The Unified Economic Theory

[Trade-peror]

I have added a new detail to the UET summary that could have wide implications. As many have suggested (although not necessarily in this thread), I have decided to make "manufactured" commodities possible.

Refined food and shield products would be "superior" to any raw food and shield commodities, and would therefore capture the demand of those raw food and shields, even though all food and shields (whether raw or refined) still function equally as food and shields. Refining food and shields requires certain city improvements (such as food processing plant, oil refinery, etc.) that convert raw commodities into their refined form.

This not only allows for more ways to break into markets that are dominated by lucky producers of rare commodities, this will simulate the trend in manufacturing that is crucial to portraying the Industrial Revolution in any reasonable manner. As a result, increasing modernization will see increasing amounts of manufactured commodities as a portion of the overall economy, and non-industrialized countries would have an incentive to industrialize even if they control certain key resources.

This allows an incredibly accurate simulation of the modern international economy. Industrialized countries rarely have completely raw commodities, with no refined equivalent, in their markets, and even markets in developing countries are sold refined products. On the other hand, rural areas will not be affected by this preference for refined products unless they are connected to markets that sell such products (and in such cases, they would prefer the refined form of the product). This allows raw commodities to still find markets in economically-independent areas (as is true in reality).

Notice that this is a rather subtle way of modeling the transition of the economy toward manufacturing and consumerism as technology progresses; it would be much better than having a tech that suddenly means all consumers demand manufactured goods, for example. With this method of the UET, the transition is not forced, but will generally become naturally apparent, especially as technology gradually increases the capacity of manufacturing and processing. In addition, non-industrialized civs will not be completely alienated from the global economy--unless industrialized civs decide to compete for their markets, these developing civs can continue to trade in raw commodities as they always have. In fact, non-industrialized civs do not even have to become industrialized upon learning how to industrialize; if they do not build any of the processing facilities, industrialization will not occur. Industrialization is not an overnight process, and certainly not a matter of discovering a particular technology that magically industrializes the entire country (as is implied in Civ).

Rather than continue to rant, I would welcome some suggestions or questions regarding this matter!

 

[rcoutme]

Here is something that I do not understand. What happens to the stuff that is not purchased? How is the purchase price determined? If everything is purchased, what difference would something being 'high demand' make?

As for 'manufactured' goods, I assume that factories etc. are going to play a big, super-huge, mega role in the latter stages of any game with the UET, is that correct?

 

[Trade-peror]

@rcoutme:

Although I was not clear in my first posts (clearly ), I have resolved this issue by having all surplus products be put on the market automatically, and then having the city "buy it back" should the demand for the products not exist. As for purchase price, it is largely a ratio of demand for a product and supply of a product. The demand for a product is calculated by a global average of amount of product per population point. The minimum demand for commodities such as food, however, never drop below 1, since 1 food is the minimum for survival.

As for manufactured products, factories will almost certainly play a critical role in the later stages of the game, at least among the industrialized countries (as is the case today).

Sorry for such abbreviated answers (for once )--I have little time at this moment. I hope to hear more suggestions, though!

 

[Trade-peror]

I have long been considering changes on the way citizen happiness should be determined, for Civ currently has a highly arbitrary system of "every citizen after the Xth citizen will be unhappy." I suggest that this be changed so that citizen happiness is based on the economic conditions of the city (this post is related to this thread after all ).

This can somewhat address the issue of some over the absence of the effects of unemployment. With this feature, the number of content citizens depends upon the number of city improvements (government/"private sector" employment) and the number of commodities sold (self-employment). Therefore, a prosperous civ will have happy citizens while a depression-ridden civ will face civil unrest. That seems quite logical and reflective of reality, right?

Also recall that a different economic aspect--the availability of consumer goods--also affects citizen happiness. As I have explained in previous posts and in the summary, the absence of consumer goods when demanded will cause unhappiness, while the providing of consumer goods beyond the amount demanded will allow those extra consumer goods to act as luxuries.

Of course, I do not mean that economics will be the only determinant of citizen happiness--political events, wars, diplomacy, and many other factors should also contribute. However, I see that Civ currently has no connection between the moods of citizens and their economic situations, and my suggestion would correct this flaw. In addition, luxuries will continue to serve their function of producing happy faces.

I welcome any comments and further suggestions on this or any other UET matter.

