Yeah, I guess there is a difference. Nonetheless it seems to be pretty non-fundamental. The overall economy in the game would be quite similar either way, the 'push' vs. 'pull' would mostly just affect the automation system. I would hope that whatever override mechanisms are in place will allow the player to make commands in the most relevant possible way. If I want to order all my iron ore from all my iron mines to be shipped to one city, I would like to be able to effect that from the city. On the other hand, if I want to split my iron distribution from one iron mine between several cities (in some way other than is done automatically) then I want to be able to do so at the mine (or in some management interface, which ideally would be constructed to allow you to make changes via both methods).

The pull method is fundamentally more suited to automation than a push method, but there is no reason why one should be favored over the other when it comes to direct player control.

Well yeah. Automation will always be suboptimal, at least until we can plug our computers into our heads. Without being aware of our thoughts, the computer is forced to make strategic decisions based on an incomplete subset of relevant information. That said, I think that in most cases it can be done well enough with regards to the economy in the vast majority of situations. I think that a computer is actually much better suited to the task of handling a complete economy than most people, unless someone is willing to literally spend 20 minutes a turn with a spreadsheet in hand and carefully planning out the next several turns. In other words, I actually think that this might be one situation where, at the large scale, the computer would be better than the player. The player only really becomes important when something goes wrong, or something comes up that the computer isn't in a position to recognize (like a long-term player strategy). And in those cases, it's likely that the player only cares about a very small subset of the economy.

That said, of course automation is not a magic wand that will solve all the problems in the world. But I think that this is a situation where automation can truly shine (unlike, for example, Civ IV workers, who are consistently stupid with occasional bouts of intelligence). I think that in the case of a sophisticated economy model, it would be very feasible to create an automation system that would be consistently intelligent with occasional bouts of stupidity (or lack of foresight, or lack  of mind-reading ability ). It's a problem uniquely suited to automation (if done well, obviously - and hence this prolonged discussion about it). The level of player intervention would vary from person to person. Some people might be happy to let the automation do its thing except in urgent situations, while others might constantly tweak things here and there each turn to make things just a little bit more efficient. But I doubt anyone would be seriously tempted to turn off the automation, whip out a spreadsheet and take complete control... That would just suck.

Saying, "it can't be done" simply indicates a lack of imagination. It would be difficult, for sure, but Stardock's specialty is UI creation. To display all of the information about all the distribution and management of every type of resource all at once would be foolish - it would be overwhelming and convoluted and downright unhelpful. So break it down into subsections, display the most important aspects of it on the overland map (maybe at the toggle of a key). Make it able to display your production lines. Chances are no one would be actively using all 110 resources at once, thus reducing the number they'd have to care about; the UI should take this into consideration and hide information about resources that aren't being used (this is more for MR than NR). If a player is not using spears, and is not making spears, then the resource management interface shouldn't be cluttered with information about spears.

What gives you the impression that all faction economies are 'closed?' I'd be interested to see options for a closed economy and/or a barter-only economy during faction setup, but my impression of the GC2 model and the possible Elemental models seems to assume that open economies are the norm. How else can you explain tourism income in GC2 or automatic caravans in Elemental?

Obviously, you can live just fine without tourism income. So, by denying a country a tourism income you don't bankrupt it. Besides, GC2 is a future economy so it's more free market-oriented. Wizards fighting for supremacy in a medieval fantasy setting tend to be less fond of a free market economy.

Besides, how exactly can you win an economic victory in Elemental setting? You think an enemy Channeler will let you buy his cities, or what? You think he's selling stocks? I bet he's more likely to send some Sky Drake "tourists" in your wizard tower and take all your gold if he'll see some rich and stupid poorly defended wizard. So it doesn't seem like a good setting for an economic victory.

You're more or less ducking my question about where you saw evidence that the Elemental plan is based on closed economies. But at least you ended up with what I take to be your real point, which is that you want a deeply combat-centered game and not what I (and probably others) would consider a 'real' TBS.

Whether or not Elemental is "a good setting for an economic victory" depends entirely on how the game is built, including both the back story and the mechanics. The fantasy genre in literature is far larger and richer than what has made it onto screens small, large, and computer-driven. An 'open economy' note is even in LotR, where Saruman is found early with a good stash of Southfarthing pipeweed and at the end we learn that he's been diverting that valuable Hobbit commodity for his own benefit during much of the War of the Ring.

Hi Folks

here are my thoughts:

camp1- I like this a lot but could see where it would get to complicated for some people or maybe most people on a large map.

Camp 2-too simple (for me anyway)

Camp 3- This seems like a very workable compromise.  A decent amount of complexity that could be either fairly transparent or allow some people to really manipulate the model.  I hope with this option that you would still be able to attach the caravans-I love thinking about the stratigies or counter-stratigies you could employ.

Camp 4- Again, seems too simple-more going on under the hood but you don't have much control over it.

Fantastic theard/debate here-congrats to you all!

