"Corporations"

[Youngsun]

quote: corps won't go to ICS cities

sure that was my intention Par4. only bigger and prosperous cities which has right infra will attract these corporate parasite

senate ideology ideas!
and every 4years of election?! every four turn or every 4years for whatever the time increment?

quote: Corps can lobby for stuff

That's interesting! more interaction with my corrupted corporations and the government.

quote: These are just something I kinda want to see they can produce roads highways rails airports(multiple)subways(multiple) at lower costs and faster times. These can also produce military weapons(think contractor) [idea jacked from other thread], ie tanks ships need to be built first, at lower costs and extra special ability or something(new ideas, military builds stuff no new ideas top brass likes the good ole days)

Only if we have options to privatise our infra-structure industry for this and buying weapons from advanced corporations should be a lot cheaper and better in terms of quality of the weapons.

quote: Corporation sets up HQ in city that is profitable. Profitable=demand+size-branch cost. The corporation then starts building whatever making pf mfg si. After a few years the corps expands to 4 other cities same civ. 2 cities produce shield to send to bigger branches to make cars or whatever out of.

This is something I never thought about and you are right Par4. They should have their own centralised stock to store any raw material produced by cities.

quote: corporations empolyee these people for certain branches SB(shield branch) lower class to work tiles PB(production branch) middle class/LC RB(research branch) upper middle class/MC/LC MB(management branch) upper class/UMC/MC Cities can have all branches

Smart idea I say. employing citizens for each different branch of the corporation. but let's not make this more complicated than this Par4.

Many good points Par4 and thanks a lot for your valuable contribution. And my sincere hope for your father's speedy recovery.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 14, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

This great and inspiring thread, mainly the work of Youngsun, shouldn't be forgotten!

Where are you, Youngsun?

[Ralf]

[quote]Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-16-2000 06:32 AM


There is the input-able city-area view???

Without it i cannot:

- See and understand the inner-workings between all used tiles within a blink of eye.
- Let the field-workers emphasize either food-, shield- or coin-generating tiles.

Without it this idea is dead - at least in my eyes.

Anyway, if Civ-3 was suppose to primarily be a multiplayer-game, there the AI is reduced to be a "go-between", carrying out human-player orders; this idea would be 100% workable.

The problem is that it isnt. The AI-programmers have to simulate a minimum of 6-8 human player behaviours, by simultaneously playing 6-8 AI-civs.

Now, here is were the AI-programming headache, and the hardware- and game-practical limitations starts. It really doesnt matter if "the whole mechanism of corporation works SIMPLE", from the players point of view.

The BIG problem seen from an AI-programming point of view is that:

- This model adds a whole range of new city-screen production parameters added to the already excisting ones.

(As if the existing AI-production/AI-mayors in Civ-2/SMAC worked like a dream, and we can easily afford to add a bunch of NEW math-exponentially increasing AI-workload production parameters).

- These added parameters is also tactical in its nature, which means; there is lots of civ-, city-, turn-uniquely subjective hard-to-overview tactical choices (for the AI, that is). All added to the excisting ones - those with ordinary military units.

(The AI is particulary weak in tactical unit pathfinding-areas. Now, you guys want to add a similar tactical approach to the city-production management, as well).

Great!

Lets take a comparising look at game like Ceasar-3:

The player is forced to build "AI-friendly" roads, with as few crossings as possible. For each added road-crossing, the probability that those little patroling merchants and city-officials, is likely to get lost, increases.

The ONLY way to forsee and battle this problem - seen from an AI-programming point of view - is to meticulously calculate every possible move/choise (even the stupid ones - the AI-programmer works in a black box here; he cannot see "from above", like the human player), and he HAS to calculate it several turns ahead. FINALLY he has to evaluate wich of all these alternative routes is the best one. Just like in a Chess-AI.
Now, Caesar-3 is a real-time game without any "turns", but i hope you understand that im getting at, anyway.

This is basically, the Civ-3 tactical AI-problem as well, in a principal/simplified nutshell.

The more complex real-life fuzzy-logic tactical "road-crossings" you want Firaxis to squeeze into the game - the more impossible its going to be for them to produce effective AI-mayors an AI-civs, that can keep even steps with the human player.

The big irony of it all, is that those who cheer if Firaxis should implement all these "Please, make the game MUCH more tactical-complex" type of suggestions, is that the exact same ones who is most likely to rant, about the game-AI:s inability to "fill out the clothes", once the game is released.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Hallo S. Kroeze Happy new year!


