So it's really just a way to keep the income/expenses ratio linear instead of logarithmic, to fix a common problem in most other strat games, aye?
In late games, buying a temple for city #56 for 480 gold didn't make me bat an eye in Civ III, but inflation will make me think twice due to my revenue no longer being expressable in exponential notation as compared to early-game.
Even so, it's not a 'real world' parallel. The industrial revolution caused in the US a gentle deflation throughout the 19th century (excepting war-related inflation during the suspension of specie payments). The US of 1800 vs. the US of 1900 were two entirely different things, but a dollar in 1900 could get you more wealth than what someone in 1800 could have gotten with it.
... and now we can get a half a Sprite and a stick of gum. Hmm.
So really, it should go both ways mebbe.
--edit
What I'm getting at is inflation isn't a natural thing that just happens. It happens due to several very specific and avoidable factors... it happens because power corrupts, and the power to print money corrupts absolutely.
In late games, buying a temple for city #56 for 480 gold didn't make me bat an eye in Civ III, but inflation will make me think twice due to my revenue no longer being expressable in exponential notation as compared to early-game.
Even so, it's not a 'real world' parallel. The industrial revolution caused in the US a gentle deflation throughout the 19th century (excepting war-related inflation during the suspension of specie payments). The US of 1800 vs. the US of 1900 were two entirely different things, but a dollar in 1900 could get you more wealth than what someone in 1800 could have gotten with it.
... and now we can get a half a Sprite and a stick of gum. Hmm.
So really, it should go both ways mebbe.
--edit
What I'm getting at is inflation isn't a natural thing that just happens. It happens due to several very specific and avoidable factors... it happens because power corrupts, and the power to print money corrupts absolutely.
Comment