The Unified Economic Theory

[Trade-peror]

Again, it appears as if we have taken another detour, concerning corruption. I do not mind, of course, for corruption and waste obviously have significant effects on the economy, perhaps more in my model than in Civ's current model, so corruption and waste are not exactly "off topic."

For the moment, I see happiness and government regulation as the prime determinants of corruption. Notice that I have combined corruption and crime--their effects are essentially the same, with the only difference being that one is upper class and the other is lower class. Corruption would result in the loss of city revenue. Waste, which represents inefficiency, is determined primarily by technology. Waste results in the loss of food and shields, since both are susceptible to wasteful methods.

Anyway, I do also hope to see what any of you think about my "demand capture" concept (post #68, I think). That is probably the modification I will go with for my summary of the UET. Again, sorry, the UET summary may not be up for another week due to the new influx of ideas and my lack of free time.

Any thoughts are welcome!

 

[Ryth]

Deo - I really liked your idea - even tho we already do get upgrades for how much per square is produced for certain techs, an extra thing to build (like we do for barracades) would work in really well.
PS: at least I understood your suggestion!

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

Ok. I haven't read everything yet, just the major posts on the first page, so if I'm diverting from the topic, please stay with me and forgive me.

A simple solution to the simpicity of the economy that wouldn't make it so intensly complex as Trade-peror is suggesting would be to have each set of sqaures have a range of trade values with which each square would produce per turn. That way, on one turn, a square may produce 0 trade (because there was so little trade occured in that square in that turn that the tax outcome was virtually inexistant), while on the next turn the square could produce 3 or 4 trade (because there was much more trade occuring on that square and so much more taxes were generated. This way, the entire economy would depend on the leaning of squares, and so you could have a few turns when you have a very foul economy (very little trade produced from all of your squares), while you could have some turns where your economy skyrockets (very much trade produced from all of your squares). The trade could be affected also by governmental decisions. For example, if trade is very bad in a certain number of turns, then lowering the income tax collected could increase trade (as happened the last year in the US with George W. Bush--don't get me wrong, though, I hate the guy). Anyway, this would influence the game much more, and make things related slightly more to chance, but still able to be understood by the general public.

 

[Trade-peror]

@ShADoW^HawK:

While your model is incredibly simpler than my suggested model, I would like to point out a premise I disagree with:

First, what determines how much trade a square generates on a particular turn? Fundamentally, the "leaning" of squares seems based on chance, with player actions that can somewhat modify these chances. This means the basis of the economy is chance!

I am sorry if I was not clear before, but my model bases NOTHING on chance and by NO means do I advocate any model that does base anything on chance! In addition, I do not want to make a model that forces the economy through recessions and booms; they should occur only if they have reason to occur. Although I do agree your model might influence the game "much more" , besides being easier to "understand" to the general public.

Assuming you had simply misunderstood me to propose such an idea, I hope I do not appear too harsh. I do note your different and interesting approach to Civ's economic model problems at hand , however, and I welcome any more suggestions you have concerning my model or this matter in general!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

A confess that I have been copping a LOT of flak lately over my ideas about Private Sector Influence in your Civs economy. Especially in regards to the bugbear of 'MICROMANAGEMENT'!!!
First up, what I find so amusing about this is that those who argue the loudest about the MM issue are often also the strongest advocates for keeping Worker management in the game . Now THERE is some major Micromanagement.
All my idea refers to is a slide bar, not unlike the luxury slider in Civ3, that determines the % influence of the private sector. This Private sector is essentially an amalgam of ALL private industries, from the lone 'entrepaneur' up to your huge multinational conglomerates.
Once you've set the level of influence, then dealing with the private sector would be absolutely NO DIFFERENT to dealing with a foreign civ-in ANY WAY! It would make the game a great deal more realistic, interesting and challenging, as there would always be a part of your civ over which you'd have NO real control. You couldn't get along without them completely, though, as to do so would lead to a stagnant and corrupted economy-just as we saw in the Soviet Union and in North Korea. The flip side, though, is that the private sector, like another civ, might get the jump on you in technology and/or resources, making you more dependant on them for survival. There is also nothing to stop them from forging alliances with other civs or their private sectors! You could try and come down on them and/or threaten them with reprisals, but this could do more harm than good!
Anyway, my point is that much of this would be AI controlled, leaving the player to focus on diplomacy, war and infrastructure issues. If even this is too much for some people, then it should be possible to assign a 'government'! This would be an AI, much like the Governer, but one which operates at the national level. The government can adjust your Social Engineering and Economic sliders, leaving you to focus on the more 'core elements' of the game. How much they adjust these sliders, and the sliders they choose to adjust, would greatly depend on government type you are currently in, and your civ characteristics. For instance, under modern democracy/republic, your 'government' would be more....interventionist' in adjusting the sliders than in a monarchy or communist government. There would be nothing to stop you, though, from going in and adjusting the settings yourself, or even switching off the 'government', if you see fit!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[GeZe]

