Foudamental philosophy of an empire building game

[shadowlessasasin]

In my opinion, I think the foundamental concept of Civ III needs to be changed. With this foundamental concept changed, a lot of new things can be changed.

Anyone who take economic courses know that it is greed and gain that fuels economic and interactions. And it is economic and interactions that makes cities, civilization and empire possible.

The foundation of civilization and empire is therefore material wealth, not war. Thus, Civ III should be designed so that the end is to gain wealth and if there are any wars at all, it should be for the sake of wealth

Many may argue that Civ II is designed so that war is so heavily stressed because war is the mean through which to gain. So in that sense, Civ II's foundamental concept is also to gain.

Two points I want to make about this argument is that first Civ II, from what I've observed, is disigned so that war exists for war iself, not for gain's sake. Second, there are much much more means through which one may gain wealth other than war.

Some other may also make the point that war is the only thing that makes the game interesting. Without war, the game is boring. The refute I give to this argument is that the way Civ II is designed is such that war is the only challenge. But in a true empire building, the challenge lies in how to keep citizen's loyalty, how maintain a cordial relationship with neighoring countries, and how to keep a country's economy prosperous. If an empire building game is truely an empire building game, then war is not the only thing that will make the game interesting.

So again, I come back to the point that economic is important and must be given more weight to it. Dom Pedro II makes a very good point in one of his threats. He thinks that wealth, being the foundamental of any empire building, should be the first priority. Diplomacy exists for the primary purpose of making gaining of wealth possible, and the only reason for war in the first place is that it serves as the last option if all else fail to bring wealth.

Civ II isn't designed so that the above is true. In fact, Civ II is designed so that war is the ultimate end, and that econ is the mean through which to achieve that end. Civ III, must reverse that by making war and diplomacy the mean through which to reach the ultimate end of gain, and wealth.

If designers of Civ III really understand this points, and realize the implication of this change in foundation of a game philosophy, then they will find themselves with lots and lots of revisions to do. But I think, this revision is going to be worthwhile.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by shadowlessasasin on 11-24-2000 05:20 PM Dom Pedro II makes a very good point in one of his threats.

--Too good to pass up!

That's why we all snap to, and listen carefully when Dom Pedro II speaks!

[Snapcase on Snapcase]

There are many, many, theories of the basis of politics, of which economic theries (such as Marxism) form a small subset. To Quote from my Politics Syylabus: Liberal, Structural, Behavioural, Functional, Marxist, Pluralist and Classical Economic Theories, and these are just some theories selected for a first year introductory course. It is impossible to say that any one theory is "The truth"; many poeple will always disagre with you.

I totally disagree with the model you've picked, though. My personal choice for founding the internal workings of Civ on is Marxism/Historical Materialism, which is based on the Means of Production which beside capital also include things like Science, Labour and Raw Materials, well represented in the game by Trade and Shields. These stand in direct relation to progress, and change will come about with sufficient change in Means of Production.

On top of this base are the relations of production, the class system and the economic system. Society is dicvided into classes, and these fail and suceed depending on how well they can keep achieve or maintain the relations of production that benefit them. However, if the Means of production and the Relations of production are sufficiently far appart, a revolution will be triggered changing the class structure fundamentally, but also economic and governmental systems.

But this is just an easily implemental example, there are many more possibilities.

[Dom Pedro II]

: om Pedro lifts his venerable head::

Ah, grasshoppers.... listen well as Master Dom speaks, or I'll break your heads!


But back to the point, I have been a strong advocate on an economic games. The fact is that every world power has expanded and founded colonies for the purposes of raw materials and special goods found in distant lands. Almost every historical event has had something to do with commerce and economics. Every war has its economic reasons. Many of the Europeans got into wars because they wanted to control the valuable commodities in far-off lands. It is what drives civilization. Very few do it for the shear sake of taking over the world.

That is why we need a large group of commodities that control what can and can not be done in the game. Civilizations will fight to gain these commodities, and some civs will specilize in certain areas. That will determine how cordial they will be with their suppliers. A rather simple example is with the American colonies of the British. The reason why New England led the charge in the struggle for freedom had to do with the fact that their economy was based on all of the things that England produced. The South, meanwhile, was much more dependent on England for manufactured goods. A colony that is more economically independent will sooner or later want to be politically independent. That is only one example though.




------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3

[Dauphin]

quote: : om Pedro lifts his venerable head::

Mmmmm. I presume that the was an unforseen mistake?

