What's in a name? The "Economy"

[DarkFyre99]

There seems to be two main camps when it comes to the definition of the word "economy."

The first camp defines "economy" as inputs (cottages/commerce and specialists) and how they're transformed into outputs (research, gold, espionage, culture). What is done with the outputs has little bearing on the type of economy.

The second camp defines "economy" as inputs, and what is done with the outputs after the bills have been paid, and espionage is kept at a level the player finds comfortable, for a total economic strategy. What is done with the outputs has a bearing on the type of economy.

Where things get confusing is that both camps speak of "cottage economies" and "specialist economies," but mean entirely different things. The first camp sees the phrase "cottage economy" and thinks "an economy where your inputs are cottages." An economy based upon cottages where most of what's left goes into research is as much a cottage economy as one where most of what's left goes into espionage for spy missions, primarily to steal techs from the tech leaders.

The second camp sees the phrase "cottage economy" and thinks "an economy where your inputs are cottages, where commerce is transformed into research, after some is changed into gold to pay your bills, and some is transformed into espionage points so you can keep an eye on your rivals." An economy based upon cottages where most of what's left goes into espionage is not a cottage economy, but instead an espionage economy.

So here's your chance to weigh in. Is an economy the sum of inputs and outputs? Or is an economy a strategy about what you do with what's left of the output after the essentials have been taken care of? Is it something different, or do you just not care?

 

[troytheface]

if i see "SE" "CE" anymore i am going to shoot myself in the head.
Boring. How about looking at the WWI russian tank prototype that someone found. Looks like giant machine tricylce out of a sci-fi flick.

 

[Refar]

In most instances it's clear from context, what exactly the posted does mean. Often economy refers to where your techs are coming from.

 

[Ibian]

All of the above.

The economy is the entire game. Its where you get your stuff from as well as what you do with it.

My objection to terms like EE is that people never give it a CE/SE qualifier. Its a subsystem, not a complete economy.

 

[Winston Hughes]

In most instances it's clear from context, what exactly the posted does mean.

I agree. There are many interesting discussions to be had over how to generate all the stuff you need to win, and tags like CE and SE serve as a useful shorthand in those discussions. The context is almost always sufficient to explain what is meant, and if it's unclear then one need only ask for clarification.

Debates over the 'true nature' of a particular kind of economy, or over what 'economy' means, can yield some interesting points. But more often than not they end up being tedious, long-winded semantic arguments, imo. On the other hand, if the posters are enjoying themselves, then they're free to debate it all they want.

The problem, however, is when these debates take over and dominate a thread started by someone who had a genuine question to ask (esp. a new member of the forum). Strictly speaking, the debate may not be completely OT, but threadjacking of this type can be thoroughly unhelpful to the OP, and deeply off-putting for new members.

I don't care gets my vote.

 

[Verge]

In most instances it's clear from context, what exactly the posted does mean. Often economy refers to where your techs are coming from.

Precisely. Most posters can and indeed will distinguish between economies of inputs and those of outputs.


/abstention

 

[TheDS]

You know, I've been thinking about this subject a little bit recently, and I have been trying to figure out just what kind of economy I've been building in my games. I tend to think of it as a hybrid, because I don't build a lot of cottages or designate a lot of specialists. (OTOH, if I get a massive food surplus, I bleed it off with specialists, but I don't generally AIM for this.) But I don't think I'm really doing Hybrid either.

So I got to thinking about what kinds of economies there were available in Civ4. The big ones mentioned so far have been Cottage and Specialist - these seem to talk about inputs. Also seen are Espionage, which is an output. So what else is there?

Looking at what I've done, the closest I can come to describing it is to call it a Production Economy - I devote the lion's share of my effort into turning my cities into jacks-of-all-trades that can build anything quickly. Granaries, Forges, Factories, Hoover Dam Three Gorges Dam, and Organized Religion are my favorite things. (I'm even starting to like State Property with it's 10% hammer boost.) If a city can build anything quickly, then it can be a powerhouse of science, money, and espionage all at once (with all the buildings), and pump out high-quality troops rapidly. (The downside is how long it takes to get them to this point.)

As a result of my hammer-addiction, I focus a little less on getting food and trade, and in the past I have shunned Slavery and Drafting (but I'm starting to whip like a madman now).

Anyway, what you buy with your economy is irrelevent - it's what you do to get those things that matters, making "Espionage Economy" a partial misnomer, as the espionage is being used primarily to steal techs (guaranteeing you never lead); it's just a way to convert spy points to lightbulbs.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Economy is probably the wrong word. Strategy would be a lot better.

Eg:

- Cottage Spam strategy - build lots of cottages.
- Specialist Lightbulb strategy - run specialists everywhere to generate Great People for lightbulbs.
- Specialist Pyramids strategy - run specialist for research through early representation.
- Espionage strategy using cottages and slider
- Espionage strategy using specialists
- Religious wonder strategy - using shrines/UofS/AP/SM
- Trade strategy - using Great Lighthouse and TofA.
- Wonder spam strategy - wonders to generate GPP to settle great people in a super city.
- Pillage strategy - lots of gold through pillaging.
- Building research/wealth strategy - lots of production cities and use build wealth/research a lot.

