The Civ III Economy

Falconius · October 20, 2001, 23:01

I'm trying to sort out the economic system in Civ III.

In Civ II, you built your camel and sent him off to a foreign city. When you got there, you received a lump sum of gold, plus extra trade in the caravan's starting city, plus you got a bonus toward your current science research.

In short, you got a big payoff for an investment of only 50 shields (to build the caravan).

But the money you received didn't come from the other Civ. It was just given to you by the game. The other Civ didn't lose anything from its treasury.

But in Civ III, each Civ will actually be shelling out money to buy resources (among other things). The money doesn't come out of nowhere; it comes from the Civ's treasury. There would seem to be a finite amount of money to go around.

On the other hand, it seems like there is less to spend money on. You can no longer rush-build Wonders. And under certain gov'ts you can't hurry city improvements. And under other gov'ts, you whip your people into hurrying a city imp. rather than paying money for it. Spies/Dips no longer "Incite Revolts," but still use "propaganda" (seems similar, but unsure of the $$ required).
What else is there to spend game money on?

It seems there will be a lot less money coming in, but also a lot less going out. The Civ version of a recession!

Am I missing something? Anyone have a different view of the economy?

BTW, I think this is my longest post ever. Hope it wasn't too boring!

Stuie · October 20, 2001, 23:39

Well, here are some things you can do with your money:

- First and foremost, pay the support costs of your military units and your city improvements
- Establish Embassies with other civs (this costs money now)
- Anything on the Espionage screen (you didn't think this was free, did you?)
- Rush-builds (these will be allowed for cash under some government types)
- Science (indirectly - if you have excessive income you can divert more to Science)
- Entertainment (indirectly - if you have excessive income you can divert more to Entertainment)
- and of course Trade, which you have already mentioned.

Is that enough? There might be something I'm forgetting.

El hidalgo · October 21, 2001, 01:35

As to where it comes from, I believe you get bonuses for roads and rivers, and perhaps for ports as well. You also get bonuses for gold and certain other resources -- just having the resource alone gives you money. And a lot of the trade options seem to be just that -- trade. You don't just buy iron from another civ, you trade them furs for iron (unless you would rather pay cash, of course).

Crouchback · October 21, 2001, 07:57

Gold does seem to be less important in Civ 3, and I don't recall seeing a tax slider to go along with the luxury and science bars. But the strength of gold unbalanced Civ 2, I'd alway go for a rich and militarily powerful society, then buy science and happiness improvements.

As for trade, you can get gold by selling the rare resources you control as well. And won't knowing it weakens a competitor make exploiting the unfair bargaining position all the sweeter?

David

CapTVK · October 21, 2001, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Crouchback

As for trade, you can get gold by selling the rare resources you control as well. And won't knowing it weakens a competitor make exploiting the unfair bargaining position all the sweeter?

David

That would be fun if you were playing against a human player. But outsmarting the computer soon becomes as dull as outsmarting a fire hydrant. Sure, it will give some satisfaction but as your opponents only keep spewing water it becomes boring rather quickly. On the higher levels that argument will be moot anyway as the AI's will receive those resources by other means ( cheating).

Stuie · October 21, 2001, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Crouchback
Gold does seem to be less important in Civ 3, and I don't recall seeing a tax slider to go along with the luxury and science bars.

Actually, you wouldn't need a slider for taxes - they would be whatever is leftover after luxuries and science are taken out. So if your science is set at 5 and your luxury rate is set at 0, then your taxes by default would be 5. If you look at a screen from the final game, you'll notice that tax.science.luxury rate is indicated in parentheses next to the Civ name in the unit window (http://www.civ3.com/images/screensho...s_armyview.jpg).

As for the argument some are making that gold will not be as important in Civ3, I disagree, though it depends on your style of play. If anything, it will definitely enhance my play style, as I will have to make trade offs between a large army, trade, and espionage. I was never one for rushing a lot of buildings to completion. Now, if I desparately need a resource from another Civ but have nothing else to spare, I can use gold to trade for it. If I want to investigate a foreign city prior to targeting a specific improvement with my air forces, I need gold to initiate the espionage mission.

I guess I'm just saying we shouldn't underestimate the value of a healthy economy in Civ3 until we see how it works - should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

cyril25376 · October 21, 2001, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Falconius
It seems there will be a lot less money coming in, but also a lot less going out. The Civ version of a recession!

