The Unified Economic Theory

[Trade-peror]

@deo:

Sorry, these posts do get rather lengthy, but please read them if you ever find the time! By the time everything is worked out, this system could be one of the greatest Civ changes ever!

Anyway, I do of course advocate including techs that will improve the efficiency of the various parts of the economy and the production sources.

If there are any specific details you suggest, please post them!


@Zurai:

Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean by the “very small dissatisfied:satisfied ratio.” Could you please clarify what that might be and its relevance to my trade system? Thanks! I would greatly appreciate if you gave me a chance to try to demonstrate that my system is not a “grand example” of “too much complexity, not enough gameplay.”


@ Shyrramar:

I agree that my system may *seem* too complex already simply because it is being evaluated and argued on so many abstract levels! Let’s just leave some ideas alone for a while…

Wow…it seems as if a number of issues we have essentially taken care of. What a gratifying achievement! We should congratulate ourselves for sorting so many things out by logic and then accepting the conclusion…

But, of course, not everything is completely clear.

First, I would like to say that I have ARBITRARILY left individuals out of the economic calculations, for a simple and unfortunate reason—our computers may not be able to handle that complex of an economy yet. I of course do not actually think that cities experience no internal trade, I merely deem computer games unready right now for an economy so realistic that it is a functional model of the real world (although we could become prophets if we did… ).

Anyway, I would also like to say that the basic law that governs my considerations about this economic system is that the overall economic wealth of an economy is frequently changing forms from monetary to potential wealth and vice versa, but the overall wealth never changes except with the passage of time, whereby it increases (this last clause is the “Earth yields free resources” effect, which I have explained in previous posts, and which I hope make sense). Side note: does that not sound so much like the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) with the exception of the last clause?

Also, I also looked back at some of your previous posts, and I discovered that I have not addressed the issue of hurrying production versus subsidization. I agree that paying a lump sum in one turn and spreading the increased costs over time essentially produce the same effect, but I prefer my system for the simple reason that it holds all of the construction material “accountable.” What I mean is, with my system, every shield can be traced back to the basic principle of the earth producing wealth. Since subsidization involves using federal funds to help a city purchase more shields from the market, and since the market’s supply is derived directly from the surpluses of other cities, it is clear that every shield ultimately came from a worker in a city working a tile. With Civ’s system, the shields basically come out of nowhere—or the money, which makes no more sense either. Where do the purchased shields come from? Or is the rushed project finished by substituting gold for all of the remaining building materials (I used to wonder whether in Civ many of my improvements should be made of gold, since I would sometimes buy large numbers of improvements per turn with my production-poor but road-rich cities…). The subsidization system prevents production-poor civilizations from escaping such defects in their economy through substituting gold, but subsidization is not so much a matter of rushing a project but simply buying more shields—and the shields must first exist to be bought. When I find time to discuss foreign relations later, this notion of a limited “rushing supply” will have important effects, for example, on warring civs that will strive to keep shipping lanes open and trade agreements intact for the simple reason of enlarging their pool of available shields for purchase. Hopefully all of that made sense…but if not, then please point out any vague points or faulty logic!

Finally, and this is off-topic, but are you sure that gravitational fields don’t affect subatomic particles? Besides, weight is a force, so somehow I don’t really find it so unusual that the atom might have weight but the parts of the atom don’t—isn’t it really just a matter of the gravitational force “not being strong enough” to reach atoms? That might be a totally wrong conclusion (it has been a while since we did that unit at school), but if it isn’t, then I am not really shocked.

Whatever the case may be, I still appreciate any thoughts, comments, and questions on my economic system…or if you really want to talk about nuclear physics…

 

[Trade-peror]

I said in some post before that I would discuss the role of specialized resources; I will start now, and see how far I can go!

To begin with, let me say that I will keep two of the three current categorization of resources in Civ, for the moment, namely luxuries and strategic resources. It will become apparent during my explanation that a distinct "bonus" resources category is irrelevant.

The essential idea is that resources have specialized supply and demand calculations, but are consumed as if merely normal food and shields. For example, cattle may be a special resource, but a city buying cattle is basically buying food--buying cattle will increase population growth, and so forth. Buying iron, while a strategic resource that may allow swordsmen or whatever unit, also contributes shields to the city. Only luxuries will contribute happy faces and nothing more upon purchase (trade in spices is usually not enough materially and nutritionally to contribute to city growth...).

The point of having these resources, which are simply "specialized" forms of food and shields (except for luxuries), lies in the specialized supply and market situations of these products. Recall that a basic concept in economics is that a large supply with little demand will cheapen a commodity while a small supply with ample demand will boost a commodity's value. With normal food and shield trade, the supply will be large since most squares produce only regular food and/or shields. A resource square, however, produces units of its unique commodity, and the relative rarity of these squares limits the supply enough to increase the value of such resources. In addition, the fact that these commodities are specialized food and shields allows them to share the demand curve with normal food and shields; in other words, specialized resources enjoy the same demand as normal food and shields but their limited supply makes trading them more lucrative.

Clearly, this complicates the determination of the demand curves for food and shields, which are the basis of the individual resources' demand curves, but not beyond understanding. Most basic is that one population point demands one food and one shield (I will later explain the purpose behind having population points consume only one food later, when I introduce my New Urbanization Theory). The critical factor is that specialized resources are "more desirable" than regular resources. The result is a scenario possibly similar to this:

Assuming that the average market supply:demand ratio is 1:1 (I briefly explained this before, but I will come back to it), a size 10 city will have an aggregate demand of 10 food and 10 shields (as "consumer products"). If the city produces 6 food and 5 shields, then its actual aggregate demand will be 4 food and 5 shields. Say 10 shields, 5 iron, 8 food, and 2 wheat are on the market. The city will end up buying 2 wheat, 2 food, and 5 iron, satisfying its demand--but note that the specialized resources have priority. The pricing will also be more expensive for the specialized commodities; the shields would cost 0.5 gold each while the iron would cost 1 gold each (price = demand/supply), while the food would cost 0.5 gold each and the wheat would cost 2 gold each. Clearly the resource sellers have the advantage; therefore, although regular and specialized resources are very similar in function and effects on the city, specialized resources are more valuable.

Unfortunately my time has suddenly run short, so I will stop for the moment. Please feel free to ask for clarifications and expansions on the topic!

 

[judgement]

Wow, reading this thread so far took a while - I has to break it up over multiple days... good discussion, though.

I have to agree with many of the points Shyrramar made. In particular, I don't think inter-personal trade is irrelevant to the larger economy (and yes, I understand that Trade-peror had to draw the line somewhere, and that inter-personal trade would be much to cumbersome to simulate). If inter-city trade is the only type that generates wealth, there is no mechanism for a solitary city to increase in wealth (without trading with other cities). Yet this is clearly possible in reality: the people in the city create an economy that can grow unassisted by exteriors. Rather than re-opening arguments that Shyrramar and Trade-peror have gone back and forth about several times already, I'll try to address my thoughts to some other aspects of what Trade-peror is suggesting here.

Originally posted by Trade-peror

First, let us consider that the basic resources currently produced by a worked tile are food, shields, and trade. My issue is with the production of trade--why is trade "produced" in the same manner as tangible entities like food and raw materials (shields)? Trade is a process, not an object, therefore I do not think it should be possible to directly produce it.

I agree with Mewtarthio here. The commerce generated by a tile (when being worked by citizens of a city) represents the net increase in wealth/value of the city due to the interaction of individual citizens, trading minor goods and services at a level too small to be worth modeling for the overall civ. But more importantly, it represents the net (potential) increase to the civ's overall treasury and/or scientific spending. Therein lies the real issue here: the entity you control (as a player) is a strange mixture of the civ as a whole and the government of the civ.

