More advanced economic models

[Sirotnikov]

I think that the economic models are probably the weakest part of Civ.


From the different vision of trade Civ II, Civ CTP, and Civ III had , to the different systems of coins + production (Civ II) and ratios and things in CTP (i know little of this).


I think there must be a better complete model (or models) that will both cover the aspect of money / production / food and also things such as ratios and workdays possibly.

Furthermore, I think that maybe different systems of taxation are needed, and effects have to be invented too


Also, I'm tired of the fact that you continue earning a fixed sum of money, even in a modern democratic capitalistic environment. I think that in the modern time, if you are a capitalistic democracy, you should earn for every "gold coin" of taxes, from 0 to ... 5 units of actual currency.

While, say, a non capitalistic country with no democracy, will earn a fixed sum of... 2, and a modern democratic social democracy will earn between 1 and 3.

That way, you actually have risk, and economic increases and highs. But then if luck (+ several secret in-game variables depending on your gameplay) is on your side, you could win much more dough.

Think about it. A capitalistic democracy CAN gain much much more than a non democracy or a non capitalistic democracy. But it won't always do that.

You shouldn't always know what you're gonna get in the end of the turn.

I think that the model should change through the game, with different options of controlling both the sliders and the actual sum you make, opening and closing depending on your social models (aka governments) , scientific advance, and so on.

[geeslaka]

One economic model I have thought of but not seen is this:

Cities produce usable forms of resources at given rates.
These usable forms are combined at given rates to make units.

Part of the weakness of the current Civ ec models is the small number of resources. If there were more resources and more layers like the one above, the ec models would be stronger.

[Inverse Icarus]

in my "dream game" that i slowly scriblle down things i want, i use regions instead of cities. each region would have natural resources etc etc, as well as demands, based upon several factors (geography, previous build queues, etc). if they do not have a resource they need, they would pay to import it. and you would make some money off the top (assuming you have said resource somewhere else).

i suppose that could be expanded upon, and made variable based on government.

[LDiCesare]

Did you check Clash of Civilisations? There is a whole econ model in the game, including several resources (food, capital and production), all of which are needed in different amounts for different types of infrastructure (units, walls, roads...). There is also a distinction between a traditional economy and a more liberal economy.

[geeslaka]

Nope. And looking around there, I probably never will. Unless of course, I start running windbloze.(when heaven freezes over)

[Sandman]

I think that, as it stands, trade is represented very well, food is represented reasonably well and resources are represented poorly.

When you build a road in a square, the resulting trade bonus should not really be seen as a bonus, but rather as an efficiency saving. By helping to eliminate production bottlenecks and reducing transport costs, where previously a pop point had to spend all it's time making two food and one resource, only three quarters of that pop point now have to work in the fields/mines, with the remaining quarter being free to invest their time in science, tax money or luxuries. That's how I see trade working, and it works very well.

The main failing of food is that it is decided purely on a city-sized basis, rather than on a civ-wide basis. The food caravans of earlier civs were not particularly great, I never used them anyway. You could have a civ-wide grain supply, based on your entire production, with city growth being dependent on other factors.

I suggest a modified version of this, with the size of your civ-wide food supply being modified by the efficiency of your transport network, so that a sprawling civ will get some penalty on it's food supply. It should also be possible to make cities 'self-sufficient'; that is, operating like traditional civ cities, producing food for themselves and no-one else. This ensure that a farflung colony didn't drastically increase the transport penalty on your food supply. It would also be possible to have mixed cities, say, keeping half their food and putting half of it into the civ-wide pot.

It should also be possible to trade food between civs: this would be done via agreeing to trade a certain amount of annual surplus grain from your stock in exchange for money, science, resources, luxuries etc.

I'll do resources later, any comments on my thoughts so far?

[LDiCesare]

Unless of course, I start running windbloze.(

I miss the point. It's coded in java, so it runs under Mac and probably Linux too if you can get a VM for it.

About roads and trade; Road commerce bonus is totally pitiful in the civ series. In MoM it made sense: roads give a bonus if they link two cities, otherwise they are worth nothing.

[Sandman]

About roads and trade; Road commerce bonus is totally pitiful in the civ series. In MoM it made sense: roads give a bonus if they link two cities, otherwise they are worth nothing.

I disagree. The trade bonus represents the reduced transport costs and eased production bottlenecks that roads bring to an area. They free up time to spend on luxuries, money-making and science. Read my post.

