The Unified Economic Theory

[Garbarsardar.jr]

@Trade-peror Thank you ,I think I understand now, and what you propose has a sound historical background(the system of trade privileges comes to mind).
I have to agree with Aussie that form a player's point of view a central pool makes less micromanagement in the game play.
one question: this model should evolve right? I mean in time the trade system would become(or that could be an option?) more centralized to reflect how trate evolved with the emergence of State(at least in europe).
and a request: could you (both you and Aussie) elaborate a little bit on the particulars of the interface? How the player is presented with these mechanisms?
thanks

 

[Trade-peror]

@Garbarsardar.jr:

To answer your question regarding whether this model should "evolve," I will simply say that a particular mechanism to stimulate such evolution is not necessary--the trade network should be able to evolve naturally. Therefore, in the your instance of centralization, the trade network will tend to become more centralized as more cities are connected to the larger civ-wide network. However, it is perfectly feasible to have different regional economies that have little relation to the "central" economy as well, depending on player preference and actions.

This brings up the issue of how extensive Trade Agreements might actually be, in the case of a civ having regional, disconnected economies. For the moment I suggest that perhaps only the central economy can participate in Trade Agreements, seeing that the central government may not have enough control over the isolated economies. However, I think it possible to also designate which trade networks within the civ should be covered by Trade Agreements. This would go into the issue of States and Provinces, which I currently do not have time to explain, but hopefully what I have said so far makes some sense.

As for the interface--I have not decided on the details, although I envision a series of checkboxes and sliders. Any suggestions on the specifics or style of interface are welcome!

 

[Trade-peror]

I have just started the summary post of the UET on the first post of this thread. A few details have been modified from what has been stated in my posts. Note that I am still not nearly done with this summary yet!

Meanwhile, all questions and comments are encouraged!

 

[Ballazic]

Your idea stinks.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Ballazic:
I am sorry that my idea does not seem to fit your preferences, but could you please explain why? If I could adjust my theory more to your liking, then I would.

 

[Trade-peror]

Note that I have added a section to the summary post describing the role of the military in the UET. Any thoughts or questions on that aspect are welcome!

 

[Trade-peror]

I have added a section to the UET summary concerning the specialization of resources. Perhaps I should start organizing the statements soon!

 

[Mgoering]

Honestly, I dis'nt read it all. However, what I read goes in the same direction of those I responded this :

CIVILIZATION IS A GLOBAL GAME !!!!!!!!!

A lot of you want to transform Civ into something more realistic and detailed. Sure we can make it more these ways, as the computers are more and more able to wun such a game. But a game with detailed commerce system, detailed war system, detailed politic system, detailed diplomacy system and detailed prodction system, is no more a game, IT'S LIFE, IT'S SOCIETY !

So if you really want to manage a virtual detailed society, up to you. But in real life, a society is managed by at least dozens of persons. So in giving Civ4 so much details thain the name of realism, you do the inverse.

So please, give ideas that get little details. Like giving a unit one more attacking point (because you think it doesn't have it's share of), an idea about a new wonder or a new building a new unit. For such things has that forum been created, not for you nabab dreams to come true.

 

[Shyrramar]

@Mgoering: Well, this certainly is not true. The purpose of this forum is to give ideas for Civilization 4. If the only changes you indeed find necessary is one point of attack to some unit, new wonders or new units, that's fine by me, but let people with more imagination have their word. New units, new wonders and even the one attack point can be easily edited in the editor to Civ3. If that satisfies you, then perhaps you don't need cIV at all.

I do however agree, as I have said in the beginning and say now, that this economical system is too complex and takes away the fun of Civilization by taking away the control. Yes, the control is unrealistic, but that means nothing. The whole game is thoroughly unrealistic as it should be. It is a game, not a simulation. A game with thirty years of reign in real time wouldn't probably be such a nice game.

I have read this thread all the time it has existed, and although I have stopped posting (as I see it as useless work), I am against this. No 14-year-old casual player should be faced with such a complex economical system. The strength of civilization is in its simplicity. There are plenty of games out there that may be in need of this sort of economical development. But this is not one of them.

Honestly, guys. With all my heart, I oppose this change you are proposing. I am sorry. The reasons I have given before. I doubt my disagreement does any good, but just so that you don't think there are no opposing views, I state mine here.

