Cities without city radius, self regulating economy, wealth

[DeathByTheSword]

about eliminating micromanagment i like to have the option of letting everthing regulate it self but when needed to manage roadbuilding and farms etcetc myself. this i totally my opinion but maybe (if codingwise possible) to have both options availbe?

[Rasbelin]

No mircomanagement? Pardon me, but that's not something I can accept. I want manage my empire when it comes to building roads, farms, resources, etc. If that's not possible, we end up with a game that is concentrated on warfare and moving units. I do want to have the ability to manage the cities. Anyway, the option of either having micromanagement or just automatic settings could be solved by having a feature like the governors in Civ III, except that it would need some improvement. And self regulating economy isn't something what I'm keen about as I prefer to adjust taxes and trade related settings myself. So my suggestion about governors should be worth to be considered.

[DeathByTheSword]

yes i believe that a system of ministers/directors for certain areas of the game you would be able to apoint a mininster you could give him some general orders or not but he would regulate the part of the game you dont want to get into your self. This could go from foreign policy too tile-imporvement building. BUT you would be able to turn them off and on at every moment of the game

[Leland]

There is one problem with "optional micromanagement"... for example if there is an option to either do task X yourself or let the computer take care of it, then either

1. human can do task X better than computer, in which case you'll lose if you don't do task X yourself, hence the player is forced to either micromanage or lose.
2. computer can do task X better or as good as human, in which case doing it yourself has zero impact on the game. What's fun with that?

Just think about governors and automated units in SMAC. They're basically giving similar option of micromanagement reduction already, but does it work? No.

[Blake]

Do not worry, you will have full control over what is built where, you will be able to zone land is farmland (or if you please, set up some farmland and give it to the civilians to manage), you can set where they mine and where they use sustainable techniques.

You will have a high degree of control over energy managament, because most of the big energy generators will be state owned&built and wont automatically upgrade.

You do not handle upgrading altough you can guarantee it happens, if you want all your farms upgrading give the farmers a big fat subsidy for a few years, if you want to guarantee they dont upgrade, tax the farmers into the dirt. The main difference is you dont have to go around to every patch of irrigation placing farmland. You may miss this, which is too bad.

You will build road networks (except local roads, which will be connect all your tile improvements) and magtube networks.
You will have full control over all improvements where placement really matters, this is things like bunkers, sensor arrays, airbases, military bases. (I think military terrain improvements should be built by a "Combat Engineer" unit that can also "found" a military base that consumes the engineer but gives repair capacity and stuff...)

I am quite sure that "zoning" will be acceptable, because that is how SimCity works and thats quite a playable game, people dont complain about not being able to choose whether the people build a small condo or large condo.

It will be quite impossible to manage the demands of your empire by yourself, late game growths will be very high and just zoning new land for expansion will occupy your time quite nicely, if you had to go around upgrading a thousand tiles of farmland every few turns it wouldn't be playable... I wouldn't be suprised if players demand a Govoner AI for zoning territory.

And Leland hit the nail on the head with respect to optional micromanagment... either the system will be designed so well that the computer can always do the right thing, or the govoner will be designed poorly so the human can do better.

And micromanagment simply has to be reduced. Hardly anyone played SMAC into the late game because the micromanagment was intolerably high.

Please do not think that your managment options will be reduced, you'll be able to tune your empire to any end; except you wont be doing it on the tile level. This will give you a lot more strategic flexibility for your time.

[Unspeakable Horror]

Actually what killed SMAC for me was the Unit system, I just felt that all units were the same but with different names.

Now more on topic:

You do not handle upgrading altough you can guarantee it happens, if you want all your farms upgrading give the farmers a big fat subsidy for a few years, if you want to guarantee they dont upgrade, tax the farmers into the dirt. The main difference is you dont have to go around to every patch of irrigation placing farmland.

What about a system that lets you select multiple tiles and do something like Civ3: Shift + U? in cases that you need a more direct control of the situation. (famine for example)

[Rasbelin]

Blake,

I'm happy with most management systems that are related to Civ II and III as a hardline civer. I didn't exactly mean a micromanagement system like in SMAC (1. that would be too detailed 2. I'm not a SMAC player), so I expressed myself perhaps abit too broadly, but I still think you got the point. So far what I think about your suggestions is that I can agree about them.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Carlos113

What about a system that lets you select multiple tiles and do something like Civ3: Shift + U? in cases that you need a more direct control of the situation. (famine for example)

B. computer can do task X better or as good as human, in which case doing it yourself has zero impact on the game. What's fun with that?