I disagree. You can either buy or exchange luxuries against luxuries or strategic resources. In Civ3 the other civ has to agree for the deal, so you can't trade with a civ you are at war.(like you could do in Civ2)

There are also some strategic decisions:
1) Shall I sell a strategic resource to another civ to get some money or is the risk very high that I will be attacked by this civ only a few turns later, because now the civ is able to build strong attack units ?,
2)In Civ3 trade needs a good infrastructure, without roads, harbor or later airports no trade is possible. So when disconnecting an enemy from his strategic resources, he can't build some units.
IMO the trade system of Civ3 is better implemented, so the trade system will be superior.

Mars · October 21, 2001, 12:01

Gold will be intensely important. Now, not only do you have to have a strong army you also have to have a strong economy to back it up (instead of just high production.) Esponiage, a key factor to the game, requires gold now, not production. Then to make production important as well, they got rid of rush builds for certain things (wonders, and city improvements under certain govs). So gold is important in civ 3, and the only reason its not used for rush builds is make production still have a vital role in the game.If you ask me civ 3 is excellently balanced in these aspects

BigLupu · October 21, 2001, 21:20

I wonder if I could do some real interesting business as a "dealer" or "retailer" of resources: Buying a resource from one civilization and selling it to other civilization with higher price?

For example my "supplier" could be at war with my "client" or maybe the resource supplier just doesn't have contact with my client yet. Later in the game I would need capable marketing (=diplomatic) skills to preserve my role.

Sarxis · October 21, 2001, 22:11

Good point! I wonder if we will be able to 'distribute' resources from one civ to another and make a bit of profit.

Though, once the other player finds out (if AI is that smart), you will probably lose your business.

BigLupu · October 21, 2001, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Good point! I wonder if we will be able to 'distribute' resources from one civ to another and make a bit of profit.

Though, once the other player finds out (if AI is that smart), you will probably lose your business.

Yeah, that's sometimes the way in the real world also. Assuming this is possible let's see what means AI has to find out what resources you are distributing. Also if the AI is smart enough to act as a distributor of resources how can I find that out? 8 days and counting...

Andy · October 21, 2001, 23:52

We should also not forget the impact of the wonders on gold production. I believe that the new Wall Street small wonder allows you to collect intrest on your existing gold stockpile. Very intresting new type of economic wonder.

Ironwood · October 22, 2001, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Good point! I wonder if we will be able to 'distribute' resources from one civ to another and make a bit of profit.

Though, once the other player finds out (if AI is that smart), you will probably lose your business.

There is historical precedent for this. The Arabs made their living trading between China and the West. The Phonecians founded their civ on controlling the Mediterranian and trading between distant civs. Being the first on the water may have considerable advantages.

player1 · October 22, 2001, 02:48

BUT, what is value for CASH in yours civ?
In civ2 & civ1 main value of CASH was in rush buying things.
Or in giving it to stupid AI.
Relly, what is 50 gold, you can't buy anything with it, but you can give it
to AI any he would be VERRY HAPP (that I call a CHEATING FOR PLAYER)

Since in civ3 I don't think that you could invest your CASH in science (rush buying science) or luxury, and some government won't allow a rush buying what can you do in yours civ with lets say 5000 gold.
You can only play spies and do bribing stupid AI.

"You give 50 gold to AI, hes says how nice, than he gives 50 gold to
next AI, he says now nice, etc...)"

Anyway, AIs give to much value for CASH which is'n that usefull.

In civ3 it look like CASH is almost wortless.

Maybe it's use is in going to deficit by puting tax rate to 0% and earning science that way.

Skanky Burns · October 22, 2001, 02:55

With some governments, you can rush-buy. Im guessing that these would be Republic and Democracy. So for these governments, the cash has a use. For the other governments, they (probably) cant rush-buy, but thats not so bad either as they arent really good at raising a large amount of cash.

Cre8engr · October 22, 2001, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Good point! I wonder if we will be able to 'distribute' resources from one civ to another and make a bit of profit.

Though, once the other player finds out (if AI is that smart), you will probably lose your business.

Isn't that what the history of the world revolves around? Selling and obtaining resources? The silk and spice trade from China to Europe went through many different countries, and each country wanted it's share of the profits. The much more expensive prices encouraged the Portoguese (sp?) and the Spaniards to send ships to the far reaches of the globe looking for away to by past all the middle men, and get their silk and spices cheaper than their neighbors.

HalfLotus · October 22, 2001, 12:28

The most significant change in moneymanaging is that units have support cost in gold. I like that production is no longer bogged down by sheild support (particularly city-specific support). You will now be losing gold proportional to your military size. It's realistic and goes a long way toward eliminating tedious micropmanagement. Damn I hate clicking "support from this city" over and over again.

LarryLard · October 22, 2001, 12:39

Quote:

Originally posted by BigLupu
I wonder if I could do some real interesting business as a "dealer" or "retailer" of resources: Buying a resource from one civilization and selling it to other civilization with higher price?