Y'know, I've just had another idea (small children start crying, people start walking away really quickly): what if one used a hybrid system for equipment manufacture? Say, the basic stuff (leather hauberks, ring/scale/chain mail, spears, simple shields etc.) were to be made (in bulk, then stored in warehouses) in large Late-Roman Empire-style fabricae, while the more complex stuff (plate armour, cuirass, brigandine/coat-of-plates/segmentata. even splint mail, siege arbalests etc.) were to be made on-demand in smaller, more specialised armories? Afterall, plate armour must be custom-fitted to size otherwise you can't move in it (all the hinges are in the wrong places). Say, also that the mass-produced stuff may only be weakly imbued with magick (owing to their hastily-made nature); for more powerful enchantments, one would have to ask a master artificer. A reason for this could well be the addition of an endurance-based component. What I really liked about Dominions 3 was that troops could get fatigued. Being dressed in the finest full plate meant nothing if you fell flat on your face from exhaustion after running 200 metres. On such an occasion, a master-crafted highly magickal chain +3 would be better than a plate cuirass (which would most likely cost more to be enchanted with an extra 'Featherlight' charm, in additoion to the regular +1/+2 that may be desired). I was also thinking about a quality-ranking system for non-magickally imbued equipment, which would mesh with the mass-produced v/s master-crafted mechanism.

At any rate, for any part of my ideas to work, the transport system would have to be simplified to the very extreme. As I've stated previously, I don't mind, if (and as long as) this distillation/abstraction would open up venues for new interesting ideas. But some people just looove playing UPS dispatchers...

I'm assuming you're talking about GC2 and not the real world here... Because there are tons of countries in the world that due indeed draw the large majority of their GDP from tourism revenues. And countries have taken huge economic hits from drops in tourism.

Lack of imagination. A powerful economy opens up many options. Just to take an example from GC2, it was possible to survive with little to no military by financing others to fight your wars for you. This is actually great for the econ-centric player - you build up an ally and take down an enemy... Another advantage of a powerful economy, besides paying others to do your dirty work for you, is that you can quickly mobilize large forces (I am talking generally here - obviously we don't know how such things will work in Elemental). Just look at the United States during WWII. Provoking someone with a much stronger economy but a smaller military (in the real world and in most strategy games I've played) usually results in a few early victories followed by begging for forgiveness.

Also, I'd mention that in GC2 you can indeed buy and sell planets... I think that would actually work better in Elemental: in GC2 there weren't terrain obstacles and nearly every point is as defensible as any other point. In Elemental, terrain should play a huge part in border defense, and it may on occasion be worthwhile to sell a city to someone else (and thus profit) while simultaneously divesting yourself of a vulnerable position.

I have considered that. And if determining what resources get distributed where, and when, and maybe even how, were it, then I would probably be in favor of more abstraction. However, Camp #1 and Camp #3 economies allow so many options in so many other aspects of the game as well. Small nations could actually hurt large nations by harassing their shipping lanes - guerilla warfare becomes doable. You could take down opponents by crippling their economy, rather than by destroying their forces; and eventually their worthless economy will be unable to support their military, which will either desert or be disbanded. Other areas where such an economy would add strategy (without being artificially and annoyingly limiting) are in planning out city and road locations, border defense, and who you can afford to be enemies with. Even more options open up if the distribution system is applied to foreign trade (which I personally think it should ). There have been a couple threads about that, see here and here.

So basically, if a Camp #1 or #3 economy were only going to be in for the sake of the economy and wouldn't affect pretty much every other aspect of the game in wonderful ways (this is obviously my own subjective opinion), I'd go for more abstraction. But it wouldn't, and it would - so I won't

Camp #1 and #3 add something pretty important that I think a lot of people are overlooking here.

Feel

Option 2, while good in terms of playability leads to cities being largely divided into "strong" and "weak" Obviously, you're going to have all your best resources moving to the best location in order to produce units of the highest calibre. However, options 1 and 3 allow you to, and depending on how it's implemented, encourage you to specialize the cities.

You'll end up with your "industrial city" and your "alchemist city" and your "military city" etc. Combined with the with the way the city building has been described, this specialization will make your empire feel a lot more like a world from a fantay game and not just a "kill everyone" factory.

My personal preference is option 3. I kind of like the idea of autonomous merchants. I'm a king! I don't have the time to say where each individual sword goes.

I think you and I are more or less on the same page (definitely regarding the feel part), but with a slight difference. I'm a king! I don't have the time to say where each individual sword goes. But I'm the King! If for some reason I care about a particular production chain or supply route, I should be able to affect it!

As long as we have the same limitation in the information output in armies/battles, diplomacy, spells,... You need a balance in all the parts.

That's it in a nutshell for me. But that shell is wrinklier than a walnut's on account of needing (deserving?) both some really hard UI work and some way above-average automation to support players who don't want much of their attention spent on 'the economy.'