Economy Model

[Maniac]

Of course, assuming the idea of ennobling species is accepted, one could just look at the Reproduction category of a species and based on that calculate how many of that species can be harvested/chopped/hunted before extinction takes place. If the number you kill of a species every turn is larger than the calculated number you may harvest without damage, there would be a procentual change each turn the species would disappear. That procentual change would increase the higher you go above the allowed maximum. It would be more unprecise but would eliminate the need for storing the amount of each species in each area. As you say, just a present/absent option would suffice.

[Maniac]

Dear The Joker,

I've read a post of you made 29-6-2000 or so in the population thread. It says that you are against animals, domestication etc because such a system would be too complex and because it would strongly disfavour the civilizations starting in an area without domesticatable species.

Regarding the first worry, do you think my idea is too complex on some places? Where?

Regarding the second worry about disfavouring bad starting civs. Well, that's just life. It simply is a fact civilizations are strongly environmentally determined. So indeed, in each game there will be civs that advance quickly and others that remain in the stone age for the entire game, until they are discovered and assimilated by more advanced civs. I think, as long as the starting location generator of the game doesn't start the human player on an impossible place, inequal starting civs wouldn't deter any of the fun of the game. To the contrary, it would add to it because it could create some age of colonization where a number of advanced civs try to grab as much 'available' (read: populated by primitive people) territory as soon as possible after the necessary techs to do so are discovered. Also, if advanced player are seeking a challenge, they could deliberately choose to start on a location with few domesticatable species.

M@ni@c

[The Joker]

Well, actually I am not all too sure how complex I want things.

Your idea about having just reproduction rate and harvest rate sounds pretty good to me. At least it will reduce the need for too much complicated stuff.

Strings:
I don't think that technological breakthroughs would increase productivity all at once. That is not at all how I want the econ model to work. In stead it would spread out through your civ relatively slowly. But what I am saying is that the effect of strings and the effect of technological development is virtually identical. And therefore I see no need to have them both. And since new strings of plants would even be a RESULT of technological breakthroughs I think having them would be even more pointless.

My old post:
Yeah. Well, don't take that too seriously. People change their minds when they become better informed and wiser. And so have I did. Now I think having animals and plants, in a simple system would make the game even more interesting. And yes, it would be unfair to some players. But I think that this is just a cool way of having levels for beginners as well as advanced players. Getting a civilization off the ground in a place like Australia would be as close to impossible as you could imagine.