What's in a name? The "Economy"

[absimiliard]

I think and :happiness:, at least, are complex variables. They are both made up of local and global factors combined.

With the global factors all appear to be global in scope. If you have wheat, ever city has +1 . The multipliers generally seem to be local. If you have a granary IN THAT CITY then you get another +1 . The negatives, unhappiness and un-health seem to be all local, with the emancipation penalty as at least one exception. Although the negatives can be modified by global factors.

I'm not sure how to convert them. Maybe with corps in the late game. Something to consider.

Oh, and Otaku, I'm definitely finding myself agreeing with what you are thinking. I wonder what we can say about the existing strategies we've seen in common parlance.

For example: An SE would be an economy that focuses on converting the local input of into and , and sometimes . Those are a local transitive element that produces mostly by bulbing the GSs produced and trading that bulbed technology. Alternately it can focus on maximizing the local input and pump them right back out as a local output used to purchase goods, typically troops.

Purists will demand no alternate cities, lots of folks will add a few dedicated production sites. Most will have at least one cottage city, sometimes a capitol for the bureaucracy bonus to commerce.

Meh, enough to chew on for a bit. I'm pretty sure we can describe what exists using this. Now for the challenge. Can you use this usefully as a tool or is it just a waste of thought?

Can you describe a new economy that upon consideration just might work?

You should structure your answer to include your inputs, what tools you use to transform them, and what outputs you produce. Mentioning what those outputs buy you and how you'd use it might not a bad viability test to conduct as well.

*goes off to think about it*

{edit} Oh, I like that. So you say is an input. I think you have it. I think is a global input, modified by local factors admittedly. Interesting. I wonder what that implies. {/edit}


-abs

@Dave: But how do you run that sort of economy in the game?

 

[Tristan_C]

I have a sort of useful definition of "economy" for Civ. All projects aimed at enriching the internal mechanics of your empire are economic. Contrast economic with strategic; projects aimed at interaction with opponents are strategic. Perhaps there is a comparison in chess... moving pawns and rooks around to keep your positions strong is economic in nature, whereas going on offense with your knights is strategic.

For Civ examples, projects like the pyramids or hooking up Spices are economic projects because they affect your internals. Whereas researching something like Horseback Riding is a strategic project, since it offers means to fight opponents, with an "opportunity cost" to your economic strength. I guess some things are difficult to classify though... Culture, for example, is economic up to the point where your city gets its fat cross, then all further culture is strategic since it raises your defense, fights enemy culture, and advances towards a victory condition.

For me personally, seeing the game in this binary way (economy vs strategy) helps me make decisions a little bit quicker because it offers a simple view of my goals. While I micro-manage my cities, I can remind myself whether I need to make economic or strategic allotments.

 

[Way_Traveler]

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.

That is the first and only time I've laughed out loud at a comment on CFC. I have no idea why that's funny, but it is. . Well played. [I know it's a week old, but I just got to this thread].

 

[UncleJJ]

After a short rest it is time to start thinking about this topic again. My contributions are probably only suited to hardcore analytical junkies. I like to understand the game from a deeper perspective.

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 ...

The terminology we use can make a big difference to how well we can understand what is happening in the economy. I am currently developing ideas based on the value of "assets", where we have military assets (e.g. units), diplomatic assets and economic assets (e.g. cities, buildings). In this view the economy of each civilisation (ours and the AI rivals) produces the assets needed in each of these 3 main areas. By asset I simply mean something of value that we can manage, control and in some cases trade. Technologies and resources like ivory are assets that we can acquire, use, control and trade.

I feel like I'm on the verge of an epiphany ...

this epiphany seems to have overwhelmed you, and this thread has fallen silent before we have resolved the question concerning what an economy really is

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.​

I'm glad we seem to be agreeing on the division between global and local effects. That makes the analysis a lot easier.

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 don't really accept that hammers themselves are an output from a city, but they are a contribution to the actual output which is an asset of some kind (usually a unit or building). This asset only becomes available only when enough hammers have been applied to complete it. A military asset produced by the city might be a unit while a library would be an economic asset that was invested into the city increasing its economic potential. For me the unit would be a global output, since although it was built in a specific city it is then free to move elsewhere. Meanwhile the library would count as a local asset as a city can only make a library for itself.