Ralf you too happy new year.

quote: There is the input-able city-area view???

I support abolishing city radius read this threadif you want.

quote: Let the field-workers emphasize either food-, shield- or coin-generating tiles

I don't support instant industry switching neither. People should decide what industry they engage in and our job as administrators is to encourage them to take part in specific industry.

quote: This model adds a whole range of new city-screen production parameters added to the already excisting ones.

I'm always open to new suggestions. Do you really think my model is unmodifiable by all means? what I really value from this new concept is the core area of corporate warfare not a mere graphic detail of city view which can be compromised anyway later and if you give that kind of ticky-picky attitude to my model how can we work together as thought-exchaging people for better CivIII?

quote: These added parameters is also tactical in its nature, which means; there is lots of civ-, city-, turn-uniquely subjective hard-to-overview tactical choices (for the AI, that is). All added to the excisting ones - those with ordinary military units.

Parameters are tactical in nature? How strategic can it be? Do you have any idea how much chunk of the idea had to be cut off to be this strategic? Do you really want CTP style corporate warfare?

quote: The more complex real-life fuzzy-logic tactical "road-crossings" you want Firaxis to squeeze into the game - the more impossible its going to be for them to produce effective AI-mayors an AI-civs, that can keep even steps with the human player.

There will be better AI in relative term but non of the AI will be able be even to human players because human players will eventually find out winning tactics sooner or later. Also many of AI stupidity that showed in civII and such could have been prevented if more cares were taken regardless of added tactical decision making process.

quote: The big irony of it all, is that those who cheer if Firaxis should implement all these "Please, make the game MUCH more tactical-complex" type of suggestions, is that the exact same ones who is most likely to rant, about the game-AI:s inability to "fill out the clothes", once the game is released.

I disagree. We are talking about CivIII here and CivIII should be definitely better in terms of AI capability to handle extra new features. If that can not be satisfied what's the point of releasing a newer version of the game series which took so many years. I get the impression you want the same CIVII with only enhanced AI but for me NO THANKS. The most important thing here is that improvement in both tactcial element as well as AI so reasonable compromise can be made for balanced new game not just one sector improvement at the expense of others.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 02, 2001).]

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-13-2000 12:51 AM Stock market as game mechanism not a city improvement? What exactly have you in mind tniem? If you add simple explanation about how would it work in the game that will be appreciated. Are you studying Finance perhaps?

Youngson,

Been a long time since this discussion has been discussed. It deserves to be re-examined. Anyway, this is what I think I meant :

A stock market would be a city improvement. However, the wealth the market brings in would depend on how the corporations of your nation or of just that city were doing around the world.

For example, McDonald's (centered in Colombus, USA) is having a record turn in terms of sales. McDonald's processes food, so every city McDonald's has moved to has more manufactured food than before.

Back in the US, your largest stock market (i.e. NYSE) has McDonald's on it and so the market goes up and gives more tax dollars to your civ. Other stock markets in the US also go up because they are also trading McDonald's stock.


And by the way I am not studying finances.

quote: I think that's for other thread but interesting idea tniem. Is this mean new kind of warfare to reach supremacy of controlling media?(I believe there is a tread for this one)

I think a powerful media corporation would allow you some control over other nations that it has moved into but it also could hurt/control you. The media would influence public opinion wherever they reside.

I am not sure whether a public opinion thread has been created, but I envision the public speaking out against wars, or asking for new roads, or telling you to kill the terrible Greeks. The media would just play a part in molding opinion towards any of these outcomes.

Anyway just a thought. But boy am I happy to see the corporation thread back as a discussion peice.

[This message has been edited by tniem (edited January 04, 2001).]

[Ralf]

I wouldnt mind some "corporate warfare" in the game, Youngsun. But why does every Civ-3 suggestion just have to be so damn roundaboutly complex? Both from the players viewpoint (Dida, Dobermann), and - just as important - from an AI programming point of view?

So we all like the idea of "corporate warfare" in Civ-3 Fine.

But, WHY not just make any trade generated between any AI-Civ and the player, city-screen tweakable through empire-dependent "economical strangulation" slider-bars, working from 0-100%, with 10% increments?

Any AI-civ (or human player) can then choose to deliberatly strangle its trade with a hostile civs, either partly or totally - either alone or working together with allied civs - and instead try to promote maximal trade with more friendly civs. (The roundabout Civ-2 method of establishing trade-routes with camels, have to be replaced of course).