I had an idea that would advance the idea of specializing cities.
How about different types of sheilds? There would be wood sheilds, rock sheilds and metal sheilds. Wood sheilds would come from forests and rock and metal sheilds would come from mountains and hills. Units would need a type of these sheilds to be built, for instance catapolts, they would need wood to be built. And the wonders, you can't build the pyrimids woth wood can you? This idea would allow certain cities to sepcilize in the making of a certain type of sheilds. Then the cities would trade the sheilds on the market.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Geze,

I actually feel that, where shields and food are concerned, then some level of abstraction is still required-at least within that city (i.e. food is food, and shields are shields).
However, where it CAN become important-as I've mentioned in a previous post-is in trade between cities and civs.
So, as an example, if you have a city surrounded by mountains/hills, then a large percentage of the shields they vector to the central pool will comprise of stone and minerals. Wheras a city with forests will probably send more wood and forest products.
Grasslands will produce predominantly rare earths, minerals and natural fibres.
The point is, though, that as far as an indvidual city would be concerned, these shields would be interchangeable. When it comes to selling and buying these shields-both to and from the central 'trading pool'-then the relative rarity of each of the different 'TYPES' of shields will be an important factor in how much they are worth!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, on the subject of city specialisation, I have thought of an 'alternative' approach to my 'multiple improvements per city' approach.
Basically, instead of X factories and Y Banks per city, you would have a total of between 3-4 'Industrial' improvements per age, 3-4 'Commercial' Improvements per age etc. This means that each city could have, at a maximum, 12 of each BROAD type of improvement by the end of the game. Of course, the TOTAL number of each improvement type you could have, in a city, would still depend on the 'city size'.
Each improvement would not become automatically obsolete, but would need to be upgraded at the start of each age. So, for instance, all of your ancient production improvements would need to be upgraded when you enter the Middle Ages. If you don't upgrade, then these improvements will become less effecient!
Anyway, the real element of specialisation, under this system, is by adjusting the slider, in the city, to determine what % of your population are labourers, farmers, lawmakers/lawkeepers etc. The base % will be dependant on the types of improvements the city builds, and what type of tiles and tile improvements are being worked.
For example, when a city is first built, you use your population to obtain food from grassland and forest products (i.e. shields) from a forest. This means that their will be a roughly 50/50 split between farmers and labourers. You then build a smithy in your city, and suddenly the split might shift to being more 40/60 and so on.
You can manually adjust these percentages, above the baseline, a la CtP I and II. When you do this, then you'll get a bonus to food production, shield production, reduced crime/corruption etc-depending on what part of the work force you're increasing.
Beware, though, as each tile, tile improvement and city improvement has both 'minimum' and 'maximum' population 'costs'-i.e., the population needed to 'staff' them. If you adjust your specialisation such that the number of specialists is GREATER than the maximum population required to run the appropriate improvements, then you'll have a problem with unemployment.
As always, if you're no fan of micromanagement (or especially in the late game), then you can simply leave it all up to your city's governer!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@GeZe:

I am glad you agree that specialization of cities would be very beneficial to any future version of Civ. As for your suggestion of having different types of shields, I can see how it would aid in specialization, yet I cannot say it would necessarily be a good idea simply due to the specifics. In other words, which types of shields should there be? You start off with wood, stone, and metal, which are all fine--for ancient and middle ages, that is. In later ages, synthetic fibers and plastic become more significant structurally, while wood and particularly stone decrease. "Metal" would be too unspecific, for the iron of the ancients would be the aluminum and steel of today.

