Economy Model

[The Joker]

Ok, once again thanks for the list.

Fish and meat:
Hmm. Perhabs you are right, then! Of cause when calculating demand for each of these we would need some thing to make sure that one could be switched for the other, depending on their respective price. That shouldn't be too hard. Fish is in, then.

Water, Wine, Beverages:
Yeah, I can accept those.

Sheep/Goats, Cattle, Horses:
Do you think this will do? Mr. Diamond talks about 5 major species, being sheep, goat, cattle, pig and horse. I can easily accept getting rid of goats and just calling the sheep/goat group for sheep. Should pigs be included? Furthermore he talks about 9 minor animals: arabian camel, bactrian camel (it has two humps - in Denmark we call these dromedars!), llama, donkey, reindeer, water buffao, yak, bali cattle and mithan (I don't even know what this is). And although elephants are not really domesticated (I have never heard this anywhere except in that book, BTW), couldn't they be included in some way as well, since as far as I know they had some importance in India, Carthage (yeah, Hannibal and his crossing the alps) and elsewhere. I don't think all of these animals should be included. But perhabs some of them should?

Meat, Fish:
Yes.

Dairy products, Butter, Vegetable fats and oils:
Yes, but let's change the name of that last one. BTW couldn't butter be included in the dairy products group? Then the second one could be called vegetable oil, propably mostly meanig olive oil.

Wheat, Rice, Corn, Potatoes:
Ok. So this will be the the plant types we are having.

Fruits/vegetables:
Yes.

Sugar, Coffee, Tobacco:
Yes.

Cotton, Wool, Clothing, 'Finery':
Yes, except I don't know what finery is...

Wood, Coal, Oil, Electricity:
Ok. I am still not sure how to handle electricity, but we'll think of something.

Copper, Iron/Steel, Bullion:
I think iron and steel could be two different goods. And what is bullion?

Rubber, Plastics, Chemicals:
Yes.

Building materials, Furniture, Housing:
Yes.

Slaves:
Yes.

Machinery, Automobiles, Electronics
Yes.

I like your list. But I still think that you lack many of the consumer goods that would have a large importance in the 20th century. What good should computers, ovens, books etc be put into? And we need more than just one "consumer goods" good.

Furthermore I think some more metals could be added. Gold was hugely important. And uranium has been since it was discovered.

Finally you asked an important question:

How many commodities do we need? How much detail is desirable?

I think the best way to answer that is that we want so many commodities that the player can actually play with them. The reason I think we should not only have oil as a ressource, but also all the major metals is that these would be required to build stuff that the player would actually need to thrive. And that, I think, is the most important thing that the model should do. Make the player do things to get these goods. A game like Imperialism did pretty good in this respect.

But what I also find important is to make the model balanced and realistic. What I don't like about every economy model I have seen in every game is the total lack of any private sector. The people never demand anything, where in reality they would make up over 90% of the economy throughout most of the game. And having uranium as a good without having important consumer goods like automobiles or clothing is stupid.

So I think that about 50 goods would propably be optimal. These would all be handled via a realistic and advanced supply/demand algorithm, to make them work better than goods did in e.g. Imperialism. The private sector, which would be outside player control, would indeed make up more than 90% of the economy untill the 20th century.

Another good thing about having many goods is that it would allow countries to specialize. A country could grow really good at making some good, and it could perhabs get monopoly on it, and make lots of money. But if demand for the good suddenly dropped, or the world market price did likewise the country could be in deep deep trouble. Making a modern global economy where there could be 3rd world countries exporting raw materials and 1st world countries exporting advanced goods is another goal.

[amjayee]

I don't have very good knowledge of this model, so I will just make a quick comment. The things discussed here sound great. Also the list made by S.Kroeze causes no complaints from me, though I agree with Joker that perhaps some goods will need to be added there. Keep up your work, I will read and comment, and make suggestions when I have something reasonable to say.

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

It seems to me that before working out the individual goods, it would be a good idea to figure out how goods work, and what will be the technological framework.
What do y'all say?

