Foudamental philosophy of an empire building game

[shadowlessasasin]

In my opinion, I think the foundamental concept of Civ III needs to be changed. With this foundamental concept changed, a lot of new things can be changed.

Anyone who take economic courses know that it is greed and gain that fuels economic and interactions. And it is economic and interactions that makes cities, civilization and empire possible.

The foundation of civilization and empire is therefore material wealth, not war. Thus, Civ III should be designed so that the end is to gain wealth and if there are any wars at all, it should be for the sake of wealth

Many may argue that Civ II is designed so that war is so heavily stressed because war is the mean through which to gain. So in that sense, Civ II's foundamental concept is also to gain.

Two points I want to make about this argument is that first Civ II, from what I've observed, is disigned so that war exists for war iself, not for gain's sake. Second, there are much much more means through which one may gain wealth other than war.

Some other may also make the point that war is the only thing that makes the game interesting. Without war, the game is boring. The refute I give to this argument is that the way Civ II is designed is such that war is the only challenge. But in a true empire building, the challenge lies in how to keep citizen's loyalty, how maintain a cordial relationship with neighoring countries, and how to keep a country's economy prosperous. If an empire building game is truely an empire building game, then war is not the only thing that will make the game interesting.

So again, I come back to the point that economic is important and must be given more weight to it. Dom Pedro II makes a very good point in one of his threats. He thinks that wealth, being the foundamental of any empire building, should be the first priority. Diplomacy exists for the primary purpose of making gaining of wealth possible, and the only reason for war in the first place is that it serves as the last option if all else fail to bring wealth.

Civ II isn't designed so that the above is true. In fact, Civ II is designed so that war is the ultimate end, and that econ is the mean through which to achieve that end. Civ III, must reverse that by making war and diplomacy the mean through which to reach the ultimate end of gain, and wealth.

If designers of Civ III really understand this points, and realize the implication of this change in foundation of a game philosophy, then they will find themselves with lots and lots of revisions to do. But I think, this revision is going to be worthwhile.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by shadowlessasasin on 11-24-2000 05:20 PM Dom Pedro II makes a very good point in one of his threats.

--Too good to pass up!

That's why we all snap to, and listen carefully when Dom Pedro II speaks!

There are many, many, theories of the basis of politics, of which economic theries (such as Marxism) form a small subset. To Quote from my Politics Syylabus: Liberal, Structural, Behavioural, Functional, Marxist, Pluralist and Classical Economic Theories, and these are just some theories selected for a first year introductory course. It is impossible to say that any one theory is "The truth"; many poeple will always disagre with you.

I totally disagree with the model you've picked, though. My personal choice for founding the internal workings of Civ on is Marxism/Historical Materialism, which is based on the Means of Production which beside capital also include things like Science, Labour and Raw Materials, well represented in the game by Trade and Shields. These stand in direct relation to progress, and change will come about with sufficient change in Means of Production.

On top of this base are the relations of production, the class system and the economic system. Society is dicvided into classes, and these fail and suceed depending on how well they can keep achieve or maintain the relations of production that benefit them. However, if the Means of production and the Relations of production are sufficiently far appart, a revolution will be triggered changing the class structure fundamentally, but also economic and governmental systems.

But this is just an easily implemental example, there are many more possibilities.

[Dom Pedro II]

: om Pedro lifts his venerable head::

Ah, grasshoppers.... listen well as Master Dom speaks, or I'll break your heads!


But back to the point, I have been a strong advocate on an economic games. The fact is that every world power has expanded and founded colonies for the purposes of raw materials and special goods found in distant lands. Almost every historical event has had something to do with commerce and economics. Every war has its economic reasons. Many of the Europeans got into wars because they wanted to control the valuable commodities in far-off lands. It is what drives civilization. Very few do it for the shear sake of taking over the world.

That is why we need a large group of commodities that control what can and can not be done in the game. Civilizations will fight to gain these commodities, and some civs will specilize in certain areas. That will determine how cordial they will be with their suppliers. A rather simple example is with the American colonies of the British. The reason why New England led the charge in the struggle for freedom had to do with the fact that their economy was based on all of the things that England produced. The South, meanwhile, was much more dependent on England for manufactured goods. A colony that is more economically independent will sooner or later want to be politically independent. That is only one example though.




