Money

[TechWins]

I'm not real sure how I'm going to make money in the very beginning. Let's say I build my first city and I get a tax of 1. So I'm making an income of 1 gold per turn. I build my first unit, for defense. So now I'm not making any money. I then decided to... oh wait I can't build anything until my citie grows so I can get at least a tax of 2. Who knows how long that could take. What to do. You have to build a military unit right away for defense but you could also use a temple to get some of those valuable resources. My question is how is there going to be enough money to support all your needs?

[JMarks]

Ok, we don't know exactly how everything will work, but this is a valid question. Personally, I think that such delemas should exist. Besides, they say you'll start with a worker, so he'll be able to start a colony which could help with in your finacial area. Besides, what if we start out with some money. Sure, there'll be tough times, but that adds flavor. I like the idea of small armies due to finances. Either one must concentrate mainly on defense, or one must continually conquer to support the army. (like the Romans)

All I'm saying is - Don't worry.

If you still have problems when you get the game, then come back and we can all discuss it!

Ioanes

[Footie Mad]

I think the " money = power " concept in civ3 is a step forward as this reflects the real world......at least nowadays. Just look at a country like Russia...great natural resoursces and production capabilities but no $ and thats what matters.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm almost certain that you will get a number of "free units" per city; 1 or 2, say. That way the early expansion won't be too painful. Wille, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Tell me: what is money? Just give me the definition that you're using.

[rah]

I think if they do go with an empire wide gold support for troops that you will see something similar to CTPII where instead of the city contributing 1 gold it will be like 500 gold. (the 1 gold just represented a unit anyway) and then the troop support might be half of that or something. So while there will be a more direct corralation, I think your fears are unfounded. It will be taken care of because otherwise, it would be just silly.

RAH

[Gramphos]

Are you sure that the units cost money before you have more units then your city size in despotism?

Originally posted by JMarks


All I'm saying is - Don't worry.

If you still have problems when you get the game, then come back and we can all discuss it!

Ioanes

Exactly, why post a pseudo complaint about something (TechWins) when you have little or no information to base your complaint on.

If you want to talk about how Civ 2 works, and how you think Civ 3 should work, then fine. Lets talk.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm almost certain that you will get a number of "free units" per city; 1 or 2, say. That way the early expansion won't be too painful. Wille, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Tell me: what is money? Just give me the definition that you're using.

I dont have the english skills to explain my opinion on this matter so I wont even try it would just look dumb.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm almost certain that you will get a number of "free units" per city; 1 or 2, say. That way the early expansion won't be too painful. Wille, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Tell me: what is money? Just give me the definition that you're using.

What? I would hate civ3 if Firaxis made the game that easy. If everyone got off lucky with 1 or 2 units at the beginning, the game would be dull and not hard.

Just look at how we Americans started, we had zero money, in fact, we were in debt by the hundreds of thousands, yet we made it. That was just an example, and I have plenty more if you are interested. I am 110% opposed to having free units at the beginning, it would take away the feeling of how hard history was, and it would take away the pride that all americans feel when they (I) reflect on the American Revolution, that we did make it, although it was as hard as hell.

please dont take offense, any of you British who read this.

[Inverse Icarus]

take offence to this you brits.

::several obscene gestures::

[To_Serve_Man]

I support: Deficit Spending as well as nation to nation loans

However there has not been much said about the actual 'MONETARY UNIT' structure... just other economical stuff....

[ancient]

I think money should be in Pounds Sterling.. not Gold

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by UberKruX
take offence to this you brits.

::several obscene gestures::

LOL.

I would suspect early unit will not cost that much. However later units will surely cost a lot more.

[TechWins]

Exactly, why post a pseudo complaint about something (TechWins) when you have little or no information to base your complaint on.

I'm not neccesarily complaining, I'm just wondering how it will work. Now I believe wondering how something in Civ III will work is talking about Civ III. Tell me if I'm wrong though.

I would suspect early unit will not cost that much. However later units will surely cost a lot more.

I think if they do go with an empire wide gold support for troops that you will see something similar to CTPII where instead of the city contributing 1 gold it will be like 500 gold. (the 1 gold just represented a unit anyway) and then the troop support might be half of that or something.