[shadowlessasasin]

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase on Snapcase on 11-24-2000 08:35 PM There are many, many, theories of the basis of politics, of which economic theries (such as Marxism) form a small subset. To Quote from my Politics Syylabus: Liberal, Structural, Behavioural, Functional, Marxist, Pluralist and Classical Economic Theories, and these are just some theories selected for a first year introductory course. It is impossible to say that any one theory is "The truth"; many poeple will always disagre with you. I totally disagree with the model you've picked, though. My personal choice for founding the internal workings of Civ on is Marxism/Historical Materialism, which is based on the Means of Production which beside capital also include things like Science, Labour and Raw Materials, well represented in the game by Trade and Shields. These stand in direct relation to progress, and change will come about with sufficient change in Means of Production. On top of this base are the relations of production, the class system and the economic system. Society is dicvided into classes, and these fail and suceed depending on how well they can keep achieve or maintain the relations of production that benefit them. However, if the Means of production and the Relations of production are sufficiently far appart, a revolution will be triggered changing the class structure fundamentally, but also economic and governmental systems. But this is just an easily implemental example, there are many more possibilities.

Heheheheh!!!! As a first year econ major student in one of the worlds' lamest University, I have only begun to read the theories of Adam Smith and have not even touched on Marxism. So I don't know anything about what you've said. I do have to apologize for making the assumption that anyone would have agreed with me.

However, I still think that, as Dom Pedro said, the foundation of anything humans do since civilization begun has been desire and acquistion of material wealth. Hell, civilization would not have begun without desire for material gain.

Even though I can't comment on your idea about Historial materialism because I don't know anything about it, I think its safe to say that the most foudamental rule, the most general rule that governs human behavior is desire for gain. That's what led to wars. And this reality should be reflected in Civ III.

[Shogun Gunner]

This has been one of my favorite threads in a long time...

Don't overlook Snapcase's response. There's some great information in there. It brings me back to my Economic classes in college....

There are many different theories about government and economics. The relationship between these two very intertwined. In Civ many of these concepts are indirectly represented by the rules of the game. Sometimes, the designers do not specify exactly to the "why" of any particular rule and then we speculate on these items day after day on these forums....

For example, as Snapcase mentions, the class system is fundamental to every government and economic system. There are economic winners and losers... Where in Civ II is this? You indirectly see this represented in a few concepts like

1.The city riots
2.The demo/republic government collapses - Senate actions
3.Ability to declare war under different governments

This relationships is assumed and not clearly defined as what we studied in our Economics programs.

As for the Communist Gov't, you don't really see anything that's going to match an Econ textbook. It really matches up against the Soviet example better (less corruption due to KGB, reduced production compared to republic/democracy would be Soviet production compared to US production, there may be other examples...)

Splitting hairs aside, this is why I like Civ so much. Of all the simulation games ever created, this one does the best job of unifying so many different concepts.

[Salvius]

I apologize in advance, but I just have to say this:

For the love of God, do not base CivIII's economic model on Marxism.

I'll admit here to being a libertarian, and thus biased, and that I've never actually taken any formal economics courses. That said, I've done some reading, and it has seemed to me for many years that Marxism is based on a set of premises, some of which are provably false. I mean, even without any formal training, *I* can prove to you (or at least to myself) that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold in the real world.

I don't really want to get off onto a flamewar about Marxism here, I just want to make it clear that since there are some of us who believe it to be inherently seriously flawed, it may not be the best choice as the basis of CivIII's economy. :-)

Mind you, a debate about the relative merits of Marxism and free-market capitalism might be fun, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. If you must, email me about it.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Salvius on 11-25-2000 04:57 AM I mean, even without any formal training, *I* can prove to you (or at least to myself) that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold in the real world.

The democracy-theory didnt hold "in the real world" either , in ancient/medieval times. The Greek city-states never had any true democracy (women and slaves where excluded), and they certainly wasnt internationally open-minded, in the modern sense of the word. People in general, for large parts of our history, where just too narrow-minded, warlike and power-worshiping. This was the general norm - ideas about equality, rights and democracy was considered abnormal and utterly unrealistic. And it really was, at the time.
Even today we dont live in 100% TRUE democracys; the power of money overrides such lofty principals.

This goes for the idea of "equal values shall be exhanged for equal values", and not "maximal overprice shall be exchanged for maximal underprice" just to ensure any egotistically exploited exchange-difference (= profit).

Now, dont misunderstand me: any ideas about equal wealth-distribution IS at present utterly unrealistic, it really is. Im not being ironic here. Also, its incredible naive to think that one could create a "socialistic paradise" through violence, oppression and murder. To think that is "kindergarten-psychology". Lets hope that those ways and methods are compromised from here to kingdom come.

Having said that, however: Its a fact that for each new terrible world-war, the longing for world-peace have grew even stronger. Is it, by comparision, so hopelessly naive to think that for each future world-economical depression or collaps, the longing for safe and just global/social wealth-distrubution is likely to grew likewise stronger each time?

quote: Mind you, a debate about the relative merits of Marxism and free-market capitalism might be fun, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue.