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Joker, Amjayee and others,

Thanks for saying something kind about my post, which in my opinion was a bit shallow. I was not completely healthy yesterday (nothing serious, only some allergy) and lost some time playing with the colours. As a result I didn't copy some description of medieval consumption patterns, which again underlined the all-importance of food and agriculture. So I decided that at least 50% of the items on the list should be agricultural.

I think this description of medieval consumption patterns will resemble all pre-industrial societies and developing countries. The Middle Ages are often described as a period of decline. That may be true for the 'Dark Ages'(400-1000) -at least in Europe- but certainly not for the years after 1000. This was, for western Europe, a period of growth, expansion and also of many important technical innovations, surpassing the abilities of the Ancients. So this description is not excessively bleak, but quite typical.

'Cereals were the foundation of the lower class diet; and they were consumed for their caloric value. Although bread was not the only food item consumed, it was firmly established as the staple. This bread of the lower classes was usually baked from barley of rye, sometimes from oats or mixed grains, rarely from wheat. Almost as common on the tables of the poor were the various meal-based porridges and gruels. Finally, the most frequently consumed beverage was ale, which was fermented from grain, normally barley (though wine and, to a much lesser extent, mead would be substituted in some regions).

Barley, rye and even oats thus constituted the most important basic elements in the diet of the lower classes. Most peasants produced themselves the greater portion of the grains they consumed. Consequently, in normal times the items basic to peasant subsistence produced only a weak expression in terms of effective market demand, though aggregate (market plus non-market) demand from peasants for grain was of course very large. Light bread baked from wheat was a rarity and a luxury for peasants, and virtually all of the wheat produced was consumed by members of the wealthier classes. Yet many peasants produced at least some wheat, and a transfer was effected through the medium of payment of taxes, tithes and other peasant dues, or through sale on the market. Wheat was thus, for the peasant, almost exclusively a cash crop, or one required to discharge his obligations. This situation accounts for the fact that the relatively abundant price statistics which we sometimes have for the grain trade in medieval Europe refer primarily to wheat.

The peasant did not subsist solely on dark bread and ale, though their primary importance is testified to by the fact that it was precisely these -and only these- two consumption commodities which were regulated by an assize. He did, however, supplement his diet, to a greater or lesser extent, with a number of items. Probably the most important among there were legumes -the various peas and beans available in most parts of Europe. (It is interesting to note that legumes are often referred to as 'the poor man's meat'.) Additionally, he might consume small quantities of dairy products; but these would not appear too frequently on his menu. Fruits and vegetables, often in dried form, were occasionally available, depending upon the climate of the region and the seasons. Though the use of sugar gradually became more important, especially for the upper classes, for the peasant honey was the major sweetening agent, and was extensively used. Fish was an important item in the diet of peasants and of the other classes as well; this is a topic very much in need and deserving of further research. Peasants ate meat only seldom, perhaps on average half a pound per week. It was predominantly lamb and pork; in England, for example, more often the former, while in Germany the latter was favoured. Beef, fowl and venison were not consumed by members of the lower classes. The per capita consumption of meat varied greatly within Europe, being in general at a relatively much lower level in southern and Mediterranean Europe than farther north where population densities had not yet forced the inhabitants so far back upon a starch diet.

The nature of peasant demand for commodities other than food can be largely inferred from the preceding discussion of the diet. Any class with such a precarious grasp on physical sustenance will exhibit a marginal propensity to consume food close to one hundred per cent. The average propensity to consume foods will also be very high, though probably lower than the marginal value. That is, the peasant household will devote a high proportion (i.e. 80-90(!) per cent) of its real income to the provision of food; and any improvements in the real income position will be translated almost exclusively into quantitative and qualitative improvements in diet. That small portion of income not devoted to food consumption will mainly go towards providing the other basic necessities of life -clothing, shelter and heating.'
(source: 'The Fontana economic history of Europe' Red. C.M.Cipolla,1972-76, vol1)

Cotton, Wool, Clothing, 'Finery':
Yes, except I don't know what finery is...