You two are probably right.

This is you making assumptions about the rules of Money/Income:

Originally posted by TechWins
I'm not real sure how I'm going to make money in the very beginning. Let's say I build my first city and I get a tax of 1. So I'm making an income of 1 gold per turn.

This is you complaining about the assumed rules:

I build my first unit, for defense. So now I'm not making any money. I then decided to... oh wait I can't build anything until my citie grows so I can get at least a tax of 2. Who knows how long that could take. What to do. You have to build a military unit right away for defense but you could also use a temple to get some of those valuable resources.

This is a summary of your complaint, formed in a question.

My question is how is there going to be enough money to support all your needs?

You can call it "talking" about Civ 3; I call it an attempt to identify a weakness you believe to be present in the design of the game.

There are many things about gameplay in which we simply DO NOT know.

Your point may yet be valid, but we have no hint of that as of this time.

It would be a comparison to Civ 2 to what you expect for Civ 3 if you had the "problem" you are speaking of in Civ 2. But of course you didn't, none of us did.

This is how rumors get started.

Speculations on gameplay are fine in my opinion, but when you carry that to the point of:

(simplified) The game may play like this......., if it does, then we have a problem.

I would rather see speculations about what you would like to see in the game, some sort of positive input, or even contructive criticism of Civ 2 or of specific "official" Civ 3 gameplay issues.

All else is banter that is without merit or worth.

[marcuspeddle]

>Originally posted by UberKruX
>take offence to this you brits.
>
>::several obscene gestures::
>


UberKrux,
Do you think your comments are funny or witty? Stop wasting forum space. People come here to exchange information about the games, not read childish insults directed at people of other nations.

[JMarks]

UberKrux,
Do you think your comments are funny or witty? Stop wasting forum space. People come here to exchange information about the games, not read childish insults directed at people of other nations.

I agree, even though this is a gaming forum, that is no reason to become an immature malcontent. Being a teen is not excuse.

What? I would hate civ3 if Firaxis made the game that easy. If everyone got off lucky with 1 or 2 units at the beginning, the game would be dull and not hard.

I kinda agree here too. If you were talking about military units (which I am assuming you are) then you're totally right. Those should be worked for. However, how can you start without any units? Unless you start with just a city of course.

What I'm wondering is would each unit spend one coin, and be directly translated from the civ 2 shield system where there are free unit support, or if it will be a bit more dynamic. Hey, lets face it, a battleship costs way more to support than a rifleman.

Ioanes

[TechWins]

UberKrux I thought it was funny.

Everybody try not to have too much curiostiy around bigfree1, he might think that it's complaining.

[Magic_Monkey]

i don't think he meant it seriously, in fact i know he didn't. Lighten up and stuff
if it wasn't for humour i can tell you this:
the world would be less funny and, probably, less good

to get back on topic, some kind of national debt might be nice; providing it didn't overcomplicate things

i have a feeling it might get ignored tho as to most new players it wouldn't really be of interest.

well, that's enough devastating insight for now. time to panic about an exam on the reformation in Europe i have tomorrow

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
I support: Deficit Spending as well as nation to nation loans

It remember a cheat a friend of mine found into the old Sid's game "Railroad Tycoon", where you can raise your debt so high the counter overflow and change its sign: you jumped straight from -64k $ to +64k $ Tycoon of the world in a night!

May be it'll be one of the "traditional feature" that Sid keep from game to game

[Grumbold]

Going into debt is certaily something that would make Civ more like the real world and would certainly help avoid the exponential climb from the bronze age uninterrupted to the space age. Massive debts incurred from constant warfare were often the factor that saw once great nations fall back into obscurity.

To greatly oversimplify (sorry historians) just look at sixteenth century Spain. It controlled Spain, half of Italy, parts of North Africa, the Low Countries (approx Holland and Belgium) and by far the richest colonies in the New World before England had done more than send out an exploratory expedition. However its constant fighting with the French and Turks and internal rebellions was enough to exhaust their manpower and drain even their amazing wealth. Two centuries later it is England with the increasingly wealthy overseas Empire. Two world wars later and the English Empire is declining and the mother country is debt crippled itself.