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.

For me each of my cities consists of a collection of economic assets (population, tiles, specialists, buildings, corporations) that can be managed together (using the city screen). Then my economy is essentially the sum total of my cities (managed locally) and a few global effects such as civics, wonders and health and happiness resources (e.g. clams and ivory) and the whole economy is affected by slider settings and civic changes (managed globally).

 

[UncleJJ]

How do you factor in , , and ?

They all seem to be local economic factors, but each of them can be affected on either a local or global level.

At present I view each of the resources that give cities a + happiness as an economic asset. Ivory for instance is a global economic asset affecting all cities, while building a market in a city makes Ivory a local asset as well effectively doubling its effect. Happiness and health obviously affect the way a city is managed and can affect its output if mismanaged. So that is how I see those aspects of the game factored in at present

 

[spin8672]

I was thinking about “economy” and Civilization and decided to write it down, even though everything about the subject has probably been said somewhere on these forums. BTW first post on this forum, I’ve been playing CIVIV (vanilla, warlords, bts) ever since it came out.

Two of the main problems that have to be solved by any economy are:

1. How shall inputs be combined in order to produce outputs?
2. What outputs shall be produced?

In most countries these problems are solved by the market mechanism. In Civilization these problems must be solved by you, the player.

An “ economy” in Civilization is in essence a strategy implemented by a player in order to solve these two problems with the goal of winning the game either by domination, conquest, time, space race, cultural or diplomacy. In this respect it can be argued that every Civilization economy is a centrally planned economy where the player is the central planner. But that is really besides the point of this post.

What I would like to do here is to classify the various strategies that can be used in Civilization using the two questions above as a starting point. I’m not going to describe the strategies in much detail because I haven’t tried them all (will drop a few links though).

Problem 1: How shall inputs be combined in order to produce outputs?

To answer this question we first need to know what inputs are. In my economics class I learned the following definition:

An input or factor of production is a commodity or service used by firms in their production processes. Inputs are combined to produce outputs, while outputs consist of the varied array of useful goods or services that are either consumed or used for further production. In general, inputs fall into three groups: land and natural resources, labor and capital. Capital goods represent produced goods that can be used as factor inputs for further production, whereas labor and land are primary factor inputs not usefully thought of as being themselves produced by the economic system.

Applying this definition to Civilization we get the following primary factor inputs:

1. Citizens: the available citizens that can work (occupy) tiles or specialist slots
2. Tiles: the available land and sea tiles that can be worked
3. Specialist Slots: the available specialist slots that can be worked (occupied)

Citizens represent the primary factor Labor. Land and Sea tiles represent the primary factor input Land. Specialist Slots can also be interpreted as representing the primary factor Land since they are more or less functioning as virtual tiles.

Micromanagement in Civilization is allocating your citizens to your available tiles and specialist slots. In doing so you are solving Problem 1: you are combining inputs in order to produce outputs.

Every solution involves some degree of working both tiles and specialist slots. So every “economy” in Civilization is fundamentally a hybrid economy. But since you can emphasize working tiles over working specialist slots and vice versa, it’s possible to distinguish between two basic economies in Civilization based solely on primary factor inputs:

A. Tile economy: you are using your citizens mainly to work tiles in preference over specialist slots
B. Specialist economy: you are using your citizens mainly to work specialist slots in preference over tiles


Problem 2: What outputs shall be produced?

Outputs that are produced can be consumed or in turn used to help produce other outputs. In order to keep things simple I will limit myself here to primary outputs defined as outputs that can be directly produced by either working a tile or a specialist slot. These outputs are:

1. Commerce (from tiles)
2. Food (from tiles)
3. Hammers (from tiles and specialist slots)
4. Gold (from specialist slots)
5. Beakers (from specialist slots)
6. Spy points (from specialist slots)
7. Culture (from specialist slots)
8. GP points (from specialist slots)

Every solution to Problem 2 will involve some degree of producing all outputs in this list. So again every “economy” in Civilization is fundamentally a hybrid economy. But you can emphasize production of some outputs over others, and this allows for a further (sub) classification of the Tile and Specialist economies defined in the previous section.