"The middle and upper classes also accounted for an important segment of the demand for cloths, fabrics and other furnishings. This was before the day of mass markets for inexpensive, coarser textiles, and the spinners and weavers catered much more to the desires of the wealthy: 'finery' is not for the common folk. Just as we noted in the case of diets, so the consumption of cloting had and has a social function. Fine cloths and refined apparel were reserved for those of 'quality'. Where the price mechanism was inadequate to the enforcement of social prerogatives, legislation was available. Sumptuary acts, regulating dress and clothing in detail, kept the rural and urban poor -and even the middle classes- in their places. The association of such legislation with periods of secularly rising wage rates bears articulate witness to the sensitivity of the authorities to any sartorial excesses on the part of their 'inferiors'."
(source: 'The Fontana economic history of Europe' Red. C.M.Cipolla,1972-76, vol1)

Copper, Iron/Steel, Bullion:
I think iron and steel could be two different goods. And what is bullion?

Of course I agree on the Iron and Steel issue. With only 40 items it didn't have priority, in my view. I would love to have Bronze too!
Bullion - uncoined gold and silver
Do you not own a good dictionary or are you just lazy?

About the Animals: I would prefer to have all Diamond's Major Five and elephants too (I love goats too). Again this is a result of establishing priorities.

I added Butter seperately because of the list of 1929, where it occupied an 8th place, so rather important. I guess that agricultural consumption investigated on its own, will not have changed radically over the years. And I like it when there is a choice between animal or vegetable oils. Yet I agree it could remain included among Dairy products.

I like your list. But I still think that you lack many of the consumer goods that would have a large importance in the 20th century. What good should computers, ovens, books etc be put into? And we need more than just one "consumer goods" good.

Thank you!
Computers I consider Electronics, while ovens can be classified as Furniture or Electronics when its a microwave oven. For books I do not have a solution. Paper didn't make it to my 'top 40'.
The problem is that during the 20th century consumption changed radically, though only in the Western world. Many completely unprecedented articles were produced and consumed wholesale. Yet I do not want that one century to disrupt my quite balanced and realistic picture of the preceeding economy from the beginnings of time. Some items might be added of course -adding is most easy- what are your priorities?

I completely agree with you that 'consumer demand' should be decisive when deciding to include an item or not. This was my main reason to have several cereals. I would think it rather strange when one article, Grain, constituted 65% of all consumption. (I am inventing this figure, but after reading this 'Fontana history' it seems a reasonable guess) Another reason is to have different cereals for upper and lower classes and different climes. Various cereals can also react differently to the same weather conditions. Having a monoculture -like 19the century Ireland- would bring disaster.

Here are my next 10 suggestions:
Pigs
Legumes
Oats (the most common used fodder of livestock)
Salt
Silk
Medicines
Paper
Stone and Bricks (both instead of only Building materials)
Ships (one needs a merchant marine)
Agricultural equipment

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[The Joker]

I hope you are feeling better, S. Kroeze.

I thank you for your quote, which I find very informative.

However, I am not sure how much complexity you are looking for here.

Personally I don't have that much against the economy not being very advanced nor complicated untill industrialization. Since that was what it was!

Furthermore I think the player would propably not be so involved with economy untill that time. This would partially be because most of the tools that modern countries would possess would simply not be in the hands of ancient/medieval rulers.

So I think that your previous list of different "basic" food sources:

Wheat, Rice, Corn and Potatoes

could work just fine, as long as wheat was replaced with Grain.

And then having Cereals, as explained in your source, as the manufactured product made from Grain (and perhabs corn as well?). So the basic ingredience in most people's diet would either be Cereals, Rice, Corn or Potatoes, depending on what are available in the area.

When some or all are available we need some way to figure out excactly what people eat.

Finery:
So you mean fine clothes. But I don't think I am quite aware what the book is saying: does the author mean that since legislation made sure that only rich people could afford Finery this actually KEPT the lower classes in their place? How can this be? I am not sure if I think we should have it, though...

Do you not own a good dictionary or are you just lazy?

Ehh. That day I was lazy. Sorry.

Bullion:
It should be there. But remember that few people are as intelligent as you (and I am being serious ), and I don't think we should use a word that many people does not know. How about just calling it Gold, even though it includes Silver as well?