I agree. This is my first (and probably my last) post on the subject.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

What it all basically comes down to is, that what we would LIKE is not necessarily what IS. It would be nice if something cost the labor and materials that went into making it, but as modern clothing companies have proven, that is not true.

Now, anybody who would like to dispute that people in general are looking to profit, would have to do some serious convincing. My heart goes out to that poor ideological fool. So if people act in their own interests, does this rule apply any less to kings and presidents? No, of course not.

Since the earliest days of man when people attacked each other in small tribes for a waterhole, to the conquistadors invasion of the Americas, to the Nazi desire for world conquest, the goal has always been to get new resources, rich farmlands, or regions of wealth. Otherwise, the purpose of war is to defend those things that you have from a possible enemy. Profit has guided history since the beginning. Even when a leader wants to act out of goodness, shear malice, or religious beliefs, there is always some consideration of profit.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3
[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-25-2000 02:43 PM What it all basically comes down to is, that what we would LIKE is not necessarily what IS. It would be nice if something cost the labor and materials that went into making it, but as modern clothing companies have proven, that is not true.

I agree.

quote: Now, anybody who would like to dispute that people in general are looking to profit, would have to do some serious convincing. My heart goes out to that poor ideological fool. So if people act in their own interests, does this rule apply any less to kings and presidents? No, of course not.

I agree.

quote: Since the earliest days of man when people attacked each other in small tribes for a waterhole, to the conquistadors invasion of the Americas, to the Nazi desire for world conquest, the goal has always been to get new resources, rich farmlands, or regions of wealth. Otherwise, the purpose of war is to defend those things that you have from a possible enemy. Profit has guided history since the beginning. Even when a leader wants to act out of goodness, shear malice, or religious beliefs, there is always some consideration of profit.

I agree.

And if Civ-3 is planned to end 2040 (like in Civ-2), i wouldnt have bothered posting my previous post. However, if Civ-3 is going to end lets say 2300 or even 2500, things really comes into a different perspective.

You see - history isnt future. Its not the same thing.

What it all basically comes down to is, what we BELIEVE (based on our narrow-minded pre-conceptions) is not necessarilly what is GOING TO BE. Our world are changing with an exponentially increasing speed. And its not just technical/material stuff, but also value-systems changes/dies (both 19:th century Victorianism and Stalinism/Leninism is today 100% dead, for example) - who knows what will happen to our present Holy cow: the mammon-God, named "Market economy" or "economical profit"?

Infact, the ONLY thing we can be 100% certain of by looking back at our civilization-history is that many life/society-viewing "cornerstones" that once was considered "eternal" has again and again crumbled. And likewise; those historic "left-over stones" that back then was sneered at and rejected, showed up to be our present world "cornerstones".

In ancient oriental times the highest rich-man ideal was the "Pascha"; a fat, idle, unemployed guy that didnt "degrade himself" with work - he let servants and advisors pamper him with all hes needs instead. The chained galley-slave, by comparision, of course dreamed of a life that was the exact opposite of his miserable situation - a life in heavenly "unemployment".
Today most rich people have an profession, and they mostly want to work, even though they have money enough to be totally workfree and idle all day long, year after year.

What happend to those old antiquated rich-man "idle pascha" ideals? Well, ideals changes i guess...

Today, year 2000, about 300-400 billionaires owns more together, then the poor half of our world population (and the gap is increasing) - all due to exploiting an economical advantage (= making profit).
Now, does that mean that these poor people are "innocent"? No, most people have dreams of being rich and making profit themselfes, of course.

But what happens if future word-economical collapses, major wars and total society breakdowns make all these profit- and market-loving people 100% disillusioned?
What happens if these people discover that in order to clean up and rebuild this totally collapsed world, they more or less are forced to cooperate (instead of compete) with each other? And that they likewise are forced to do it without any ulterior egotistical motives of "personal profit"?

By then these people are going to look back at those "poor fools" back in year 2000, who really didnt understand better - who, at the time, didnt have wisdom and life-experience enough to see much into the future.

These future people look at themselfes - they have lost everything, but in return they gained WISDOM.


Lets make a final summarizing comparision:

There are many of peoples personal hobbys that isnt "economically profitable" - if economical profit was a necessary prerequisite; all of this hobby-work coudnt be done anymore. You know what: people still do it, because they WANT to do it.

The same goes for rebuilding a future collapsed world: If "economical profit" is going to be the necessary prerequisite; then rebuilding a totally collapsed world cant be done.
You know what: people still are likely to do it, because by then they really WANT to do it.

There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

quote: There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

Your absolutely right! AH! I feel like I'm repeating myself on three different threads, I'm having trouble remembering what I said where. I said on another thread that wealth doesn't always mean monetary wealth. It can also be for other reason. The best way is to get even more fundamental than we already have.