------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3

[Dauphin]

quote: : om Pedro lifts his venerable head::

Mmmmm. I presume that the was an unforseen mistake?

[shadowlessasasin]

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase on Snapcase on 11-24-2000 08:35 PM There are many, many, theories of the basis of politics, of which economic theries (such as Marxism) form a small subset. To Quote from my Politics Syylabus: Liberal, Structural, Behavioural, Functional, Marxist, Pluralist and Classical Economic Theories, and these are just some theories selected for a first year introductory course. It is impossible to say that any one theory is "The truth"; many poeple will always disagre with you. I totally disagree with the model you've picked, though. My personal choice for founding the internal workings of Civ on is Marxism/Historical Materialism, which is based on the Means of Production which beside capital also include things like Science, Labour and Raw Materials, well represented in the game by Trade and Shields. These stand in direct relation to progress, and change will come about with sufficient change in Means of Production. On top of this base are the relations of production, the class system and the economic system. Society is dicvided into classes, and these fail and suceed depending on how well they can keep achieve or maintain the relations of production that benefit them. However, if the Means of production and the Relations of production are sufficiently far appart, a revolution will be triggered changing the class structure fundamentally, but also economic and governmental systems. But this is just an easily implemental example, there are many more possibilities.

Heheheheh!!!! As a first year econ major student in one of the worlds' lamest University, I have only begun to read the theories of Adam Smith and have not even touched on Marxism. So I don't know anything about what you've said. I do have to apologize for making the assumption that anyone would have agreed with me.

However, I still think that, as Dom Pedro said, the foundation of anything humans do since civilization begun has been desire and acquistion of material wealth. Hell, civilization would not have begun without desire for material gain.

Even though I can't comment on your idea about Historial materialism because I don't know anything about it, I think its safe to say that the most foudamental rule, the most general rule that governs human behavior is desire for gain. That's what led to wars. And this reality should be reflected in Civ III.

[Shogun Gunner]

This has been one of my favorite threads in a long time...

Don't overlook Snapcase's response. There's some great information in there. It brings me back to my Economic classes in college....

There are many different theories about government and economics. The relationship between these two very intertwined. In Civ many of these concepts are indirectly represented by the rules of the game. Sometimes, the designers do not specify exactly to the "why" of any particular rule and then we speculate on these items day after day on these forums....

For example, as Snapcase mentions, the class system is fundamental to every government and economic system. There are economic winners and losers... Where in Civ II is this? You indirectly see this represented in a few concepts like

1.The city riots
2.The demo/republic government collapses - Senate actions
3.Ability to declare war under different governments

This relationships is assumed and not clearly defined as what we studied in our Economics programs.

As for the Communist Gov't, you don't really see anything that's going to match an Econ textbook. It really matches up against the Soviet example better (less corruption due to KGB, reduced production compared to republic/democracy would be Soviet production compared to US production, there may be other examples...)

Splitting hairs aside, this is why I like Civ so much. Of all the simulation games ever created, this one does the best job of unifying so many different concepts.

[Salvius]

I apologize in advance, but I just have to say this:

For the love of God, do not base CivIII's economic model on Marxism.

I'll admit here to being a libertarian, and thus biased, and that I've never actually taken any formal economics courses. That said, I've done some reading, and it has seemed to me for many years that Marxism is based on a set of premises, some of which are provably false. I mean, even without any formal training, *I* can prove to you (or at least to myself) that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold in the real world.

I don't really want to get off onto a flamewar about Marxism here, I just want to make it clear that since there are some of us who believe it to be inherently seriously flawed, it may not be the best choice as the basis of CivIII's economy. :-)

Mind you, a debate about the relative merits of Marxism and free-market capitalism might be fun, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. If you must, email me about it.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Salvius on 11-25-2000 04:57 AM I mean, even without any formal training, *I* can prove to you (or at least to myself) that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold in the real world.

The democracy-theory didnt hold "in the real world" either , in ancient/medieval times. The Greek city-states never had any true democracy (women and slaves where excluded), and they certainly wasnt internationally open-minded, in the modern sense of the word. People in general, for large parts of our history, where just too narrow-minded, warlike and power-worshiping. This was the general norm - ideas about equality, rights and democracy was considered abnormal and utterly unrealistic. And it really was, at the time.
Even today we dont live in 100% TRUE democracys; the power of money overrides such lofty principals.