Corporate Civ-warfare really doesnt have to be more complicated then that. Some other immune-modifiers can perhaps be implemented in order to give any AI/human player some means of bypassing that, besides working on nice and good relations and diplomatics.

After all; its suppose to be a GAME: not a "real-world simulator". Hence; CIRARIC = A Computergame isnt real-life, and real-life isnt a computergame.
Sense moral: In order to imitate reality (in Civ3), its often more effective to work with pre-understood assumptions, then trying to pedantically translate each and every real life aspect on to the world-map or city-screen.

About the AI-problems with your idea: I base that on the overal "AI is forced to choose wisely" complexity of the whole suggestion.
You talk about those "HQ-units having its own AI:s", as if the AI was some kind of "magic potion", that the programmer, without too much problem, easily can apply in any chosen quantitys.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 01-02-2001 06:39 AM I get the impression you want the same CIVII with only enhanced AI but for me NO THANKS.

No, thats not true. Im just a little bit more realistic, whats all. Also, i have some really great work-arounds for a better AI (which after all, have been voted "highest priority" by the Civ-community), by the way.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 02, 2001).]

[beyowulf]

How about a slimned down view of corporrations. Corporations, depending on their type, produce extra trade, food, shields, and lightbulbs. In the game will be a scale, which shows how much 'free will', a government will allow the corporations that reside in their country. 0% and you have no corporations, but no extra food, shields, trade and bulbs. 20% and you have some corporations, and some extra food, trade, shields and bulbs. Set it to 100% and you have lots of extra food, trade shields and bulbs.

So if you can set it 100%, why would anyone want to set it lower. Because, corporations, with increasing free will also produce coruption, so that the higher the bar is set, the more decadent your civ becomes, and all those extra food, trade, shield and bulbs go to waste. And the longer you leave the bar set at a high rate, the harder it is to decrease it. So if it at 100% you might be only able to reduce it 2% percent at 5 turns or something like that.

What do you think?

don't have enough time to completly read the whole thread, but i say we have those complex features options available, but also have the simplicity option. Can simply have a the AI to take care of your darn "corperations" and good to have Independent Corps aswell, where no particular civ have complete control of, but the Indenpendent Corps don't have the complete benefits of a Civ controlled Corp within the home civ territory. If you put bannes and lack units to Police cities, corps, especially independent ones have more chances to get into illegal dealings. smuggling and so on. Also, they would get into hiring mercenaries, barbarian mercenaries..... Barbarians should have some power :P these days, don't think renegades are considered Barbarian really...... Like it when Barbarians captured cities....but didn't like they had to start from scratch with tech. Barbarians bit and bit more advance as civs gets more and more advance. Barbarians controlled cities would extract illegal independent corps too. Like the idea of having Barbarians be able to overrun civs, partly. if controlled enough cities in one area, can setup their own independent civ :P Corps should be able to hire barbarians has mercenaries, mainly independent corps would. I say civs should be hire mercenaries period :P

Especially your economy is big and you have a small military. Better to hire barbarians then let them raid your territory.


anyway, gotta go......

-LordLMP

[Youngsun]

quote: How about a slimned down view of corporrations. Corporations, depending on their type, produce extra trade, food, shields, and lightbulbs. In the game will be a scale, which shows how much 'free will', a government will allow the corporations that reside in their country. 0% and you have no corporations, but no extra food, shields, trade and bulbs. 20% and you have some corporations, and some extra food, trade, shields and bulbs. Set it to 100% and you have lots of extra food, trade shields and bulbs.

beyowulf. One of the main reasons that I suggested this was that there should be something more than a military conquest style victory so players can have more options for their final victory. Don't you think conventional ways of achieving a final victory are too limited?

Collapse of Soviet Union clearly shows there are actually other ways to subdue enemies rather than using pure military method and true display of capitalism & fierce corporate warfare shouldn't be unrecognised by the game.

Your suggestion is good and simple but has a problem of how to simulate corporate warfare thus leaving players no more options except military conquest and space ship project.

Actually things like "trade war", "economic subjugation", "colonisation", "GDP competition/race" or "confrontation between environmentalist and industry" are much more familiar/frequent to us than hearing war news and if there is any way to conquer the world that would be definitely being an economic/financial supreme being with adequate military forces to protect your interest.

Simply the game has neglected very important part of our civilisations and this is our chance to simulate that missing elements.