But hey, you can always ignore me

 

[Trade-peror]

I understand that the UET seems awfully complicated, especially at this (somewhat ) early brainstorming stage, but all I would like to say is that I do not believe there is any way the entire UET can ever make it into any game (except one I completely design myself, which would no longer be Civ, of course). Therefore, the UET in its current form is all-encompassing and as detailed as possible, with the hope that at least some of the ideas might get through to the developers.

Also, I continue to disagree that the UET would do any justice to the actual complexity of managing economies, wars, politics, or diplomacy (notice how many people are involved in those fields in reality), instead only imparting the minimal ideas possible to represent those fields at all to the depth of replayability. In other words, the UET tries to get just detailed enough to allow for exploration of varying styles of play. I mean, how many ways can someone playing Civ increase TRADE? One--and that is build roads. How can such a lame system be used in a game simulating ANY kind of history, when history has ALWAYS been driven by economic forces?! As "unconventional" as such thinking may be, every event in history can trace its roots to economic needs...politics, diplomacy, conquest, exploration, and technology are all subject to the influence of economic considerations. If Civ is to simulate history at all, it is ironic how economics currently appears only to be a means to some other end, when in reality everything else was a means to economic success (not that I find this comforting, but it is true). And even if all historical considerations are put aside, I find Civ economics to be so dull! The only thing to do is build roads, build improvements to exploit those roads more effectively, or engage in some deal with the AI only to see it declare war on you to stop its gpt payments . How much more UNdynamic can it get?

Of course, therefore, I strongly disagree that I should limit myself to thinking of

ideas that get little details. Like giving a unit one more attacking point (because you think it doesn't have it's share of), an idea about a new wonder or a new building a new unit.

As Shyrramar mentioned, those are already possible through the Civ4 editor. More importantly, they do not fundamentally contribute to building a new game. I would absolutely hate Civ4 if it were only a rehash of Civ3 with a few new graphics and gimmicks. I do not really even think Civ3 to be that much different from Civ2. Some appear to argue that my UET would be too complex for casual players. While we are on the subject of casual players, I might as well say that I do not think many casual players can even sense most of the changes that distinguish Civ3 from Civ2! From first glances at screenshots, both games appear identical with the exception of graphics. Indeed, playing styles are basically the same (try to expand to the far reaches of the earth by 1500 BC ) except for a few modifications to adjust for added concepts such as culture. Unfortunately, Civ3 thus seems to me much more like Civ2.5 (ToT might be Civ 2.2) than actually a new game. I doubt that many casual players can distinguish (in terms of gameplay) between the two games very well. As I said, I would not waste my money on Civ 4 if the same will occur again.

I do admit that the UET may be too much of a leap for the current version of Civ; therefore, I am thinking of simplifying it somewhat in the next few days. Any suggestions would be welcome!

Anyway, I would actually be surprised if this intolerance for brain activity were true for most players of Civ! I thought Civ was a game that required more intelligence and strategic thinking than the average RPG kill-them-all game. I guess every game has to be marketed to "the masses" after all...and all because of the economic forces of reality...

 

[Trade-peror]

@Mgoering:

I have two basic (maybe silly?) questions:

CIVILIZATION IS A GLOBAL GAME !!!!!!!!!

What is a "global game"?

Also, what are "nabab dreams"?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I certainly respect yours, but I really am rather curious about what you mean by those terms.


@Shyrramar:

The strength of Civ lies in its simplicity? That is somehow vaguely disturbing to me...would future versions of Civ become increasingly difficult to make due to the need to stay simple? Or worse, will all future versions of Civ simply be rehashs of previous versions, for the sake of simplicity? I hope not...although I am quite sure that is not what you mean.

Anyway, I very much respect your opinion on this matter, and I am well aware of the opposition to the UET. I only hope that people do not close their minds to an idea upon initially disliking it...there is room for modification, and for negotiation, and ultimately the UET may appeal to some of those people after all.

 

[polypheus]

@Trade-peror

Civ 3 is very different than Civ 2 into terms of the depth of gameplay. The breakthrough concepts of nationality, border/culture, and strategic resources made it a more immersive historical experience. OTOH, I also know what you mean when you say that the game is fundamentally the same old 4X game (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate).

