Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Infrastructure system, or Why You don't have to build stinkin' Libraries any more

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Infrastructure system, or Why You don't have to build stinkin' Libraries any more



    Infrastructure in the Clash Economic System


    The infrastructure system in Clash will be one of the most important
    ways that the player can guide their civilization.  It will allow
    the player to emphasize, above other priorities, religion, education, or
    a number of other things.  I think all this can be handled on a civilization-wide
    basis, avoiding the need, as in civ2, of every city/province explicitly
    having its own library, marketplace, temple, etc.  The Player will,
    if desired, also be able to "drill down" and  fine-tune infrastructure
    on a per-province basis.  Making changes in the infrastructure priorities
    of the civilization should in fact be so easy that our main problem may
    be keeping the player actively engaged in this aspect of the game. 
    This will probably require some sort of feedback to the player about how
    their particular infrastructure strategy is playing out fairly often.


    Depending upon their culture, the people in the civ will desire a variety
    of goods and services. Among them are housing, entertainment, healthcare,
    religious institutions, education, and other things.  So it will be
    possible to have a culture that invests more in education that usual, at
    the expense of, for instance, buying consumer goods. The player can also
    influence the people's desires through either subsidizing or taxing some
    of the people's spending on infrastructure.  In addition, the government,
    if it has enough power, can simply mandate the amount of spending in a
    given area.  The people will then receive the government-mandated
    level of services regardless of what their desire for them is.  However,
    if done in more than a few selected areas, this is generally a lousy way
    to run an economy.


    Note: this writeup assumes that you have read the proposed economic
    system.


    In the same way that the people or the government can invest in production
    capacity for the various economic sectors (food, resources, produced goods,
    and services), they can also invest in infrastructure of different types. 
    The investments can be either in physical infrastructure, or institutional
    infrastructure.  Physical infrastructure consists of things like transportation
    infrastructure, housing, healthcare facilities, and defense/military infrastructure. 
    Institutional infrastructure covers educational and religious institutions,
    as well as banking systems etc.  A list of the infrastructure categories
    that I've got so far are in the table below.


    Each infrastructure class is handled at the provincial level for bookkeeping
    purposes.  However, typically the player will only have to deal with
    infrastructure on a civ-wide level.  Each infrastructure class is
    modeled crudely like a storage container.  A resource is put into
    the container, and the benefits therein can be drawn upon either immediately
    or at a later date. The amount of resource in the container also suffers
    shrinkage for a variety of reasons.  In other words, some amount of
    constant investment is needed to keep the infrastructure at the same level. 
    For instance, using education as an example, services (of teachers, and
    time spent by students) are invested to give an education level. 
    This education level will provide a variety of economic and other benefits
    to the civ. However, without future investment this education level will
    slowly shrink as those educated previously grow older and die, or as what
    they've learned becomes outdated.  So, in the ancient world where
    average life expectancy might be 40 years, giving a useful life of education
    investment of about 30 years, the shrinkage rate for education would be
    about 3%.  I call education a persistent investment, because the use
    of its benefits to society does not reduce the education level. The only
    way the education level is reduced is by shrinkage.


    Not all infrastructure classes are persistent.  The opposite type
    I call consumed.  An example of a consumed type is the "social safety
    net" class.  This represents charity, like food for the hungry, services
    for the destitute, etc. The food aspects would be similar to the function
    of a granary.  When the stored food is used, that much of the level
    is used up.  These social safety net functions can be fulfilled by
    the people themselves, governments, or religious institutions, or some
    mixture of these.


    So, to sum up, each infrastructure class has an input, a shrinkage rate,
    and an output that is either persistent or consumed.  Changes in technology
    can have effects on this system into different ways.  Better technology
    can leverage the value of the input, or change the shrinkage rate. 
    So, for instance, if a civ discovers the alphabet, the services put into
    the education area would get a bonus, perhaps a 50% bonus.  The "social
    safety net" shrinkage rate might change due to the discovery of canning,
    which would make stored food much less susceptible to spoilage.  As
    healthcare improves, and expected life span rises, the decay rate for education
    would also, as a consequence, fall.


    If we assume that the government isn't intervening in the investment
    decisions of the people for now, how do the people know what kind of infrastructure
    they should buy to make them happiest?  The table below summarizes
    the information I've given so far for the infrastructure classes that I
    have at the moment (suggestions welcome).  Things aren't completely
    worked out here, but at least this can serve as a basis for discussion. 
    The second column shows roughly on average how the people spend money not
    allocated for food.  So, other things being equal, they would spend
    10% of the non-food amount on durable goods.  I've adapted these figures
    from the research paper, "Fundamental Similarities in Consumer Behavior"
    by K. Clements and D. Chen, Applied Economics 28(6) 1996 p747. The figures
    here are obviously somewhat skewed toward representing modern economies. 
    If we go with this basic system we will also need to figure out the numbers
    that might apply for an ancient or medieval economy.  The input column
    shows how much of which of the basic commodities is necessary to purchase
    a single unit of the infrastructure class. So, for durable goods, each
    unit costs one production point.  For religious infrastructure the
    unit cost is two-thirds services and one-third production point. When you
    purchase a unit of the infrastructure class its level would increase by
    one.  When the prices in the province are known you can figure a purchase
    price for each of the infrastructure types. The column that says "example
    price" uses one illustrative example from a province that has low availability
    of finished goods. The remainder of the columns just summarizes information
    about typical shrinkage rates etc. as discussed above. Don't worry, the
    player will never have to deal directly with these numbers.