 

[Trade-peror]

Oh, one more thing concerning citizen happiness. As far as the interface is concerned, I would like to see the return of Civ2's "Happiness Analysis" panel, which first displayed the happiness of the city unmodified, and then showed the effects of the different layers of happiness modifiers upon the city's happiness. In Civ3, it is not entirely clear sometimes what is causing unhappiness or how effective certain measures are. I do not really like counting all of those happy faces and clicking every unhappy head (which means it was too late to prevent the unhappiness) to see the reason(s).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I've said elswhere, I think the whole 'pop-head' based happiness system needs to be scrapped (and, most likely, pop-heads along with it!) Instead, each city's happiness would be rated from a 0-100% with, obviously, around 45-55% marking the 'content' range. To add an extra twist to this system, you would not be able to SEE the Mood percentage-only a description of the current mood level.
For instance, you look at a city and see the mood indicator saying 'Defiant'. This can indicate a mood level of anywhere between 20-35%. Because you don't know EXACTLY where your people are on the scale, you won't know EXACTLY how much to 'boost' their happiness by to eliviate the risk of a revolt or rebellion! This would make the civics system much more interesting too because, when you adjust your Social Engineering settings, your peoples mood rating might drop, but you won't know it until AFTER the 'mood adjective' changes!! An extra point is that you should be able to click on the 'mood descriptor' (or mood adjective or whatever you want to call it) and get a little pop-up showing a demographic break down of the mood-level. So, if a city is currently 'defiant', you can click on that and see how your workers civil servants, law makers, etc are feeling. Last of all. In your national screen, you will have a 'National Mood-Indicator', which will be an average of your entire populations mood. If this gets into the defiant or rebellious sector, then you risk your current government being overthrown and/or outright rebellion!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie has nailed it yet again.

Rather than a dozen popheads with 3 moods. (The difference between unhappy and resisting is pretty marginal...)

There should be 10 or so different moods for an entire city. ... represented by one giant pop head (don't hit me, j/k)

 

[Trade-peror]

Interesting. I rather agree, now that I am trying to eliminate the city screen, that keeping the "pop heads" would be problematic...

The simplest way I see to remedy this would be to combine the pop-head moods into one overall city mood. Since the overall city mood is the determinant for whether WLTKD or civil disorder occurs anyway, it probably will not be too much of a change to just always consider the city's mood as a whole. However, I would still like a "Happiness Analysis" feature (described in my previous post) to more easily see the effects of each factor that affects happiness.

 

[Trade-peror]

I have recently been considering the effect of the UET on the first few turns of a game of Civ. As I have mentioned before in a previous post, trade at such an early stage would likely be minimal, since there would be few cities and few demands, with every population center essentially self-sufficient. Trade does not occur spontaneously for no reason, people need to have a motive behind trading--namely to acquire goods to which they have no or too little access!

While this situation in of itself is not problematic or unrealistic, I realize that science is heavily dependant upon trade in a most direct manner, and this slow trading in the beginning could be a problem in terms of scientific progress. Therefore, I suggest eliminating the condition where only a city of at least population 5 can support scientists. In the very early stages of the civ, most of the advances would be generated, in effect, from wise old people experimenting, expecting no other reward besides food and thus the ability to survive. In more modern stages, science funded by national foundations or the government or corporations would be more significant than such spontaneous discoveries by individuals. What implications this single simple change carries!

Any suggestions are of course welcome.

 

[Trade-peror]

I have upgraded the UET summary to version 1.5, adding my changes to the happiness system. These past few posts go into more detail with that matter.

Anyway, a logical extension of the new concept of economic conditions influencing a city's happiness could be the effects of economic conditions on immigration. This has been a controversial topic with some, but I think involuntary immigration should be possible, especially when wide disparities in economic conditions, cultural strength, etc. exist between neighboring civs. In fact, I think this could serve as a reasonable replacement for the concept of cultural flipping. With the right conditions, immigration would essentially "flip" all of a culturally weak city's citizens to a different civ anyway.