I disagree with Trade-peror's claim that "there is no private sector and public sector--everything is owned collectively by 'the civilization.'" I feel that economic model of Civ is intended primarily to represent the public sector. Here is my interpretation of the current economic model and the meaning of the sliders: (1) Individual citizens, who are working the tiles near the city, trade goods and services with each other in a manner that increases the overall "wealth" of the city, since the goods/services being traded have greater value to the people obtaining them than to the people providing them (like the pelts/axes thing: if I have one axe, a second isn't very valuable to me, but if I trade it for a pelt, the pelt can keep me warm, and the guy who previously had an extra, unused pelt now has a useable axe. We are both better off). This trade, at a inter-personal level, is not modeled in detail by the game (and the consensus seems to be that it shouldn't be). (2) The government/society-as-a-whole/you-the-omnipotent-player leaves the citizens with enough goods and services for basic survival, but has the ability to re-distribute any excess. The extent to which you let citizens retain some of the wealth they are generating is represented by the luxury slider: the more you leave them, the more "luxury" goods and services they can afford to purchase from each other, and the happier they are. The extent to which you take things from them is represented by the tax and science sliders: these represent wealth re-distributed to city-wide or nation-wide building projects and to sponsored scientific research.

So, to expand the axes/pelts example: say I make 6 axes, and, for basic survival, I need to have an axe, a pelt, a skin of water, and a haunch of meat. Say also that I wish I could have a feathered hat and a carved wooden necklace, but those things aren't essential. Now, I trade an axe to the pelt-guy, and another to the girl with extra water skins, and a third to the hunter who has extra haunches of meat he doesn't want to eat. Now I have an axe, pelt, water, and meat: all I need to survive. I also have a surplus of 2 more axes. If the tax and research sliders are set to zero and the luxury slider is at maximum, then society/government/whatever allows me to trade my 2 extra axes for the hat and the necklace, which are very nice and make me extra happy. But if the tax slider is bumped up, then society/government/whatever compels me to donate my extra axes to the coffers of the society as a whole. Maybe not directly, maybe it lets me sell them but then taxes my profits - doesn't matter, the point is the same. And, if the science slider is bumped up, then society compels me to donate my extra axes to the wise old guy trying to figure out how fire works. He's not producing any useful good or service that I'd care to trade an axe for, but society/government/whatever wants to encourage him to try to figure fire out, since that would be beneficial to society as a whole, so the system is set up so that my extra axes can benefit him. Maybe directly (I am compelled to give him an axe, water-girl is compelled to give him some water, etc.) or maybe indirectly (tax on my profits, then government funding of his research), again, the point is the same.

So the point of all of that is that I don't believe that the "commerce" icon generated by a tile represents all economic activity there, nor does it represent "a process". It represents the potential of any surplus goods and services produced there to be contributed to the society as a whole.

You may of course then ask how commerce differs from shields. My answer would be that shields represent the surplus materials, goods, and services (especially labor) than can be contributed to producing things for the city (such as improvements, military units, etc.) while commerce is a generic representation of all other goods and services. In neither case do they represent all economic activity: for example, some production is undoubtedly being used to build housing for new citizens, yet this is not modeled. Shields and commerce both represent surpluses over and above what is needed privately by the citizens for basic existence.

Overall wealth = $o
Monetary wealth = $m
Potential wealth = $p

Say the Earth yields 100 bushels of wheat (+100 $p [wheat] for the city) and laborers are paid to harvest the wheat (-100 $m [wages] for the city, +100 $m [wages] for the population).
Then the laborers spend the money to buy food (-100 $m [costs] for the population, +100 $p [food] for the population) but the city owns the food supply and therefore sells the food (+100 $m [revenue] for the city, -100 $p [food] for the city). In time, the food is consumed but by then another harvest is ready. The process then repeats.

Recall that $o = $m + $p.

Note that the net change of wealth in terms of $o in every single exchange above is zero for the economy as a whole, with the exception of Earth yielding its 100 bushels of wheat. In fact, add all of the value exchanges above and you will see that the $o of the entire economy has increased by $100. This is what I mean by the Earth yields its fruits for “free.”

One problem with this calculation is that 100 bushels of wheat have been arbitrarily assigned a value of 100 $p, but in reality, the value is dertermined by the market, and in fact is different to different peope. If the city already has plenty of food, those 100 bushels may be nearly worthless, while if everyone is starving, those 100 barrels are nearly priceless.

Lets say the laborers harvest 100 bushels of wheat and government/society/other citizens pay them 100$m. That exchange is only worthwhile to the laborers if 100$m is worth more to them than the time it took to harvest the food (otherwise, why trade it for money?) They have to feel that their labor benefitted them somehow: that by trading 100 bushels for 100$m, they make a profit. Meanwhile, government/society/the other citizens must feel that 100$m is worth less to them than 100 bushels: they make the exchange because they'd rather have the food than the money. The value of the 100 bushels cannot be fixed at 100$p - in fact, the value of the 100 bushels is different to different people! And that is the very reason for trading it around and the mechanism by which the net change of wealth is [/i]not[/i] zero when goods and services are exchanged.

If I am a laborer, my incentive for going to work is the knowledge that the 100$m that I am paid for the 100 bushels is enough for me to purchase the things I need to survive (not just food, but water, shelter, clothes, etc) and hopefully enough to buy a little more (luxuries) and/or save up a little for the future. To simplify things, lets say that wheat is the only thing I need to survive: the workers still don't want to spend all 100$m of their salary on food, they want to save a little money as well. Also, there's nothing to say that 100 bushels is exactly the dietary needs of the laborers. Hopefully, they're harvesting more than they themselves need: that way, their labor adds overall value to the city's economy. The food that they don't need can be sold to other citizens engaged in other tasks. If everyone in the city produces good or performs services that exceed their own survival needs, then there is a surplus that benefits the city as a whole, even without the interaction of other cities.

Clearly such meddling can be costly, whether directly or indirectly, and therefore will probably be used only rarely, balancing the game through allowing the economy to run itself. The player's more general role would simply be to increase production of shields and food and encourage growth of populations to buy these goods. As a result, the player would most likely experience less micromanagement, despite the system's complexity, because there simply is not much the player can do.

Overall, I would just say that this economic system would be revolutionary not merely in its mechanics but by the philosphy that the economy should be complex enough to elude complete control, and that the player should only be able to "nudge" it in the right direction. Such a view would make Civilization *much* more interesting because grand schemes and plans can no longer be precisely calculated due to complexity, offering huge replayability value to the game. In addition, it has the incredible advantage of being fundamentally in-depth yet does not force excessive micromanagement due to the relatively few options available to the player. Therefore, I am convinced that this economic system would enrich Civilization more than anything, because everything follows from the basics.

I agree with this analysis of what the suggested system would accomplish, but I disagree with whether that's a good thing. As has already been discussed, there is a difference between micromanagement and control. I think that what players of the game like is minimal micromanagment but maximal control. The suggested system, unfortunately, minimizes both. I don't want to just "nudge" things in the right direction, I want complete control over my civs economy. Realistic - no, but fun - yes! I like the potential for grand schemes and plans: civ is a strategy game, and schemes and plans should be part of that. "Not much the player can do" and "few options available to the player" don't sound like strong selling points to me!

Any (constructive, hopefully) criticisms, questions, and thoughts are absolutely welcome,

I'd need a month to weigh in on all the things that have been discussed in this thread so far, but I do want to say that it was fascinating reading. And despite my lengthy "defense" of the current economic system above, I do have to admit that it is somewhat "artificial" and not completely satisfying, so I like reading alternate ideas, and hope that whatever potential changes are on the table for cIV get plenty of thought and discussion.

 

[Trade-peror]

Wow, judgement, you actually got through reading this entire thread!? Congratulations!

Anyway, you bring up many good points that were skimmed briefly (or perhaps not so briefly) in my discussion with Shyrramar. Please allow me to address them.