This goes for the idea of "equal values shall be exhanged for equal values", and not "maximal overprice shall be exchanged for maximal underprice" just to ensure any egotistically exploited exchange-difference (= profit).

Now, dont misunderstand me: any ideas about equal wealth-distribution IS at present utterly unrealistic, it really is. Im not being ironic here. Also, its incredible naive to think that one could create a "socialistic paradise" through violence, oppression and murder. To think that is "kindergarten-psychology". Lets hope that those ways and methods are compromised from here to kingdom come.

Having said that, however: Its a fact that for each new terrible world-war, the longing for world-peace have grew even stronger. Is it, by comparision, so hopelessly naive to think that for each future world-economical depression or collaps, the longing for safe and just global/social wealth-distrubution is likely to grew likewise stronger each time?

quote: Mind you, a debate about the relative merits of Marxism and free-market capitalism might be fun, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue.

I agree. This is my first (and probably my last) post on the subject.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

What it all basically comes down to is, that what we would LIKE is not necessarily what IS. It would be nice if something cost the labor and materials that went into making it, but as modern clothing companies have proven, that is not true.

Now, anybody who would like to dispute that people in general are looking to profit, would have to do some serious convincing. My heart goes out to that poor ideological fool. So if people act in their own interests, does this rule apply any less to kings and presidents? No, of course not.

Since the earliest days of man when people attacked each other in small tribes for a waterhole, to the conquistadors invasion of the Americas, to the Nazi desire for world conquest, the goal has always been to get new resources, rich farmlands, or regions of wealth. Otherwise, the purpose of war is to defend those things that you have from a possible enemy. Profit has guided history since the beginning. Even when a leader wants to act out of goodness, shear malice, or religious beliefs, there is always some consideration of profit.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3
[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-25-2000 02:43 PM What it all basically comes down to is, that what we would LIKE is not necessarily what IS. It would be nice if something cost the labor and materials that went into making it, but as modern clothing companies have proven, that is not true.

I agree.

quote: Now, anybody who would like to dispute that people in general are looking to profit, would have to do some serious convincing. My heart goes out to that poor ideological fool. So if people act in their own interests, does this rule apply any less to kings and presidents? No, of course not.

I agree.

quote: Since the earliest days of man when people attacked each other in small tribes for a waterhole, to the conquistadors invasion of the Americas, to the Nazi desire for world conquest, the goal has always been to get new resources, rich farmlands, or regions of wealth. Otherwise, the purpose of war is to defend those things that you have from a possible enemy. Profit has guided history since the beginning. Even when a leader wants to act out of goodness, shear malice, or religious beliefs, there is always some consideration of profit.

I agree.

And if Civ-3 is planned to end 2040 (like in Civ-2), i wouldnt have bothered posting my previous post. However, if Civ-3 is going to end lets say 2300 or even 2500, things really comes into a different perspective.

You see - history isnt future. Its not the same thing.

What it all basically comes down to is, what we BELIEVE (based on our narrow-minded pre-conceptions) is not necessarilly what is GOING TO BE. Our world are changing with an exponentially increasing speed. And its not just technical/material stuff, but also value-systems changes/dies (both 19:th century Victorianism and Stalinism/Leninism is today 100% dead, for example) - who knows what will happen to our present Holy cow: the mammon-God, named "Market economy" or "economical profit"?

Infact, the ONLY thing we can be 100% certain of by looking back at our civilization-history is that many life/society-viewing "cornerstones" that once was considered "eternal" has again and again crumbled. And likewise; those historic "left-over stones" that back then was sneered at and rejected, showed up to be our present world "cornerstones".

In ancient oriental times the highest rich-man ideal was the "Pascha"; a fat, idle, unemployed guy that didnt "degrade himself" with work - he let servants and advisors pamper him with all hes needs instead. The chained galley-slave, by comparision, of course dreamed of a life that was the exact opposite of his miserable situation - a life in heavenly "unemployment".
Today most rich people have an profession, and they mostly want to work, even though they have money enough to be totally workfree and idle all day long, year after year.

What happend to those old antiquated rich-man "idle pascha" ideals? Well, ideals changes i guess...