There - we don't need to debate on whats an economy any more. We can all agree that these are distinct strategies that can be played individually or in combination and add flavour to the game. The more the merrier.

 

[Ibian]

Except that i always try to get the pyramids no matter what type of game im planning. Stonehenge too any time i can afford the hammers for it. Thats representation and 1-2 types of GPP as a baseline default.

But thats not even addressing what you said. The fact of the matter is that different types of economies exist in this game and it would probably be useful to define them. Simply calling them something else and walking away wont change that.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Economy is probably the wrong word. Strategy would be a lot better.

It's probably just semantics, but "Economic Strategy" would probably be even better, since there are a variety of strategies in Civ4 not related to the economy.

Except that i always try to get the pyramids no matter what type of game im planning.

I think you're trying to read too much into what InvisibleStalke said. Though the Pyramids are definitely part of a strategy using Representation for strong early specialists, having The Pyramids (or any other particular Wonder for that matter) doesn't necessarily define what type of economy you have or lock you into any particular economic strategy.

For example, if your Pyramids were built to combat unhappiness in the absence of happiness resources, then they have little/nothing to do with your economic strategy and more to do with your general strategy.

My objection to terms like EE is that people never give it a CE/SE qualifier. Its a subsystem, not a complete economy.

& QFT.

This is why I think trying to define an "economy" in a few simple terms does nothing more than confuse the issue. To truly discuss an economy, you have to define the entire economic strategy -- input, output and everything in between.

For example, even in InvisibleStalke's "Specialist Pyramids strategy - run specialist for research through early representation," there's still a lot of room for discussion -- specifically "what type of specialists?" and "Why?"

On one hand, you can run scientists for a strong early research strategy. Or, you can run priests as part of a variety of stategies utilizing Great Prophets (the super city and shrine strategies in particular). Or, you can run artists as part of a cultural strategy. Or ... (you get the idea).


Moral of my story, you can't define a Civ4 economy in less than one complete sentence, so we should stop trying.

 

[Ibian]

I think you're trying to read too much into what InvisibleStalke said. Though the Pyramids are definitely part of a strategy using Representation for strong early specialists, having The Pyramids (or any other particular Wonder for that matter) doesn't necessarily define what type of economy you have or lock you into any particular economic strategy.

For example, if your Pyramids were built to combat unhappiness in the absence of happiness resources, then they have little/nothing to do with your economic strategy and more to do with your general strategy.

No matter what type of game.

To me, missing the pyramids is like losing a RNG check that eats hammers and gives me a happy and specialist penalty. It has nothing to do with strategy or economy in this case, its a baseline thing like i said. Actually i doubt very many people would intentionally skip it except as some sort of self imposed penalty.

Maybe im just being a little too argumentative here, but talking about a pyramid economy (or strategy or whatever) just seems pretty ridiculous.

This is why I think trying to define an "economy" in a few simple terms does nothing more than confuse the issue. To truly discuss an economy, you have to define the entire economic strategy -- input, output and everything in between.

Maybe people should start posting savegames with examples of what they mean so everyone gets the complete picture. From there coming up with definitions should be simple enough.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Maybe im just being a little too argumentative here

I'd agree to that.

Except that i always try to get the pyramids ...

The "except" makes it sound like you're discounting all of InvisibleStalke's ideas simply because you prioritize the Pyramids in all your games.

There are plenty of strategies independent of The Pyramids. Likewise, there are plenty of valid reasons not to build them:

If I'm rushing my neighbor, I'd much rather have 14 Axemen. And, if I have lush grassland all around me and/or plenty of happiness resources, I'd much rather have 5 Settlers.

And, I wouldn't call either of those a "self-imposed penalty", either.​

Whether anybody agrees with InvisibleStalke or not, there are economic strategies dependent upon building The Pyramids in which not having them can break the game for that strategy. And on the contrary, there are also plenty of economic strategies upon which The Pyramids have no bearing except simply to deny another civ their benefits.

Maybe people should start posting savegames with examples of what they mean so everyone gets the complete picture. From there coming up with definitions should be simple enough.

That's a little much, imo, but it would probably help.

I think defining the overall strategy like InvisibleStalke did is plenty enough to explain what's going on.

Expounding on what he started, instead of saying "SE", saying "Pyramids-boosted Artist Specialist culture-bomb Economy" leaves little doubt as to where I'm getting my research from, what type of GP I'm generating (and how I'm using them) as well as what type of victory I'm likely seeking.