For this to work it must be possible to revoke trade agreements. Do we know if this is possible?

ie if we agree to give Coal to the French for X gold (per turn? not seen a screenshot explaining this), can we later cancel that agreement, or demand more gold for it?

SteveJH · October 22, 2001, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by LarryLard

For this to work it must be possible to revoke trade agreements. Do we know if this is possible?

ie if we agree to give Coal to the French for X gold (per turn? not seen a screenshot explaining this), can we later cancel that agreement, or demand more gold for it?

You can only cancel the deal peacefully after 20 turns.

Bakunine · October 22, 2001, 12:54

Quote:

In civ3 it look like CASH is almost wortless.

Only if armies are almost worthless...

kittenOFchaos · October 22, 2001, 14:05

The first dude in this thread said caravans were 40 shields in civ2...

They are 50 shields...all those people that never corrected him earlier haven't played enough civ2 to be thinking about civ3!

Jaybe · October 22, 2001, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
The first dude in this thread said caravans were 40 shields in civ2...

They are 50 shields...all those people that never corrected him earlier haven't played enough civ2 to be thinking about civ3!

Italics added

Or we decided it wasn't worth nitpicking this time.

I know, I have nitpicked enough. Actually, I am thankful I don't have any nits in my neighborhood (as in lice).

It was probably just a typo, anyway. Typos are so common on the web! Doesn't anyone proof what they type anymore?

It's either that or spelling and grammer is really atrocious, these days.*

*(People for whom English is not their primary language are excused).

Mars · October 22, 2001, 15:52

Wouldn't it be cool if you could charge gold for having a trade route pass through your civs borders. Thereby acting as a middle man. So even when the AIs do know eachother and are at peace they still will have to pay you to get their commodity from one to another.

And Jaybe, no one proofreads because it is useless waste of time for informal activities. As long as people can understand what you're saying its good enough

RallyK · October 22, 2001, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

It's either that or spelling and grammer is really atrocious, these days.*

Haha, ...spelling and grammar are really ...

Mars: I'm sure you can do that indirectly. You would just have to know which resource was in demand by another civ and trade for it. Then, by trading it to another civ, ask for some money also.

Stuie · October 22, 2001, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Mars
Wouldn't it be cool if you could charge gold for having a trade route pass through your civs borders. Thereby acting as a middle man. So even when the AIs do know eachother and are at peace they still will have to pay you to get their commodity from one to another.

You can charge any amount you want for the Right of Passage Treaty.....

ndnls · October 22, 2001, 17:02

Supposesdly, the "wall street" minor wonder gives you interest on the funds in your treasury.

As for the new trading system, its all done on a single screen similar to the one for diplomacy.

As for gold being worthless in civ 2, the ability to rush wonders and the power of the sequential rush-buy always broke the balance of the game. The fact that wonders now generate culture points ( at least I think from what I've heard ) could have ruined the game if it wasent for the fact the you now need Great Leaders in a city in order to rush wonders.

player1 · October 22, 2001, 18:34

I just hope that I don't need to have 40% tax in Despotism or Monrachy becouse of 60% science maximum,
That way you are forced to earn wortless CASH with witch you can't do almost anything.
If there is no slider % limit (like in civ1, not in civ2)
I would be satisfied.
If I don't like extra cash I would have 10 or 20% tax and 80% science.
So if I have cash I would lose it gradualy and get extra science.

albiedamned · October 22, 2001, 18:39

The fact that you now need gold to support your army is all you need to know about the importance of gold. True you can't rush buy anymore under certain governments, but I think that making army support dependent on gold more than offsets not having rush buy.

And of course, as has been mentioned, generating more gold means you can set your science rate higher and still be able to maintain your army and city improvements. And if setting the science rate higher isn't important, I don't know what is!

Because you can't bribe units, gold will not be as important as it was in SMAC (where you could win the game with a strong economy alone). But it will still be very important.

albiedamned · October 22, 2001, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
I just hope that I don't need to have 40% tax in Despotism or Monrachy becouse of 60% science maximum,
That way you are forced to earn wortless CASH with witch you can't do almost anything.
If there is no slider % limit (like in civ1, not in civ2)
I would be satisfied.
If I don't like extra cash I would have 10 or 20% tax and 80% science.
So if I have cash I would lose it gradualy and get extra science.

I believe it's been officially stated that there are no science/luxury limits in Civ3. I'm not sure if it was just for certain government types or all government types. I'm sure somebody here knows and will post it shortly. . .

player1 · October 22, 2001, 18:45

Yuhooo!
Now I can play my favorite strategy from civ1:
-if I have to much gold I just put sliders to 100% science