Even more importantly, however, is the likely complication of the construction of improvements and units. Is everything built with only one type of material? If so, then some units and structures could be difficult to categorize. If not, and a combination of resources is necessary, then many units and structures may end up becoming very difficult to produce, besides having a cost that is difficult to remember (I think many long-time Civ players eventually memorize the statistics of what they work with). Therefore, perhaps shields ought to be kept "generic."

I can also see how that could be used against my food specialization feature in the UET, but the difference is that the various shields have different applications with the above system, while specialized food retains the basic functions of food regardless of the type of food. For example, one wood cannot be substituted for one stone, but one fish could easily substitute for one fish (with the only consequence being possibly different pricing).

@Aussie_Lurker:

Although I understand your premise for shields becoming specialized upon transfer to other civilizations, I do not necessarily see the purpose. If the shields are not distinguishable as far as a city's production is concerned, then why should there be an differentiating effect upon selling the shields to other civilizations, which will ultimately end up in city production anyway? The only purpose I see is in influencing the level of profit from such sales.

I would likely rather not have this "double standard" in values for my UET, however, owing to the fact that trade between cities and trade between civs is identical in the UET with the exception of treaty relation effects (tariffs, quota restrictions, embargoes, and so forth).

As for the concept of multiple improvements, I do agree that cities should be able to "specialize" in improvements (or simply have more than one for the sake of coverage and effectiveness). Also, the limit on each building should be the population. To justify the construction of every improvement, however, more distinction would have to exist between each improvement. For example, Marketplace, Bank, and Stock Exchange should not all produce identical cumulative effects; there must be reason to build more a Bank as opposed to more than one Marketplace. In addition, I do agree that perhaps there should be limits (based on population) for each category of buildings, rather than each individual type of improvement.

 

[Trade-peror]

I recently looked at this thread , and I completely agree that economics should play a much greater role in international relations during the more modern ages. How do you suppose the UET could work for this? I have already hinted throughout my previous posts that tariffs, quotas, trade deals, "common market" agreements, and global economies could be modeled easily with the UET; I do not have time to go into the details right now, however. Any suggestions you have before I post the features of the UET relating to this topic would be welcome!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Trade Peror.

I think you misunderstood what I was on about before. My idea works in almost an identical fashion to the 'food specialisation' model I've mentioned previously.
For instance, lets say that you have a city that is working 3 hill squares and 2 forest squares, for a total of 6 shields from the hills, and 4 shields from the forest-or 10 shields altogether. Under my model, if this city decided to sell 6 of its shields to the 'central pool', then about 2 of the shields would represent stone, 2 shields would represent 'minerals', 1 shield would be 'forest products' and the last shield would be 'wood'. This would ONLY be important for determine the make-up of the 'central pool'. How much the city would get for each shield would depend on several factors. The city's wealth, its distance from the capital and the relative scarcity of each 'shield' type in the pool.
For instance, lets say that the city had a wealth of 200 and is 6 hexes from the capital. Then the city will make 2*6=12gpt for each of the shields its vectoring, or 120gpt total. Also, say that there was only 1 mineral shield in the central pool, but more than 10 wood shields, then the 2 mineral shields would be worth a great deal more, each, than the wood shields.
On the other side of the equation, say a city with wealth 100 and is only 3 hexes from the capital, then it will pay 1*3=3gpt for every shield it obtains from the central pool. It would pay more for the scarcer mineral shields than the wood shields but, once it arrived in the city, they would go into the same, general shield 'pool', without any further differentiation.
Anyway, thats basically how I see it working. Hope this spells out my ideas a bit better!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

Actually, I do think I understand your model, especially as you have clarified in the previous post , yet I still do not see the purpose of determining the material composition of the "central pool."

This would ONLY be important for determine the make-up of the 'central pool'.

I interpret the "ONLY" to mean that all "types" of shields--wood, stone, mineral, etc.--still function as one shield as far as production is concerned.

Of course, then I remember that in a previous post you had actually converted all production to "wealth" (labelled with gpt), meaning that the "production" value is actually irrelevant, as costs are in monetary wealth. If this is true, then all makes sense, although I would probably disagree with such a premise (which I could explain later, if you would like).

If I continue to misunderstand, then please feel free to clarify further!