To be a little more specific, immigration should occur when the following situations are present and unremedied for a prolonged period:
1. A citizen is unhappy
2. The culture of a nearby city is too great, or the culture of the city/province that a settlement is part of is too weak
3. The city that the settlement is part of is (or in danger of) starving
4. The settlement is close to actively hostile enemy units
5. The city or provincial government has collapsed

Although the above list may make it seem easy for immigration to occur, note that the situations have to exist for a prolonged period. These conditions for immigration address a number of issues:
1. Since unhappiness is caused by poor economic conditions, this type of immigration is reflective of people fleeing poverty to seek new lives.
2. This is an alternate form of "culture flipping."
3. This discourages the common Civ3 strategy of starving captured cities down to suppress flipping/disorder.
4. This reflects the inclination of refugees to flee war zones.
5. This complicates the process of conquering and occupying enemy cities to the conqueror's immediate benefit (conquered territory tends to be more of a liability than an asset in the beginning).

Note that with immigration, citizens may decide to leave, but they could move not only to other civs, but also simply to different cities in the same civ, as well as unsettled zones--forming their own civs!

Those are the basics--thanks to others, such as Bigfoot and polypheus, who have discussed this topic--any comments are welcome!




EDIT: What, it looks almost like I am spamming, with so many posts in a row (although if you look at the dates of posting, they were not posted in quick succession)! If anyone has comments, please don't hesitate to make them heard!

 

[rcoutme]

Some observations (not criticisms):
Civ has always had the player balance unhappies with happies. Your system (of happiness) would completely eliminate that.

You still have not given any numbers to you economic plan. Suppose City A is size 4 and City B is size 3. Both cities are trading only with each other and A is on the coast and B has a cow in its radius. Who gets what money, and how? Assume any production values that make sense and please give me some idea what happens by way of taxes, food, etc.

If A and B now have road, what will that change and what numbers will be different from above?

Next: What happens if A and B are both on the plains with a river, thus producing the same stuff?

 

[DenDen]

For Corruption and Waste i think you should be able to get rid of it in all government types again though each government type will require more or less investment into fighting corruption and waste based on how advanced they are,the more distant your city is from the capital the more heavely you will have to invest into police and security services.

As for rioting, i think it should be there of course if you dont make the people happy they will riot and oust you.

They should also emphasize rebellions. So if you have a big country and on the far reaches of your empire if you do not have a strong presence there people would start rebelling based on the populations ethnic majority and the influence of other nations in the region. (they will form their own country, or if the rebellion is instigated by another nation, they will automatically join that country)

Governments should also have a stability factor in ragards to rebellions based on your cultural strength..

of course all of this stuff comes at an expense.. this is where it becomes challenging.

 

[Trade-peror]

@rcoutme:

Ah! Thanks, rcoutme, I was looking for an opportunity to post an example of the UET's mechanics. First, however, allow me to clarify the happiness model. In actuality, the happiness model has not really changed, since the pop-heads are now simply considered collectively, by combining the moods of the various pop-heads. For example, a city with 3 unhappy and 6 content would have a "mood" level of .6, obtained by averaging the happiness values of each citizen in the city (unhappy = 0, content = 1, happy = 2). A value of .6 could show up as, say, "City X is noticeably unhappy. Perhaps steps should be taken to contain the situation before it is too late." If the city progresses to 5 unhappy and 5 content, then the mood level would be .5, which could be "City X is on the verge of disorder. Steps to improve the city's mood are urgently needed." In this way, it is still the player's responsibility to balance unhappy and happy citizens, with the only difference being that they are all counted automatically, with the player dealing only with the balance (which should actually make managing happiness easier).

Now, for the example. Here is the beginning situation you give me:

City A
Size: 4
Location: coast
(Location is not as important as the resources it generates. In the case of coast, the most likely resource generated is fish.)
*Resources: fish

City B
Size: 3
Resources: cows

Since these cities produce different commodities, trade is easily initiated. First, allow me to refine the starting situation:

City A
Size: 4
*Resources: 8 fish
*Assume the 4 citizens are working 1 fish square and 3 coast squares. Fish squares produce 4 fish each and coast squares produce 2 fish each, but since each citizen can only harvest 2 units of resources, the 1 citizen working the fish square only generates 2 fish. When the city is larger, another citizen may decide to work the fish square as well, and the fish square will then generate 4 fish.

City B
Size: 3
*Resources: 2 cows, 4 wheat
*Assume the 3 citizens are working 1 cow square and 2 grassland squares. Cow squares produce 4 cows each and grassland squares produce 2 wheat each, but for the same reason as above, only 2 cows are generated.