20th century:
I agree with you that the past should not be neglected just because things have changed the past 100 years. But at the same time I don't want to neglect the 20th century, since the mere size of the global economy now is much, much larger than it has ever been before, and since economy seems to be getting an increasily important role in politics.

So I think that if we add some moden consumer goods to make the system balanced in ancient as well as modern times I think we should be close to a good list.

Your additions:

Pigs, Salt, Silk, Medicines, Paper:
Yes, I agree.

Legumes:
Hmm. I am not sure. Today they have next to no importance. Can't we just include them in Vegetables (including fruit) and say that's good enough?

Oats:
Like I said I think just calling it all Grain should be pretty ok. Grain would have lots of uses, including food for livestock.

Stone and Bricks:
No. I don't think seperating these two would do anything good. Building materials should be ok. But perhabs we should call it Stone/Bricks, since wood is a building material as well.

Ships:
Yes. I believe you are right here. Although handling them will be more complex than just handling good, since they will be used for trading goods.

Agricultural equipment:
Yes. I already think that we should have Tools (or Capital) as a good. An economy can not be modelled without that. Whether there should be agricultural tools, mining tools, industrial tools etc I am not sure. But it might be a good thing to have it.

I think we are getting close now. I will present an updated list of goods shortly.

[The Joker]

Here it is. I hope this can be close to the final one as possible. Please everybody give me as many comments as you can think of, especially you, S. Kroeze.

The groups are not important; they are only made to make the list more clear.

Food and similar goods

Basic goods
Meat (Yeah, I know it's not THAT basic, but still...)
Fish
Water
Beverages
Cereals
Dairy products
Rice
Potatoes
Corn
Fruits and vegetables (What should we call this?)
Salt

Luxury goods
Wine
Vegetable oil
Sugar
Coffee
Tobacco
(Drugs)


Animals

Sheep(/Goats)
Cattle
Horses
Pigs
Elephants


Consumer goods

Basic goods
Housing
Clothing
(Pottery)
Household goods (Furniture, pots and pans etc)

Luxury goods
Slaves
Automobiles
Consumer electronics
Medicine
Weaponry
(Books or other paper product)
Small consumer goods (Everything else)


Non consumer goods

Grown/found
Grain
Slaves
Cotton
Wool
Silk
Wood
Rubber
Hides/Furs/Leather

Found in the ground
Coal
Oil
Copper
Iron
(Tin)
Gold
Stone(/Bricks)
(Aluminium)
Uranium

Manufactured
(Paper)
Electricity
Steel
(Bronze)
Plastics
Chemicals
Agricultural tools (=Machinery)
Mining tools (=Machinery
Industrial tools (=Machinery)
Electronics
Ships
(Airplanes)


Services

Education
Healthcare
Security services
Household and personal services
Entertainment/Recreation
Transportation services


This gives us a max of 68 goods, including Services, if all these are included. And I think that's a perfectly good amount.

Of cause, like always, some finetuning (but hopefully not more) of this list is required. And therefore, like I mentioned, I really hope that you will all give me your comments.


Mark:
The econ model will be the same no matter what goods are included. Therefore we might as well settle on the goods now as when the econ model is done. In fact, if we settle on this now we will be able to settle on what the demand hierarchy will look like while developing the model, thus letting the model get into active use earlier.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Joker (and others),

Thanks for responding!
I agree I tend to make things rather complicated. Yet I hope to achieve some antagonism between different social classes.
That is the reason I would advocate different cereals/grains. The upper classes, lower classes and the animals will tend to eat different grains. Or more honestly put: the upper classes try to ensure they eat the best crops, wear the best clothes, drink wine where ordinary people drink ale etc. As a rule they will succeed, but at a price (I hope). Replacing wheat, exclusively consumed by the wealthy, by the word Cereals would enfeeble my very purpose completely! And people ate Cereals, but they didn't buy them ready-to-eat at the local Supermarket! I wouldn't advise using this word.
Keeping animals is also a burden (and an asset), since they eat cereals too -resulting in less food for the community as a whole- so again this would force the player to make choices.