But realize that your UET ideas (and my "increasing historic realism" ideas) would also represent a fundamental shift away from 4X and more in line with something which might be called "SimNation". Many people here would very much like a "SimNation" type game where we move away from "4X" and where managing the complex political-economy of the nation and just experiencing historic ups and downs is the main point of the game. OTOH, there are many who probably do NOT want Civ 4 to be SimNation and would prefer Civ 4 to be primarily a 4x game in which you strive primarily to build yourself up to "victory".

Nevertheless, I think that for Civ 4 to be a breakthrough game, it desperately needs to shift away from 4X and into "SimNation" IMHO because if Civ 4 continues to be a basic 4X game, it can't be very much different fundamentally and in that case, like you, I also wonder if it would be worthwhile to get Civ 4.

 

[Trade-peror]

@polypheus:

I am glad you understand my essential message. Although I somewhat disagree with whether the UET is promoting a brand of SimNation (I would not compare SimCity to the UET, for example), I do agree that the UET is quite a step away from the defining 4X of Civ.

However, I think Civ4 could use some of the depth of the UET to further the 4X experience--which, admittedly, would be a rather tricky venture, but again I agree that a fourth version of 4X, likely with the same style of accomplishing 4X, would be pretty stale.

Overall, I am merely advocating some kind of compromise to infuse Civ4 with some aspect distinguishing it from previous versions.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I can't speak for others, but I can say that MY model is based, IMO, around a very simple, central tenet-that being 'CITY WEALTH'. 'City Wealth' itself is just a simple calculation based on a city's size, the proportion of 'private enterprise in that city', and the earning power of the city's population.
Every other element of the economic model, from per-turn income, to a city's relationship to other cities within that civ-and even trade relationships between nations-can be traced back to this one simple underlying concept.
In addition, everything within my model, from a city's wealth, to how much money your nation recieves per turn (and how much it spends) is ultimately in the hands of the player-though my model ALSO allows for players to palm off some, or all, of the responsibility for the economy to the AI!
So, whilst I feel that my model HAS enhanced realism, my model is simple enough and intereactive enough to retain AND enhance gameplay. At least, it does IMHO !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Shyrramar]

@Trade-peror: I'm in a hurry, but I will clarify one point. By simplicity I ment simplicity as in chess. Simple rules that allow myriads of different ways to play and to operate with the rules. A game is good when it is easy to learn but difficult to master, is it not? I am not a drooling, babbling idiot who is of the opinion that only simple games are good, because they are the only games that I can understand

 

[Shyrramar]

Well, I guess I have time then, since I missed my bus!

I understand that the UET seems awfully complicated, especially at this (somewhat ) early brainstorming stage, but all I would like to say is that I do not believe there is any way the entire UET can ever make it into any game (except one I completely design myself, which would no longer be Civ, of course). Therefore, the UET in its current form is all-encompassing and as detailed as possible, with the hope that at least some of the ideas might get through to the developers.

I have got the impression that your system's concepts are quite intertwined? Does it make it better or worse if you take some of it, but leave the other parts outside? Anyway, would you care to give some sort of list or explanation of the concepts you would most want to see in cIV, even if all of the UET would not make it?

Also, I continue to disagree that the UET would do any justice to the actual complexity of managing economies, wars, politics, or diplomacy (notice how many people are involved in those fields in reality), instead only imparting the minimal ideas possible to represent those fields at all to the depth of replayability.

Of course. I haven't said that, have I? That would be embarrassing
Real life's society is of course way too complicated to be mastered by one person only. That's why we have games. Chess has taught the basics of strategy, for example. That's the fun of it: you can fly a simulated plane in your living room without the tedious training. Even a fraction of the real life complexity in these matters is too much for ordinary folk. However, it might well be that some economy in cIV would actually teach the players something about economics, as civilization has taught them of history and technological progress.

Anyway, I would actually be surprised if this intolerance for brain activity were true for most players of Civ! I thought Civ was a game that required more intelligence and strategic thinking than the average RPG kill-them-all game. I guess every game has to be marketed to "the masses" after all...and all because of the economic forces of reality...

I disagree with the whole notion of civ marketed to "the masses". Civilization is a game that has sold quite well and is well-known and well-respected in the world. What I am thinking more is the players that have already taken civ as their own. If it is changed too much, the old players will disappear - and if it is not changed enough, there won't be enough new players to make up for it. I think that is what happened to Master of Orion 3 - although it was a crappy game in many respects (possibly because they tried to make it too grand for their own good).