First, and perhaps the most controversial, is my decision to have intra-city trade be "nonproductive" in my economy. I am glad that you understand that I had to draw the line somewhere, and that is my primary argument. However, I would also like to say that such an arrangement does not prevent cities from accumulating wealth when isolated. To clarify, allow me to define these terms I will use:

Overall wealth = value of all possessions
Potential wealth = value of material goods
Monetary wealth = value of liquidable assets (money)

An independent city economy can accrue potential wealth and therefore also overall wealth, but cannot generate monetary wealth. Therefore, wealth does still increase. I suspect that you meant monetary wealth, however, and my answer would indeed be that no monetary wealth, or money, results from the intra-city trade. As absurd as that may seem, please consider the nature of monetary wealth. The purpose of money is to facilitate the easy exchange of goods; there seems to me little reason to arbitrarily convert from potential to monetary wealth otherwise, due to the incongruities possible from changing a volatile measure of value to a fixed measure of value. I have decided to "draw the line" at the cities, and consider them the basic economic units, so intra-city trade is in itself an economy too simple to warrant conversions between potential and monetary wealth. Therefore, wealth continues to build--but not in the form of money, just potential wealth. In addition, the fact that cities are the basic economic unit means that they cannot trade independently, because it would in essence be similar to a person buying his own goods for himself.

Next, I go back to my denunciation of Civ's system of producing "trade" icons. While I do agree that the icons are supposed to represent minor trade and commerce, I note that the *entire* system of trade (in monetary wealth) is built upon this! There are no major trends or industries of any sort, and that is a rather major flaw in my view. Civ3 tried to address that vaguely with luxury and strategic resources, but they are not even in the realm of the monetary trade system! In the current Civ system, there is no easy way to convert between monetary and potential wealth, which seems quite illogical. In my Unified Economic Theory, any form of wealth can be readily converted into another.

As for my claim of the nonexistence of the private or public sector, actually I meant that Civ viewed in a purely theoretical sense does not seem to have distinct public or private sectors. I do agree that Civ seems to have a definite tilt toward the public sector, though. Yet that constitutes a problem--economies are rarely controlled so tightly by the government, as is the case in Civ, and when governments supposedly succeed in doing so, the economy generally ends up in ruins (and trying to simulate these ruins would be shockingly complex...). For example, the city screen allows players to allocate laborers to work certain tiles, and redistribution of labor is easy and fluid. That, however, is unprecedented control that is only possible in the remotest theory, and that renders the system almost illogical for use in a game like Civ, that even vaguely imitates the real world.

I know that it is certainly also impossible to have everything "owned collectively by the civilization," but that has unfortunately been an underlying notion that Civ has used from the beginning, and which allows the player to control the private sector (such as in the allocation of production) and the public sector (such as building improvements) in one convenient role by "merging" the two--I never notice the player having to switch between private and public roles, and I hardly even see Civ distinguish between the two. This "ownership problem," which I started a thread on a while back, is probably one of the more theoretically incompatible features of Civ. Perhaps that could be remedied in some other version...I would like to hear any suggestions you have, if you are interested.

The next issue is my example with how the city deals with its wheat. While it may seem that the wheat has been arbitrarily assigned a value of 100 $p, actually that value has been assigned, as you say, by the market—the population of the city, collectively. Since I consider the city the basic economic unit, then “the population” will be consider as a single unit. As this one unit is the only market for the wheat, any value it assigns determines the value of the wheat, and such a monopoly on demand means that *any* value assigned is “arbitrary.”

In addition, you mention that laborers would have to make a profit to want to work for wages rather than keep the food for personal consumption. Note, however, that the individual laborers cannot harvest the food themselves! Economics depends upon the concept of specialization of labor and resources, and unless the farming techniques are impractically inefficient, it is necessary in terms of efficiency to have a managing body with a sufficient supply of capital—the city. Allow me to translate that into the example:

The laborers must work for the city because this intra-city economy has no other employer, and the laborers cannot produce the same amount of food themselves individually, because it is more efficient to divide labor tasks (specialization of labor) and to use the latest machinery and fertilizers, which would likely be too expensive for individual farmers to buy (the tools and materials would be the capital outlay provided by the city). The result is that the laborers have no choice but to work for the city, because the city would not provide organization or capital unless it registered gains of equal value (the wheat harvested).

In short, I agree with you, judgement, in your scenario—but only that it applies in a more complex economy than the intra-city economy in my system. If we simulated the wheat trade between different cities—different economic units—then your scenario would fit perfectly with what I expect from my economic system.

Finally, allow me to emphasize that I meant for my economic system to minimize the amount of *routine* work in the economy, and increase control over the direction of the economy at the same time. For example, the player will have relatively few options in terms of controlling individual trades—specific purchases between cities will rarely have to await any action on the part of the player. On the other hand, the player will be able to control the economy to a greater extent than ever before, through specific industries. For example, a player may see that his agricultural economy is faltering, and looks for a boost. My economy allows this to be accomplished in several ways—the player could increase agricultural production (thus promoting growth of population and growth of markets), seek agreements with other civilizations to bring their cities into the market (therefore raising demand and boosting prices and revenue), find and secure a specialized agricultural resource such as cattle to supplement the main trade in food (the relative rarity of specialized resources increases their values), or use some combination, or some other method altogether! Furthermore, none of this wealth of options and strategies is mere “nudging”—the player plays a direct role in facilitating and carrying out these changes to the economy. The only aspect players will not control much is the individual transactions that are the result of the player’s economic policies. Contrast this to Civ's current economic system--the only way to boost the economy is to build roads. There is no other way to build up the monetary economy in Civ! In addition, the player must build every single mile of road to do this, including in remote and generally inaccessible squares, simply to increase "trade." With my economic system, this type of micromanagement is reduced but control is actually increased.

Another interesting possibility due to this control is gameplay balance in terms of the economy. In Civ, whoever has the most roads and population to use those roads will be the richest. In my economic system, small civs can compete just as well as large civs through specializing in important industries, or perhaps using trade agreements to reach large foreign markets. Such tactics can easily allow small civs to be as powerful as big civs. Finally will it be possible to simulate a civ like Britain, which is small in terms of land mass but not small at all in terms of global economic and political influence!


That was a rather lengthy post, I admit, but hopefully most of it makes sense. If not, then I would be much obliged if you would point out any faulty logic, contradictions, or ambiguity. Please post any additional thoughts, comments, and questions! Thank you, judgement, for your time in considering my new economic system!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, I think I'm finally starting to get a handle on your ideas for intra-city wealth. I was wondering if you could help me out, though, by explaining to me how you see a city's potential wealth and purchasing power being determined. Also, have you considered how some of my economic ideas might effect your model:

1) In civ3, like its previous incarnations, each city was required to make ALL of its own food, shields and, to some extent, its 'commerce'. With a 'global' commodity market, cities can actually specialize-much as they do in real life.

2) What this means is that cities will have their own 'demographics'. eg. cities which are production centres-with lots of mines, power stations and factories-will become pretty much the homes of the working class. Wheras other cities will become centres of commerce and government, thus becoming home to the middle and upper classes. These demographics will, therefore, have quite an impact on a city's potential wealth and, if I understand you correctly, its purchasing power.
Anyway, I'd be interested to see how you think my idea of 'civics', as it were, would effect your trade and resource model. Thank you.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

Excellent, I would be glad to clarify in any way possible.

Now, I do not believe I mention determination of a city's potential wealth to be very important other being an economic statistic, but of course it will build up to be the essential basis of the gross national product (GNP) of a civ--which may be a factor in, for example, diplomatic considerations. As for calculating it, I cannot at this moment be entirely specific in terms of numbers, since the values of goods can vary widely and quickly, but the potential wealth is simply the value of all of the city's production--shields, food, and resources.

Purchasing power is an entirely different matter. Purchasing power is the monetary wealth of a city, and this monetary wealth allows for inter-city trade, as a common medium of exchange is thus established. To calculate purchasing power, simply add the values of all of the products a city has sold to any other city. In other words, the city's income is the same money that determines the city's purchasing power. Therefore, the more a city sells, the more it can buy with the profits.

As for your 2 points,

1) My economic system will *certainly* allow for specialization of economies and specific industries, just as in reality.