The quote about 'Finery' was mainly included to explain the meaning of the word. And I found it interesting because it shows that sometimes well-paid lower or middle class people could afford to buy clothing intented for the aristocracy. But of course they stroke back by forbidding them to wear 'Finery', though I doubt whether these laws were always enforced. For the moment I do not have a practical application in mind.

Yet the ruler has some influence on such issues. Should he/she side with the common good and try to share wealth more fairly or should he/she side with the upper classes -which after all are political far more influential and perilous to antagonise?
Though difficult indeed to implement, this could make the game far more interesting. What is more dangerous: undernourished and unhealthy peasants or rebellious aristocrats?

Only one example: the French monarchy clearly sided with the aristocracy. In the end this didn't contribute to their continued existence....
Another example: in Britain the so-called Corn laws prevented the import of Grain by excessively high import duties. This protected the interests of the landed gentry, but was a disaster during a famine like the one of 1845(caused by a potato disease).

The reason I would introduce different products like Fish, Dairy products and Legumes is because they all contain protein. And the overall health of the population will mainly be determined by two factors:

• Amount of calories consumed per capita
• Amount of proteins consumed per capita
  taking into account that animal proteins are 'nutritionally' far superior to vegetable proteins

I believe this issue was some time ago discussed in the Population model. Again the upper classes will as a rule monopolise meat consumption, resulting in a rather poor diet for their 'inferiors'. In Ancient Greece, women were almost never allowed to eat meat.

Agout Bricks/Stone:
This is a minor issue but would people on lowland, like Mesopotamia or Holland, have access to stone? No, but having clay, a most common commodity, they can make bricks and construct buildings with them.
Yet before the development of Pottery and Copper Working stone was -with wood and bone- a very important material for tools. As a result obsidian was a dominant article of trade during the Neolithicum. By making Bricks and Stone identical this trade would be eliminated.
And for monumental building -like the Pyramids, the Hagia Sophia or the Parthenon- people will always prefer Stone/Marble. Please think about it! After all, we will have various metals too.

Could you please think about some Industrial/20th century commodities -preferably consumer goods- to add? Because of the enormous number of possibilities, for the moment I cannot come with any intelligent selection.

It seems to me that before working out the individual goods, it would be a good idea to figure out how goods work, and what will be the technological framework.
What do y'all say?

No objection. To be honest, I do not always understand your discussion in the other Economy thread. Perhaps I should invest more time trying to understand it.
And I would suggest to concentrate on pre-industrial societies first. This will prove to be complicated enough, I think.

Best wishes!

S.Kroeze

[Mark_Lipovrovskiy]

My concern simply was that we're inventing names before even knowing how everything is going to work - on the names we'll be able to work later, since they are essentially decoration. The game will prob. see it as good001, good002 and so on, or maybe raw01 raw02, light01, light02 and heavy01, or maybe light.consumer.01 and raw.industrial.01 and so on...

This is more important right now, methinks, because we need to figure out the abstractions the engine will use, and how (and if) different types of goods are treated differently etc.
And how are we gonna make all this open to customisation.

[Maniac]

I promised I would post an idea about domestication here in this thread. Well, here it is! Though it’s bit more refined in my head, I’ll just post the basics here. Afterwards, if you like them, I can elaborate.

I don’t know what terrain system you will eventually use, but it seems and I hope it will be some climate generator which gives each terrain a rainfall and a temperature value, among other things.
In my idea each combination of rainfall and temperature values (each climate in other words) should have a small number of animals and plants attached to it, which the map generator should randomly spread on some (certainly not all!) areas of the corresponding climate. Thus, as Diamond says, large continents with many climates will have most domesticatable (good word?) species. After the map generator has spread the plants and animals over the globe, it would look at the latitude of the location each plant starts, and 1 of 8 binary values would be added to each plant, ranging from 000 to 111. 000 stands for ‘from 0 degrees N/S latitude to 10 degrees. 111 stands for ‘from 70 degrees to 80 degrees N/S latitude’. I don’t think many domesticatable plants would grow above 80 degrees, so it’s no loss we don’t have that value.