Today, year 2000, about 300-400 billionaires owns more together, then the poor half of our world population (and the gap is increasing) - all due to exploiting an economical advantage (= making profit).
Now, does that mean that these poor people are "innocent"? No, most people have dreams of being rich and making profit themselfes, of course.

But what happens if future word-economical collapses, major wars and total society breakdowns make all these profit- and market-loving people 100% disillusioned?
What happens if these people discover that in order to clean up and rebuild this totally collapsed world, they more or less are forced to cooperate (instead of compete) with each other? And that they likewise are forced to do it without any ulterior egotistical motives of "personal profit"?

By then these people are going to look back at those "poor fools" back in year 2000, who really didnt understand better - who, at the time, didnt have wisdom and life-experience enough to see much into the future.

These future people look at themselfes - they have lost everything, but in return they gained WISDOM.


Lets make a final summarizing comparision:

There are many of peoples personal hobbys that isnt "economically profitable" - if economical profit was a necessary prerequisite; all of this hobby-work coudnt be done anymore. You know what: people still do it, because they WANT to do it.

The same goes for rebuilding a future collapsed world: If "economical profit" is going to be the necessary prerequisite; then rebuilding a totally collapsed world cant be done.
You know what: people still are likely to do it, because by then they really WANT to do it.

There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 25, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

quote: There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

Your absolutely right! AH! I feel like I'm repeating myself on three different threads, I'm having trouble remembering what I said where. I said on another thread that wealth doesn't always mean monetary wealth. It can also be for other reason. The best way is to get even more fundamental than we already have.

Forget civilization for a second. The goal of anyone is provide for themselves and their families. They want to keep them fed, healthy, and safe from outside forces. The biological reason is because we need to preserve ourselves and our children to continue to spread our genetic material. The human reason is because we have emotions and we love them. So all of the monetary wealth is for the purposes of perpetuating the family or just ourselves.

It is about surviving. And surviving means you have to put yourself at the top. So when we become rich its about putting ourselves in the best position to survive, but luxuries is another important reason why. We want to make life comfortable too. On a large scale, gaining valuable life resources ensures survival. Once we have society, other resources are valuable because we can sell them for this strange thing called currency which will make sure we have our futures secure and luxuries available. And when you have thousands of little business men out there yelling for action, a leader is willing to send thousands of men to fight to get those resources.

That's what it all comes down to. We want to perpetuate ourselves and family by ensuring survival, but we want to be comfortable too. And to do all of these things we are willing to labor and toil, trade, negotiate, cheat, steal, fight, and murder. And bam! Civilization is born!

So I guess what this means is that the real goal for the game is to spread genetic material.

[Dom Pedro II]

Or if your like me, you try to conquer the world for personal glory!

[Salvius]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 11-25-2000 06:05 PM What it all basically comes down to is, what we BELIEVE (based on our narrow-minded pre-conceptions) is not necessarilly what is GOING TO BE. Our world are changing with an exponentially increasing speed. And its not just technical/material stuff, but also value-systems changes/dies (both 19:th century Victorianism and Stalinism/Leninism is today 100% dead, for example) - who knows what will happen to our present Holy cow: the mammon-God, named "Market economy" or "economical profit"? Infact, the ONLY thing we can be 100% certain of by looking back at our civilization-history is that many life/society-viewing "cornerstones" that once was considered "eternal" has again and again crumbled.

This is true. We don't know, and cannot predict, what the future holds. Socialist utopia, capitalist utopia, transhuman hive-mind utopia, more likely some non-utopia combining various aspects of different systems, or even something which has never been imagined. Some social structure that we, today, cannot even begin to comprehend.

The only options, then, would be to either end the game in the year 2000, or to provide for several different possibilities extrapolated into the future as best the designers can.

quote: But what happens if future word-economical collapses, major wars and total society breakdowns make all these profit- and market-loving people 100% disillusioned? What happens if these people discover that in order to clean up and rebuild this totally collapsed world, they more or less are forced to cooperate (instead of compete) with each other? And that they likewise are forced to do it without any ulterior egotistical motives of "personal profit"?