If City A and City B are close enough to each other to trade, then they constitute a market. When trading, City A and City B both yield their surplus resources to their common market. The following situation arises:

City A
Size: 4
Resources: 8 fish
*Consumed: 4 fish
*Surplus: 4 fish

City B
Size: 3
Resources: 2 cows, 4 wheat
*Consumed: 1 cow, 2 wheat
*Surplus: 1 cow, 2 wheat
*Note that the specific food commodity consumed is based on the percentage of each commodity as part of the city's overall food production. In this case, cows were 33% of the city's food production, so 33% of the food to be consumed would be cows.

Trade occurs when City A and City B decide to buy the surpluses of cities other than themselves. In this case, for food commodities, the populations of both City A and City B want to have excess food for growth. As a result, the market demand per citizen for food is 2 food. Notice that 1 food is needed for survival, but 2 food is demanded for the purpose of growth. This market demand will determine the “price” of food, which is calculated by dividing this demand by the supply of food at the market. For example:

City A
Size: 4
Resources: 8 fish
Consumed: 4 fish
Surplus: 4 fish
*Market demand: 4 food

City B
Size: 3
Resources: 2 cows, 4 wheat
Consumed: 1 cow, 2 wheat
Surplus: 1 cow, 2 wheat
*Market demand: 3 food

Market AB
*Resources: 4 fish, 1 cow, 2 wheat (7 food commodities)
*Overall market supply: 7 food
*Overall market demand: 7 food
*Food price: 1 gold (7 demanded / 7 supplied = 1)

Next, City A and City B must determine which commodities to purchase. Note that all food commodities count as one food, and have the same price. Each commodity has a different “value,” however, based on its availability to the market. More rare goods are “more desirable” than more common goods. In addition, cities will generally try not to purchase commodities that they produce themselves. Therefore,

Market AB
*Resources (in order of decreasing rarity): 1 cow, 2 wheat, 4 fish

Then we examine the needs of each city in the market, and how they can be fulfilled:

City A
Market demand: 4 food
Overall market supply: 1 cow, 2 wheat, 4 fish
*Buy 1 cow? Yes, City A does not produces cows
*Buy 2 wheat? Yes, City A does not produce wheat
*Buy 4 fish? Normally, City A would not buy fish since it produces fish, but the market demand for 4 food is not fulfilled with just the cow and wheat, so City A buys 1 fish.

City B
Market demand: 3 food
Overall market supply: 1 cow, 2 wheat, 4 fish
*Buy 1 cow? No, City B produces cows
*Buy 2 wheat? No, City B produces wheat
*Buy 4 fish? Yes, except that City B only needs to buy 3 fish to fulfill its market demand, besides that City A wants to buy 1 fish also.

When there is a conflict over purchasing a particular commodity, then the city with the greatest purchasing power gets the commodity; if that is the same also, then the city with the largest population gets the commodity.

Before any purchases can take place, however, the cities must have the purchasing power (funds) to do so. Assume the following sources of purchasing power:

City A
*National Palace (central government): 2 gpt maintenance
*City Hall (local government): 1 gpt maintenance
*1 Temple: 1 gpt maintenance
*Purchasing power: 4 gpt

City B
*City Hall (local government): 1 gpt maintenance
*1 Temple: 1 gpt maintenance
*1 Granary: 1 gpt maintenance
*Purchasing power: 3 gpt

After the commodities are purchased, the sellers of the commodities receive money for the sales.

City A
Surplus: 4 fish
*Sold: 4 fish
*Revenue: 4 gold (4 fish x price of 1 gold per food)

City B
Surplus: 1 cow, 2 wheat
*Sold: 1 cow, 2 wheat
*Revenue: 3 gold (3 food commodities x price of 1 gold per food)

Since these sales also count as revenue for a city, they contribute to purchasing power, but not on a permanent basis, since these sales are not necessarily ongoing operations. Therefore, these revenues are stored in the local treasuries, and can be drawn upon whenever purchasing power does fall short.

This sales revenue is the source of the central government’s tax funding. Therefore, a high tax rate will drain local treasuries, which will indirectly discourage trade due to the absence of leeway when purchasing power falls short, while a low tax rate will stimulate the economy because the extra funds in the local treasuries can be used to purchase more commodities.