The reason I want to give plants a latitude value is because, as Diamond says, on a different latitude different daylengths and seasons exist, making the spreading of species more difficult over a north-south axis than it would be over an east-west axis. To represent that, it should be impossible for plants from one latitude belt to grow into another latitude belt. That is, unless they are domesticated and by ennoblement given the ability to grow into another climate. How ennoblement could work, I’ll explain later. But basically it’s creating a new species, more useful for your purposes. Oh yes, I also think plants should be bounded to a certain temperature level, again, until they are ennobled to do otherwise. They shouldn’t be bounded by their starting rainfall level, I think. For example, if you would have domesticated some rice-like plant, found in a warm and wet area, and requiring lots of Water units per turn to grow, you should in theory also be able to let it grow in an equally warm but dry desert. That is, as long as enough Water units are supplied by irrigation or so. I think animals should be totally free of any climate restrictions. For simplicity, every animal would be able to live anywhere, in hot cold dry wet areas, as long as they get their water and food supply.

When using this system, the amount of domesticatable species will be different in each game. For example, in one game the tropic belt and its corresponding species may only exist between 0 and 10 latitude, while in other games it may also extent in the 10 to 20 latitude belt, creating other plants. Also, each time you ennoble some property of an existing plant or species, eg making sheep produce one more Wool/Fibre/Fabric unit per turn, you are creating another species with different properties. Thus I must say I am firmly in front of The Joker and S. Kroeze’s attempt to create a fix list of plants and animals for the entire game. After all, I thought it was your intention to create a game where in you can rewrite history, not replay it. Well, if so, different plants and animals differently evolving should certainly be in it.

How does domestication and ennoblement now actually work? That will be for another time, I’m afraid. Cause I really have little time to write this stuff. Writing this introduction alone already took me 2 days. In the meanwhile you can comment on what I wrote so far and tell me if it’s worth writing the rest or if I shouldn’t waste my time and stop with it immediately.

M@ni@c

[The Joker]

Dear S. Kroeze,

Thanks for the reply.


Finery and different grain sorts:
Hmm. Yes, I have thought about something like this as well. But I think that there are another, perhabs better way of doing it; that is, simply by having different grades of some goods. There could, for examble, be different grades of clothing. The lowest would be wrapping a blanket around you, the highest would be a cashmere Gucci suit etc. The same with grain (food), automobiles etc.

I am still not sure how to fit them with the current econ model, but I am certain that it can be done. Furthermore I am not sure how to differentiate production of each grade. But I think that can be solved. And I belive such a system would indeed allow the higher classes to buy better things than the lower ones. Plus we wouldn't have to fit 3 or 4 different grain sorts into the model. Another thing: What if we look at the extraeuropean world? Would there be different rice types, different potatoe (!) types or different corn types? To my knowledge there wouldn't. I just don't think we should adopt a too eurocentric world view, since the game is going to be about the entire world.


Population health:
Yes, that has to be included to figure out how long the people will live. But I think that it can be done without Lemures. Fish and Dairy products is ok, I agree that we can include those. But I think that having Vegetables, and just code that vegetables include a bit protein, could be just as good, although much less complicated than having such a specialized good as Lemures.


Bricks/Stone:
Hmm. You might be right about this. On the other hand I am not sure if it would really add much to the game to have them both. I will have to think about this. What does everone else think?


20th century goods:
I included some in my latest list, but I do agree that more would be good. What we need are goods that at the same time are general and specific. So toilet paper wont do, but neither will consumer goods. I will think about it.


Dear Mark,

I agree with you that both things are important. But figuring out what goods we need is something that we have to do. And now is as good a time as ever. I don't think this is taking valuable time away from constructing the model, so I don't consider it to be a problem.


Dear Maniac,

I like the overall look of your ideas. Please elaborate!


Plants:
Like you might know from my talks with S. Kroeze I am not sure if I want to give plants as big importance in the game as you seem to. Personally I think having those 4 plant types, and add vegetables on top of this, would be ok. Each would grow in it's own habitat, and could be transfered to other parts of the world by humans. But all that stuff about different strings of different plant types is just more detail than I think we should go into. After all, how much importance would it have to the player whether string B or C of barley is currently the most common in his civ?

In stead I think we should focus on animals. And I DO think there would be some limits to where different animals would be. Elephants are not likely to spread to temperate climates, no animals would spread across oceans etc.

