Foudamental philosophy of an empire building game

[raingoon]

quote: 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.

But "wealth" in Civ has always been land. For that matter, it's always been land in the real world. And war is the chief means of obtaining that wealth -- war has never been in Civ for war's sake. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the game economics.

The cost of gaining wealth in Civ is equal to the price of the unit(s) needed to take over the land and those units are equal to X gold derived from the trade stream that comes from the land you've previously taken over. In other words, a real-world economics model has always been at the center of the game, and that's why it excels -- More units net you more land nets you more trade stream nets you more units, etc.

Also, I don't know who said it but the class system has always existed in the game -- those who Have and those who Have Not.

And forgive me if you think there's a finer point to be made, but Marx essentially argues that conflict is the chief means for progress. Marx would probably enjoy Civ 2.

So, if you're saying economics is not already at the heart of the game, then you're misunderstanding the concept of wealth. If, you simply want another form of wealth in the game other than land and resources, well -- one, that's not very realistic, and two, it's not very visual. I'd reconsider. Certainly there have been times in playing Civ 2 when all the land was grabbed up, and everyone felt they generally had enough wealth -- it's been down right utopian at times -- and the means to victory HAS changed to a concentration on channeling that wealth not into war but science. Also an inspired idea. I really don't see what all the fuss is about?

[Dom Pedro II]

Raingoon, I think you are the one that has misunderstood the game a bit. Afterall, you said that the acquistion of land is the important thing in the game, but why does anybody acquire land? A desert is not nearly as valuable as rich farmland. Half the Sahara isn't worth a quarter of Ohio territory. (Let's not get technical about that point. Its just an example). The fact is, that as it stands, you could basically take or leave the resources in the game. They are convenient but not essential. I think they should be a necessity to functioning in the game.

Afterall, during the Age of Imperialism, if you didn't have a colony, you weren't a world power. If you didn't have a colony it meant you weren't in control of Sugar, Fur, Spices, Tea, Gold, Tobacco, or any other things that were valuable commodities. If you didn't have them, it meant somebody was selling them to you and it put you at a disadvantage. Thus all countries with power sought to have colonies.

But right now, the overall goal in the game is to acquire cities. Then with those cities, you build more units to take other cities. So basically the entire purpose is to build units to take more cities, to build improvements to aid in conquest, or build wonders to make conquest easier. And then you win the game. What then? Are you supposed to build even more units to attack nothing? Money has only one purpose and that is to pay for units and improvements. It is not a goal in and of itself.

Even roads and railroads are constructed for the purposes of transporting troops, nothing else. Farms and Irrigation are meant to help cities grow so they can more efficiently produce units. All of the "improving" we do in the game is for the purposes of one day conquering the world (or for some to go to AC).

But most importantly, the AI doesn't place any importance on acquiring resources. If the AI had it set in its mind to gain all of the resources it does not yet have, it would be much more intelligent.

[Shogun Gunner]

Ah! After all this wonderful discussion we are back to what CIV III could bring to the table to improve upon CIV II.

In reading Dom Pedro II's posts (yes, in all the different, similiar threads/threats ) there is one thing repeated that I firmly agree with.

Make the AI player have a similiar motivation (based in some logic and reality) to most accurately mimic the human player. These motivations would be based in theories of marxism, capitalism, socialism and every other philosophy developed over 4000 years on this planet.

Th AI should strive for the same goals that you as the human player strive for. The real question isn't what that is. There are many great ideas from several different posters on this thread, but the real question is how to do it. Good for us, we don't have to worry about the mechanics of this...Firaxis does. All we have to do is fork over 50 bucks.

If I could just see a little bit more range of human emotion from the computer player during negotiations... or maybe this too "out there..." I would love to think the AI player was an idiot for twenty turns to finally realize that I'm at the receiving end of some fabulous AI strategy!!! How cool would that be!!!!

[The diplomat]

I completely agree that civ3 should put more emphasis on economic matters and that war needs to be a means to an end not the end itself. I have been saying that for a long time now.

I think we can sum up empire management with 3 basic rules:
1) make sure your population is happy and loyal.
2) make sure they have food and wealth.
3) make sure your people are safe from outside threats.

War has been a tool in the hands of leaders as they struggled to acheive these goals. But war is not the only way to acheive these goals. For example, if there is a risk of riots, you can declare martial law, send in the troops and crush anybody who is causing trouble.
But you can also try to negotiate with the rebels. You can give in to their demands. You can appease them.
If your people are starving, you can invade your rich neighbor and take their food. But you can also trade with your neighbor for food. You can ration food. You can build farms and try to grow more food.

I hope that civ3 really emphasizes these choices that the player should have. It is up to the player how he/she wants to deal with a specific problem. I think this gets to the heart of what a strategy game like civ is all about: choices.

[raingoon]

Dom Pedro, I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. I'd state it even simpler -- resources should be both essential and limited. Define essential as what is needed to dominate all rivals and limited as what the map is seeded with.

I did a pretty interesting Energy Model (IMO) in the Suggestions form sometime in the last 12 months. Someone might want to check that out, apropos of this discussion -- I think it was called something like Energy: The Most Important Thing Civ Never Had. I am a big believer in war being motivated by the movement of civilizations in contest with each other for essential resources.