The toggle between wartime and peacetime economies is an interesting start to approaching the problem (in latter day warfare) but it simply does not work if you can switch off the bad effect the second someone declares peace. You should have an army costing you a fortune, and more in training, that you now have to quietly disband and find civilian jobs for. This didn't start in 1805 either, it has been the same since the first King started paying his troops a set wage instead of relying entirely on plunder.

[C. Gerhardt]

Originally posted by ancient
I think money should be in Pounds Sterling.. not Gold

Is there a probability to give every civ its own currency e.g.

English = pounds sterling
American = dollar
Spain = peseta`s
Roman = dinari
Russian = roebels
Franch = francs
German = mark
etc.etc.etc

U can make a real trade offer 20 USDollar = 120 Ffrancs

[C. Gerhardt]

Originally posted by Grumbold
However its constant fighting with the French and Turks and internal rebellions was enough to exhaust their manpower and drain even their amazing wealth.

I can remember me history lesson quite well.

There was a certain Dutch captain, Piet Hein, that intercepted some of the spanish gold and silver that was transported from the New World to Spain and delivered it back in Holland so we could pay for our rebellion against the Spanish (1568 - 1648).

Maybe a good idea for The Game.

Non-military units can be captured by military units without paying any bribing-fee used by an diplomatic unit. Makes it necessary to guard your settlers, workers and caravans.
Naturally you cant capture allied units and is it an act of war if you capture units from a friendly civ.

Maybe u can bribe (diplomatic, of course) an enemy unit to disband itself? Makes it easy to conquer the enemy without the extra unit maintanance!

[TechWins]

Is there a probability to give every civ its own currency e.g.

English = pounds sterling
American = dollar
Spain = peseta`s
Roman = dinari
Russian = roebels
Franch = francs
German = mark
etc.etc.etc

U can make a real trade offer 20 USDollar = 120 Ffrancs

There is no way that it will be like this. Kind of a late reply to this but I guess better late than never.

[SerapisIV]

Gold has been a universal currency until the last two or three centuries. It's only since then that more abstract ideas have taken prominence as economic tools. I like the simplicity of gold. At least that way we don't have to worry about exchange rates.

[KrazyHorse]

If you're going to introduce an exchange rate, then a more complex economic model is going to have to be developed. That's a whole new kettle of fish, and I don't think it's worth it just to see the Russians using Rubles. Gold is still used as an exchange currency between nations, and for millenia precious metals were considered the only "real" currency.

[Rasputin]

problems with exchange rates is that they are set by capitalsit pigs... at what point do we reasearch thses damn capitalists to setup exchange rates

[TechWins]

Anothe problem with having exchane is how will they determine what the exchange rates will be and in what time in the game?

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Going into debt is certaily something that would make Civ more like the real world and would certainly help avoid the exponential climb from the bronze age uninterrupted to the space age. Massive debts incurred from constant warfare were often the factor that saw once great nations fall back into obscurity.

Getting away from the less relevant issue of exchange rates, debt is a crucial issue. If we move away from a system where units are funded by shields (which every city receives "free") to a tax-based system of government funding, yielding enough income to sustain your army becomes critical.

As Grumbold rightly points out, throughout history nations have usually only been able to fund major military campaigns by borrowing money. Paul Kennedy's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" hits this issue on the head - the superpowers of the last five centuries have been those countries with economies and financial systems able to bear the financial strain of sustaining large armies for long periods.

You could argue that Britain was able to achieve superpower status in the 18/19th centuries because: 1) it developed into the richest economy; but also 2) it developed capital markets able to finance the various wars (Seven Years War, the Revolutionary War - sorry, War of Independence - and the Napoleonic wars) it engaged in over the period.

I suggest an improvement to the game: enable civs to borrow money once they develop to the appropriate level, say, after researching "trade" technology. The rate of interest charged every period would be a function of existing debt levels, income and default history (some civs just simply wouldn't be able to borrow). You could prevent cheating by plunging your civ into anarchy in cases of borrowing defaults, and limiting loan size.

You could then have a new technology, e.g. "capital markets", that enables your civ to borrow at lower rates or enhance your financing ability in other ways.