I could argue here that even that would be based on personal profit: We all work together, or we all die. If we don't pool our resources, none of us individually will have sufficient resources to survive, so it is in my interests to cooperate with you. Of course, this is starting to sound like a variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the truly good people in this situation should think about what game theory has to say about it, that anyone who is less that entirely honorable will be likely to betray them for their own gain...

quote: There are other kinds of profits then just economical ones, you know. Human ones.

This is true, and it is why people sometimes behave in ways that are, in formal economic-theory terms, irrational.

In my earlier post, I was not trying to suggest that communism/socialism/Marxism should not be in the game at all, but someone (Snapcase) had expressed the opinion that it should be the basis of the game's entire economic model. I disagree, because I don't think Marxist theory accurately describes the functioning of economics throughout most of history. I also think it was a reaction to conditions that no longer exist, an idealized version of human behavior that I am too cynical to believe will ever come to pass, and a system that encourages inefficiency, but all of that is irrelevant to how it should be used in CivIII. What is relevant is that I can't see any way to use Marxist concepts (such as Means of Production) as the basis of an economic model that can be "understood" by the computer well enough for the AI to have any chance of beating a human opponent at it, and that even if it could be done, it would likely result in ahistorical behavior by the AI, which would tend to disrupt my suspension of disbelief and remind me that I'm playing a game that uses an underlying economic model that I personally find unrealistic.

Certainly, Communism should be an available government type (or even economic type, if they went so far as to separate economic structure from governmental structure). It might even be the best type to use in rebuilding after a massive economic collapse (as you suggest), but I can't see that Marxist economic theory has any application to the behavior of the pre-feudal societies that would exist on turn 1 of a CivIII game, or the capitalist societies that would exist on turn 350, etc.
[This message has been edited by Salvius (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Stalker0]

Hi guys, I think Dom Pedro is mostly right in his assesment that civilizations that expand do so for the obtainment of wealth, land, and resources (later on, because of overcrowding)

I also agree with Ralf saying the future is not history. However, the gameplay of Civ games doesn't seem to change a great deal as time passes, so if a more economic system was implemented in the game, I don't think they would institute a very sharp goal change as the game nears the "future" years.

[raingoon]

quote: The foundation of civilization and empire is therefore material wealth, not war. Thus, Civ III should be designed so that the end is to gain wealth and if there are any wars at all, it should be for the sake of wealth.

But "wealth" in Civ has always been land. For that matter, it's always been land in the real world. And war is the chief means of obtaining that wealth -- war has never been in Civ for war's sake. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the game economics.

The cost of gaining wealth in Civ is equal to the price of the unit(s) needed to take over the land and those units are equal to X gold derived from the trade stream that comes from the land you've previously taken over. In other words, a real-world economics model has always been at the center of the game, and that's why it excels -- More units net you more land nets you more trade stream nets you more units, etc.

Also, I don't know who said it but the class system has always existed in the game -- those who Have and those who Have Not.

And forgive me if you think there's a finer point to be made, but Marx essentially argues that conflict is the chief means for progress. Marx would probably enjoy Civ 2.

So, if you're saying economics is not already at the heart of the game, then you're misunderstanding the concept of wealth. If, you simply want another form of wealth in the game other than land and resources, well -- one, that's not very realistic, and two, it's not very visual. I'd reconsider. Certainly there have been times in playing Civ 2 when all the land was grabbed up, and everyone felt they generally had enough wealth -- it's been down right utopian at times -- and the means to victory HAS changed to a concentration on channeling that wealth not into war but science. Also an inspired idea. I really don't see what all the fuss is about?

[Dom Pedro II]

Raingoon, I think you are the one that has misunderstood the game a bit. Afterall, you said that the acquistion of land is the important thing in the game, but why does anybody acquire land? A desert is not nearly as valuable as rich farmland. Half the Sahara isn't worth a quarter of Ohio territory. (Let's not get technical about that point. Its just an example). The fact is, that as it stands, you could basically take or leave the resources in the game. They are convenient but not essential. I think they should be a necessity to functioning in the game.

Afterall, during the Age of Imperialism, if you didn't have a colony, you weren't a world power. If you didn't have a colony it meant you weren't in control of Sugar, Fur, Spices, Tea, Gold, Tobacco, or any other things that were valuable commodities. If you didn't have them, it meant somebody was selling them to you and it put you at a disadvantage. Thus all countries with power sought to have colonies.