I think animals could be handled by for each animal choosing a spot where it originates from. Then it will spread to all places with somewhat the same climate as that spot, although not across too much water. This will be done for each animal, which should make sure that large continents would have several where small ones would have just one, or none at all.

Then the game would begin, and the civs without access to animals would be in deep deep trouble, compared to the ones who do. This again could be used by advanced players seeking a serious challenge.

So I think we could actually have more than the 5 animals in my most recent list. Perhabs 10 would be even more suitable. Of cause not all animals would be equally useful. Sheep would be little use for mounted warriors, for examble.

At this point I can not say how fixed the animals/plants should be. I would find it rather dumb if pigs were suddenly 3 ton leviathans unmatched in warfare. And I think using real animals is much better than inventing new ones. After all we are replaying human history, not earth history.

And since you (and S. Kroeze) seem to firmly believe that plants are as important as animls then please explain to me what game implications they would have. I would like to be proved wrong!

[Maniac]

The Joker:

Each would grow in it's own habitat, and could be transfered to other parts of the world by humans.

Do you mean by that that plants that originated from a certain habitat could never grow in another one? Well, then you have just declared all modern important crops non-existant.

After all, how much importance would it have to the player whether string B or C of barley is currently the most common in his civ?

And since you (and S. Kroeze) seem to firmly believe that plants are as important as animls then please explain to me what game implications they would have. I would like to be proved wrong!

I’m kind of surprised you see the importance of animals, but not of plants. It’s the same principle. Just one simple example. The barley growing on the farms of your Volante Republic, worked on by your loyal citizens, produces 50 calory/carbo-hydrate/saccharide units per turn. You can feed a lot of mouths with that and no one has hunger in your utopia! Peace and balance reigns in the region. However, some time later, in some obscure neighbouring empire, ruled by some lunatic despot calling himself Maniac, some farmers have through ennoblement created a barley string which gives 60 calories per turn. As a consequence, only 60% of the populace has to work on farms to grow enough food, while it used to be 70%. “What to do with all that labour forces that have come available?” the dictator wonders. “Hey, I have an idea. I’ll create an army and invade the prosperous Volante Republic! Their tiny army will be obliterated in no time.” Game over.

And I DO think there would be some limits to where different animals would be. Elephants are not likely to spread to temperate climates, no animals would spread across oceans etc.

Not on their own, no. But they can be transported by humans. But if there would be some limits where certain animals can live, those limits should be more loose that those for plants.

I think animals could be handled by for each animal choosing a spot where it originates from. Etcetera...

We completely agree on this subject. Though one species could start on two different location. For example, cattle could start both in Mesopotamia and in Tibet (Yak variety). And camels both in Central Asia and the Andes (llama/alpaca). Of course, we could consider them all as completely different species, but then the list would become too long. IMHO a short list of animals which could then be ennobled to the player’s specs would be better. Something like:

Sheep/Goat (starts on average temperate climates)
Cow/Waterbuffel/Yak/Balicow/Gayal (this one should be able to start in almost any climate)
Pig (same as Sheep/Goat)
Horse/Donkey (Anywhere there are many plains I guess)
Camel/Dromedary/Llama/Alpaca (thespecies to be domesticated for people living in a dry climate; let’s say it requires less water)
Reindeer (cold forest)
Dog/Wolf (all cold to temperate climates)
Elephant (warm climates)
Fish (on the top of mountains )

I think this will give each climate at least one big species.

Of cause not all animals would be equally useful. Sheep would be little use for mounted warriors, for examble.

Of course! The same counts for plants. As I see it, every living species should have the following things on its ‘identity card’:

Rainfall level of the areas the species starts
Temperature level of the areas the species starts and/or can grow
Latitude level (for plants) where the plant can grow
Reproduction rate: the speed at which one Unit of a species becomes two.
Speed (for animals): the speed of the species. The fastest animals will probably be used as war vehicles or draught animals for chariots and sledges.

A part of the identity card is what resources the species needs per turn to survive. For both plants and animals (including humans) this will include a certain amount of Water units. For animals this will also include a certain number of Calories and/or Proteins.

