New Concept: Economy & Globalization

[altF18]

right now, managing your army and conquering the world is the main force behind Civilization. space race is an alternative, that UN victory is a bad idea, Domination lacks in everything, and Cultural domination is as bad as Culture flipping.
anyway, when players talk about micromanagement, its usually about managing minor things that doesn't deal with their military.
but there are those who are even tired of ordering their troops about.
so, where's the balance in all this? what is it you desire to do in building an empire?

i don't know about you, but for myself, i always wanted to do just that, build an Empire, and by more than plain conquest. but by the other main driving force of a nation - trade. it's really what its all about. providing things for your citizens to keep them happy, make money, and fuel a state of the art empire. and military.
but the economic system has always been abstract in civ and trade is defunct. it was unimportant in civ 2 and rather silly and in civ 3.
and still, even with the strategic resoucres and luxuries, it isn't much of a thing.
so i've come up with a new idea...

but first, i'd like to hear what kind of ideas everyone else might come up with for a Globalization Victory.
what would Globalization be in the first place?

your thoughts?

[CrONoS]

How Globalization victory will not be like Cultural Domination? What's the difference for you?

And I must disagree on some point:
Culture Flipping is a really good idea. Strategic resources and luxuries is one of the best innovation of Civ3. But I know all this before can be recreate in a better way one day in Civ4....

See ya

[Spiffor]

AltF18 :
Just participating in the early brainstorming (no complete concept up to this point).

First, if I understand correctly, the "globalization victory" is an "economic victory", i.e you win thanks to the sheer superiority and influence of your economy.

This reminds me of SMAC's economic victory, which was way too easy to achieve : amass throngs of money, and declare victory at some point (I played the Morganites, so it was really easy).

If we are to design a new kind of victory, we should see what is missing in the current forms of victory. So, here's a short listing :

- conquest victory : this represents the absolute domination of your army. Nobody else is standing, it's as simple as that.
- domination victory. It was introduced to avoid the tedium of conquest victories, when the only remaining enemy city was very remote and was simply tedious to conquer. Another victory that shows your military prowess.
- cultural victory. It requires to have an early interest in culture, to have many cities to cultivate this culture, and to crush rivaling cultures. While it is much of a builder's victory, it requires some warmongering.
- spaceship victory. The classic peaceful victory. It requires a solid industry and a solid research. It is considerably eased by your Civ being not at war. However, it is highly dependent on the terrain (need to have industrial powerhouses)
- diplomatic victory. Another peaceful victory, which requires you to be liked by the AI, i.e to have a good reputation, to be at peace with them, ans to have bribed them. However, the UN victory is unfulfilling because you basically declare your victory without putting any significant effort in it.

In order to be fun, a victory condition has to be challenging (or at least to be a journey -big problem of the UN victory). It also has to be something you focus your efforts upon, at the cost of nearly everything else. And lastly, there has to be a competition between Civs to achieve this victory.

What would an "economic victory" look like in real life ? I would say all economies of the world would have to be strongly dependent of the "victorious" economy, while the latter is only slightly dependent on the others. More precisely, it means the other countries are dependent of the winner's technology, products, finances, and maybe infrastructure.

[Spiffor]

Step 2 of the brainstorming : What could an "economic victory" look like in gameplay terms.

First, we have to see what kind of victory we want. An "economic victory" IMHO has to :
- be completely peaceful. It is the very kind of victory that should not need any war to be fulfilled.
- reflect the superiority of your commerce and trade.
- reflect the inferiority of the others' commerce and trade
- be an effort in order to achieve it

What we don't want is a SMAC-like economic victory, when you simply declare victory after getting some amount of money. Dull. As dull as the UN victory of Civ3.

Well, since several Civs will compete for the "economic victory", and since it has to be the perfectly peaceful option, I think we need to find a way where it is possible to peacefully compete with the others too.

So, I think the economic victory should take these factors into account :
- national income per turn.
- money recieved from other Civs
- money given to other Civs.
- maybe techs given to/recieved from other civs
- maybe resources or luxuries given to / recieved from other Civs.

These factors assess how dependant of you the other Civs are : obviously, if you're the one who sells the techs and rake money from them, obviosuly if you have monopolies over resources of luxuries, obviously if you recieve huge money from your empire, you are stronger than them.

However, for the resources or luxuries to be taken into account, Civ3 would have to allow to buy multiple resources/luxuries. For example, the Persians could buy all silks from the Chinese, and sell them with a profit to the Romans (like during the era of the silk road).

So, to me, the basic conditions to get an economic victory is :
- to make tons of money in your empire
- to have a superior research the other Civs need to buy if they want to stay on par
- to be paid by other Civs for whatever reason
- to have monopolies or near monopolies over resources or luxuries.