1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory
2.Economic supremacy-financial victory
3.Space race-research/engineering victory
4.cultural or religious domination-social victory

These should be the options for final victory and requires decent simulation and control.

Anyway I'm willing to simplify or do complete overhaul my model if there is good idea which can simulate decent corporate warfare. And thanks for the suggestion beyowulf.

tniem! How are you mate! yea it's been a while isn't it?

I see! "Stock market" as it is. Is there any way to simulate stock market as part of the game without provoking "complexcity issue" & "micromanagement issue"? How much you want it to be simplified? or you want to put it as they are.


Ralf

quote: I wouldnt mind some "corporate warfare" in the game, Youngsun. But why does every Civ-3 suggestion just have to be so damn roundaboutly complex?

At least you don't oppose the concept. Man I'm glad to hear that.
Complexcity can be reduced but the important thing is how to balance reasonable representation for fun and simplification for easy learning/approach.
If it is too complex it will be hard to play. If is is too simple you get bored and lose interest soon.(short game longevity)

quote: But, WHY not just make any trade generated between any AI-Civ and the player,city-screen tweakable through empire-dependent "economical strangulation" slider-bars, working from 0-100%, with 10% increments?

I have a question for you Ralf. Do you want to have only two options for achieving final victory(1.military & 2.Spaceship)? If your answer is "Yes". Our approaches are in fundamental difference. If "No" you should help me by suggesting more elaborate/advanced ideas for decent corporate warfare to give more weight to this neglected/unexplored area.

quote: Any AI-civ (or human player) can then choose to deliberatly strangle its trade with a hostile civs, either partly or totally - either alone or working together with allied civs - and instead try to promote maximal trade with more friendly civs. (The roundabout Civ-2 method of establishing trade-routes with camels, have to be replaced of course).

Are you saying Civs trade "trade arrows" one another or there is "items" or "commodities" which can be traded?
Also do you want present civ trade system for CIVIII or new system which can accomodate "trade by need","supply & demand" and "different trade items",etc?

quote: Corporate Civ-warfare really doesnt have to be more complicated then that. Some other immune-modifiers can perhaps be implemented in order to give any AI/human player some means of bypassing that, besides working on nice and good relations and diplomatics.

Now I get it your answer for my previous question is "Yes". That's why we see this thing so differently.

Ways of achieving final victory.
1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory
2.Economic supremacy-financial victory
3.Space race-research/engineering victory
4.cultural or religious domination-social victory

I think 36% of game features should be dedicated to option number 1 and another 25% for number 2 14% for number 3 and finally 25% for number 4.

Now your suggestion barely touched 5% I think then you probably is for more detailed military features or research race I presume.

quote: After all; its suppose to be a GAME: not a "real-world simulator". Hence; CIRARIC = A Computergame isnt real-life, and real-life isnt a computergame. Sense moral: In order to imitate reality (in Civ3), its often more effective to work with pre-understood assumptions, then trying to pedantically translate each and every real life aspect on to the world-map or city-screen.

Haha I knew it you would say that oneday.
If CIV series are normal games I wouldn't dare to suggest things like this. Do you think Civ series are just games? I think not. They are more than that. They are civ simulators. I repeat "CIVILISATION SIMULATORS".
Of course none of these are real life but if we can make the game close to reality wouldn't that be nice?
As long as that can be done with fun I'm sure we need more. Don't be frightened by sheer complexity of new ideas from other die hard civ fans Ralf. They including me are trying to make tha game more fun that's it and nothing can stand there to disrupt that process not even better AI. Do you think "smart AI" can come before "fun" element to be better game?

quote: You talk about those "HQ-units having its own AI:s", as if the AI was some kind of "magic portion", that the programmer, without too much problem, easily can apply in any chosen quantitys.

I said HQ units are AI controlled because they are not Human controlled. Is there any other way to describe Non-human controlled other than AI-controlled?

I understand programmers' nightmare can be massive wish list from the fans. But remember fans are customers and programmers are on seller's side. What kind of service firm or sellers will force the customers to dance at their tune rather than dancing at customer's tune? Don't you think that is little bit absurd? If "Firaxis" or any other game companies which can not live up to user satisfaction/expectation then they should perish. Customers will be the final judge and sales volume will tell us whether they(game companies)did somthing good this time or not. Also remember once in a life time masterpiece doesn't come cheap and a lot of effort should be put in there so if you say this model is not suitable because of more workload for the programmers,
that can't be good excuses.

quote: No, thats not true. Im just a little bit more realistic, whats all. Also, i have some really great work-arounds for a better AI (which after all, have been voted "highest priority" by the Civ-community), by the way.

