"Corporations"

[tniem]

Youngson,

The reason I haven't said how the stock market would appear in the game is because the way I have imagined it, the market wouldn't be on a screen.

Instead corporations would affect how much money each stock market city improvements is bringing into your cities. There would be no screen, only Corporation A based in Moscow is doing very well, so stock market city improvements bring in more money for the Russian cities.

I am sure there are other ways to implement the stock market or corporations as a whole, but to me this would be the easiest way. At least in my opinion it allow this idea to be included without adding a great deal of micromanagement.

[Youngsun]

EnochF Thank you for the encouragement.

and your idea of kicking out corporations based on what form of government you got is very good.

quote: Major point: You lost me with your idea of "educating the citizens." This corporation model is a very good one, but adding an "education level" that separates people into classes is unnecessary. I don't mind separating citizens into class depending on what they do, that sounds okay, but dispense with schools and "text books" and newly created citizens as being "uneducated." Unnecessary. Superfluous. "Unemployment" is an unwieldy statistic that shouldn't clutter up the City Window. Maybe include it in the "Statistics" window, along with things like life expectancy and years of military service, but keep it out of city management. So the model should remain, as in Civ II, if you remove a Farmer from a Grassland square, he becomes an Entertainer (and upper class), not Unemployed.

I want see "Unemployment" in civIII whether my idea is used or not. If there is another way to represent "unemployment" idea more than pure stats I'll be happy support it. and "3 level class differentiation" is the simplest way to deal with social hierarchy throughout the game I believe.

Any other suggestion EnochF?


tniem
Oh dear. I sense some sadness from your words why? I don't know I just feel it.

quote: Instead corporations would affect how much money each stock market city improvements is bringing into your cities. There would be no screen, only Corporation A based in Moscow is doing very well, so stock market city improvements bring in more money for the Russian cities.

That perfectly makes sense. Great! I think Bank,Factory,Stock exchange and power generating facilities should be the key city improvements which interact with corporations.

Any other suggestion tniem?

[tniem]

quote: Oh dear. I sense some sadness from your words why? I don't know I just feel it.

Probably because I just got crushed in a game of Shogun that my friend begged me to play.

quote: Any other suggestion tniem?

This isn't really for this thread but the idea has come up.

Education, classes, etc. should be a part of Civ III. The way it would relate to corporations is that the more education your population has, the more likely that city can be the base of a corporation.

Classes would then be effected by corporations. The more companies in a city the lower unemployment would be. Also bases of corporations would be increase the number in the upper class.

[Mihai]

Youngsun, you start same loooong thread!
Civilization is a state-based game. Capitalism Plus is a corporation-based game that include most of the ideas posted on this thread.
It seems to me that Youngsun doesn't want Civ3, but SuperCiv .

[Roman]

Brilliant idea (at least in the original form posted at the begining of this thread). I don't think it is overly complex at all. The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc. I believe the idea enhances both historical simulation and gameplay, so it meets both important criteria to be included in the game.

[Youngsun]

quote: Probably because I just got crushed in a game of Shogun that my friend begged me to play.

haha your friend must be eager to show his skills he has mastered.

quote: Education, classes, etc. should be a part of Civ III. The way it would relate to corporations is that the more education your population has, the more likely that city can be the base of a corporation.

Yes! Furthermore small number of educated pop can do better againt large number of peasant pop so China syndrome in the game can be fixed.

quote: Classes would then be effected by corporations. The more companies in a city the lower unemployment would be.

Exactly! tniem. In CivII everyone has guaranteed job which means zero unemployement. Building a school/university in a city should have positive effect on its citizens by increasing their education standard so they can afford more decent job easily otherwise their choice will be limited to basic manual labourers such as farmers/miners.

Hi Mihai we meet again here.

quote: Civilization is a state-based game. Capitalism Plus is a corporation-based game that include most of the ideas posted on this thread.

Read this plese.

quote: Ways of achieving final victory. 1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory(36%) 2.Economic supremacy-financial victory(25%) 3.Space race-research/engineering victory(14%) 4.cultural or religious domination-social victory(25%) Note:The percentages are not to be fixed and can be changed.

I think 36% of game features should be dedicated to option number 1 and another 25% for number 2 14% for number 3 and finally 25% for number 4.

We need more Mihai things like "corporate warfare".


Roman

quote: I don't think it is overly complex at all.

Amen!

quote: The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc. I believe the idea enhances both historical simulation and gameplay, so it meets both important criteria to be included in the game.

You really understood what I was trying to say Roman.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 01-07-2001 05:31 AM The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc.

The problem is that the average player, more or less must have it AI mayor-controlled, in order not to get drowned in micro-management. Mayor-controlled corporate warfare means automated; which means outside the players direct control. How fun is that? Isnt that like buying a piano, and then let it play mostly through computer-controlled automation?

Also; as a TBS gameplay fact:
Does city-mayors generally do a good enough job? Well, do they? Didnt SMAC-players complain about mayor-controlled terraformers, and also about other mayor-tasks? What about the city-mayors in CTP-2? No complains?