2) Actually, my economic system currently deals with only purely economic matters, so I am not sure of the effects socially. Unfortunately, I suspect that I may not necessarily find the need to strictly define demographic groups or classes as you suggest, for I do not see any gameplay purpose of doing so; I do agree, however, that specialization of cities will likely occur by virtue of the efficiency of such arrangements.

Hopefully that addressed a few points...please feel free to post further comments and/or questions!

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Trade-peror

First, and perhaps the most controversial, is my decision to have intra-city trade be "nonproductive" in my economy...
An independent city economy can accrue potential wealth and therefore also overall wealth, but cannot generate monetary wealth.

I understand that this is a logical consequence of "drawing the line" at cities instead of individuals. Obviously, its not the case in real life: a solitary city-state could (and often did) mint its own money. Complicating matters is that fact that, until modern times, money did have innate material value (being made of gold, silver, etc.). Until the introduction of "symbolic" paper money (or, more accurately, the end to the practice of linking paper money to actual gold) there wasn't really as strong as distinction between "potential wealth" and "monetary wealth" as you depict.

My main complaint against your idea, in this case, is that the current system provides an easy-to-understand mechanism to keep track of your wealth even when you only have one city and haven't yet started trading with anyone else. Yes, its more realistic to model trade as the increase in "potential" (material) wealth due to exchange of goods/services instead of the increase in "monetary" wealth, but that's a distinction that would be lost on most casual players, and, as I pointed out in the preceding paragraph, a somewhat false (or at least misleading) distinction for most of history, anyway.

Next, I go back to my denunciation of Civ's system of producing "trade" icons. While I do agree that the icons are supposed to represent minor trade and commerce, I note that the *entire* system of trade (in monetary wealth) is built upon this! There are no major trends or industries of any sort, and that is a rather major flaw in my view. Civ3 tried to address that vaguely with luxury and strategic resources, but they are not even in the realm of the monetary trade system! In the current Civ system, there is no easy way to convert between monetary and potential wealth, which seems quite illogical.

Yes, here, I completely agree. The luxury and strategic resources in Civ 3 are a nice improvement over Civ 1/2, but a lot more could be done to simulate various industries. Furthermore, I agree that monetary wealth should be more linked to these industries and the trading of goods, and not be simply a function of how many roads you've built.

As for my claim of the nonexistence of the private or public sector, actually I meant that Civ viewed in a purely theoretical sense does not seem to have distinct public or private sectors. I do agree that Civ seems to have a definite tilt toward the public sector, though. Yet that constitutes a problem--economies are rarely controlled so tightly by the government, as is the case in Civ, and when governments supposedly succeed in doing so, the economy generally ends up in ruins (and trying to simulate these ruins would be shockingly complex...). For example, the city screen allows players to allocate laborers to work certain tiles, and redistribution of labor is easy and fluid. That, however, is unprecedented control that is only possible in the remotest theory, and that renders the system almost illogical for use in a game like Civ, that even vaguely imitates the real world.

Here, I disagree. While unrealistic and illogical, the unprecedented control available to the player in Civ is fundamental to its success as a game. Its also completely unrealistic and illogical to have one ruler for 5000 years - but it wouldn't be Civ if you could only play for the 20-50 year adult lifespan of a single ruler! Yse, in real life, complete control by the government usually ruins a countries economy, but is a game, complete control by the player of the game is what makes it fun and gives the player things to do!

I know that it is certainly also impossible to have everything "owned collectively by the civilization," but that has unfortunately been an underlying notion that Civ has used from the beginning, and which allows the player to control the private sector (such as in the allocation of production) and the public sector (such as building improvements) in one convenient role by "merging" the two--I never notice the player having to switch between private and public roles, and I hardly even see Civ distinguish between the two. This "ownership problem," which I started a thread on a while back, is probably one of the more theoretically incompatible features of Civ. Perhaps that could be remedied in some other version...I would like to hear any suggestions you have, if you are interested.

I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretically incompatible." If you mean illogical and unrealistic, yes, I agree. But its also a hallmark of the game and, IMHO, essential to the fun of the game. As the player, you don't represent merely the government of the civ - you have complete control over the civ. The government, the citizens, both public and private sectors: all are just pawns in the game you are playing.

Finally, allow me to emphasize that I meant for my economic system to minimize the amount of *routine* work in the economy, and increase control over the direction of the economy at the same time. For example, the player will have relatively few options in terms of controlling individual trades—specific purchases between cities will rarely have to await any action on the part of the player. On the other hand, the player will be able to control the economy to a greater extent than ever before, through specific industries. For example, a player may see that his agricultural economy is faltering, and looks for a boost. My economy allows this to be accomplished in several ways—the player could increase agricultural production (thus promoting growth of population and growth of markets), seek agreements with other civilizations to bring their cities into the market (therefore raising demand and boosting prices and revenue), find and secure a specialized agricultural resource such as cattle to supplement the main trade in food (the relative rarity of specialized resources increases their values), or use some combination, or some other method altogether! Furthermore, none of this wealth of options and strategies is mere “nudging”—the player plays a direct role in facilitating and carrying out these changes to the economy. The only aspect players will not control much is the individual transactions that are the result of the player’s economic policies. Contrast this to Civ's current economic system--the only way to boost the economy is to build roads. There is no other way to build up the monetary economy in Civ! In addition, the player must build every single mile of road to do this, including in remote and generally inaccessible squares, simply to increase "trade." With my economic system, this type of micromanagement is reduced but control is actually increased.

Well, its not entirely true that roads are the only way to boost the economy: building marketplaces and banks also helps. But I do see your point. The strength of the economy should be related to how many goods and services are being traded, not by how many tiles have been roaded. A defense (admittedly a weak one) of the current system is that, by building roads near your cities, you facilitate trade among the people living and working near the city, i.e., you allow rural farmers to come into the city easier to sell their food and buy goods and services produced in the city, increasing trade and strengthening the overall economy. Personally, I don't think they should necessarily get rid of the "roads produce commerce" idea, just make it not the only idea for producing commerce. I'd like to see an increase in the number of "resources", and have some that can simply be acquired from the terrain and others that must be manufactured. Then the trade of these resources, among you cities or to foreign cities, would procude commerce, in a similar way to the way trade of luxuries produces happy faces.

For instance, currently, a luxury icon produces a happy face in each city its connected to: the more cities you connect it to, the better the effect for your empire. If a city was making a tradeable resource, like textiles, then every city it was connected to would increase the size of the market for the textiles, so it would strengthen the economy and increase your overall wealth. Perhaps the textiles would generate a commerce icon in each city they were connected to. This would represent the income to the civ-as-a-whole (the government treasury, if you will) from taxation of the textiles trade. The bigger the textiles trade, the more income your treasury gets from taxes: you have an incentive to connect as many cities as possible to your textiles in order to open up markets for the manufacturers, grow the textiles economy, and thus increase your tax base. Foreign trade would simply be handled just as luxury trade: if you like, you can trade textiles to a neighbor in exchange for gold. The increased trading within the neighbor's territory grows their economy, giving them more commerce in each city, but a certain amount of that winds up in your treasury. In game mechanics, they are simply paying you for access to the resource, but what it would represent in reality is the import/export tarriffs you negotiated and the increased taxes you are collecting from your own citizens producing the textiles (who now can produce more because they have more customers to sell to). In reality, if two countries negotiate to allow a company from country A to sell goods in country B, both A and B can make more money in taxes: B by taxing the import and sale of the goods within its borders, and A by taxing the increased profits of the company located within its borders. The relative amounts the countries A and B make depend on the details of the trade deal negotiated. If import tariffs are too high, the company in question won't be able to make much profit, so while B earns a lot, A earns little. If the tariffs and taxes are low, B doesn't make much, but the company's profits increase a lot, so A collects a lot more taxes. In the game, the relative benefit to you and a neighbor when you trade such a resource would be simply determined by how much gold they give you in exchange.

Sorry for the long tangent there into my own idea, but reading your ideas got me thinking about my own...