Things that hurt your economic victory are :
- to pay other Civs for whatever reason
- to let other Civs gather monopolies or quasi monopolies.
- to acquire your techs from the other Civs

What do you think ?

[Kuciwalker]

I like it the way you've outlined it.

[Jog]

I dont like this at all.

An economic victory?!! I mean come on, to amass so much wealth as to "win" an entire game of civ would make this path of victory similar if not exactly the same as at least two of the exisiting victory paths.

I can see several things wrong with this. Maybe someone else would want to address them.

The Late-Game Superpower Standoff: By end game, there are two, maybe three relevant powers left in the game. (It would only seem fitting that this globalization victory would occur in the modern era) Most of the time, the superpowers are able to compete with each other economically and industrially (.."industrially"? is that a word?). Just like the culture victory, domination victory and conquest victory, it is usually mandatory that the closest competitor be wiped off the face of the earth to secure victory i.e. the absolutely beautiful modern Superpower War (my favourite part of ANY civ game). Basically, you will have to flex your military might to achieve this globalization economic victory as the game stands now.

Money Is Power, Power Is Money: In Civ, a dominant economy requires a large amount of territory, culture, resources, military strength and techs. There is but one sure way to accquire all these things: conquest. plain and simple.

Now I'm not saying that this idea is impossible. I'm just saying that it would require a major innovation to the game to make it a "new" victory path. And that my friends, is something I just simply do not have the energy to contemplate right now.

[pedrojedi]

In one point you're right: such victory would require MAJOR change, but I think such change would be great.

An economic victory is possible, but, to not be dull and simple, it would require, probably, a big change, and a new court of war: economy.

I can view such court as and "new terrain" or a "new map". Perhaps a "new interface screen" or screens. It would require some techs to develop your economic infrastructure, and certainly some variable governamental changes, even some bars that could represent what would be your priorities and possibilities.

The thing is, it should be fun enough to not require just a sheer amount of money: the economic battleground would have the objective of crippling your enemy, eventually leading it to a recess era and inflation, with development of poverty and unhappiness.

Some embargoes do the job right now, but that should not just be it. Certainly, there could be some options when you discover currency, then after you develop banking and banks, and with the stock exchange, things would really be wild and dynamic. It would require, of course, another major change: independant economy, one that is NOT controlled by any civ, and is very floating and submitted to even events like wars. And such economic flows should not be monophasic, with just one tendency. It would be polyphasic, with many changes. For example, in a war, the happiness industry would be lower in your country, but weapons industry would work on high amounts. And, of course, such changes could be controllable through those government changes.

The idea is fine, but it require, definitively, a big major change.

[Spiffor]

Pedrojedi :
Your idea is interesting. Could you please elaborate in how your new economic model would bring an economic victory ?

[altF18]

My proposal for a new Economic System and Victory

hm, interesting debates and discussion here.
and some good ideas too, although i didn't leave anything to work with.

well, i've thought about this Economic Victory myself, and decided to stick with it being a Globalization Victory... I'll explain in a bit.
the only thing is, however, this would require, yes, major changes from civ 3 if it's going to be considered for a new civ. our current game couldn't handle the kind of concept i have...

How Globalization victory will not be like Cultural Domination? What's the difference for you?

my idea is way different, as you may see...

Strategic resources and luxuries is one of the best innovation of Civ3.

agreed - and Globalization makes something more out of them, as i'll explain

What would an "economic victory" look like in real life ? I would say all economies of the world would have to be strongly dependent of the "victorious" economy, while the latter is only slightly dependent on the others. More precisely, it means the other countries are dependent of the winner's technology, products, finances, and maybe infrastructure.

ah yes, Spiffor, that rightly sums up the goal of my idea... running the world with a soft touch by controling its economy. and with my concept, even Japan size civs could achieve victory...
your brainstorming 2 post was a good one too, and workable, but i think new factors could be implemented that would more accurately rate your 'Globalist' power.

Money Is Power, Power Is Money: In Civ, a dominant economy requires a large amount of territory, culture, resources, military strength and techs. There is but one sure way to accquire all these things: conquest. plain and simple.
Now I'm not saying that this idea is impossible. I'm just saying that it would require a major innovation to the game to make it a "new" victory path. And that my friends, is something I just simply do not have the energy to contemplate right now.

well Jog, Spiffor provided a good system for a current model, but what i have in mind would introduce a slightly "new" innovation. this would be an advanced system of trade and the concept of Supply and Demand... and Supplier...
as for military prowess and conquest, at first it might be wise to expand your empire as to acquire raw resources. but eventually, trade, and globalization of resources, would null the effect of having a sprawling empire. with my idea, you could be as small as Japan and still become dominant on the Market...

the victory would take place when your Economic influence on all other nations is powerful enough to keep them under your will. Their countries, though remaining sovereign, would be markets for goods you control, and so you would be the dominant power of Globalization. Making a certain lump sum of cash does not determine your victory.
You must establish yourself as the worlds economic superpower by eliminating competition in trade and supplying a good deal of the world demand.
Of course, you still might need a strong military to maintain security and influence over rogue-minded states. And sometimes you could flex your military muscle to crush other aspiring economic powers…
And you may require strong cultural influence (this is not flipping) over other civs to get recognition and appreciation from the people of your market states. This would make them friendlier to you and more apt to want to purchase your goods (other than an opponents – perhaps even regarless of price)
All of what I mention is impossible in civ 3, so of course I’m talking civ 4…

as for the big major changes that may be required for a sophisticated yet simple Economic system...