 

[rcoutme]

I believe that Trade_Perror (correct me if I am wrong T_P) means that the composition would matter because the scarcity or commonality of the goods affects how much they are worth in the open market. Thus, if you come from a wooded area (let's say the Canadian region) your goods are going to fetch a much higher price in Egypt and the Middle East since they have a relative scarcity of trees. Meanwhile, if a lot of their 'shields' are coming from bonus 'oil wells' their shields will fetch higher prices in Canada (due to its lack of petroleum).

 

[Trade-peror]

@rcoutme:

Yes, that appears to be the case. For me, however, such differentiations in value would necessitate differentiation in the products as well. In other words, if the shields will vary in value due to whether they are wood, stone, or some other material, then the shields ought to be either wood, stone, or other materials rather than generic "shields."

 

[Trade-peror]

The extension of international trade and diplomacy seem to be in general demand, particularly to distinguish the currently dull Modern Age from previous ages. While Civ 3 currently has a system of luxury and strategic resource trading that is rather limited (in terms of options), the UET could probably be more interesting.

To begin with, the need for markets or supplies precipitates the need for Trade Agreements. A few options, for example:

1. Limited Trade - only certain cities, or a certain number of cities, are available for foreign trade.
2. Regulated Trade - a Tariff will likely raise the prices of traded foreign products (as well as generate revenue for the participating government).
3. Specific Trade - trade of only a certain commodity will be allowed.
4. Quota Trade - only a certain amount of products will be traded.
5. Free Trade - the cities of the participating civs will belong to one large market with no internal barriers.

Most likely a Trade Agreement will turn out to be some combination of the above options.

An Embargo agreement would be similar to a trade agreement, except that the above options would apply to a product being restricted, rather than traded. For example:

1. Limited Embargo - only certain cities are barred from trading a product.
2. Specific Embargo - only a certain commodity will be barred from trade.
3. Complete Embargo - no trade between the two governments involved.

The other options are actually the same as they are balancing between restricting and permitting (Embargo and Trade).


Trade Agreements and Embargos, however, determine the state of trading relations between civs; the UET could also allow for one-time Trade Deals. These would most likely be transfers of products in special situations. For example, if disorder has unexpectedly destroyed a large portion of farmland, a Trade Deal for food to fill up granaries while the food production system is rebuilt could be useful. In fact, this could as well apply to trading military units--a popular topic of discussion--and simply treat the units are products involved in the Trade Deal.

In addition, these diplomatic options would not be limited to only two civs; it should be possible to create, for example, a European Common Market-type of economic arrangement.

Clearly all of these options are quite versatile and would greatly enrich the Modern Age game, where shooting wars should give way to economic wars. Of course, any suggestions or comments regarding this facet of the UET (or this topic in general) would be welcome!

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I finally managed to read the whole thread!!!
IMHO when you(all) give a specific example=how that works in game, what is the interface etc it makes for much more relaxed reading...could you please do it again for your last post?
I didn'nt get the LT concept. what "available for trade" means?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Now you see, what Rcoutme has suggested is pretty much what I've been saying. i.e., that the sale price of a shield/food 'unit' depends on the relative scarcity of its source for the buyer. But I feel that shield/food 'type' should ONLY be an issue in shield/food TRADING, not in actual usage for building or the making of 'processed goods'. Of course, another possibility is to make the number of shields/food a city produces MUCH more dependant on the source of that resource. So, as an example, a mountain tile might produce 4 shield units compared to 2 from hills, wheras a forest might produce 3 shields! Bonus, luxury or strategic resources might increase the maximum amount of shields the tile could produce-as could the presence of a tile improvement and tile over-exploitation.
As a means of ensuring that other civs are willing to buy 'scarce' commodities, perhaps such commodities could act as a 'pseudo' luxury.
This works best if your cities happiness ratings are on a 1-100 scale, rather than the current 'happy face' system!
Anyway, under this system, we could say that a 'genuine' luxury,as defined in civ3, could give happiness rating of 10 out of 100. Scarce commodities, on the other hand, grant happiness relative to their scarcity, but say from 1-5 points. If we say that a commodity is ONLY scarce if there are fewer than 10 units of them from that source, then the system could be 1 happiness point for every 2 units LESS than 10 of that source.
I know that might sound confusing, but let me explain by example.
One way it could work is: Say that there are 8 units of 'marine produce' in a civs 'trading pool'. They send it to a city that produces NO food units from a marine source. If you send 6 of these 'marine produce' units to that city, then you boost their happiness by 2 points, because the resource is so scarce within your empire (i.e. if there were only 1-2 units, it would grant a 5 point happiness bonus, 3-4 units would grant 4 points etc, etc). The second, and better, way to do it would be to base the happiness value on how scarce the commodity in the recipient city. So, for example, sending 3 units of 'marine produce' to a city with NO marine produce would boost happiness by 4 points. If the city already had 3 of its food coming from marine sources (sea or river tiles), then it would only boost happiness by 3 points. If that city had 5 units of food from marine sources, then it would only boost happiness by 2 points, and so on!
Using this system would make both the player and the AI place greater value of those types of commodities which are most scarce within their empire!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Garbarsardar.jr:

Congratulations! Reading this entire thread is becoming increasingly impressive!

As for an example, I am glad you asked. See if this helps:

Civ A has 5 wheat and 7 silks. Civ B has 4 fish and 8 iron. Since both have products that the other demands, they could work out a Trade Agreement that could benefit both civs immensely. However, they have the following options:

1. Limited Trade - Civ A could decide that it only wants City AA and City AB to be involved in trade with Civ B. This means that Civ B can only purchase Civ A's products or sell its own products in City AA or City AB. Civ A could alternately want to limit trade to only 2 of its cities. Then, once two of Civ A's cities trade with (buy from/sell to) Civ B, then the rest of Civ A is off-limits for trading. If that is the case, most likely the cities with the greatest demand or supply would end up trading first.

2. Regulated Trade - Civ A could decide to impose a Tariff of 1 gold per product sold in Civ A from Civ B. Then the prices of all of Civ B's goods would increase by 1 gold, and Civ A would also profit by 1 gold from each product sold. The general effect is that Civ B's products are less desirable than the same domestic products.

3. Specific Trade - Civ A could decide that it only wants to buy fish from Civ B. Then Civ B will not be allowed to sell iron or any other goods besides fish in Civ A.

4. Quota Trade - Civ A could decided that it only wants to buy 3 fish per turn from Civ B. Then Civ B will not be able to sell all 4 of its fish available for sale, only 3 can be sold in Civ A.

5. Free Trade - Civ A and Civ B will trade with each other as if they are the cities of the same civilization. Recall that inter-city trade within a civ is not subject to quotas, tariffs, or any other regulation, depending purely on supply and demand!

As for embargos, say that Civ A declared war on one of Civ B's allies (Civ C). A few possible options:

1. Limited Embargo - Civ B could impose an embargo on trading with only those cities of Civ A that are close enough to Civ C to contribute to the conflict.

2. Specific Embargo - Civ B could refuse to sell iron to Civ A in an attempt to halt the conflict.

3. Complete Embargo - Civ B could refuse to buy/sell anything from Civ A.

Many combinations are also possible. For example, Civ A could decide to allow trade in fish in only City AA to the quantity of 2 fish per turn, with a tariff of 1 gold per fish sold. Civ B could refuse to sell iron to only City AC and City AD due to proximity to hostilities.

Actually, I forgot to mention that the duration of these agreements can be set as well. In addition, they are an item of diplomatic trade; Civ B could easily persuade Civ A into ending the war with Civ C by offering a more lucrative Trade Deal.

Obviously the possibilities are endless! In fact, I think the Tariffs section could even be expanded to Tariffs on specific goods, in certain locations, on certain amounts, and so forth. Any suggestions on this or any other feature of the UET are encouraged!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hiya T_P, just wanted to know what you thought of my most recent clarification of 'commodity specialisation'! Is that how you envisage it working in your model?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, T_P, I was looking at your 'Limited Trade Scenario' and I was thinking that this could be adequately represented via my 'central pool' approach to commodity trade. i.e. if civ A only wants City AA and AB to recieve civ B's commodities, then Civ A can choose to simply vector that commodity, from CivA's central pool, ONLY to city AA and City AB. This would certainly be the case where, as I stated previously, a city might be poor in a particular 'commodity' (like fish) and therefore sending fish to those cities might boost their happiness ratings.
Basically what I am saying, though, is that all trade between civs moves ONLY between each civs 'central trading pool'-located in their respective capitals (it isn't REALLY, this is merely an abstraction for gameplay purposes!)
All the rest, though, I REALLY like the look of!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.