Another interesting possibility due to this control is gameplay balance in terms of the economy. In Civ, whoever has the most roads and population to use those roads will be the richest. In my economic system, small civs can compete just as well as large civs through specializing in important industries, or perhaps using trade agreements to reach large foreign markets. Such tactics can easily allow small civs to be as powerful as big civs. Finally will it be possible to simulate a civ like Britain, which is small in terms of land mass but not small at all in terms of global economic and political influence!

Yes, this sort of thing would be nice. I agree that it seems problematic that the biggest civs are always the most wealthy. How could the current game possible simulate the different between, say, Britain and China in the modern real world? The only way would be to have China be less roaded and have less marketplaces and banks: hardly the real reasons for the economic differences between the two countries.

That was a rather lengthy post, I admit, but hopefully most of it makes sense. If not, then I would be much obliged if you would point out any faulty logic, contradictions, or ambiguity. Please post any additional thoughts, comments, and questions! Thank you, judgement, for your time in considering my new economic system!

All in all, your ideas aren't bad. The things I disagree with most are the fact that a single city can't increase your treasury on its own and the way you don't like the "commerce" icons... personally, they make some sense to me, and I wouldn't like to see them eliminated and replaced with a system in which one had to do a lot of trading to make any money. And I agree that "roads" being the primary economic tool of the player is silly, but on the other hand, it makes sense that building up your infrastructure should help grow your nation's economy. As I said, I'd like to see economic strength be determined both by the quality of your infrastructure and the particular industries you country is involved in. The luxury resources in Civ 3 allow limited "specialization" in certain industries: I say, keep the current system, but also expand the resources idea to allow specialization in industries that relate to your economy in general (monetarily) and not just to keep your people happy.

 

[Shyrramar]

I have been silent about this for a long time. One reason for this is that I wanted other people to comment more on this, as I was beginning to get the feeling that we weren't "getting anywhere". We only became to understand each other, but not agree. Now I want only to comment, that I second judgements last paragraph to every word. The problem in your system, Trade-Peror is not (mostly ) its faulty logic or some other reason, it is the sheer complexity of it combined with the fact that Civ's system isn't all that bad as you seem to think. From economist's point of view it may of course seem outrageously illogical and unrealistic, but that's not the point in Civ. It is not a game about economics, it is a game with economics. For that purpose, the system is adequate.

I do, however, agree with judgement in that it could be better. I agree with his comments about in what areas of the game the problems lie. These should be addressed, but a thorough revision of the whole economical system is not needed. To people, it is quite intuitive and I still maintain that most people would have very little chance of grasping the rules behind the system. To them it would only seem that you should increase your production in order to get wealthy - something they do already - whereas the real reasons of why will remain unclear. And as judgement pointed out, Civ is popular because it gives "too much" control. Taking away that control in order to replace is with a vague, complex, although realistic system simply wouldn't do.

Now consider why you are not willing to make citizens the basic units of economy. Because it is too complex, although it is realistic? That's exactly what I think about this system as a whole. It is thorough, quite realistic, logical and would probably work. All in all, it is a good system. It's just a wrong game you are trying to fit it into.

 

[Trade-peror]

@judgement:

Those are good points that you make, judgement, but please allow me to clarify my view:

First, and still the most controversial, is the “nonproductive” intra-city economy. It is certainly true that city-states often minted their own money and money itself often had intrinsic value as precious metals. Accordingly, my system allows potential wealth to be converted into monetary wealth and vice versa—money *is* wealth. Therefore, I am not actually advocating that wealth only be represented by increases in potential wealth; monetary wealth is also important, because either potential or monetary wealth is still wealth. Sorry if that was not quite clear in previous posts…

Next, I do agree that Civ’s setup giving players unprecedented control is inherent in the game and is illogical, yet I do not actually have any problem with keeping it, because you will notice that I explain my concept of “collective ownership by the civilization” using the same style of player control!

Finally, you may notice that I often denounce the roads in Civ, yet I have rarely explained the uses of roads in my own system. Perhaps I unfortunately thus implied that roads would have no role in trade in my system. That, however, is not true! Roads *will* have a significant role in my trade system, and I venture to say perhaps an even more critical role than Civ currently has them. In the UET, roads will facilitate trade due to the fact that they are necessary to connect cities and link producers and markets. In addition, however, they will also generate trade—but only if they are being used. Every road that serves as the conduit of a transaction between two cities will generate trade—representing the travel accommodations, small businesses, shipping, and other traveling industries that accompany trade. By no means is this a reversion to the Civ system, however, because note that the road must *actually* be facilitating trade in order to generate accompanying trade! “Roads in the middle of nowhere” will be as useless as reality and logic warrant, but busy “Silk-Route” roads will be incredibly lucrative. Previously, a poster (perhaps Ultraworld or Sean Lindstrom, or someone…I am sorry I cannot remember, it was so long ago) suggested a system where trade through another civ’s territory between two civs should allow that third civ to reap benefits. Notice how nicely my system can simulate this situation! The massively enriching trade route, by merely going through a third civ’s territory, can generate enough income through taxation/fees/duties (implied as part of the trade generated in this manner) to fuel that civ’s economy without the civ itself being too productive! Note that not every civ should be able to do this (as somewhat implied in Civ’s system) but only those civs that are actually in a strategic location. With my system, it becomes easy to have situations such as that of the Arabs with the Silk Route, Italian merchants with the Asian-European spice trade, the Panama Canal with Atlantic-Pacific trade, and the Suez Canal with its position between Europe and Asia! Therein lies a wealth of strategic and tactical opportunities!

Hopefully that clears up a few points. But whatever the case, I encourage more feedback!


@Shyrramar:

While I understand that my trade system makes Civ’s economic system seem appallingly simple and inadequate (which is of course the reason why I am proposing my new system), I do have one question, and one that I had asked in a previous thread before: What is the point in Civ? Perhaps Civ is a game with economics and not about economics, but what IS the game about then? That is a most interesting question...

Also, I understand that Civ’s economic system is simple and clear (although not intuitive ). However, consider the other Civ concepts that are not easily calculable—corruption, waste, chance of cultural flipping, cost of scientific advances, probability of winning battles ( ), probability and location of pollution appearing, probability of leaders appearing, happiness of citizens (especially with the somewhat vague effects of war weariness), reputation, method of AI bargaining, success of diplomatic/espionage missions, AI behavior towards breaking treaties, and so forth. Certainly it is possible to calculate these values (and most of them have been), yet their effects remain vague, and largely beyond the control of the human player. However, it is unlikely that Civ will radically modify any of these concepts—but will still likely be a success in its next versions.

As much as you have heard me say this before, I will simply mention again that economic success is inevitable following these intuitive (except for #2, perhaps) methods (and methods that will astonishingly prove to work in reality!):

1. Increase production.
2. Increase the number of products being traded.
3. When a particular product is rare, locate more sources.
4. Increase population.
5. Trade with as many cities as possible.

The effects and reasons for all of the above methods can be easily and logically explained, but even if they could not be, they could not be any harder to grasp than Civ’s “build as many roads as possible” method, as methods such as "increase population" are already part of Civ's overall strategy. Civ’s system essentially follows the above rules anyway:

1. Increase the number of roads.
2. There is only one product—“trade”—so try increasing trade (with roads).
3. Again, only one product—“locate more sources” by finding more tiles to build more roads.
4. Increase population (to use the tiles with roads on them).
5. This is the only rule that does not apply—the trade in each city in Civ is its own problem.

As to the matter of cities being the basic economic units, it is certainly just a matter of complexity. Yet a line must also be drawn in terms of complexity, and I think portraying individual situations in a civilization-wide game is impractically complex, just as a construction engineer does not consider the state of his materials at the level of quantum mechanics.

Finally, I do (unfortunately) see that Civ, in its current state, may perhaps not be the game to fully accept my radical economic system yet, but I venture to say that Civ will eventually see its economic evolution progress toward my model fundamentally…

 

[GeZe]

I do not know if this has been mentioned before, but I think that a country in the game should be able to issue currency, and inflation should be part of the game.