"Enough" food will be as good for growth as "more than enough" food, therfore it is optimal to be producing just as much food as your faction needs. In this case the computer (the self regulating economy...) can handle things just as good as a player can, and usually better better there wont be as much excess food.

Part of the idea is to remove the focus away from empire building and more towards player interaction.

Because interaction is fun.

Especially interaction that doesn't just involve killing each other.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok as you explained it now i like it

[Rasbelin]

As Blake explained it, I like the model too.

[Vultur]

Almost-Self Regulating Economy

As anyone know, all Civ games assume that the player is an "omniscient enlightened dictactor": also under Republic/Democracy/FreeMarket the player must decide all taxes,terrain enhancements, buildings, unitys' movement...
Giving a look to Clash of Civ system, I've had an idea for a new model.

Almost-Self Regulating Economy System

1.You can decide the % of your Population can "work for his own" (you must not give to them a "statal" employement, nor a "salary"). You can decide also the % of Researcher/Economist/... to can do the same thing.
This part of population become to "produce" and to "manage" what they want, limitated only by your decisions (see below)
2.You can decide to give in "free" use some of your tiles. The use of these tile is under the responsability of the "owner": you can't decide what to build, but you can ask a "loan" that can be a % of resources produced. The only terraforming actions you can take are: Roads/Magtube, Sensor Arrays, Defensive Walls.
In case of major changes (terraform up/down, drills, military bases...) you have two possibilities: take the control of the tile (unhappiness/unemployement), or "ask" to the users (that will desire reduction of loan...)
3.You can "delegate" part(s) of your infrastructures to private enterprises (Health,Education,Industry...) this permit to have "gratis" facilities without your MM. If you desire you can build "public" facilites (i.e. if no one build it you can have Reasearch Hospital, or similar) also if are already existing it's possible to have a Statal Bank and many Private Banks...)
4.The % of your possibility of delegation is influenced by SE that you choose (you can't delegate all in Planned!!!)

Delegating parts of your market, you reach 3 goals:
1.Less MM: you can focus your attention in serious things, leaving the rest to your people sensibility.
2.True FreeMarket.
3.Realism

It's up to you:
1.Decide public salary.
2.Decide taxes (on trade, on wealth, on goods)
3.Decrease the unemployement
4.Avoid Plagues/Famine/Monopolist

If you hate MM, you can leave to Governors the control of public affairs in less strategic bases.

NOTE:
This system is not available in the early game, when the problem is not the MM, but the lack/seek of resources.

Something more later.

[Unspeakable Horror]

Blake: Call me stupid if you wish but I don´t get it. You won´t (in this case) have any control on the development of the farmland... so what if you want to produce more for trade? (Will there be a trade system? For this item I mean) or what if there´s a flood or something?
(Will there be any random event?)
I know the computer can do it better but if you leave all the economy control in the computer... there won´t be much to do then. (economically)

but then DeathByTheSword and Rasbelin seem to like it... so... perhaps I´m just confused... sorry

Delegating parts of your market, you reach 3 goals:
1.Less MM: you can focus your attention in serious things, leaving the rest to your people sensibility.
2.True FreeMarket.
3.Realism

It's up to you:
1.Decide public salary.
2.Decide taxes (on trade, on wealth, on goods)
3.Decrease the unemployement
4.Avoid Plagues/Famine/Monopolist

If you hate MM, you can leave to Governors the control of public affairs in less strategic bases.

Sim Goverment?
sorry j/k sounds interesting.

[Blake]

Theres a lot to read through, just skimming you probably wouldn't get the full picture.. particullary because the model has evolved during the thread...

I'm not sure why you would just want to create more food for trade... because the farmers will do it automatically if it will be profitable, and if it's not going to be profitable you shouldn't be doing it...

But anyway. You want to send some food over the border. Prehaps for flooding purposes.
- Build more farms, the newly zoned farm will provide some food output so this will directely increase output.
- Subsidise food production, this will result in more food being produced and more going over the border (because your population wont be able to consume it all) Note that gains from trade will mostly be lost to the subsidies.