But right now, the overall goal in the game is to acquire cities. Then with those cities, you build more units to take other cities. So basically the entire purpose is to build units to take more cities, to build improvements to aid in conquest, or build wonders to make conquest easier. And then you win the game. What then? Are you supposed to build even more units to attack nothing? Money has only one purpose and that is to pay for units and improvements. It is not a goal in and of itself.

Even roads and railroads are constructed for the purposes of transporting troops, nothing else. Farms and Irrigation are meant to help cities grow so they can more efficiently produce units. All of the "improving" we do in the game is for the purposes of one day conquering the world (or for some to go to AC).

But most importantly, the AI doesn't place any importance on acquiring resources. If the AI had it set in its mind to gain all of the resources it does not yet have, it would be much more intelligent.

[Shogun Gunner]

Ah! After all this wonderful discussion we are back to what CIV III could bring to the table to improve upon CIV II.

In reading Dom Pedro II's posts (yes, in all the different, similiar threads/threats ) there is one thing repeated that I firmly agree with.

Make the AI player have a similiar motivation (based in some logic and reality) to most accurately mimic the human player. These motivations would be based in theories of marxism, capitalism, socialism and every other philosophy developed over 4000 years on this planet.

Th AI should strive for the same goals that you as the human player strive for. The real question isn't what that is. There are many great ideas from several different posters on this thread, but the real question is how to do it. Good for us, we don't have to worry about the mechanics of this...Firaxis does. All we have to do is fork over 50 bucks.

If I could just see a little bit more range of human emotion from the computer player during negotiations... or maybe this too "out there..." I would love to think the AI player was an idiot for twenty turns to finally realize that I'm at the receiving end of some fabulous AI strategy!!! How cool would that be!!!!

[The diplomat]

I completely agree that civ3 should put more emphasis on economic matters and that war needs to be a means to an end not the end itself. I have been saying that for a long time now.

I think we can sum up empire management with 3 basic rules:
1) make sure your population is happy and loyal.
2) make sure they have food and wealth.
3) make sure your people are safe from outside threats.

War has been a tool in the hands of leaders as they struggled to acheive these goals. But war is not the only way to acheive these goals. For example, if there is a risk of riots, you can declare martial law, send in the troops and crush anybody who is causing trouble.
But you can also try to negotiate with the rebels. You can give in to their demands. You can appease them.
If your people are starving, you can invade your rich neighbor and take their food. But you can also trade with your neighbor for food. You can ration food. You can build farms and try to grow more food.

I hope that civ3 really emphasizes these choices that the player should have. It is up to the player how he/she wants to deal with a specific problem. I think this gets to the heart of what a strategy game like civ is all about: choices.

[raingoon]

Dom Pedro, I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. I'd state it even simpler -- resources should be both essential and limited. Define essential as what is needed to dominate all rivals and limited as what the map is seeded with.

I did a pretty interesting Energy Model (IMO) in the Suggestions form sometime in the last 12 months. Someone might want to check that out, apropos of this discussion -- I think it was called something like Energy: The Most Important Thing Civ Never Had. I am a big believer in war being motivated by the movement of civilizations in contest with each other for essential resources.

But I stand by what I said in my last post. Some posts, including your last one, seem to think economics refers to money and gold. In fact it does not, per se. As we all know, it refers to supply and demand. I point out that even in a land grab (or city grab, whichever you prefer) the supply demand curve is operative. But I agree with you that the game should be changed to the extent that what is demanded isn't just a supply of more cities.

[Roman]

Well people, I think this topic is bordering on the futile. To make this clear I will summarize your arguments:

1) People do almost everything for profit, but profit does not have to be money - it can be resources, space, or just about everything else.

2) The other motivation for people doing something is that they want to do it, eg. Hobbies, etc.

The problem is that these two explanations (which are not that different, since fun could also be described as a form of profit) can actually be used to justify doing anything, anytime, because one can always say he/she wanted to it and the profit was (in the case of Civ II) extra resources, production, cities, science, potential, or land or anything else. Hence while this discussion might have some philosophical interest, it is not very useful in determining a shape Civ III should assume.

[Stuff2]

There are two, things that i personally think should be the ultimate goal of civ2.