For instace: a country could print a large amount of money to pay for a project, but this would lead to inflation of there currency.

There would be exchnge rates for the different currencies based on the strength of the econemy.

Oh, and a country should be able to set the prime interest rate, this would give further control of the economy to the player.

The presense of differnt currienes and interest rates among the countries could lead to interesting politicle play, involving making a econmic allianince with a counrty (having a commen curriencyand/or prime interest rate) like in the euro union.

I think I'm forgeting something, but oh well, I'll post this anyways.

 

[rcoutme]

I have just finished re-reading this entire thread (whew) and I am getting more confused, not less.

1. You started the basis with slide bars, how does this affect commodity trading?
2. You suggest that manufactured resources would generate trade between cities, how do the slide bars facilitate this?

I think you would need to give examples. Start with Capital (city A) on turn 1. Next, at turn 5, Capital is population of 2. by turn 15, I have cities A & B. A is pop 2, B is just founded, there are no viable trade routes (road or river) between them. Turn 55, I have 3 cities. A & B each have 3 pop, roads connect A, B & C. C was just founded.

What will your economic system allow and do in this early scenario? Please fill in Turns 1, 5, 15, and 55.

So far, it looks like I would not be able to research on turn 1 even though I have "the old guy trying to figure out fire" being fed by the rest of the city.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by Trade-peror
What is the point in Civ? Perhaps Civ is a game with economics and not about economics, but what IS the game about then? That is a most interesting question...

A good question. I can't of course answer for the rest of us, but I can provide you with my view. The game is about building something from scratch. The idea is the same as in Sim City, in that sense. But most importantly it is about building a whole (historical) nation from scratch. To let the player not only read about the glorious Rome, but be the glorious Rome in some sense - or even destroying the glorious Rome.

The game is about building an empire, as is evident. For that purpose one must first build cities, then make the cities better, discover new technologies, explore the lands, trade with friends, wage war with enemies. They are all linked and intertwined with each other, but I think those are the main points. The game has many ways of winning it, and they all have their distinct goals. All of them do require production and wealth, but none of them has it as the most important factor. I think that having a good production-basis and wealth provides a fertile ground for the machinations of the player. To have these under control, the player can then turn his/her attention to whatever goals he/she finds most interesting: culture, science, conquest.

What is most important to me in the game? For me it is seeing the empire grow from one pathetic city to glorious and buzzling empire. To finally get that first bank, that first win with a knight, to research replaceable parts. It is about seeing the results of my decisions. I love the way tactics and long-term plans shape and finally result in successful conquest or a great wonder.

Now you may notice, that economics is yet pretty much unmentioned. It is of course, not in a minor role - how could it be? It is the engine behind my banks, knights and replaceable parts - as well as the backbone of my plans. I must build up my infrastructure to build improvements and military, and both are needed to achieve anything. I am happy for as long as the money keeps coming in. If it does not, I want to be able to know how to repair that. I want to be in control of the game, because the whole "idea" of the game is to lead a small nation to glory, not "see" how it happens. I want to control every aspect of the game within certain rules. What I am saying is that I, atleast, don't want a realistic economy, because in reality it is pretty much uncontrollable. Nugding is not enough. I want the economy system to be simple, but effective, so I can concentrate on the bigger-scale schemes. What is important is this: Civ is not about economics, for me atleast, because I am not trying to get huge amounts of money or trade in general, I am trying to build cities, improvements, research techs, conquer new lands and wage war with those pesky Ruskies.

If someone disagrees with my view of the game, please do post your comments about what is it that Civ is about!

Also, I understand that Civ’s economic system is simple and clear (although not intuitive ). However, consider the other Civ concepts that are not easily calculable—corruption, waste, chance of cultural flipping, cost of scientific advances, probability of winning battles ( ), probability and location of pollution appearing, probability of leaders appearing, happiness of citizens (especially with the somewhat vague effects of war weariness), reputation, method of AI bargaining, success of diplomatic/espionage missions, AI behavior towards breaking treaties, and so forth. Certainly it is possible to calculate these values (and most of them have been), yet their effects remain vague, and largely beyond the control of the human player. However, it is unlikely that Civ will radically modify any of these concepts—but will still likely be a success in its next versions.

Now this is by far the best argument against your system! First of all, you are listing all the bad things about Civ. Corruption is probably the worst of them all, losing unrealistic battles is another, and of course the pollution and the stupid war weariness, the problems with reputation and its arbitrariness, AI trade is stupid as hell and they break treaties like the drooling idiots they are. Secondly, atleast corruption and whack-a-mole-pollution is out the window, according to Atari. Anyway, these are mostly the most hated parts of the Civ3, because they are vague and largely beyond the control of the human player.

What comes to researching techs, I disagree. There is a simple number saying how many turns it takes. There is no vagueness there. Cultural flipping is of course random, but mostly because having troops in the city has too little effect. You should be able to prevent it with strong units. The battles will probably remain that way, and it's fine. It's rare enough that a spearman beats a modern armor, and other outcomes...well, that's war, folks!

Now there is a difference between having something out of control because Random Number Generator than because you don't understand the rules. RNG is acceptable, because there are some aspects that you cannot simply affect, and it is fine because you know that no matter what you can't change the outcome. With vague rules, that is different, though. You know you could affect the situation, but just don't know how. That is frustrating. And I argue here that your system would only be an addition to those parts of the game that already need renovation. To argue that the game already has complex and unliked parts is no argument at all!

1. Increase production.
2. Increase the number of products being traded.
3. When a particular product is rare, locate more sources.
4. Increase population.
5. Trade with as many cities as possible.

This doesn't really get me going. Increase production is something I do already, as is increasing population. So that leaves us with 2,3 and 5. Now what are the products? Could you give us an example? How to increase them? Do I really have to manage trade between all cities?

Now you should atleast present the current system fairly. You are not doing that. The ways to increase wealth are:
1. Increase population
2. Build roads
3. Build improvements that increase trade (Mplaces, banks...)
4. Trade with AI
It is not as simple as you have depicted. I do admit, that trade with AI is too marginal (mostly) to be effective, but that should be made better (the whole system needn't change). Improvements need production, of course.

As I have commented earlier, I understand your points, I simply just don't agree. What needs to be changed is AI-trade and perhaps linking luxuries and resources to overall economy. I think your system would only become one of the things we are frustrated with because they are out of our control. I understand that this is how things work, of course, but I am not playing this game because of that. To "see" how things work, I can live my life. To have exaggerated control over huge things such as empires is something I want to do while playing Civ. Realism should be followed only when it is more intuitive, playable or easier to grasp than the unrealistic one. One should expect to find all the laws of logic in the game (like unit that was there the last time I checked is there still, if I haven't moved it). There must be simple rules, that players can master. This realism doesn't fulfil those requirements.

One more point: there are already a terrible amount of people complaining that it is too hard to get rich in Civ. If we add more complexity, we have a whole bunch of people without any clue as to what is it that they are supposed to do. I can hang on in Emperor (and mostly win), but there are a lot of people out there that can't get past warlord. For me, at first glance, that seems very strange indeed. Until I learned that these people simply don't know the rules. They are frustrated that they don't seem to get a hang on the game, and they are happy as hell when someone explains it to them. Suddenly it is clear. And so we have players jumping up and down because they just won in warlord. With your system, I am afraid, we would have fewer of those happy people..

Hopefully I have not been overly indecipherable. I just woke up

 

[Trade-peror]

@GeZe:

Actually, it certainly seems as if exclusive currency, interest rates, and inflation could easily be implemented in my system of economics, and it would boost realism and strategy, but it appears that my system already seems too complex for some (or more than just “some” )…

So, for the moment, I do not know whether I would include that, but please continue to post suggestions!


@rcoutme:

I commend you on being one of the few to have reread this entire thread!

I am sorry that the thread is fairly disorganized at this point, and so it may be somewhat confusing, but I will later be reorganizing the main features of my economy into simple descriptions placed in the first post…when that time comes, hopefully everything will be easier to see!