It will be possible to buy goods from the market sector to make your own private stockpile.. not sure how best to make this, probably per turn (100 food/turn) not sure how the price should be set.. either the market rate or setting your own rate... note the latter would allow you to drive up prices, if for some reason you wanted to do that.

It'll be possible to trade your own stockpile to other players stockpile, this will be important for things like uranium, it is likely per turn deals will be allowed too (this could be good if you have an iron curtain, but need to do some vital trade...)

It'll also be possible to sell your stockpile back to the market, or even dump it into the market, but that will do unpleasent things to the price of food so it should only be done in case of emergency, like a flood.

Note that the more meddling you do in a Free Market economy the less effecient it becomes, most meddling will be to increase your tax income or to counter another players economic disruption. So meddling with the economy should only be done if you know something the market doesn't, like that another player is only dumping cheap food in your market in order to ultimately starve you

[Unspeakable Horror]

hmm... now I get it, seems interesting

[Vultur]

Simple Example of Almost-Self Regulating Economy
Hypothesis:
No random events.
No trade at all.
No stockpiled food.
No other types of "Food" (see after)
No production taxes.
No taxes on wealth.
Tax on Goods=5%

Your base has only 2 food-producing tile:
1st Tile: Under "Statal" (=your) Control. Produce Food for 2000 people. Worked from 1000 people. Statal salary: 10/person/turn.
2nd Tile: Under "Private" Control. Produce Food for 3000 people. Worked from 1000 people. Private salary: 11/person/turn.
Your costs:10.000/turns
Private costs:11.000/turns+(Price_Food_Sold*5%)/turn

You don't want to gain/loose nothing, so you sell your food at 5 credits (5*2000=10.000=your costs)

"Private" want to sell his food to 4.
4*3000=12.000 Sold
11.000+12.000*5%=11600 Costs
400/Turns Gained by private
600/turns Gained by You

possibilities:
Pop>5000: not enough food!
Pop=5000: all gain money
Pop=4880: you don't gain nothing! (people will buy first "Private" food, later your)
Pop<4880, but >=2900: you spend senselessly money, "Private" gain money (your only result is to increase your stockpile)
Pop<2900:"Private" loose money, he will abandon the tile. You continue spend your money.

This was the simpliest example that it's possible to formulate

This cannot be managed by a normal "sane" player. (and cannot be coded...)
We nees some (TONS OF) approximation:

Tile Working Example
Hypothesis:

Costs:
Because the people are considered "razionals" (...) they'll work for "private" only if "private" pay more than you do.
Because also "private" is considered "rational", he'll pay 1 credit/people/turn more than you do.
Between the costs there is also the Loan

Selling Prize:
Because the people are considered "razionals" (...) they'll buy for "private" only if "private" sell at price less than your.
Because also "private" is considered "rational", he'll sell 1 credit/people/turn less than you do.

With enough people that can buy the result will be:
if Private_Selling_Prize>Private_Costs+PSP*ToG
"Private" will invest more money in his activity, if not become to de-invest.

You can decide what % of resource you want to sell, your interest as player is not "gain more", only to produce resources that are stockpiled and used in building what you want. This is a Civ game not a capitalistic one!
WARNING:
If you don't sell "enough" FOOD, private will try to maximise his prices to gain more: he'll sell 1 credit/resource/turn less than minimal salary. This will decrease general wealth with consequences on happiness. In case of total non-regulation, "Private" can cause also famine for few credits. Use trade to limitate "Private" power.

Minerals and Energy
If "Private" can produce Minerals and/or Energy, he will impose his price with the same criteria to "Private Facilities".
You can sell Minerals/Energy only after having paid maintenance cost at "Public Facilities". Private will seek the maximum gain: he will sell 1 credit/resource/turn less then your price.
As above:
if Private_Selling_Prize>Private_Costs+PSP*ToG
Private will gain money
WARNING:
In case of "quasi-total Free Market with no trade" , "Private" can decide to sell to a very high prize, This means that a lot of "private facilities" risk to spend too much (close). I think this could be the beginning of a nasty economical crisis for the whole faction.

Begin of evil strategy
Isolate your enemys' trade (only if capitalistic pigs) and you'll see their factions loose a lot of money, employement, happyness.
Perfect for a final military strike.
End of evil strategy