- the Resource model would be upgraded completely
they would follow Spiffor’s per turn concept (in civ 4 sugg.) and yield designated amounts. For example, one silk resource would give your city 4 silks. (on the display, you would see the silk icon and beneath it, the amount your city is receiving – SILK (4) )
Luxury goods would be based upon a new system called Supply and Demand.
With this system, every luxury good you know of will be demanded by your citizens, in varying quantities.
So your city might be demanding 3 silk. If provided. these would in turn make 3 citizens happy (or content) and also generate you, say, 30 gold per turn. Excess silk (not demanded) would have no effect and bring in only 1 gold each. So if you had one silk good and were collecting four silks in the city, 3 of these would be benefiting you. One would be unnecessary and therefore ideal for, either sending to one of your cities that demand silk, or, a new concept, putting it up on the international market (similar to Call to Power’s) for other civs to consider buying.
Trade would be its own thing and not an aspect of diplomacy.
So, after putting the good up on the market, its value would be 20 gold, or any other automatically determined price. You have the choice of taxing, or putting a tariff on it of any amount up to an extra 5 gold.
If you had multiple of the same good on the market, its value would decrease. So where one silk was worth 20 gold (plus your taxes), having two available would bring the price down to 18, and every other would also decrease the value in a set amount. For my example, the price drops by two, so 5 silks on the market would make their value 12 gold. Though this makes it less valuable to you, the AI would usually go after cheaper prices. So having a wide range of product would give you a higher advantage of being bought. And also, you could cover multiple markets and thus have multiple income. So selling two silks for 18 gold would bring you 36 gold, but four for 14 would allocate 56. And there’s always taxes to jack up the price.
The force behind the market is that there will hardly be enough resources in your own territory to supply your civ with all the required luxuries (emphasized more so with Demand) strategic, and energy resources.
So as an alternative to forcefully acquiring these goods by war, you could conduct trade on the international market. Of course, strengthening your own market capacity is a necessity to succeed in having a trade empire, since you’ll need a broad supply of goods. This can be achieved through Imperialism – setting up colonial empires all over the world by conquering Minor Tribes and rival civs and directly controlling resources – or by re-trade, you buy mass quantities from suppliers and in turn sell them, at a higher price, to demanders. Another option, which motivates the title of the victory, is Globalization. Coming with the modern era and the so-named Tech, you gain the ability to invest in resources around the world. (if you want to look at it through a Realistic POV, instead of thinking CEO, rather assume you simply appoint the investment, and Corporations and contractors set up their branches there. You collect the taxes )
This means you have the ability to ‘own’ goods in foreign territory without ruling the area. You’ll need a connected network since the goods would be sent to your own city.
Investments could only be made in free market states – Communist and strict despotic governments disallow foreign investment. (and maybe limit purchases of foreign luxuries?)
To invest in a region, you would need a stronger economic influence – a nation like France would not be able to invest in America, to use a RW example. (hmm, could anyone invest in American territory?)
Since you’ll be depriving the owner civ of a potentially valuable commodity, there would have to be at least a semi-fair price. Lump sums or per turn payments would be negotiated. Since its free enterprise, the host civ would be obliged to accept an investment. (as long as it thinks the price is right)
This would be a major peaceful benefiting factor for the Economically minded. A strong transnational income would be a plus for your market – and you could in turn sell these goods on the market.
To achieve the Globalization victory, you would need to control at least 60% of the Globalized market – resources from foreign investments, and have a dominant standing on the International market so that all nations would be on the life-support of your monopolies. Instead of just having a strong economy, you’d need a strong economic hold on your rivals. Instead of conquering their cities, you would have to control 60% of their imports, making them dependent on your economy. And that’s to every civ on the map. You need to establish your market presence worldwide. (make sure every country has its golden arches )
Your dominant market presence.
And thus I call it a Globalization victory instead of simply an Economic one.
An alternative to bloodlust, a solution for small civs (establish investments) and an emphasis on an important, but always left out factor.
For those who prefer war and don’t want to bother with trade or economy, you don’t necessarily have to. Afterall, conquering your neighbors brings about relatively the same thing.
So there’s no new level of needed micromanagement, and you wont be forced to build a dominant, or even strong, market presence.