As for your two questions concerning the slide bars, that governs the distribution of goods, and has a direct effect on commodity trading because it determines what commodities are being allocated to inter-city trade. For example, I could set a small city to 100% storage on the food slider to promote rapid growth, and perhaps set the first shield slider to 100% sale, selling the city’s shields to generate more income to buy food with. A large but unproductive city, on the other hand, could choose to have 50% storage and 50% sale on the food slider to generate some revenue from the excess food, and use the income to purchase additional shields from other cities selling shields.

As for your scenario, see if these explanations are adequate:

Turn 1: Found City A.
Notes: On this first turn, there is not much to do trade-wise. It would be best to turn all sliders to 100% storage and 100% internal production (and probably 100% “heavy industry” to produce the first settler or military unit, as opposed allocating any shields to consumer goods). No monetary trade is yet being generated.

Turn 5: City A is population 2.
Notes: By now, the settler may have been completed, and improving terrain around the city could be boosting food and shield production appreciably. All sliders should still be at 100% storage and internal production, and potential wealth in the form of stored food and shield capacity should be increasing. Monetary trade is still not yet being generated, because the city can currently satisfy its own needs, and therefore does not need to trade yet.

Turn 15: Found City B, City A is still population 2.
Notes: With this second city, trade is now a possibility, for City B certainly has not satisfied all of its needs compared to City A. If the distance between the cities is short enough, then the two cities can begin trading, although it is still not extremely important at this stage. City B should be set just as City A was originally, and City A can set some portion of its sliders to Sale of food or shields to aid City B. If City B does not have enough purchasing power to afford food or shields, then federal subsidies can help. If trade is thus encouraged, then some monetary wealth (which can be used for science) should be generated.

Turn 55: Found City C, City A and City B each have 3 population, all cities are connected by road.
Notes: City C, depending on where it is founded, can contribute significantly to the civ. If City C is founded near cattle, which is a special food resource, then City C may want to set its food slider to 100% Sale to sell the cattle. City A and City B, larger in population and perhaps boasting an improvement or two, could likely be wealthy enough to buy cattle instead of mere “food” from the market. City C would then have a considerable stream of revenue, and that could be used to buy the food from the market that City A and City B replaced with cattle. In addition, the roads that are being used to carry products back and forth will generate additional trade, and the cities that can claim such spots will be even wealthier. This robust trade should be allow for a healthy buildup of the federal treasury and vigorous scientific research.

Note how the improvements actually make a difference in the economies of City A and City B! This is due to the fact that they require maintenance from the federal government. This maintenance, however, is paid to the city to maintain that improvement, which means that the city actually can count the maintenance as part of its revenue! With this new economic system, it may not be negative at all to pay maintenance, because it just goes back into the economy to indirectly produce even more trade! Possibilities abound with this feature—for example, it is now possible to have “defense spending” (in the form of barracks) actually boost the economy!

In addition, I assume the government to be despotism. In later forms of government, the sliders of the individual cities will pretty much be set automatically to reflect the configuration that generates the most revenue and products for the city.

Overall, I will simply say that trade will become of importance at a slightly later stage in the game, as opposed to its immediate importance in Civ. However, my economic system would allow trade to grow exponentially throughout the game, if strong foundations are laid, while the Civ system proceeds at its steady pace.

If I am still unclear, then please ask me to clarify!


@Shyrramar:

Indeed “What is Civ about?” is an interesting question, I now realize, and actually I still do not really have a definite answer.

I do agree that culture, science, conquest, and building a bustling empire out of a small pathetic start are all goals that the Civ player strive toward, yet I do not see anything wrong with adding wealth to the list. I think it would be an interesting and realistic ( ) goal for a Civ to try to maximize its trade. Besides, my system allows the economy to be more helpful in achieving the other aims. To conquer another enemy, impose embargoes and not only cut off their strategic resources, but also correspondingly decrease their revenue to threaten the maintenance of their military. This economic system places much importance on active trade routes, so building cities near such trade routes should generate enough revenue to allow these cities to flourish. The fact that improvements actually *boost* the economy of the cities they are built in will help in encouraging their construction. As a result, science and culture would benefit. I see many ways in how this new economic system will not only help trade but also conquest, culture, science, city-building, and improvements. In any case, my system can help more than the current Civ system towards conquest, culture, science, city-building, and improvements.

I also realize that I had indeed listed all of the negative aspects of Civ (after I posted ), in what I charged to be uncontrollable aspects of Civ. Although by implication I seem to be grouping my own economic system with such undesirable elements, I certainly am not—in fact, I mention these uncontrollable aspects only because I am not convinced we will be relieved of them soon, unfortunately…

As for the general methods I cite for economic success with my system, apparently 2 of the 5 already match what Civ players already do, and that is excellent. #2 and #3 can be easily demonstrated—if I have only a few sources of cattle, I should try to locate more. Also, if I have only cattle to trade, I should look for wheat, iron, and gems to diversify. Also, #5 simply means connect everything. Connect all cities, colonies, producers, markets, whatever. That constitutes the “managing” of the trade, and it probably something Civ players do already.

Also, and quite interestingly, I note how you list 4 methods of increasing wealth, but not TRADE. I agree with all of them as far as wealth, but not trade. For example, building improvements increases wealth, but only by increasing what can be derived from trade. A city using only one square with a road on it will not generate any more money if it had a marketplace, bank, and stock exchange. Trading with the AI can increase wealth through lump sums or gold per turn, but those are generally temporary and volatile arrangements (especially because the AIs are certainly “drooling idiots” that are “stupid as hell” ). That leaves only the two essential methods I cite for increasing TRADE on a more permanent basis—build roads and boost population.

Finally, I must say that my economic system is still not very realistic compared to reality—my system assumes a uniform currency, uniform interest rates, stable markets, stable production, uniform leadership, none of the complex money market devices in the stock market, no inflation, no employment issues, no labor unions, and so forth! Including all of that would add realism, but would be unnecessarily complicating. I certainly would not advocate any degree realism if I did not think it would expand and add to game play and fun!

And your one last point concerning the difficulty of making money—I understand, because I have that problem myself! As I mentioned before, I am convinced that my trade system will generate much more wealth than Civ’s due to the many possibilities it has. Economic growth with my system will tend to grow exponentially—with slow growth initially but rapid growth later—while Civ’s flat system is more linear, and unable to keep up with the exponential increase of costs. In Civ, military and improvement maintenance are simply burdens on the treasury; with my system, they stimulate the economy (and such effects will become greater with time).

Perhaps I could put my system this way—at first it seems complex, but players will soon get used to it because it “makes sense,” with very few arbitrary concepts they are forced to accept. I know Civ only has one arbitrary concept—that roads produce trade—but it is accordingly so limited. My system will have no intra-city trade (heck, maybe just think of them as individual people, if that will make it easier) and no other forced axioms that I can think of off the top of my head, but will have many possibilities. Even if my system does seem complicated, it will all come naturally and intuitively because it springs from such basic ideas. There are plenty of complex concepts people encounter everyday and address without problem, and it is all because it “makes sense”…I do not see my economic system as an exception.

Please continue to post any thoughts and questions that come up!

 

[rcoutme]

Ok, going back to turn 55 (I know I am probably sounding incredibly obtuse but here goes): How do cities A & B decide to buy the cattle that city C is selling. Who makes that decision and why? I am still fairly lost on that point. Perhaps I simply do not understand where the wealth (i.e. buying power?) of cities A & B are coming from. How did they generate enough money to afford to buy the nicer meals (i.e. beef products)?

Also, what about the leather trade that the beef should be generating (currently represented by an extra shield)? Did we lose that ability?

 

[Shyrramar]

Turn 5: City A is population 2.
Notes: By now, the settler may have been completed, and improving terrain around the city could be boosting food and shield production appreciably. All sliders should still be at 100% storage and internal production, and potential wealth in the form of stored food and shield capacity should be increasing. Monetary trade is still not yet being generated, because the city can currently satisfy its own needs, and therefore does not need to trade yet.