    People's Investment Profile Table

    Can someone who knows HTML tell me why there's this huge space here?
































































































































































































































    Infrastructure class average  non-food Example Shrinkage Persistant/ Game 
    % used Input Price * (decay) % Consumed Effects
    social safety net (charity) 5 (f+p+s)/3 1.33 5 c RU
    education 5 s 1 5 p IP, AG, +…
    religion 5 (2s+p)/3 1.33 2 p RU
    clothing & miscellaneous 20 (2p+s)/3 1.66 0 c RU
    housing 15 (p+s)/2 1.5 3 p RU, IP
    durable goods 10 p 2 10 p RU, IP
    health care / water infra. 5 s 1 15 p IL, RD, Lg. C
    transportation 15 (2p+s)/3 1.66 5 p IP
    recreation 10 s 1 50 p RU
    economic infrastructure 0 s 1 7 p IP
    military infrastructure 0 (p+s)/2 1.5 7 p
    investment 10 Varies Varies N/A N/A



    * Example for prices per unit.  If f=1, p=2, s=1, prices are as shown


    RU - reduces unhappiness, IP - increases productivity
    AG - Makes advanced governments possible
    IL - increase lifespan, RD - reduces disease
    Lg. C - necessary for large cities >50k people


    To figure out what infrastructure people buy, the computer will start
    with their after-tax income. This explanation involves knowing a little
    bit about the proposed economic system.  If you haven't read it, or
    don't care about the mathematical details just skim this part. Suppose
    the people in this province have after-tax amounts of food = 100, produced
    goods = 20, and services = 60. This kind of availability of the commodities
    might result in the prices used in the example.  After they've eaten
    the food, the people have produced goods = 20, and services = 60 to spend
    on the things they want. Note that because we're handling the desires of
    all the people together this could simulate either a barter economy or
    a market economy. At the prices given in the example of s=1C and p=2C the
    total value after-food is 100C (=20x2C +60x1C)  If the government
    doesn't intervene in the pricing, the people will simply pay the percentage
    of that 100C left that's shown in the second column for each type. 
    For instance they would spend 15% x  100C = 15C on housing. 
    At the price of 1.5 per unit this would buy 10 units of housing. 
    This extremely simple simulated economy takes into account the fact that
    the people will change the number of units they want of each type depending
    upon its price.  In this area where housing is expensive to produce,
    the people will spend more for instance on entertainment (recreation) and
    less on housing than they might someplace else.


    And because the people alter their buying habits depending on the price
    of an item, there is an easy way for the government to influence the balance
    between say, education and recreation spending.  If the government
    wants to put more of an emphasis on education, it can subsidize the peoples
    purchases of education.  This of course will cost the government money,
    so it's not a "no-brainer".  One thing the government could do is
    to subsidize education while taxing (making more expensive) recreational
    spending by the people. The tax revenues from recreation could then be
    used to help pay for the subsidy on education. If the central authority
    of the government is high enough, and the people are sufficiently happy
    to be able to take the happiness penalty of reduced recreational availability
    without serious rebellion, this might be a good move.  This can all
    be handled by the player with the few keystrokes.  Compare this to
    what you have to do in Civ to emphasize education (tech).  There you
    would have to change the plans in every single city to build a library
    there for instance.


    I haven't discussed roads at all so far.  Some of the transportation
    infrastructure money would be used to build things like roads, bridges,
    canals, and railroad track. Things like roads and railways will probably
    be mostly built by the people themselves.  If they are not doing it
    quickly enough the government could probably either subsidize these activities
    to some extent, or pay for them directly itself.  I think with the
    AI in Clash that is dedicated to understanding geography, "the people"
    can do a reasonable job on road and rail networks.  For areas outside
    the provinces proper, engineers of some type will be available to construct
    roads that the player has drawn in and assigned a priority to.


    There are some specifics of this model that I have chosen not to go
    into right now.  And clearly if we're going to use it, it needs a
    lot of work yet.  But I wanted to put it up and see what people's
    general thoughts were about it.  Remember that one bonus of this system,
    is that the player who isn't all that interested in the economy will not
    do too badly if it is just left on its own.  At least if that player
    can refrain from seriously over-taxing the people. For those of us who
    are more inclined toward tweaking the economy and infrastructure types
    within it, this system provides a very simple way to achieve that. 
    What you think?