Now, dont misunderstund me. Im not AGAINST the city-mayors option. Its just that Firaxis shouldnt implement features that is so overloaded in terms of micro-management, that it more or less force on the help of AI-mayors, as a pre-understood assumption.
Yes, i understand that you have an option to control it yourself. But i suspect most players will have an idea as complex as this one automated. So in practice, the help of AI-mayors IS a pre-understood assumption.

Finally (again):Im not totally against the whole "economical warfare" concept. Infact, i like it. Its the way the whole concept is suggested to be implemented that i dont like.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 07, 2001).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Youngsun,

I am very pleased you are still alive and "back" here again! Hurray!
Happy New Year and my best wishes for 2001! (for you too Ralf!)

Since your return the quality of discussions on this Forum has increased with about 75%, which is a relief!

On essentials I agree with you, especially with this part:

quote: Ways of achieving final victory. 1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory(36%) 2.Economic supremacy-financial victory(25%) 3.Space race-research/engineering victory(14%) 4.cultural or religious domination-social victory(25%) Note:The percentages are not to be fixed and can be changed.

In my view the importance of the military/conquest option should become even less than 36%.
Civilization is more than a war game! And should become less so!
In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important.

Hurrah and best wishes once again!

S. Kroeze

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited January 07, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 01-07-2001 11:32 AM Happy New Year and my best wishes for 2001! (for you too Ralf!)

Thanks! Well, what can i say, except likewise to you two!

quote: In my view the importance of the military/conquest option should become even less than 36%. Civilization is more than a war game! And should become less so! In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important.

How do you think above fits with below quote? Its a rehazed version of a post i wrote about 9 weeks ago about alternative gamepaths/ways to play the game/victory-conditions:

"What is the Civ-3 formula for FUN? Well, im of course bias, but for me it should mean:
Constantly being forced to make calculated choices that, whatever i choose; always going to give me both attractive benefits and hard-to-swallow trade-offs, in different, but non-soluble mixtures.
In other words: Never being able to succeed in ALL areas simultaneously, no matter how good i am. I must choose. I can win, but i cannot win simultaneously over the AI in all and every areas. While im perhaps have a 100% comfortable lead to one victory-condition, the AI might just win the overall game anyway, by being even more supreme in areas concerning some other victory-condition.

The FUN-part is that i have to constantly worry/make calculated quesses - and never being absolutely sure before the game is actually over."

Finally:

Youngsun, if you read this: Dont get all worked up over the fact that im not so crazy over the corporation-idea. Previous post was my last rant under this topic. Thats a promise. As i wrote in the other thread: The important thing is what visitors from Firaxis thinks about our ideas. Its really up to them.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 07, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: The problem is that the average player, more or less must have it AI mayor-controlled, in order not to get drowned in micro-management. Mayor-controlled corporate warfare means automated; which means outside the players direct control. How fun is that? Isnt that like buying a piano, and then let it play mostly through computer-controlled automation?

Did you really read the thread carefully? Corporations are controlled by AI no matter who play(veteran players or newbies) Our job is to make the city enviroment favourable to corporations to make them flourish nothing more. But you can give some support fire to your corporations such as subsidies,tax exemption or tariff wall.

quote: Finally (again):Im not totally against the whole "economical warfare" concept. Infact, i like it. Its the way the whole concept is suggested to be implemented that i dont like.

Hello oppostion leader what's your alternative policy for that matter? this is prime minister speaking . Then please show me your version of corporate warfare or something similar to that. I'll be glad to take part in your model. Also I'm sick and tired of working alone at corporate warfare which nobody really gave me substantial alternative way to replace the original.

S.Kroeze. my best wishes for you too.
and thanks for the warm welcome buddy

quote: In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important

No problem with that. Is it time to start a new thread which relate this area of cultural/religious domination?

quote: "What is the Civ-3 formula for FUN? Well, im of course bias, but for me it should mean: Constantly being forced to make calculated choices that, whatever i choose; always going to give me both attractive benefits and hard-to-swallow trade-offs, in different, but non-soluble mixtures. In other words: Never being able to succeed in ALL areas simultaneously, no matter how good i am. I must choose. I can win, but i cannot win simultaneously over the AI in all and every areas. While im perhaps have a 100% comfortable lead to one victory-condition, the AI might just win the overall game anyway, by being even more supreme in areas concerning some other victory-condition.

Well said I agree.

quote: Youngsun, if you read this: Dont get all worked up over the fact that im not so crazy over the corporation-idea. Previous post was my last rant under this topic. Thats a promise. As i wrote in the other thread: The important thing is what visitors from Firaxis thinks about our ideas. Its really up to them.

So you still think all that debate started because I didn't like that fact you were not crazy about my idea.
haha. Well That's your perception. Oh Ralf Ralf Ralf... I explained in your thread about how it all got started.

Yes it is really up to them to decide which idea they will bring but once we put our ideas to appease Firaxis then what's the point of playing the game which is designed to appease Firaxis not us. Think about it Ralf. Customers? Sellers? who should be satisfied first? I do know we need to make compromise but players' voice shouldn't be discouraged or let down to appease Firaxis. I mean our attitude of suggesting new idea should begin with how the game will be fun for us not how should I write a idea to be accepted by Firaxis.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 08, 2001).]