A few things about civeconomy vs reality

[Stuff2]

Today it suddenly hit me...
When your trade-routes are passing through foreign territory they can demand taxes for it even if it's just passing trough. The only representation in civ2 is that they will or won't kill your camels.
In reality goods are not always more profitable to sell far away, the further distance, the higher travel cost (and sometimes taxation for passing through certain places. Particulary in older times this kind of expences could multiply the value of the commodity.
Another thing that SMAC tried to simulate a bit is the business cycle. Good times keeps being interrupted by bad times. In modern times this has happend every 6 - 8 year (I read it in a newspaper).
Finnaly, in civ2 when everything is built you are rich beyond imagination, in reality we all know that even the most riches countries are struggeling for keeping their income higher than their expences. Things can always be improved further. Also the distribution of wealth is still, no matter of government type unjust and the corruption in every government is a problem. I doubt there has been any country in history that hasn't had atleast 5% of it's reasources wasted through dumbness or corruption.

This is the reality. (Some of the reality since reality are so complex that i could write hundreds of pages without ever come close). If firaxis could implement some of it and still have an enjoyable game it's fine, but too much reality would just be a pain. What i wanted to say is just that civ2 economic model is based on a model that is proven wrong every day. There are two assumptions that are wrong:
1. The more money the more happy people - false, it's the distribution of wealth and alot of noneconomical factors that influences the happiness of people. Of course more money 'can' benefit more people, but it's seldom the case.
2. The value of money never changes - anyone that knows anything about economy knows that the more gold the less the value of gold. Since the economy cannot be bigger than the amount of traded goods and services. It doesn't matter how much money there is, the only thing that actually matters is how much there can be purchased for all this money.

I make three easy suggestions.
1. traderoutes - furthers distance means greater need for demand to be worth it. (England don't make profit of selling silk to china). I suggest that setting up a trade route has a cost depending on distance and then the bonus is what it is, if you are lucky or smart the bonus should not be smaller than the cost for setting up the trade route. (and you still get science bonus so it could be worth it anyway)
2. instead of 2 luxury making a new citizen happy (or content if they are unhappy) every 2 luxury should every other time (or every third time) make an already happy citizen extra happy. In order to keep your cities from rioting you simply need policing, propaganda and recreation improvements.
3. improvement upgrades. Maintance cost isn't enough, every once in a while
a total renovation is necessary, especially after certian advances like 'electric light' or 'internet' or 'telephone' and other things. Those new upgrades will make the improvement either sheaper in maintance or more efficient.

How to implement that fact that your money fall in value as they increase in quantity i haven't figured out. But maybe the best is to skip that, how on earth would we afford to to send a spaceship to AC or conquer the world if that was implemented?

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: how on earth would we afford to send a spaceship to AC or conquer the world if that was implemented?

May I suggest by diplomatic pact?
As in real world, where the space station Alpha is a joined effort of USA, Europe, Russia, etc.

No single nation can easily afford the expense of main space program, nor a single nation can suppose to conquer the world.
You know, during WW II German allied to Japan and Italy and some other nations, during cold wars USA allied with European (NATO) while USSR built up the Warsaw pact alliance...

I hope the CIV III announced enhanced diplomacy will put some effort into the raise of stable Diplomatic alliance. SMAC did a step into the right direction, still I saw too many backstabbing by my allies...

It's a good idea to develop, also for any future Massively on-line Multiplay CIV, while team playing will be the only viable option to manage long lasting game

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[The Viceroy]

Stuff2,

Some wonderful idea's there .. especially the value of money ... as the Spanish discovered .. also, the British at the time, nicked the gold from Spanish gallions, and took it back to London to hide it .. that way, it retained its value in England.

Diamonds also are stock-pilled to stop the value from reducing .. but as you say, what use is it, other than to keep the current value of diamonds at the existing price ?

On top of the trade costs are tariffs ... eg, USA doubles the cost of Bananas from Europe (through tariffs) so that US citizens buy from Caribbean sources, which are ran by US companies .. it can have an advantagous effect to levy tariffs on other nations, to stop then nicking your business, and expanding there own economies. (just a made up example, before anybody gets into banana wars between US/Europe)



------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

[Stuff2]

to Adm.Naismith: GOOD IDEA!!! Pact, i love it

to Viceroy: I'd like economic micromanagement if it's kept on a macrolevel (and possible to hand over to economic advisor).

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 03-21-2001 02:53 PM When your trade-routes are passing through foreign territory they can demand taxes for it even if it's just passing trough. The only representation in civ2 is that they will or won't kill your camels.

I agree Stuff, there should be away to bring tariffs to bare on foriegn goods which pass though your territories.