That’s my proposal for a “new” economic system and victory.
What does everyone think?

[johncmcleod]

I think it's a brilliant idea. I have always wanted something like it in Civ3. The economy in it so plain and unrealistic.

Another thing that needs to be added is something to make trade more realistic. Maybe resources that you trade could be loaded up onto ships or something like that. The navy isn't nearly powerful as it should be in Civ3 mainly because in real life if you control the seas you control major trade routes. If you were at war, you could have a Battle of the Atlantic again-submarines all over the seas on the prowl for merchant ships.

Another thing that needs to be added is once the Industrial age comes, cities should no longer be self sufficient. Farmers would produce food and shields and these could be purchased by anyone in the country. And the citizens would have control over where they live. Certain terrain types could control how desirable it is to live there. Lots of people would move to the coast and buy food that the farmers are making. This would be possible because of new techs could make big bonuses for farming.

This brings up another issue needed for civ3: emigration. As I said before, the citzens could move to whatever city they want, including cities of neighboring countries. It'd be the alternative to culture flipping. Instead of losing a city when a neighboring city's culture is much greater, people would immigrate to that city. You then could set up emigration laws. You could choose how many people could leave and come in. You could also set up racial biases, such as English would be able to get in easier than Chinese could.

[Spiffor]

altF18 :

I like your ideas, even though I'd like to add some corrections from my perspective :

1. About supply and demand, I agree there should be a limited output of luxuries the same way I have previously suggested for resources. But I don't think demand should be variable from city to city. For the sake of simplicity and the opposition to micromanagement, I think that one city = one demanded luxury of each kind.
Otherwise, that would be a real annoyance for players who love huge empires. Do you imagine Arrian yelling "argh, how many wines needs city #68 again ?"
Lastly, I don't think that luxuries sold domestically should earn you money. Your citizens give you enough money as it is

2. Your idea of a global market is a good one. It will make luxury trade much easier, and will reduce some of the micromanagement we have in Civ3. Naturally, it should be compensasted with the ability to bar some countries from being able to buy your wares.
However, there are two things to adress : On the one hand, luxuries are currently something used in diplomatic haggl negociations, and maybe we should look for a system that still gives some weight in diplomacy. On the other hand, If prices go down when you have more extra luxuries, I wonder why you'd ever bother buying said luxuries from your neighbours hoping to make a profit from them (and gather a true monopoly).

3 Your idea of foreign investments reminds me of the game Imperialism, and I think we could use their interface for the feature being simple. I see it like this :
- first you send a worker in the friendly country you want to "invest" in (i.e claim a tile with a luxury)
- When your worker arrives in the interesting tile in foreign territory, you order him to build a colony, exactly like the current Civ3 one.
- A popup appears and shows the price the 'welcoming' Civ demands for it, and asks whether you're ready to pay or not. If the Civ refuses to let you invest , there is no price to pay, and you can send your worker back home.
- The colony, despite being in foreign territory, is not disbanded, and a flag shows to whom it belongs.
- In 20 turns, both Civs will be able to renegociate the price of the "investment", or will be able to demand the disbanding of it.

(BTW, I think such a system would allow not to destroy colonies as soon as a border joins them earlier in the game ; colonies in foreign territory would lead to the same kind of haggling, except that it would be impossible before the industrial era to wantonly build colonies within foreign borders).
Such a system would also allow less powerful countries to invest in topdog's territory, if the latter is willing.

I don't think the government form of a Civ should influence foreign investement there. The big influencing factors would be the strategic concerns, and your relations with the 'welcoming' Civ.

[bobbo008]

As a laborer of the America - Democracy, all i can say is that I am just content, as i do not have access to Ivory.

think they should change up some of those luxuries?

[Azeem]

Or maybe luxuries could change as the ages advance?

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Maybe you could have lots more types of luxury resources and have different civs desire different ones, perhaps tied in somehow to the civ traits. If these were rare as the 8 we have now are then this investing idea might work.

If for example the Romans treasured tobacco above all other luxuries and this could only be found in China and Japan, the leading economy say the English could rent the resource tiles from the Chinese/Japanese and manufacture the goods back in blighty to sell to the Romans.

In fact perhaps there should also need to be some investment into manufacturing of a certain resource before one could actually have a finished product to sell ie production lines/chains. These specific industries could also require specific research and technology which would in turn make it more sensible not to whore your tech to everyone for the cash and or luxuries.

Obviously not selling all your tech would make it harder to get rich but that is part of the sacrifice and investment you make to eventually aqquire a monopoly in a certain product.

Is any of this making any sense ?

[bobbo008]

makes sense to me. you brought up another issue that i liked in other games, Pharoah for example. having raw goods and manufacturing them into finished goods, which would sell for a higher cost.