But I stand by what I said in my last post. Some posts, including your last one, seem to think economics refers to money and gold. In fact it does not, per se. As we all know, it refers to supply and demand. I point out that even in a land grab (or city grab, whichever you prefer) the supply demand curve is operative. But I agree with you that the game should be changed to the extent that what is demanded isn't just a supply of more cities.

[Roman]

Well people, I think this topic is bordering on the futile. To make this clear I will summarize your arguments:

1) People do almost everything for profit, but profit does not have to be money - it can be resources, space, or just about everything else.

2) The other motivation for people doing something is that they want to do it, eg. Hobbies, etc.

The problem is that these two explanations (which are not that different, since fun could also be described as a form of profit) can actually be used to justify doing anything, anytime, because one can always say he/she wanted to it and the profit was (in the case of Civ II) extra resources, production, cities, science, potential, or land or anything else. Hence while this discussion might have some philosophical interest, it is not very useful in determining a shape Civ III should assume.

[Stuff2]

There are two, things that i personally think should be the ultimate goal of civ2.

1. Survival, against, disasters, war, plagues, starvation, enviromental problems, asteriod collisions e.t.c.

2. Happiness. if you finally succeed in building the perfect society (which we all know won't exist ever) You'll get a faboulus bonus.

I agree that civ2 is modeled for war. It's mainly beacouse the military system isn't properly connected with the rest of the systems. But the most boring thing with civ2 is that you actually can solve every problem within a few turns (if you are rich and powerful enough). For instance, once you have captured all cities from a nation all their geurilla soldiers magically disappears. We all know that in reality the geurilla soldiers can stay for decades, supported by illegal drugs that causes problems for your own citizens. Also, pollution is so easy to cure that you don't have to worry about global warming unless you accidently start a nuclear war. In reality the envirmental problems are so complex that noone really has a clue on what to do.

What civ2 needs is more illoyal citizens, more problems that has to be solved in order to survive and gain happiness. The ultimate goal is happiness for your stupid and illoyal citizen and too accomplish that you
have to gain wealth, science and you also have to use power to get control (and to maintain control). The trade, the diplomacy and the warmachine is what you have as tools for this task.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that the goal and way of acheiving your goal should change according to the time period you're in and your SE status.

In the ancient age, you strive to get land since more population equals more taxes. Also you want to lead in science since it's considered of high status.

In the medieval ages you should strive to get more slaves (workers)

If religion is implemented, it comes in now. There are holy cities that you want to control (see Jerusalem).

Then the renaissance - your goal is to capture land for expansion and capture / build wonders of the world.

Then the imperial age, when you want resources and land to develop.

Then science comes in. Your goal then is again to lead in science and wealth.

Suddenly, a new religion like charachteristic erupts and brings several ww's. It's called - nationalism. It brings fighting for land which you owned sometimes. It brings useless fighting for the sake of land grabbing with no other cause.

The last phase has the next goals:
1. Wealth
2. Peace
3. Science
And we are experiencing it now.
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited November 27, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, Raingoon, I think we're basically on the same page here. See, what I was getting out of your post was that you were in favor of the status quo in the sense of resources etc.

The actual physical gold to me is inconsequential. What I stress is economic dominance. I think the primary goal should be about attaining economic independence through gaining valuable raw materials and production of manufactured goods and growing of crops on plantation tile improvements. Then forcing others to be reliant on you as the next step. War is the method of attaining that goal. War should be for acquiring resources and forcing other civilizations into submission. I mean, if you want to fulfill your megalomaniac dreams of world conquest, by all means, fire away.

My numerous references to money had to do with the real-world causes. Money is obviously the reason for much of human action throughout history. Civilization is only a game, an empire-based game at that. My point that money was not a goal in and of itself was perhaps mistated. It was really to support the idea that the primary function of everything else in the game is the construction of military units. In fact, I don't think it should be because the money can not drive you to win because its not real. If my computer starts spitting out the money I win at the end, I might reconsider.

By the way, I read your energy concept a few months ago on the Strategic Oil Reserve topic. I found it very interesting and I think it is the best energy concept I've ever heard. I think that coupled with a true market system, could create the CivIII we all want.

[zaeta]

This is a very interesting thread. I think everyone could benefit from reading books about the history of economics. Here is one particular book that correlates the growth of economics as a field to human history:

R. Heilbroner, The Worldy Philosophers

Please note the the idea of a society based around wealth and the acquiring of profit is a very recent philosophy. The pursuit of profit in the past has been either unheard off, or considered just plain distasteful.

It was only after the "Rennaisance" that societies and nations started revolving around wealth and money. Hence it is only recently that economics as a field has arisen.

Prior to this, cultures and civilization were based on tradition and heirarchy. Feudalism and castes systems were the norm, and wars were fought over land, ideals, ambition, racism, religion, and plain fear of the unknown. Revenge and feuds have also been part of the usual suspects.

Although national wealth has added a new twist to the international conflict, religion, and ideologies still remain just as important.
[This message has been edited by zaeta (edited November 27, 2000).]

[raingoon]

Well, I hear you right back. I've been away from the boards here for a while and the truth is I had even begun to stop thinking about all of our ideas without any feedback on them from Firaxis. But if you're all saying we need a new energy-resource system I'll go down that river with you in a second.