Realistic? We all know civII is rip off of Great CivI and if there was no scenario making tools civII wouldn't have last that long. Do we really want another rip off of CivI or II? Again nothing comes before "Fun" element and nobody voted for that why? because that's so fundamental. Also I presume those voters meant better AI along with other improvements not better AI at the expense of other areas.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 04, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

LordMP

Yes that would be nice to have options.
Each difficulty setting should have different level of game complexcity for experienced players.

Besides, those corporations are largely independent from government control in this model. Players' job would be providing good business environment for those corporations to grow not directly controlling them.

Well, want to see illegal corps and so in it too that can hire barbarians as mercenaries. :P

Maybe smuggle in illegal refugees aswell.

Can't corps have anything to do with space? want to have some space type thing with satellites and all like SMAC/SMAX (which i have hard getting the AI to get into itm when they do, goes corrupt over something.....)

Corps can manufacture satellites into space. create a mobile fun business or something, internet and yata yata.

[tniem]

quote: I see! "Stock market" as it is. Is there any way to simulate stock market as part of the game without provoking "complexcity issue" & "micromanagement issue"? How much you want it to be simplified? or you want to put it as they are.

I think the stock market possibility would be less micromanagement than what has been discussed so far.

In your city menu it would say with a percentage how ready that city is for corporations to move in and whether the city can be home to a new corporation. Corporations would then move to cities that needed more manufactured food (Restaurants), goods (factories, car dealers), and luxuries (stores).

Corporations would be controlled by the AI. A corporation that through the base city is in a position where it makes money and can expand would move to new cities. The new cities that it moves to would be ones where there is a demand for whatever the corporation was selling.

The more successful a given corporation is (i.e. the more cities it has moved to), the more money that the original city gets. A city that is the base for a corporation would get both trade arrows and some deal of tax.

The cities that the corporation has moved to would gain luxuries, manufactured food, etc. that are needed for people to be happy.


There would still be national corporate warfare, but you just wouldn't be involved directly with the corporations. I think it could add to the strategy and could be very well balanced.

Let's say you have three car companies but they are making less than the Japanese makers. You can then raise tariffs on Japanese imports. Your car companies would sell more and the Japanese would make less money off of trade. Hence helping your cofers and hurting a potential enemy. The tradeoff would be that if you cannot completely cover the need for cars in your nation your people would become unhappy with higher prices and less cars.

Another example could be that France has most of the restaurants, while Russia builds most of the world's cars. Those two nations could agree not to tax each other. Both nations would see an increase in trade, but a decrease in taxes. Meanwhile corporations are strengthened by selling stuff without tax and thus are able to expand faster. Both nations corporations would then be able to other cities around the world for large profits.

So I see that there could be a strategic element if added to the game and while it may be something else to think about, it would not have to add to the micromanagement. It would deal mostly with diplomacy and if cities are well maintained and established.

[Youngsun]

[LordLMP]

quote: illegal corps and so in it too that can hire barbarians as mercenaries

?? What's your definition of "ilegal coroporation" in game term of course.

quote: Maybe smuggle in illegal refugees aswell.

Sounds like you're taliking about a crime syndicate here.

quote: Can't corps have anything to do with space? want to have some space type thing with satellites and all like SMAC/SMAX (which i have hard getting the AI to get into itm when they do, goes corrupt over something.....) Corps can manufacture satellites into space. create a mobile fun business or something,

Hmmm I'm not so sure....will it be fun to include those things?

quote: Let's say you have three car companies but they are making less than the Japanese makers. You can then raise tariffs on Japanese imports. Your car companies would sell more and the Japanese would make less money off of trade. Hence helping your coppers and hurting a potential enemy. The tradeoff would be that if you cannot completely cover the need for cars in your nation your people would become unhappy with higher prices and less cars.

Yes that's exactly what I had in mind.

quote: Another example could be that France has most of the restaurants, while Russia builds most of the world's cars. Those two nations could agree not to tax each other. Both nations would see an increase in trade, but a decrease in taxes. Meanwhile corporations are strengthened by selling stuff without tax and thus are able to expand faster. Both nations corporations would then be able to other cities around the world for large profits.

another good example tniem.

quote: So I see that there could be a strategic element if added to the game and while it may be something else to think about, it would not have to add to the micromanagement. It would deal mostly with diplomacy and if cities are well maintained and established.