For this example, say the tax rate is 50%. The central government’s revenue would be 4 gold. Note that this amount is insufficient for paying the administrative and improvement maintenance costs, which are 7 gpt in this example! A possible way to solve this would be to turn over some improvements to local governments. This could be dangerous if the economy is unstable and the tax rate is high, because most likely maintaining city improvements draws upon funds in the local treasuries.

An alternate (and probably better) solution is to stimulate trade accommodating industries by building a road connecting City A and City B. Based on the number of commodities traded, the road will generate a certain amount of trade along its length, adding to the revenue of cities that claim portions of the route. For example,

Road AB
*Length: 7 tiles
*Number of commodities traded: 7
*Revenue generated: 7 gold

City A
*Portion of Road AB worked: 0 tiles, 0% (recall that City A is working 4 water squares!)
*Revenue from Road AB: 0 gold (0% x 7 = 0 gold)

City B
*Portion of Road AB worked: 3 tiles, 43%
*Revenue from Road AB: 3 gold (43% x 7 = 3 gold)

Besides these trade benefits, the road extends the range of cities that the cities can trade with, as well as reduce the movement costs of units that use the roads.

Overall, it is apparent that the trading of commodities is crucial to the economy, for all of the side sources of revenue usually depend upon such exchanges.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I still say that a % based happiness system works a GREAT deal better than the current 'Pop Head' one!
For instance, in the current system, if your unhappies outnumber your contents+happies, by even one, then your city goes into revolt-which is just absolutely ridiculous. My system is much more gradual, with your wealth and productivity declining with declining happiness-and the chance of uprisings and rebellion increasing.
The other thing which makes my system better is that, because you don't know EXACTLY what your % rating is, you can't as finely manage your populations happiness in order to avoid problems for your cities. Instead, you have only a general idea of the peoples mood, and your policies might either have no effect on the current mood, or tip it over the edge-depending on what the exact happiness % is.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

@Trade-peror: What happens if you are getting more food than the 2/pop limit? Why does City A get 1 gpt for the fish that is collected when it buys it back from the pool of food resources? When you mentioned the "revenue generated = 7 gp" then listed the road benefit, does that mean a total of 10 gp?

You did not mention what would happen if Cities A & B were both in the grass on a river. Would they not trade since they would be producing the same foods?

@Aussie: I agree that your system is better, it's just that it is very, very different from all Civ games. To take away heads would be a fundamental change in the game and I am not too confident that Firaxis will consider this anytime soon. They might consider such a change to be 'not Civilization' (as in the genre).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Call to Power 1 and 2 used a system much like the one I propose (though with them you DID know what % your people were at), and one of the things that Soren mentioned in his presentation was about borrowing good elements of other related games.
Also, remember that prior to civ3, borders, slavery and forced labour were considered 'un-civ', but were finally incorporated due to the wishes of the hardcore fans!
I'm just a little bit more optimistic that, if an idea is sound, that they will adopt it-even if it means dropping a feature that has been in civ for some time!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

@Aussie_Lurker:

I do agree that eliminating the pop-heads is a great idea. The fact that just 1 unhappy face out of possibly 100 pop heads throwing the entire city into disorder is indeed quite odd. With the collective mood system, it will not be possible to extract and eliminate that one concentration of unhappiness.

@rcoutme:

I am sorry I cannot answer your questions right now, for I need some clarification first. What do you mean by getting more food than the "2/pop limit"? In addition, I am not entirely sure what you mean by how City A gets gpt for buying the fish back from the pool of resources (the market, I assume), because City A does not buy its own fish back, City B buys the fish and City A gets the sales revenue for selling the fish.

As for the "revenue generated = 7 gpt," that is actually just the maximum amount of revenue the road could generate. Notice that this number is multiplied by the percentage of the road a city is using to obtain the actual amount of gpt a city would get from the road. Also note that this maximum amount of revenue is simply the number of commodities being traded on the road.

Please clarify those questions and I would be glad to answer them!

