will it be determinded by the city size, number of cities, total number of villagers or ... ?

As many as the player wants. Provincial Capitals have a cost, so there is no point in building too many of them, but there is no hard limit to the number. Playing style, game circumstances, and long-term plans should determine the number of Provincial Capitals to build.

 

[rhialto]

http://www.lajzar.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=civ:trade-peror_s_uet_ii_model

I have migrated this page to my new wiki from when it was originally posted. The new wiki features make it a lot more readable. You might want to check if you still stand by all you said way back when.

 

[Trade-peror]

Thank you! I have since changed my stance on a few concepts and how to implement them, but most of the UET II still holds. I'll eventually get to updating this, maybe in time for Civ5!

 

[Trade-peror]

Is anyone interested in seeing how the UET2 might be modded in Civ4? A great number of features will certainly have to be cut out, but I suspect that some of the UET2's general gameplay effects can be modded in Civ4. Anyone interested?

Also, Unified Economic Theory 3 is underway! The UET3 is very different from the UET2 though, incorporating some Civ4 aspects of Civilization and some new ideas that have surfaced on these forums since the UET2. But the UET3 is still a long way from being presentable yet! Any preliminary suggestions are welcome (through private messaging, etc.).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes, absolutely T-P. Where can I find it?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

Cant wait Trade-peror now that we actually have a starting point to work off and don't have to make it all up.

 

[Trade-peror]

Whoa, so there is interest! Well, actually I had to make sure of that before I even attempt to try to mod the UET2, and since the SDK is not out yet, I will likely wait for that too before I embark on any serious modding project. Would anyone like to help, by any chance? No technical expertise required (I do not have any, for one ) but it could be helpful.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, though it is alost certainly not on the depth or scale that you are probably proposing, Trade-Peror, I have started to develop a civics system that ties labour and economics together with ideology and government style in a more complex way.
So, for instance, the various labour civics effect outputs from different terrain improvements, wheras the economic civics impact on the emphasis of trade routes (money, food or materials). I also look at how ideology effects how the nation specialises, and how Laws and Rights can impact on the growth and productivity of the nation. Lastly, my civics mod will also obviously encompass the effects of different religious dogma (Orthodox, vs Organized vs Reformist; pacifist vs fundamentalist vs militant vs pantheist) and the way in which the nation is organised (imperial vs Hegemonic vs City-State). If people are interested in seeing my progress so far, check out the 'Civics:Need Modification?' thread and download my civics mod (its now half-way completed)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.