A Tile economies

In a Tile economy your primary outputs are Commerce, Food and Hammers. Emphasizing one of these outputs over the two others results in the following (sub) classification:

A1 Tile/Commerce economy: your main object is to produce Commerce by working tiles. You can do this by working Land tiles and improve them with Cottages or you can work Sea tiles and improve them with Lighthouse, Harbor, Great Lighthouse etc. So in effect there are two types of Tile/Commerce economies:

A1.1: Tile/Commerce/Land economy (the famous “Cottage” economy)
A1.2 : Tile/Commerce/Sea economy (the “Traderoute” economy ?)

A2: Tile/Hammer economy (the “Wonderspam“ economy ?): your main object is to produce Hammers by working tiles. You can do this by working Land tiles and improve them with mines etc.

* Let's talk (Hammer) economy
* Obsolete wonderspam strategy?

A3: Tile/Food economy: I don’t think this is a valid economy in itself. Food is essential to every economy. If you have a food surplus you can work more Commerce or Hammer tiles in a Tile economy. This is not true the other way around. So Food supports either a Tile/Commerce or a Tile/Hammer economy. A food surplus also allows for more specialists, supporting a Specialist economy. Finally you can use the whip to convert Food into Hammers. Extensive whipping is also used to support some Specialist economies.

B Specialist economies

In a specialist economy your primary outputs are Hammers (Priest, Engineer), Gold (Priest, Merchant), Beakers (Scientist, Merchant, Spy), Spy points (Spy), Culture (Artist) and GP points (all specialists).

GP points are produced by all specialists so you can’t emphasize their production and they can’t be used to further classify specialist economies. That leaves:

B1. Specialist/Hammer economy: focus on Priests and Engineers

* Priest Economy

B2. Specialist/Gold economy: focus on Merchants

* Merchant economy

B3. Specialist/Beaker economy: focus on Scientists

* Beginner's Guide to the Specialist Economy

B4. Specialist/Spy economy: focus on Spies

* The Espionage Economy at Prince Level

B5. Specialist/Culture economy: focus on Artists

* Cultural Victory: Notes and tips

 

[needsomesleep]

"An economy" is the method of allocating goods and services. I think the CE/SE stuff is the wrong terminology. Look at our moden terms like Service Ecomony, Ag economy, or Manufacturing economy. cottages or specialists is your method with which you produce your tech. Specialist is especially wrong, becuase it's not as though all specialists are good. There are dominant specialists that people want to generate, such as prophets and scientists. Both of which people either use to "lightbulb" new tech, or bost with which they keep the tech slider up to research more tech. So, since both of these CE/SE refer to how you obtain your tech advancements, calling them an economy, I think, is wrong.

 

[Wodan]

I don't think CE/SE is "calling them an economy". I think the economy is called CE/SE.

That's probably not clear. What I mean is that the economy is given a label. A label, after all, is simply a concise shorthand moniker to make it easy to refer to something. CE/SE may not be the most apt label but they do describe one of the major features of the economy being referred to.

Wodan

 

[solistus]

I only read the OP and a few of the first page comments, so I bet this has already been said somewhere, but bear with me.

I voted that an economy is just the sum of inputs and outputs. In your example, a CE that uses its output for espionage is still a CE, but it is a _different_ CE. Why? Well, first and most obviously, the output is different; CE means the inputs are cottages, but the output matters as well. Sliders are not a 'something extra' that happens after commerce is generated; they determine what kind of commerce is generated in the first place. So, a CE based on espionage is not just outputting commerce; it's outputting espionage. But more importantly, because the "after the bills are paid" part has an effect on the input! If your espionage steals an input-enhancing tech like Biology, for example, you have just changed the inputs. Economic strategy is a strategy for maximising economic output. Thus, your cottage-espionage economy might lead to an economic strategy of stealing Biology to support more pop. Similarly, a production-focused economy that's pumping out infantry might adopt the economic strategy of military expansion to access more cities and their precious hammers (you'd then need a military strategy to maximise the effectiveness of your military at achieving this goa). Economy and economic strategy are closely related, but it is meaningful to discuss them as separate terms. Economy is the inputs and outputs. Strategy is how you use what you have to maximise returns on it. In terms of economic issues (which most things in Civ4 are), one can think of the economy as the pre-existing conditions that strategy has to work with.