WOW! You are quite a player, Trade-peror! In five turns your city has first grown to size three, then produced a settler and even has grown to size two! You are quite a guy!

I am in a bit hurry now, so I will reply with a more serious attitude later

 

[rcoutme]

Shyrramar, lol, I was thinking the same thing. That was originally why I had turn 5, I was assuming the city had just made it to size 2.

 

[rcoutme]

How about this:

Why do we constantly fall short on figuring out economic and research systems? Because we have been trying to simulate the idea that the workers on the ground have scientists and merchants in their ranks. How about this:

You don't get trade coins from working the land. Farmers and laborers produce food and shields only.

You have to assign people to trade or science to get any money/research. Thus, more food is produced than is necessary. Early expansion will require less money and resources to science.

Example: You start with one guy in the city. You could (probably wouldn't though) assign him to either 1. science, 2. money (i.e merchant/tax collector) 3. production (i.e. of army unit or whatever) 4. allow him to work land (most probable). Working the land would yeild food (unless mountain or desert, of course) and possibly small number of shields.

When you are size 2, same options. However. If nobody is a merchant, you get no money. If nobody is science, you get no science. If nobody is laborer then you still get a limited (but lesser) amount of shields for production (maybe allow a laborer to give 3 or 4 shields per turn).

Obviously, this will require a rethinking on the amount of food that an individual tile can produce (probably typically 3 or 4 so that science, merchant and labor can be used extensively).

Problems: Most will say, "Way to much micromanagement!" Well, that would be true for those who do not want to trust a (hopefully much improved) governor of the city. Early on, micromanagement may be highly useful. Later, the problems of running an entire civilization will get the player to trust his governors more (or have the tedium of insane micromanagement).

Benefits: Now a given city improvement will only help if the correct people are there to use it. What good is a library if the all the people are out on the farm. Now you need to devote some population to research--directly. Those marketplaces will no longer run themselves, you have to assign merchants to be in the stalls.

This could also go along with some of trade_perror's criticisms of the current economic model.

When trade starts coming in, in the form of resources/luxuries, merchants will make more money because of the access to better goods.

Since Firaxis has said that religion will play a part, now you have to assign people as clerics, temples and cathedrals will enhance their happy face bonuses. So now you have entertainers (perhaps amphitheaters etc enhance them) giving happy faces and you have clerics (i.e. priests or whatever) also giving happy faces. Assigning money to luxuries is no longer an option. You have to assign people. Maybe allow huge amounts of money to make people happy, but remember that just giving people money would really have only a temporary effect until inflation kicked in anyways.

 

[Trade-peror]

@rcoutme:

To be brief, City A and City B decide to buy beef instead of regular "food" because specialized food resources are more desirable, yet function the same as food. Notice that cattle has simply replaced food.

Purchasing power comes from selling products. Remember City A and City B trading food and/or production? That generates the trade that increases both cities income, not to mention the bonus commerce from the roads being used, if there are any. Improvements also increase a city's income because the federal government is basically paying the city to maintain a public facility.

As for the leather trade, well, I was actually thinking that the cattle is primarily for food, so it should only count as food, but I suppose some products could fulfill more than one need...in any case, that detail can be worked out during playtesting or whenever. Any suggestions are welcome!

As for the miraculous city growth, actually I was not really thinking about what numbers I was using, apparently! Certainly those numbers are probably not realistic for that stage of the game, but I hope you got the idea anyway.

In your second post, you mention that working the land should not generate trade coins. I completely agree--that issue is one of the primary motivations behind making this new system. Unfortunately, assigning population to money or research seems very odd to me, although it would very likely work well in a gameplay situation. Now, it seems as if the population has three options: go out to work the land, stay in the city and *produce* money, or stay in the city and contemplate science the whole day. I have no problem with working the land, not much of a problem with the science, but quite a problem with the money. What do these merchants do that can spontaneously generate wealth, independent of the other factors? Do they mint gold coins or print money? That is likely not the case, and likely not what you are suggesting, but it ought to be addressed. Wealth, fundamentally, is material goods; generating wealth involves exchanging material goods, between two parties that give the goods different values. This basic tenet of economics could be bypassed because a city could, in theory, not work the land at all (surviving off the food imported from other cities) and assign everyone to be a merchant. The job of a merchant, however, is to buy/produce goods and sell them at a higher price for profit. How can a city that produces nothing generate wealth at all, since the merchants will have nothing to buy/sell to produce anything? It seems to me as if the merchants are wealth farmers, and merely assigning them to "money farming" will generate money. That is illogical to me; therefore, I do not agree with the idea of assigning "merchants."

Hopefully you are not offended by my criticism, rcoutme, because your idea is certainly a Civ-reasonable idea that many people are likely to understand quickly and like. I, unfortunately, have my principles and theories and philosophies that compel me to examine everything to theoretical extremes. Whether that is positive or not is debatable, but I do encourage you to pursue and elaborate your idea, and possibly address some of the issues I point out. Please post more suggestions!

@Shyrramar:

In a fit of absentmindedness, I did not even notice how outrageous those numbers in my example were! Well, of course they are made up, but hopefully I got my point across...

 

[rcoutme]

Ok, as for how would a merchant "generate" his wealth, I agree that it is an oversimplification. The basic tenet was to get to a more balanced system (such as in the Avalon Hill board game Civilization). If you think the current system is illogical, try that one! Basically every city would produce two treasury which came out of the stock available for population growth!

What I was thinking was that merchants/tax collectors would be operating inside the city with the goods produced by the various groups around the city. This class would include shop owners, clothiers, bakers, etc. It would (probably) not include blacksmiths and other similar artisans (who would be reflected more in the shields production--or laborers when you started assigning them).

If the idea of wealth being produced before viable trade routes gives you problems, then how about thinking of it as each of the citizen icons is similar to your idea of each of the cities?

At any rate, it would be a strange player who assigned lots of people to merchant/taxes early in the game as it would seriously stunt both your growth and science.

Another thought had occurred to me about this system. Scientists, etc. could be a small number of the population so each square could be worked by a set number of head icons (let's say two for purposes of argument). If you picked up one of the worked squares, you would have two people to assign to other duties (be it city guard, merchant, scientist, entertainer, cleric, laborer, whatever). For simplicity sake, all squares would have to be worked by two people (unless and until some sort of technology changed this, such as agri-farming etc.) The numbers could also be tweaked (i.e. maybe each square is a 3 or 4 set of people) so that the game could have a really nice flavor of large city occupation.

It just seems silly to me that assigning someone to collect taxes is less productive (economically) than having the same people out plowing fields. This was rarely, if ever, the case in human history.

 

[Trade-peror]

I certainly do see the Civilization board game as incredibly oversimplified, but the fact that it is a board game that has no computer processing warrants such simplification (I heard that Civ as a board game still took too long per turn...a problem that remains! )

I do understand that you implied that merchants would be using the products of the rest of the population for trade, and it would clearly be an odd player who assigned everyone to being a merchant, but I was merely exploring the theoretical extreme. Note that with your system, generation of wealth and production are independent. This translates into the merchants and their goods being independent. A result is that the number of merchants has no effect (although if the production was the same, they should all be competing for the same amount of goods to trade with) and the amount of production is irrelevant (no matter how many goods are produced and ready for trading, the merchants will not have any more success generating wealth despite having more goods to sell). That constitutes a problem that will likely reveal itself later in the game, with a large economy, where small incongruities can become large and glaring. Therefore, I suggest a reconsideration.

The science idea is interesting, but gets into the model of portraying population. I have an old thread here with some ideas, but I will be starting a new thread on this issue later on, and with possibly different ideas. The old thread, however, might still be of interest...

As for tax collecting being less productive than farm laboring, that would depend on definitions of wealth. It may interest you to know, however, that economics fundamentally involves production, so farm laboring is in fact "more economically productive" than tax collecting. What you probably meant was tax collectors can "generate more money" than farmers. That I agree, but the money still has to come from somewhere. Anyway, I would like to hear any comments or questions concerning this matter.