[LDiCesare]

I read your post, and I disagree too .
There are hundreds of time savers, and road is one of the least important. Tools are much more important. With your argument, iron working should provide huge trade boosts, because iron tools last longer than bronze or stone tools, and are more efficient. Domestication is even more important (since horses and cattle can be used to plow, people can be used to do something else).
So science, or some scrientific discoveries (iron, cattle, windmill, sailing, steam engine), should give boosts to trade. The same for harbours in cities, but roads have another purpose. I might understand for railroads or roads in modern times (automobile), because they do allow very fast transportation of goods from one place to another. But until railroad, roads, even Roman highways, didn't allow much except travel of a few individuals. They could be required in order to establish caravans or trade between countries, but that is all IMO.

[Inverse Icarus]

i personally think that roads should not increase trade. infact, i think they should COST upkeep (say, 1 gold per every 3 roads?), and should benefit trade then they link to something important (another city, a resource, etc)

[Sore Loser]

I know the Colonization system worked awfully, but I still can't help suggesting something similar.

4 major groups:
- Food (includes spice and luxury food)
- Raw materials (used both for buildings and manufactured goods)
- Goods (weapons and tools mostly)
- "Rare Items" (precious metals, beads, mahogny wood, anything that can be used to fashion jewelry or ornamentation)

Each major group is subdivided into a number of sub groups. Your citizens will then have demand ratings for the various types of goods. If they have nothing to eat but fish then they start getting grumpy and production goes down. If they have nothing but clay and copper to build shelters and goods from then their goods will be inferior to those of other cultures, etc.

Money has been left out of this system intentionally, because I believe this should be invented by the players (this follows my belief that the ultimate Civ is a Massive Multiplayer one). Merchants will soon experience the need for commonly accepted credit that is easy to transport, initially using resources that have great value compared to their weight ("Rare Items"). Eventually an actual currency system may be developed by an ambitious ruler, if he can manage the problems with counterfeiters and common acceptance.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
I know the Colonization system worked awfully, but I still can't help suggesting something similar.

4 major groups:
- Food (includes spice and luxury food)
- Raw materials (used both for buildings and manufactured goods)
- Goods (weapons and tools mostly)
- "Rare Items" (precious metals, beads, mahogny wood, anything that can be used to fashion jewelry or ornamentation)

Each major group is subdivided into a number of sub groups. Your citizens will then have demand ratings for the various types of goods. If they have nothing to eat but fish then they start getting grumpy and production goes down. If they have nothing but clay and copper to build shelters and goods from then their goods will be inferior to those of other cultures, etc.

Money has been left out of this system intentionally, because I believe this should be invented by the players (this follows my belief that the ultimate Civ is a Massive Multiplayer one). Merchants will soon experience the need for commonly accepted credit that is easy to transport, initially using resources that have great value compared to their weight ("Rare Items"). Eventually an actual currency system may be developed by an ambitious ruler, if he can manage the problems with counterfeiters and common acceptance.

hi ,

if we where to see " goods " we where to get new buildings , trading of units , etc , ..... >>> but many people dont like that , more buildings , units , etc , ........

its a shame actually cause the game could use a couple more on and off microman options , ......

have a nice day

[Sore Loser]

First off, how do you quote?

Yes, there'll be new buildings. I'm thinking something along the lines of the systems used in Colonization and Stars!, where you have a number of buildings for each commodity and you then add a work force to that field of work. I know this means more micro-management, so it wouldn't work well in a an ordinary Civ setting where each player usually controls 10+ cities. A traditional Civ's force is that the abstraction level is fairly high while keeping the level of micro-management down.

My idea is to create a Massive Multiplayer Civ (see my post on this) where each player controls no more than one city + garrison (or one field army), meaning that the number of time spent micro-managing will remain manageable.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
First off, how do you quote?

Yes, there'll be new buildings. I'm thinking something along the lines of the systems used in Colonization and Stars!, where you have a number of buildings for each commodity and you then add a work force to that field of work. I know this means more micro-management, so it wouldn't work well in a an ordinary Civ setting where each player usually controls 10+ cities. A traditional Civ's force is that the abstraction level is fairly high while keeping the level of micro-management down.

My idea is to create a Massive Multiplayer Civ (see my post on this) where each player controls no more than one city + garrison (or one field army), meaning that the number of time spent micro-managing will remain manageable.

hi ,

take a look at a message , top right " reply with quote " , the small square , ...... got it

have a nice day

[Dinner]

I'd also like to see population migration included in the game. The better the roads or sea port links then the more likely the people from a poor country will move to a rich country.