Forget civilization for a second. The goal of anyone is provide for themselves and their families. They want to keep them fed, healthy, and safe from outside forces. The biological reason is because we need to preserve ourselves and our children to continue to spread our genetic material. The human reason is because we have emotions and we love them. So all of the monetary wealth is for the purposes of perpetuating the family or just ourselves.

It is about surviving. And surviving means you have to put yourself at the top. So when we become rich its about putting ourselves in the best position to survive, but luxuries is another important reason why. We want to make life comfortable too. On a large scale, gaining valuable life resources ensures survival. Once we have society, other resources are valuable because we can sell them for this strange thing called currency which will make sure we have our futures secure and luxuries available. And when you have thousands of little business men out there yelling for action, a leader is willing to send thousands of men to fight to get those resources.

That's what it all comes down to. We want to perpetuate ourselves and family by ensuring survival, but we want to be comfortable too. And to do all of these things we are willing to labor and toil, trade, negotiate, cheat, steal, fight, and murder. And bam! Civilization is born!

So I guess what this means is that the real goal for the game is to spread genetic material.

[Dom Pedro II]

Or if your like me, you try to conquer the world for personal glory!

[Salvius]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 11-25-2000 06:05 PM What it all basically comes down to is, what we BELIEVE (based on our narrow-minded pre-conceptions) is not necessarilly what is GOING TO BE. Our world are changing with an exponentially increasing speed. And its not just technical/material stuff, but also value-systems changes/dies (both 19:th century Victorianism and Stalinism/Leninism is today 100% dead, for example) - who knows what will happen to our present Holy cow: the mammon-God, named "Market economy" or "economical profit"? Infact, the ONLY thing we can be 100% certain of by looking back at our civilization-history is that many life/society-viewing "cornerstones" that once was considered "eternal" has again and again crumbled.

This is true. We don't know, and cannot predict, what the future holds. Socialist utopia, capitalist utopia, transhuman hive-mind utopia, more likely some non-utopia combining various aspects of different systems, or even something which has never been imagined. Some social structure that we, today, cannot even begin to comprehend.

The only options, then, would be to either end the game in the year 2000, or to provide for several different possibilities extrapolated into the future as best the designers can.

quote: But what happens if future word-economical collapses, major wars and total society breakdowns make all these profit- and market-loving people 100% disillusioned? What happens if these people discover that in order to clean up and rebuild this totally collapsed world, they more or less are forced to cooperate (instead of compete) with each other? And that they likewise are forced to do it without any ulterior egotistical motives of "personal profit"?

I could argue here that even that would be based on personal profit: We all work together, or we all die. If we don't pool our resources, none of us individually will have sufficient resources to survive, so it is in my interests to cooperate with you. Of course, this is starting to sound like a variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the truly good people in this situation should think about what game theory has to say about it, that anyone who is less that entirely honorable will be likely to betray them for their own gain...

quote: There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

This is true, and it is why people sometimes behave in ways that are, in formal economic-theory terms, irrational.

In my earlier post, I was not trying to suggest that communism/socialism/Marxism should not be in the game at all, but someone (Snapcase) had expressed the opinion that it should be the basis of the game's entire economic model. I disagree, because I don't think Marxist theory accurately describes the functioning of economics throughout most of history. I also think it was a reaction to conditions that no longer exist, an idealized version of human behavior that I am too cynical to believe will ever come to pass, and a system that encourages inefficiency, but all of that is irrelevant to how it should be used in CivIII. What is relevant is that I can't see any way to use Marxist concepts (such as Means of Production) as the basis of an economic model that can be "understood" by the computer well enough for the AI to have any chance of beating a human opponent at it, and that even if it could be done, it would likely result in ahistorical behavior by the AI, which would tend to disrupt my suspension of disbelief and remind me that I'm playing a game that uses an underlying economic model that I personally find unrealistic.

Certainly, Communism should be an available government type (or even economic type, if they went so far as to separate economic structure from governmental structure). It might even be the best type to use in rebuilding after a massive economic collapse (as you suggest), but I can't see that Marxist economic theory has any application to the behavior of the pre-feudal societies that would exist on turn 1 of a CivIII game, or the capitalist societies that would exist on turn 350, etc.
[This message has been edited by Salvius (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Stalker0]

Hi guys, I think Dom Pedro is mostly right in his assesment that civilizations that expand do so for the obtainment of wealth, land, and resources (later on, because of overcrowding)

I also agree with Ralf saying the future is not history. However, the gameplay of Civ games doesn't seem to change a great deal as time passes, so if a more economic system was implemented in the game, I don't think they would institute a very sharp goal change as the game nears the "future" years.