Yep yep but you still did not say how "stock market" will appear in the game. As part of city screen or trade screen? or do we need separate screen for stock market? also one stock market or multiple stock market for each civ?

[EnochF]

Youngsun, where were you when we were compiling The List?

Love the idea.

Minor point: Perhaps one hidden "benefit" of switching to Communism would be the complete protection from foreign companies? In other words, switching to a Communist government instantly removes all foreign Corporations from your civilization and prevents them from ever appearing. Sort of like how Democracy protects cities from being bribed. So, if your civ has become too infested with foreign corporations, you could start a revolution, switch to Communism for a few turns, kick out the foreign capitalist scum, then turn Democratic again. Fundamentalism might have the same effect, and possibly Fascism, Despotism, and a handful of totalitarian governments. Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Anarchy, and goofy futuristic quasi-govs like Corporate Republic and Ecotopia would handle corporations normally.

Major point: You lost me with your idea of "educating the citizens." This corporation model is a very good one, but adding an "education level" that separates people into classes is unnecessary. I don't mind separating citizens into class depending on what they do, that sounds okay, but dispense with schools and "text books" and newly created citizens as being "uneducated." Unnecessary. Superfluous. "Unemployment" is an unwieldy statistic that shouldn't clutter up the City Window. Maybe include it in the "Statistics" window, along with things like life expectancy and years of military service, but keep it out of city management. So the model should remain, as in Civ II, if you remove a Farmer from a Grassland square, he becomes an Entertainer (and upper class), not Unemployed.
[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited January 05, 2001).]

[EnochF]

Corporations in Space?

Hmmm... though it might be interesting to gradually add more and more kinds of corporations as technology progresses, i.e., airlines with Flight, internet companies with Computers, car manufacturers with Automobile, grocery stores with Refrigeration, publishers with Printing Press... I think that would be needlessly complicated.

It would be easier to just have the three categories as Youngsun set out in the beginning. It might lead to a few anachronisms, like Microsoft before computers, but it would make for better gameplay. Internet companies like Amazon.com would be in the "Service" category, whereas computer manufacturers like IBM would be "Manufactured Goods." Microsoft is a little from column A, a little from column B, I dunno, but it doesn't matter all that much.

I wouldn't mind, if there is enough time to work out the kinds, a way to give each corporation a subcategory, like aerospace or computers, that's tied to a specific technology discovered by the civilization that builds it. And maybe in the late game, aerospace companies could speed up the production of the spaceship or station or Mars base or whatever it's going to be. Maybe. But dammit, I want to see Corporations in Civ 3, and Youngsun seems to have invented the best way to do it.

[tniem]

Youngson,

The reason I haven't said how the stock market would appear in the game is because the way I have imagined it, the market wouldn't be on a screen.

Instead corporations would affect how much money each stock market city improvements is bringing into your cities. There would be no screen, only Corporation A based in Moscow is doing very well, so stock market city improvements bring in more money for the Russian cities.

I am sure there are other ways to implement the stock market or corporations as a whole, but to me this would be the easiest way. At least in my opinion it allow this idea to be included without adding a great deal of micromanagement.

[Youngsun]

EnochF Thank you for the encouragement.

and your idea of kicking out corporations based on what form of government you got is very good.

quote: Major point: You lost me with your idea of "educating the citizens." This corporation model is a very good one, but adding an "education level" that separates people into classes is unnecessary. I don't mind separating citizens into class depending on what they do, that sounds okay, but dispense with schools and "text books" and newly created citizens as being "uneducated." Unnecessary. Superfluous. "Unemployment" is an unwieldy statistic that shouldn't clutter up the City Window. Maybe include it in the "Statistics" window, along with things like life expectancy and years of military service, but keep it out of city management. So the model should remain, as in Civ II, if you remove a Farmer from a Grassland square, he becomes an Entertainer (and upper class), not Unemployed.

I want see "Unemployment" in civIII whether my idea is used or not. If there is another way to represent "unemployment" idea more than pure stats I'll be happy support it. and "3 level class differentiation" is the simplest way to deal with social hierarchy throughout the game I believe.

Any other suggestion EnochF?


tniem
Oh dear. I sense some sadness from your words why? I don't know I just feel it.

quote: Instead corporations would affect how much money each stock market city improvements is bringing into your cities. There would be no screen, only Corporation A based in Moscow is doing very well, so stock market city improvements bring in more money for the Russian cities.

