Wow ... a lot of good input this morning ... (sorry in advance for this wall of text)
I must assert that some buildings and wonders be considered as at least producing inputs, though I would just class them as inputs.
I'm undecided as to whether items e, f, g and h are really economic outputs. I think they might be better described as providing economic growth or growth in potential and as such are important economically but they are not outputs as such, they are investments and maybe best considered inputs as others have suggested.
It appears my semantics are more confusing than you guys', but I think we're simpatico, so I'm not sure it matters.
To me, "
inputs" are only the raw materials used and
not the objects that create or supply them. Those supplying objects are "
tools" to me.
I think it's valid to separate and define these independently, because talking about one doesn't necessarily mean talking about the other.
For example, if I say "you need
commerce", this could be interpreted as "you need
________":
- trade routes
- cottages
- commerce resources
- Bureaucracy
- Free Speech
- Paper
- {insert any other tool that generates commerce here}
Similarly, talking about many of the tools doesn't constitute talking about an 'input' at all:
- Temples + University of Sankore = culture & gpp (local outputs) & science (global output)
- Merchant Specialist = gpp (local output) & gold (global output)
- etc ...
Interesting approach but I think about this slightly differently. You seem to be considering individual tiles or inputs as the basis of your economy. That seems to be too low a level of detail. I would say that most of your economy is better described and analysed at the level of your cities. Your whole economy then becomes the sum of the effects of all your cities. This approach is supported by the F1 and F2 screens. Most economic multipliers occur at the level of cities.
I completely agree, which is probably why I went into as much detail. When specializing cities, I basically decide whether it will focus on [surplus] food, production or commerce -- hence the 3 'raw' inputs of
,
and
.
I think how the cities then use those raw inputs is what matters most when defining an economy, though. This is my Step 2, and it sounds like this is where most people begin defining their economy.
A few effects such as civics (except Bureaucracy), traits and some wonders affect all your cities and are therefore global. All inputs from tiles, specialists and buildngs are applied to the individual cities. Some outputs such as beakers, gold and EPs are accumulated and used at the global or empire level. But other outputs are specifically applied to individul cities and cannot simply be combined. These outputs are culture, GPPs and hammers.
Would you be happier if we broke outputs down into Local Outputs and Global Outputs? So
,
, and
would be local outputs while
,
, and
would be considered global outputs.
...
So I would argue that
GPPs and Hammers are not outputs from the economy but intermediate or holding values.
I feel like I'm on the verge of an epiphany ...
This seems to make more sense now. There are definitely local and global 'tools'
(i.e., Broadcast Tower vs Eiffel tower or National Epic vs Parthenon).
This explains why I was starting to think
and
didn't really fit my output mold -- because they are both local outputs with limited/situational global economic impact.
I like the idea of separating and discussing local vs global tools separately, since local tools have far less bearing on the general economy than the global tools and thus explain very little about the economy as a whole.
NOTE: This is not to say local elements should be dismissed, because in certain cases like a Specialist Economy (for example), the local tool of a specialist becomes a global element since they are used in the majority of the empire's cities.
Hammers give economic outputs when they are used to build, wealth, research or culture and also when overflow hammers are turned to gold (see vale's article) and when another civ completes a wonder the hammers invested are turned to gold.
If
are redefined as a local output, then they don't "rank" for discussion unless the 'goods' they go towards producing affect the global economy. Likewise with
, since only points which produce a Great Person actually matter and have a global affect.
So in both cases, only discussing the local outputs of culture, hammers, and gpp when they have affect on the global economy would reduce the amount of 'transitive' outputs greatly.
This is sounding better to me so far ... whatcha think?
I divide my overall game strategy into 3 broad areas or strategies; military strategy, diplomatic strategy and economic strategy. These strategies deal with how I manage the various assets they're concerned with.
As I outlined in the previous post in this thread I see the output of my economy as the sum of several types of asset that can accumulate over time at the global level and are not associated with particular cities:
See 'epiphany' above.
I think I agree that outputs should be defined as what you use to buy "goods", where goods are defined as something you use to aid your game. Technology would be a good, as would culture on a tile, or military units. In the case of some goods, like wonders, you may find that the good produces inputs as well.
I think all inputs are probably local.
(Based on that last sentence, I'm hoping the top of my post makes more sense where I'm coming from.)
Definitions: 'local' = "city level", 'global' = "national level".
All 'inputs' are local.
Most 'tools' are local.
Many local tools have global effects (esp. Wonders).
Some outputs are local
hammers:,
,
).
Most local outputs are used to
purchase local 'goods'.
Some 'goods' have value to the economy and can be defined as 'tools'.
Some outputs are global
science:,
,
).
Most global outputs are used to
purchase global 'goods'.
Most global goods (esp. Technologies) are used in support of a particular
strategy.
(BTW, that's just a general list of ideas.)
And I'm starting to think that perhaps economy should be defined at a city level rather than a civ level. The real game-play that happens almost always includes a hybrid-style economy with some cities playing different roles. But I need to think about this a bit more.
Lollerskates.
I've been trying to define the economy on a more city-related level, and Wodan and UncleJJ's arguments have me thinking I should back out a little and use a more general, post-city level approach.
It looks like we're both in that boat, LOL.
, 
& 
-- all of which are closely related to 