So I am not arguing along the lines of sales. I am not asserting that cIV should be simplified (indeed, some complexity is tolerated and probably needed in some parts of the game) so that even my slow and dumb cousin can play it. I am only saying that automation is something that should be avoided - and automation here includes systems that allow players to choose the overall lines and watch the effects (i.e. "nudge" the economy in the right direction). It would be realistic, probably simple too, but it would not be fun. Not too unlike if in chess you would choose your "strategy" and watch the pieces fight it out. This would take away the control of the player, and that is essentially what I am after for with "simplicity". Control is what games are about: control about things that cannot be controlled in reality, and of course about things that are impossible altogether in reality.

If UET could be made so that the (average) player at all times understands what his "nudging" does indeed cause, that the automation would be similar to cities building units now (you don't have to supervise the actual construction, just choose what and with how many shields, and that's it), then I could accept it. But alas, I have not got that impression of the system. Just the sheer amount of explaining you have engaged yourself in, TradePeror (bless you for your determination and patiency with dumb-asses like me!) speaks its own language. If you could make a "baby-UET" that would somehow retain the spirit of your system but also retain a degree of control for the player, now that would be something that would perhaps wake me up again.

And yes, the economical system (read: roadsystem) of civilization is too simple. I am not sure if it is the unintuitiviness of it or what, but people still don't seem to grasp the idea of it. Even though it is simple if anything is! Something in addition to that and the tax-slider would be nice, yes. I am not sure if anything other than trade with other nations should be made better, though. As it is now, the trading system simply sucks, and that makes the roads the only way for one to increase economy. If the trade could be revised so that it was easy and the AI would actually want to trade with you, that would save a lot. Well, anyway, I am waiting for the baby-UET

However, I think Civ4 could use some of the depth of the UET to further the 4X experience--which, admittedly, would be a rather tricky venture, but again I agree that a fourth version of 4X, likely with the same style of accomplishing 4X, would be pretty stale.

Remember in times ancient past I threw you with the best possible weapon a UET-critic can: Master of Orion 3? Well, here it goes again. Have you tried it? You really should, before cIV becomes to Civilization what MoO3 is to Master of Orion. It is a fine idea in MoO3 about the economy. We have unemloyement rates in the game, different kind of industry and different races faring better in different industry, different soils that are better for different industry (or agriculture). There is a real economical model humming in the background. A grand idea, one that I was drooling for along with others. And how many bitter nights have I cried! The system completely sucks. Nobody knows what it is about (although the developer himself came forward and tried to explain it), nobody knows why his or her economy is soaring or falling like a stone. I felt completely detached from the game. The only thing I could do was to choose the planets I wanted to colonize. The infrastructure was too complicated to master, so I left it to the AI. There might of course be other reason for the crappiness of MoO3 - mainly the poor AI that controlled your economy as well as the AI-nations. Nonetheless, I am afraid that UET will not differ much from that.

I hope I am mistaken, but I am wary. Fine ideas don't always make good applications.

And for you SimNation people: perhaps we would all be happier, if instead of taking the concept of Civilization and turning it into SimNation you would try to somehow get the developers to develop a NEW game called SimNation. I simply don't see the point in choosing Civilization as a means for your perverted ends It's like that someone who wanted to see cIV implemented with a First Person Shooter! Not in my game you will!

 

[Mgoering]

@ Trade-peror

1. Civilisation is a global game, because it takes science, economy, war, happiness at once. Specific games only take one or maybe two of those.
2. I was talking about nabab dreams because they (apparently) want Civ to be detailled and realistic to the bone, which I call the madness of greatness, shortly, nabab.


@ Shyrramar

Of course I'm not here to say "we need this wonder in Civ4 and this unit shall have one more attack point". I have more complexe ideas, but this one was simply over the edge. I came saying this maybe to temper their ideas. They come with entire concepts of specific games and didn't realise that Civ series hasn't undergone dramatic evolution from on to another; only graphics have done so.

 

[WS78]

Though MGoering is right in what he says.
But the implementation of resources was a stroke of genius and has really blown new life in a game I was a little bit bored with.

 

[polypheus]

I understand the criticism of some here about the UET having too much detail and stuff and I think that is valid and I even agree with that criticism.