1. Survival, against, disasters, war, plagues, starvation, enviromental problems, asteriod collisions e.t.c.

2. Happiness. if you finally succeed in building the perfect society (which we all know won't exist ever) You'll get a faboulus bonus.

I agree that civ2 is modeled for war. It's mainly beacouse the military system isn't properly connected with the rest of the systems. But the most boring thing with civ2 is that you actually can solve every problem within a few turns (if you are rich and powerful enough). For instance, once you have captured all cities from a nation all their geurilla soldiers magically disappears. We all know that in reality the geurilla soldiers can stay for decades, supported by illegal drugs that causes problems for your own citizens. Also, pollution is so easy to cure that you don't have to worry about global warming unless you accidently start a nuclear war. In reality the envirmental problems are so complex that noone really has a clue on what to do.

What civ2 needs is more illoyal citizens, more problems that has to be solved in order to survive and gain happiness. The ultimate goal is happiness for your stupid and illoyal citizen and too accomplish that you
have to gain wealth, science and you also have to use power to get control (and to maintain control). The trade, the diplomacy and the warmachine is what you have as tools for this task.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that the goal and way of acheiving your goal should change according to the time period you're in and your SE status.

In the ancient age, you strive to get land since more population equals more taxes. Also you want to lead in science since it's considered of high status.

In the medieval ages you should strive to get more slaves (workers)

If religion is implemented, it comes in now. There are holy cities that you want to control (see Jerusalem).

Then the renaissance - your goal is to capture land for expansion and capture / build wonders of the world.

Then the imperial age, when you want resources and land to develop.

Then science comes in. Your goal then is again to lead in science and wealth.

Suddenly, a new religion like charachteristic erupts and brings several ww's. It's called - nationalism. It brings fighting for land which you owned sometimes. It brings useless fighting for the sake of land grabbing with no other cause.

The last phase has the next goals:
1. Wealth
2. Peace
3. Science
And we are experiencing it now.
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited November 27, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, Raingoon, I think we're basically on the same page here. See, what I was getting out of your post was that you were in favor of the status quo in the sense of resources etc.

The actual physical gold to me is inconsequential. What I stress is economic dominance. I think the primary goal should be about attaining economic independence through gaining valuable raw materials and production of manufactured goods and growing of crops on plantation tile improvements. Then forcing others to be reliant on you as the next step. War is the method of attaining that goal. War should be for acquiring resources and forcing other civilizations into submission. I mean, if you want to fulfill your megalomaniac dreams of world conquest, by all means, fire away.

My numerous references to money had to do with the real-world causes. Money is obviously the reason for much of human action throughout history. Civilization is only a game, an empire-based game at that. My point that money was not a goal in and of itself was perhaps mistated. It was really to support the idea that the primary function of everything else in the game is the construction of military units. In fact, I don't think it should be because the money can not drive you to win because its not real. If my computer starts spitting out the money I win at the end, I might reconsider.

By the way, I read your energy concept a few months ago on the Strategic Oil Reserve topic. I found it very interesting and I think it is the best energy concept I've ever heard. I think that coupled with a true market system, could create the CivIII we all want.

[zaeta]

This is a very interesting thread. I think everyone could benefit from reading books about the history of economics. Here is one particular book that correlates the growth of economics as a field to human history:

R. Heilbroner, The Worldy Philosophers

Please note the the idea of a society based around wealth and the acquiring of profit is a very recent philosophy. The pursuit of profit in the past has been either unheard off, or considered just plain distasteful.

It was only after the "Rennaisance" that societies and nations started revolving around wealth and money. Hence it is only recently that economics as a field has arisen.

Prior to this, cultures and civilization were based on tradition and heirarchy. Feudalism and castes systems were the norm, and wars were fought over land, ideals, ambition, racism, religion, and plain fear of the unknown. Revenge and feuds have also been part of the usual suspects.

Although national wealth has added a new twist to the international conflict, religion, and ideologies still remain just as important.
[This message has been edited by zaeta (edited November 27, 2000).]

[raingoon]

Well, I hear you right back. I've been away from the boards here for a while and the truth is I had even begun to stop thinking about all of our ideas without any feedback on them from Firaxis. But if you're all saying we need a new energy-resource system I'll go down that river with you in a second.