Then of course there’s what the species produces. It can produce numberous things, eg:

Size (for animals): This will determine how much meat/Proteins you get when you slaughter and eat a living animal. Also, a certain size should be necessary for humans to be able to ride on it, in other words: use it as a war vehicle
Milk production (for animals): The amount of milk/Proteins a living animal produces each turn
Calories value (for plants): # of Calories you get when you harvest and eat a plant
Proteins value (for animals): similar as above
I can think of other things. For plants eg Wood production (Building material and Fuel), Fibre production (for cloths and writng material),; Oil production (Fuel?). For animals Labour production (transport vehicle and plow traction), Manure production (for Fertilizer and Fuel), Wool/Fur/Hides production (for cloths and writing material), Oil production

This is a lot of information to store for each species. But there aren’t going to be hundreds of species, so that’s no problem I think.

Oh yes, I still have to sat how domestication could work. In short: I suppose you start the game with a group of hunter-gatherers. Well, each turn you have some part of your populace hunting, on horses for example. Per horse hunter, there’s a one on x chance that you domesticate a horse. After all, there’s no special technology required for domestication. It’s a natural tendency for humans. Then you can assign a part of your populace (or more likely they will assign themselves – private sector) as farmer. Every time a domesticated animal reproduces itself, there’s again a one on x chance that animal will be ennobled. You (or the private owner of the animal) will then get the choice which property you want to be ennobled. Eg increasing the speed or size of horses. Then you get a new species with increased abilities. As you can see, ennoblement is an automatic process. The species which is used most will become better.

So, am I talking complete nonsense?

[The Joker]

Well, actually you do make sence.

Perhabs plants as well as animals should be included.

But the more I think about it the more I realize that everything (regarding economy and domestication) needs to be simplified.

So perhabs neither animals nor plants needs to be trade goods? Couldn't there just be a telling between an animal/plant being in an area or not being there?

Likewise with the supply and demand parts. Everything can be simplified; it has to be.

I am not yet sure how to make it happen. And I will not proceed with the model untill I know some more about economy, via university. I will return with this in a month or two.

Untill then how is the UI? And how is the map? I would really like to help with all of it, but I am not sure what to help with...?

[Maniac]

But the more I think about it the more I realize that everything (regarding economy and domestication) needs to be simplified.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think today's computers (nor those in a few years) can easily similate the detail in economies you'd like to show.

Couldn't there just be a telling between an animal/plant being in an area or not being there?

That was too my first idea. But overuse of natural resources such as game and trees with the consequential long term disasters of desertification and non-availability of domesticatable animals is an important factor in history. Though I wish there was another way, I unfortunately don't see one. (Very open to alternatives!)Each area should have a number indicating the amount of a certain plant or animal in that area. If humans would be hunting or chopping/foraging more than the reproduction rate of that species, it would slowly die out.

[The Joker]

Well, yes and no.

Things need to be simplified. But at the same time I think that both animals and plants can easily be portrayed without having them as trade goods.

I think the amount of animals and plants in each area is not important enough to qualify. And when I think about it your examble with different plant strings can be described just as easily by just giving your country a higher productivity. This will free people from food production, and allow them to become soldiers.

There is really no need to have two things with the same effect.

[Maniac]

Things need to be simplified. But at the same time I think that both animals and plants can easily be portrayed without having them as trade goods.

Elaborate. In your list of trade goods, you also have some animals and plants included. Would you instead just assume the derived products of plants and animals as trade goods and assume that the production of those trade goods is done at the same place as the plants and animals are grown/bred?

I think the amount of animals and plants in each area is not important enough to qualify. And when I think about it your examble with different plant strings can be described just as easily by just giving your country a higher productivity. This will free people from food production, and allow them to become soldiers.

Hmm. So how would you do it? You somehow discovers some tech advance and suddenly all of the farmers of your civ get a higher productivity? This is totally in contradition of the idea of a private sector. Plus it somewhat ignores the idea of tech leakage.

And how would you represent extinction of species? Or is that too unimportant? I can give some examples to back my case.

Just a question, for what computer system are you planning to create GGS?