Likewise, instead of just "EE", saying "Cottage-based GSpy Farm tech-stealing High-Espionage-Slider Economy" (as ridiculous as that sounds) also leaves little doubt what type of tile improvements I'm building, what type of GP Farm I'm running, what type of GPeeps I'm producing (and how I'm using them) as well as where the sliders are set.

IMO, if more effort was spent answering the Who, What, Where, When, Why & How of the Civ4 economy, we'd see far less of these types of threads.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

No matter what type of game.

To me, missing the pyramids is like losing a RNG check that eats hammers and gives me a happy and specialist penalty. It has nothing to do with strategy or economy in this case, its a baseline thing like i said. Actually i doubt very many people would intentionally skip it except as some sort of self imposed penalty.

Going for it and missing it is severe indeed. But not going for it at all is often a good move. If you don't have stone and aren't industrious, then why would you want to build it? Generating 500 hammers is a lot of work and you are very likely to miss it on higher levels or pay a huge opportunity cost on the things you could have done with those hammers instead.

If you are building it for the specialist bonus then you are running a particular sort of economic strategy. It will be of little help to you if you are running a cottage spam strategy for example.

If you are building it for the happiness bonus then its an inefficient way of getting happiness (without stone/industrious of course). For the worker turns and time spent working mines instead of cottages you could easily self research to monarchy in less time than building the pyramids. And then run Hereditary Rule for unlimited happiness. Or you could build axemen and go and conquer some happiness resources. Or work farms and spam out settlers to gain happiness resources. Or work fish and run specialists to get some early great people.

Anyway, I don't consider not getting the Pyramids a great handicap if I didn't try for it. And probably less than a quarter of my games would involve the pyramids - it only really plays well with a subset of the available strategies and while it is very powerful with those, I want to experiment with as many different strategies as I can.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

IMO, if more effort was spent answering the Who, What, Where, When, Why & How of the Civ4 economy, we'd see far less of these types of threads.

Spot on. I find SE way too loose a term. Unless someone explains why they are running the specialists, what sort and what they are going to do with them, then it means little to me.

 

[Wodan]

Going for it and missing it is severe indeed.

I disagree... if you miss a wonder you get gold "at cost". This will allow you to run at deficit spending for quite a while, and can fuel either faster research, city maintenance, or unit maintenance. So, whether you're a builder or a warmonger, getting a buttload of gold early game is hardly a "severe" negative.

Your other points are well taken, would you rather have a couple extra cities or Axemen? That's subjective and each of us has to answer that for ourselves.

Regardless, going for and missing the Pyramids is hardly the end of the world, and will be useful no matter what strategy you are pursuing.

Wodan

 

[Verge]

I don't think I've ever built the Pyramids.

Lately, I've been getting jollies by razing cities with the 'Mids in them. I need bricks to build my cottages with.

 

[DaveMcW]

"Economy" is a negative term that subtly reveals people's biases.

SE = Just say no to cottages!
CE = Invade me, I am defenseless!
HammerE = Who cares about the future! I'll just quit if my economy collapses before I get domination.

A well-played game will use a little bit of everything, obsessing over one feature will only hurt you.

 

[Ibian]

Actually turning hammers to beakers is better for research than running specialists. For 2 food you can run a scientist, or you can work 2 workshops for up to 10 hammers. A SE would get maybe a few GP more during the game, but im not even sure about that. Any economy can run a GP farm.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I disagree... if you miss a wonder you get gold "at cost". This will allow you to run at deficit spending for quite a while, and can fuel either faster research, city maintenance, or unit maintenance. So, whether you're a builder or a warmonger, getting a buttload of gold early game is hardly a "severe" negative.

I find it extremely frustrating missing a wonder I was counting on. The gold doesn't begin to compensate for having set myself up to play a particular strategy and finding that most of my moves were wrong.

Generally only the early wonders matter that much. I might have planned a game based on what I could do with the Pyramids or Oracle or Great Lighthouse, so I really hate missing them.

Generally I don't - if my strategy relies on one of these wonders I will go for it aggressively and early and make sure I get it. And I won't try for the pyramids without stone or industrious. And if the strategy doesn't absolutely require a wonder then I'll avoid the early wonders and focus on my strategy instead. But I'll never accept going for one, basing my early game on it and then getting just a pile of cash instead.

Those are the times that my people suddenly find themselves reborn in a new and different world...

 

[Wodan]

I find it extremely frustrating missing a wonder I was counting on. The gold doesn't begin to compensate for having set myself up to play a particular strategy and finding that most of my moves were wrong.

Everybody has their own playstyle I guess.

That's one thing that's great about this game... there are multiple ways even to do the same strategy. Add all the different strategies, and there are a huge number of successful ways to play the game.

Anyway, losing out on the Pyramids doesn't bother me overmuch. But then again even when I'm running a CE I will build a few farms to kick start each city in pop and to allow me to run slavery early game. So, it's really a good bit down the road before I even have to make a decision whether to go SE or CE, by which time I know if Pyramids are in or not.

Wodan