 

[Trade-peror]

@rcoutme:

I also forgot to address the alternate scenario you presented--please excuse me! If both City A and City B were on grasslands and "connected" by a river, then the river would basically serve as a road--cities claiming portions of the river would receive benefits similar to those from claiming a road. As for the fact that City A and City B would be producing the same resources, it would be true, yet City A and City B could still trade if one of them still wants more food in general. In other words, City A and City B are not banned from trading with each other simply due to similar resource production; trade is more difficult, however, since one city would need a significant surplus and the other would need significant demand (and not enough production of the same product itself) for much trade to occur. In the other case, each city produced a different food commodity, trade was easier because both cities had something that the other city had none of. Also, notice in the example that City A actually buys back one of its own fish, simply because it had to fulfill the demand for food. For cities that produce the same products, trade could occur if one of the cities simply needs to fulfill its demand for food and does not produce enough itself.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Anyway, a logical extension of the new concept of economic conditions influencing a city's happiness could be the effects of economic conditions on immigration. This has been a controversial topic with some, but I think involuntary immigration should be possible, especially when wide disparities in economic conditions, cultural strength, etc. exist between neighboring civs. In fact, I think this could serve as a reasonable replacement for the concept of cultural flipping. With the right conditions, immigration would essentially "flip" all of a culturally weak city's citizens to a different civ anyway. . . .


Note that with immigration, citizens may decide to leave, but they could move not only to other civs, but also simply to different cities in the same civ, as well as unsettled zones--forming their own civs!

Those are the basics--thanks to others, such as Bigfoot and polypheus, who have discussed this topic--any comments are welcome!

OUTSTANDING! Truly, this is the kind of stuff I have thought about for so long for the true Civ experience. This is one of those elements of the game I deem essential to a good Civing experience. The idea that you "build" Settlers, and then and only then are new cities founded exactly where you want them seems absurd to me. The idea of settlements springing up around certain resources, commodities and along trade routes is absolutely intriguing to me. This kind of thing would make for a truly outstanding new game!

If the elements of your UET are implemented in some form in Civ 4, I would be elated beyond imagining! I'll buy multiple copies just to ensure its success on the market!



--CK

 

[Trade-peror]

@Colonel Kraken:

Thank you for your kind words. I would be jubilant to see even any portion of the UET implemented...although I can always hope for the whole thing (eventually).


____________________________________________



I have heard some ideas thrown abut in this forum about having buildings as prerequisites for building certain units (or even other buildings). As much as that would have an almost RTS feel to it, that seems quite logical, and would allow more specialization in production (not only is universal production of certain complex units unrealistic, I rather tire of scrolling down so many choices of things to build for every city).

I have also heard ideas from Colonization floating about, and one of interest is the return of producing only weapons, and then attaching them to people to make soldiers. This, however, appears to entail heavy micromanagement.

In addition, some are suggesting that the effects of mobilization and demobilization (considerable throughout history) be better reflected in Civ.

How does all of this connect, especially to this economic thread?

Well, an interesting possibility would be to have units be produced by attaching separately manufactured weapons onto population points, but having these weapons be produced by certain structures. These weapons would then be commodities that could be purchased or traded (such as in international arms dealing).

Consider this example:

Say I would like to build a swordsman. The city whose population I would like to expend (City A) would be ordered to build a swordsman in its production box. The production required reflects the costs of training swordsmen.

To obtain the weapons, I have to build a Forge (or whatever building produces swords) in a city that City A has access to—City B in this example. Once completed, this structure will produce swords—but only if the resources are available, and the economy has been mobilized for war. The rate of production would be dependent upon whether the economy is only partially mobilized or completely mobilized.

A weapon-production building would produce 1 unit of swords every 2 turns under full mobilization and 1 swords every 4 turns under partial mobilization. These swords would be commodities that would flow to wherever a market exists for them—such as in City A, which is producing Swordsmen. Such sales would produce revenue for City B, and require sufficient purchasing power from City A or sufficient federal funds to purchase the swords.

At City A, the weapons are attached to the unit of population being trained as Swordsmen, and a new unit emerges.

With this new system, it would be possible to be caught truly unprepared for war (as was the US in WWI), as well as reflect the actual economic effect of mobilization and profiteering during wars (such as by selling weapons to belligerent nations). Combined with the UET’s diplomatic options (such as embargoes) and supply/demand considerations for all commodities (such as weapons), war would become truly tactical on many levels, and much more than just an exercise in military strategy (as has rarely been the case throughout history).

Such a piece would fit well into the UET’s large but cohesive structure, but I would like some comments on this idea. Please feel free to post!