That perfectly makes sense. Great! I think Bank,Factory,Stock exchange and power generating facilities should be the key city improvements which interact with corporations.

Any other suggestion tniem?

[tniem]

quote: Oh dear. I sense some sadness from your words why? I don't know I just feel it.

Probably because I just got crushed in a game of Shogun that my friend begged me to play.

quote: Any other suggestion tniem?

This isn't really for this thread but the idea has come up.

Education, classes, etc. should be a part of Civ III. The way it would relate to corporations is that the more education your population has, the more likely that city can be the base of a corporation.

Classes would then be effected by corporations. The more companies in a city the lower unemployment would be. Also bases of corporations would be increase the number in the upper class.

[Mihai]

Youngsun, you start same loooong thread!
Civilization is a state-based game. Capitalism Plus is a corporation-based game that include most of the ideas posted on this thread.
It seems to me that Youngsun doesn't want Civ3, but SuperCiv .

[Roman]

Brilliant idea (at least in the original form posted at the begining of this thread). I don't think it is overly complex at all. The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc. I believe the idea enhances both historical simulation and gameplay, so it meets both important criteria to be included in the game.

[Youngsun]

quote: Probably because I just got crushed in a game of Shogun that my friend begged me to play.

haha your friend must be eager to show his skills he has mastered.

quote: Education, classes, etc. should be a part of Civ III. The way it would relate to corporations is that the more education your population has, the more likely that city can be the base of a corporation.

Yes! Furthermore small number of educated pop can do better againt large number of peasant pop so China syndrome in the game can be fixed.

quote: Classes would then be effected by corporations. The more companies in a city the lower unemployment would be.

Exactly! tniem. In CivII everyone has guaranteed job which means zero unemployement. Building a school/university in a city should have positive effect on its citizens by increasing their education standard so they can afford more decent job easily otherwise their choice will be limited to basic manual labourers such as farmers/miners.

Hi Mihai we meet again here.

quote: Civilization is a state-based game. Capitalism Plus is a corporation-based game that include most of the ideas posted on this thread.

Read this plese.

quote: Ways of achieving final victory. 1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory(36%) 2.Economic supremacy-financial victory(25%) 3.Space race-research/engineering victory(14%) 4.cultural or religious domination-social victory(25%) Note:The percentages are not to be fixed and can be changed.

I think 36% of game features should be dedicated to option number 1 and another 25% for number 2 14% for number 3 and finally 25% for number 4.

We need more Mihai things like "corporate warfare".


Roman

quote: I don't think it is overly complex at all.

Amen!

quote: The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc. I believe the idea enhances both historical simulation and gameplay, so it meets both important criteria to be included in the game.

You really understood what I was trying to say Roman.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 01-07-2001 05:31 AM The micromanagement involved is not too great either as you could have the equivalent of a major (CEO) for each company, which would automate the establishment of branches, etc.

The problem is that the average player, more or less must have it AI mayor-controlled, in order not to get drowned in micro-management. Mayor-controlled corporate warfare means automated; which means outside the players direct control. How fun is that? Isnt that like buying a piano, and then let it play mostly through computer-controlled automation?

Also; as a TBS gameplay fact:
Does city-mayors generally do a good enough job? Well, do they? Didnt SMAC-players complain about mayor-controlled terraformers, and also about other mayor-tasks? What about the city-mayors in CTP-2? No complains?

Now, dont misunderstund me. Im not AGAINST the city-mayors option. Its just that Firaxis shouldnt implement features that is so overloaded in terms of micro-management, that it more or less force on the help of AI-mayors, as a pre-understood assumption.
Yes, i understand that you have an option to control it yourself. But i suspect most players will have an idea as complex as this one automated. So in practice, the help of AI-mayors IS a pre-understood assumption.

Finally (again):Im not totally against the whole "economical warfare" concept. Infact, i like it. Its the way the whole concept is suggested to be implemented that i dont like.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 07, 2001).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Youngsun,

I am very pleased you are still alive and "back" here again! Hurray!
Happy New Year and my best wishes for 2001! (for you too Ralf!)

Since your return the quality of discussions on this Forum has increased with about 75%, which is a relief!