    [This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 23, 1999).]
    Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
    A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
    Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

  • #2
    I like it, because it sounds like a good model for the real world. Would all provinces be equal in what they desired, first and foremost, and would all civs?

    A. Perhaps there would be places more inclined to spend on education than religion or on luxury items than education?

    B. Also, it would be interesting to see how investment in, say, education, in one province verus another works out. That is, as the govenment you could try to "pick winners" in your civ by spending more in one place and less in another. What happens if you deliberately concentrate education and "culture" in your capital, for example, and virtually ignore the outlying areas. Does the model account for people moving somewhere for reasons other than economic - e.g. If you want to be an artist, professor, musician, whatever you have to move to Paris. Would there be a "brain drain" effect on other ares if you did this? Something to think about perhaps...

    C. Finally, will the geography of an area play a role in determining costs of infrastructure improvements? This could account for less productive areas that aren't on the main transport arteries...

    D. Will provinces become "specialists" in an area? That is, let's say you have two provinces that are suitable for steel production - raw material close at hand, labor, means to transport the goods out and so on. Will they compete and drive prices down, or will one "bow out"? Could the player have an effect on this?

    Comment


    • #3
      Mark,

      as for your HTML question: you pasted a complete HTML page, so there's more than one BODY tag - be glad one can read anything, at all!

      I won't comment anything on this thread interesting as it is, but instead will urge you to put up a real information site!

      Seriously, it's not readable anymore - lots of threads, references, ideas, and on and on... no one but those who read DAILY can understand what's going on right now.

      Please, please, let's get going with that site! And in that process, maybe we should do the same thing as was proposed for Clash characters: Nominate "provincial leaders" who are responsible for certain aspects of the game. You cannot do it all, and it is no use for all meddling in everything, really.

      What is needed is a clear concept and a VERY clear overview over what people are involved, how to contact them etc.

      Let's call the people with certain areas of responsibility "dukes" for the moment (to stay within the picture) - each duke should care for HIS area (coding, economy system, unit balance, gfx, whatever), which means he constantly updates a defined page in the Clash site in which everyone can see

      - what has been decided and is a fix concept now
      - what still is to be discussed

      This list being chronological and with links to associated aspects of the other duke's terrains

      Why I am SO intent on this is very simple: I feel to set up a good information site on Clash is more or less the proof we can get organized at all. Or, in other words: If we don't even manage to set up a decent, well-structured site, we should forget about the project, anyway.

      Last thing: It would be a bit easier to attract competent people IF we had a decent site


      ------------------
      Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?
      Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?

      Comment


      • #4
        Dominique: I'm starting a new thread on your post which is, I must say horribly OT .

        xiane:

        The main variations in desires for things would be by culture. So the desires of people in different civs will vary by a pretty large amount. If you have a multi-cultural empire things would also naturally vary greatly by province.

        So culture, and then governmental 'guidance' are the main factors in who wants what

        A) Mostly as above, but I'm open to suggestions.

        B) Good Point! Uneven education fe is a very important point that I missed in the writeup. We should definitely have this, but will have to be careful about its effects. My immediate guess is that such a centralization of education was almost the rule in ancient and to some extent medieval and modern civs. This is one type of micromanagement that is Very simple to do and could give big benefits to the player. We just need to watch it on play balance... Ideas anyone?

        C) Certainly for some infra types cost will also depend on terrain. Were you thinking of something further?

        D) (Specialization of provinces) Probably yes, at least in micro-management mode. I'd like to hear your ideas on how this might work. Of course if one province has a natural advantage (which is by far the more common situation) specialization is more likely.

        E) You didn't think there was an E...
        xiane, are you interested in being an official project member? And if so, can we rope you into helping to synthesize and organize some area of Clash. Please see the new thread on " * The need for further Organization... Please Read * "...

        -Mark
        Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
        A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
        Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

        Comment


        • #5
          Specialization by region only? or can I sub-specialize.

          Or perhaps can I "redraw" the region lines?

          If part of a region is suitable for fishing and another part looks good for mining, what's a poor Imperator to do?

          [This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited May 25, 1999).]

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't know if you've read the main economic model yet. This stuff might be a little hard to follow without that. Most of these issues are discussed in the main model, not the infra part...

            You can micromanage By Square if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it for anything beyond a 10-square empire.

            Yep, you can change province borders if you like.

            You can Both fish and mine. But actually your people will automatically do both to a fair extent anyway. If you're kind to the merchants, and don't over-tax them the specialization in your economy will grow significantly. Starting with special commodities and working down to the bulk goods.

            [This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 25, 1999).]
            Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
            A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
            Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

            Comment

            Working...
            X