thoughts on colonization

[pg]

A lot of the time you can start right next to them, it's just random chance. The easiest way to win is probably by killing them off though, just because of the insane loot.

One thing that always annoyed me in Colonization, now that someone else mentioned it, is how low prices can go if you produce tons of goods. I always thought it was ridiculous that you could get basically every item to crash to such a low price that you were barely making money. It wasn't even as if I was making as much as I could either, if I really tried I'm sure I could make 10x more.

[DrSpike]

Well that effect occurs in real economic history too. However, what is not in the colonisation model, and never really can be, is the innovation and new products that replace the old cash cows.

It's an interesting modelling question for game-makers. My take would be that as prices go down you can refocus instead on military and training, and as long as that strategic depth is there, I don't really care.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well that effect occurs in real economic history too. However, what is not in the colonisation model, and never really can be, is the innovation and new products that replace the old cash cows.

It's an interesting modelling question for game-makers. My take would be that as prices go down you can refocus instead on military and training, and as long as that strategic depth is there, I don't really care.

hmmm. Im an english colonizer. Ive got maybe two or three relatively weak colonies. I ship, say, wood back to London. Now thats a commodity that is still produced in the British Isles, for which there are markets in continental europe (both local production and imports from THEIR colonies) not to mention imports from the Baltic. And yet my piddly production is driving the London price down so dramatically? The elasticity of demand is too great to make sense. Im not saying I should face a flat demand curve, but it shouldnt be that bad. And the products are pretty generic.

I mean what were the English colonies exporting in 1770 that wasnt around in 1620? They were shipping fish, grain, wood, iron, tobacco, sugar, dyestuff, etc. I doubt it was much different in the other colonies (except more furs, precious metals, sugar, etc)

OTOH there are too many games in my experience where the markets dont respond to price. Maybe I dont play recent enough games. But Vickie is pretty recent, and its damned frustrating that there seem to be some commodities I cant buy even if im willing to pay a high price. Its not as bad as Caesar 3 - the World Market seems to adjust price to the demand supply situation to SOME extent - even if it doesnt try to get to an equilibrium price. Still, IIRC, Imp2 was much stronger in this regard.

[DrSpike]

The first part wasn't really the point I was making. The basic question is whether you want the game to model economic reality or whether you want it to be a good game. Sometimes you can do both, but when you have to choose (regulars readers of my Civ posts will be familiar with this ) gameplay must come first.

It's an interesting question for amusement what one would expect the elasticities of demand to be for wood. Some limited data even exists to empirically test it. But both very high and 0 can work if the game is set up right. Both can be justified to some degree, either through the broad data from history (as in my previous post) or attempts at a micro model (as in your post).

The game is so highly abstracted anyway - amongst other things we are talking about a world with a fixed product set forever in spite of technological and human capital development we see in the real world being modelled (the example I used above). In such a model people just work less and less as their real incomes rise when the prices of commodities falls! But leisure isn't in the abstraction, so it falls to the designer to create other trade-offs, which may require high or low elasticities. As long as that can be accomplished all is well.

[lord of the mark]

well yeah, I didnt see this a game killer. From what I did play of it, I saw Colonization as much like Civ in its approach to history - it presents ISSUES that did matter historically, and forces you to make tradeoffs that are historically meaningful, but the exact modeling of each issue is not realistic, except in the broadest sense.

But I still think some of the price decrease are analagous, in that sense to pikemen beating Battleships. You can live with it for gameplay, but its annoying.


I still think the fixed product set isnt that bad an abstraction. During the period modeled, most of the colonial exports are either intermediate goods (wood, iron, etc), specie, staples (like grain or fish) or relatively basic luxuries like tobacco or sugar that continued in importance throughout the period. The cutting edge luxury products - high fashion cloth, porcelain, high fashion furniture - were NOT being produced in the colonies, and certainly werent being shipped from the colonies to the mother countries (of course Colonization models mother country exports as well) The only major exceptions I can think of would have been furs, and dyestuffs (needed for high fashion cloth) - maybe cotton towards the end of the period.

[fed1943]

Sorry, but I do not see big problem about.

What for the cash? Just to buy some early products (horses and

tools) and faster/wanted people.

England has more people; Spain more cash from natives; France

less need of initial military; Nedherlans better trade.

So,looks balanced.

Best regards,

[Whoha]

Originally posted by El_Cid
The only problem i had with it was it encouraged the player to persecute native americans either by waging religious war(my god IS better than your god - such intollerance) or selling then guns+whisky. Of course this IS the story of America and it was a decent simulation of such.

I was just sad i couldn't change history in the game, and you know be nice to the natives - maybe the world would have been a better place?

Yea I don't like the fact that you can't arm them and win their trust that way. or that you maintain peace with them and trade throughout the game, but when you begin the massive buildup to rebellion they go ape**** and pretty much need to be wiped out.

OTL guns and whiskey were sold by private traders for profit. I never got as far as having a big industry in either - are they particularly lucractive commodities for sale to natives? How in game terms does this "persecute" the natives? Do they use the guns for wars on each other?

I never saw natives war against each other. they will go after the other colonists with guns/horses though if you provide them to them.

Originally posted by fed1943
Sorry, but I do not see big problem about.
What for the cash?

cash lets you buy everything you need to trounce everyone else. ships, cannons,trained soldiers, specialists, and people people people. also in the colonial production you can rush improvements that you'd have no hope of building because you lack the infrastructure to build them initially.