On essentials I agree with you, especially with this part:

quote: Ways of achieving final victory. 1.Military/diplomatic conquest-territorial victory(36%) 2.Economic supremacy-financial victory(25%) 3.Space race-research/engineering victory(14%) 4.cultural or religious domination-social victory(25%) Note:The percentages are not to be fixed and can be changed.

In my view the importance of the military/conquest option should become even less than 36%.
Civilization is more than a war game! And should become less so!
In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important.

Hurrah and best wishes once again!

S. Kroeze

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited January 07, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 01-07-2001 11:32 AM Happy New Year and my best wishes for 2001! (for you too Ralf!)

Thanks! Well, what can i say, except likewise to you two!

quote: In my view the importance of the military/conquest option should become even less than 36%. Civilization is more than a war game! And should become less so! In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important.

How do you think above fits with below quote? Its a rehazed version of a post i wrote about 9 weeks ago about alternative gamepaths/ways to play the game/victory-conditions:

"What is the Civ-3 formula for FUN? Well, im of course bias, but for me it should mean:
Constantly being forced to make calculated choices that, whatever i choose; always going to give me both attractive benefits and hard-to-swallow trade-offs, in different, but non-soluble mixtures.
In other words: Never being able to succeed in ALL areas simultaneously, no matter how good i am. I must choose. I can win, but i cannot win simultaneously over the AI in all and every areas. While im perhaps have a 100% comfortable lead to one victory-condition, the AI might just win the overall game anyway, by being even more supreme in areas concerning some other victory-condition.

The FUN-part is that i have to constantly worry/make calculated quesses - and never being absolutely sure before the game is actually over."

Finally:

Youngsun, if you read this: Dont get all worked up over the fact that im not so crazy over the corporation-idea. Previous post was my last rant under this topic. Thats a promise. As i wrote in the other thread: The important thing is what visitors from Firaxis thinks about our ideas. Its really up to them.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 07, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: The problem is that the average player, more or less must have it AI mayor-controlled, in order not to get drowned in micro-management. Mayor-controlled corporate warfare means automated; which means outside the players direct control. How fun is that? Isnt that like buying a piano, and then let it play mostly through computer-controlled automation?

Did you really read the thread carefully? Corporations are controlled by AI no matter who play(veteran players or newbies) Our job is to make the city enviroment favourable to corporations to make them flourish nothing more. But you can give some support fire to your corporations such as subsidies,tax exemption or tariff wall.

quote: Finally (again):Im not totally against the whole "economical warfare" concept. Infact, i like it. Its the way the whole concept is suggested to be implemented that i dont like.

Hello oppostion leader what's your alternative policy for that matter? this is prime minister speaking . Then please show me your version of corporate warfare or something similar to that. I'll be glad to take part in your model. Also I'm sick and tired of working alone at corporate warfare which nobody really gave me substantial alternative way to replace the original.

S.Kroeze. my best wishes for you too.
and thanks for the warm welcome buddy

quote: In my view cultural and religious factors should become most important

No problem with that. Is it time to start a new thread which relate this area of cultural/religious domination?

quote: "What is the Civ-3 formula for FUN? Well, im of course bias, but for me it should mean: Constantly being forced to make calculated choices that, whatever i choose; always going to give me both attractive benefits and hard-to-swallow trade-offs, in different, but non-soluble mixtures. In other words: Never being able to succeed in ALL areas simultaneously, no matter how good i am. I must choose. I can win, but i cannot win simultaneously over the AI in all and every areas. While im perhaps have a 100% comfortable lead to one victory-condition, the AI might just win the overall game anyway, by being even more supreme in areas concerning some other victory-condition.

Well said I agree.

quote: Youngsun, if you read this: Dont get all worked up over the fact that im not so crazy over the corporation-idea. Previous post was my last rant under this topic. Thats a promise. As i wrote in the other thread: The important thing is what visitors from Firaxis thinks about our ideas. Its really up to them.

So you still think all that debate started because I didn't like that fact you were not crazy about my idea.
haha. Well That's your perception. Oh Ralf Ralf Ralf... I explained in your thread about how it all got started.

Yes it is really up to them to decide which idea they will bring but once we put our ideas to appease Firaxis then what's the point of playing the game which is designed to appease Firaxis not us. Think about it Ralf. Customers? Sellers? who should be satisfied first? I do know we need to make compromise but players' voice shouldn't be discouraged or let down to appease Firaxis. I mean our attitude of suggesting new idea should begin with how the game will be fun for us not how should I write a idea to be accepted by Firaxis.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 08, 2001).]