But there is a difference between "detailed realism" and "overall realism". While some of the UET ideas might involve too much "detailed realism" I don't want to throw away all the ideas from UET that could be simplified or abstracted that would contribute greatly to "overall realism".

As I have harped on in my "Increaseing Overall Realism" thread, let us approach the Civ 3 economy model from a TOP-DOWN approach and see what its flaws are and how major features and changes might be needed:

Civ 3 Economics:
1. Gold is produced by "working land" (same as food is produced by working land???)
2. Certain wonders and city improvements allow you to "mine gold" from land more efficiently.
3. Gold is used to pay for maintenance of buildings, army, research, trades, treaties. (Okay that makes sense but what about roads and railroads???)
4. Luxuries are needed to increase happiness (decrease unhappiness) of population.
5. Strategic resources are needed to make certain kinds of weapons.
6. Excess lux or resources can be bought and/or sold from others.
7. One "lux" or "resource" unit per nation regardless of size of nation or utilization or resouce
8. Trade is conducted via impregnable, point to point, "trade routes" (works like teleporting I guess) between roads and harbors.

I think this is a reasonable attempt at describing Civ 3 economics.

So let us look at what the flaws of this model are (in comparison to real economics) and what major and "key" features and changes could be added to it to more approximate "real economics". Then we can look at how detailed we want to implement these major features.

So perhaps we should approach the UET from a TOP-DOWN perspective and go from there.

 

[Shyrramar]

But there is a difference between "detailed realism" and "overall realism". While some of the UET ideas might involve too much "detailed realism" I don't want to throw away all the ideas from UET that could be simplified or abstracted that would contribute greatly to "overall realism".

Yes, there are a lot of ideas here that could perhaps be used. What remains to be seen, though, is that if they work independently of each other.

1. Gold is produced by "working land" (same as food is produced by working land???)

In Civ the gold probably represents natural wealth that arises when people are working. Not all are making food, some are making weapons and other useful items. Later on, of course, the whole system tries to simulate all sorts of industries. The gold in the game is named "commerce" and as far as I understand (I am foreign to the language, so excuse me if I am mistaken) this means the trade between the people that work the tile. One must note that you get NO money without taxes - the commerce is therefore between the people, not something that is produced to the state directly. It consists most probably of salaries, sales and others.

2. Certain wonders and city improvements allow you to "mine gold" from land more efficiently.

Colossus for one increases trade in the city (probably because foreign people come to the port). It does not (as far as I know) allow you to mine more gold - although I made the clarification already in the preceding paragraph.

3. Gold is used to pay for maintenance of buildings, army, research, trades, treaties. (Okay that makes sense but what about roads and railroads???)

Roads do not cost anything in the game because they produce more gold than they could ever cost. Roads make the intertile-trade easier and thus increases the commerce in a given tile (even if it is the only road-tile, so that the road leads nowhere: it represents that the tile is filled with roads and the people may move more freely). That, as far as I can tell, is the idea also behind the extra commerce from adjecent river. I think we all agree that building roads increases wealth, but also that this should not be the only way to produce wealth.

7. One "lux" or "resource" unit per nation regardless of size of nation or utilization or resouce

This is the point I tried to grab in my "A new resource system"-thread, but it hasn't got much interest. I think the revision of resource (and luxury) system is one of the most important things that should be done, but perhaps I am mistaken. If someone hasn't already, check the thread out. It could need some rejuvenating. It's somewhere here.

8. Trade is conducted via impregnable, point to point, "trade routes" (works like teleporting I guess) between roads and harbors.

By the way, I must say that the teleportation is fine by me. One of the most annoying things in CTP were the trade routes. Someone always pirated them and the whole time went to rebuilding them. They are not actually teleported however, as you can block it (by blocking the sea-route with ships).

I think this is a reasonable attempt at describing Civ 3 economics.

With my minor notes, I tend to agree.

So let us look at what the flaws of this model are (in comparison to real economics) and what major and "key" features and changes could be added to it to more approximate "real economics". Then we can look at how detailed we want to implement these major features.

So perhaps we should approach the UET from a TOP-DOWN perspective and go from there.

I will return to this later, as I am in a bit of a hurry now. This is rational thinking, polypheus. Some sort of simple point-to-point presentation of UET would be in place, so we can all see what can be kept and what not.