Economics ver. 1.4, by Harel and Don Don

[The Joker]

I think a good way to make new cities usefull is to make it possible to force people to migrate to that city. You could ask eg 100,000 people to move out of one of your huge cities to the new city. This would cost something depending on the amount moved, would take 1 turn to do and propably cause some unhappyness for 2 or 3 turns. This, combined with FAR more growth in modern times (this is realistic, BTW) would make new cities useful, and not make it so that only cities made before 1000AD are of any use.

[LOGO]

Nice idea Joker but if you live in a democrasy, that's not possible, but in non-free goverments it should be a tuff, yet possible thing to do, might need some military though.

[don Don]

Utrecht,
That problem is more a factor of the relative cost of constructing improvements and units. With the exception of the massive cathedrals of Medieval Europe, nothing in the real world takes centuries to build.

After independence from Assyria, Babylon built a Palace, a Temple (of Marduk), truly massive City Walls, and a gigantic army in less than forty years (two 25-year turns). The Great Pyramid appears to have been built in little more than 25 years (half a 50-year turn)!

[Mat'bu Sanju]

Personally, there was always a couple things that irritated me about the Civ and AC series.

1.Lack of canals
I believe that canals have had a huge impact in history, and it was always annoying when I had a naval unit on the other side of a landmass when I wanted it somewhere else.
I am not saying that we should make canals easy to build, like tile improvments, but we should have someway to build canals, whether through a narrow continent or to connect a inland city to the sea.( for instence, lets say canals can't be built more than 2 tiles from shore)

2. Trade Embargoes, blockades
I think that once you reach the modern age you should be able to effectively blockade a city and have trade embargoes. Of course this is only practical in when there is lot's of trade, so I hope that the CTP-style trade routes are kept, and are worth more then they are now.

3. Roads,railroads,maglevs
Although it may make sense in ancient times to take quite a while to travel a distence,even on roads, it doesn't for railroads. CTP really tick me off on that, and I hope that transportation returns to CivII rules.

4. Wonders
Wonders draw tourists, therefore ALL wonders should have a economic benefit.

anyway, that's my opnion



------------------
Don't Get Left Behind!

[Orz]

1. Canals - I agree 100%
2. Embargo. I agree with you. I posted a energy/commodity/trade system to the energy thread while this thread would have been more suitable.
3. -
4. All wonders? Maybe all, maybe not all but considering the tourism they should offer a trade arrow in non-Communist countries.

[Internationalist]

Regions & Support:Historically Units are not supported by city they where formed,but regionally,nationaly even(exception=ancient city-states).My proposal: if units inside or within immediate city vicinity(say up to 4 squares all directions),then city supported.Else supported by region/provinse(each city in region/province contributes equally with resources).If units stays within region/province borders more than fixed number of turns, remains supported by region/province for fixed number(smaller) of turns even if enters city vicinity or changes region/province.If no cities near,becomes nationwide supported(and supporting cost increases,reflecting real life tremendous cost of long campaigns).New settlements treated as open space.

[Internationalist]

There should be Organizations independent of Wonders and such, like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, that would lend you money if you want.Of course there are interest rates to be considered.Also after a limit you exceed they would have a word to say about your policies,government and economy

[Lordan]

Internationalist raises a good point concerning international loans and finance. I assume everyone has heard about the massive debt that the 3rd world currently has, well it is only massive as a percentage of their GDP and GNP. The truly big debt is held by the US and a lot of countries around the world can only stay liquid by trading US debt and bonds.

So it would seem that in the Modern and Future periods it would be realistic to allow borrowing whether from the IMF or World Bank, or other nations as in SMAC.

[Adam Smith]

I'm new to this particular forum. I hope I have this comment in the right place and that it is a new contribution. If not, please bear with me.

A long running thread on the Civ II strategy forum argues that caravans are too powerful. While I happen to disagree with this argument, here is a fairly simple way to make them a bit more realistic.

First, decrease the one-time money and science bonuses between unimproved cities.

Then have the city improvements affect the trade and science bonuses. A market in the origin or destination city would increase the money bonus by 50 percent; markets in origin and destination would increase by 100 percent; market plus bank in origin by 100 percent, etc. Similarly for the science bonus. A library in the origin or destination city would increase the one-time science bonus by 50 percent, etc.

------------------
Old posters never die.
They j<spacer size=5>u<spacer size=5>s<spacer size=5>t<font point-size=9><spacer size=10>f<spacer size=10>a<spacer size=10>d<spacer size=10>e</font><spacer size=15><font point-size=8>a<spacer size=15>w<spacer size=15>a<spacer size=15>y</font>

[Civ2Veteran]

It seems that some people don't like the caravans and freight units from Civ2. I like them myself and have used them quite successfully. I don't know what all the fuss is about. You just have to be patient with caravans, like any other aspect of the game and you will accomplish a lot with them. Of course, additional new aspects of trade could enhance the game, but caravans and trade routes worked just fine in both Civ1 and Civ2 and I think they would be good in Civ3.