I have noticed that Galactic Civilizations II had a very rudimentary economic system which failed to account for the complexities of managing an economy. Market centers, banks, and stock exchanges would mint money, even if there was no industry to produce goods to be traded, no people to deposit money in banks, and no corporations to be invested in. Furthermore, the economy in GalCivIII is entirely controlled by one's government, whether on new colonies which would not justify expenditure of private industry or on highly developed and established worlds with ample wealth to sustain private enterprise.
Part I: Productive Capacity
The economic system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up on the basis of reality. A new measure of productivity can be the basis of this. The ability to generate productivity would be inherent to improvements of various sorts, be they Xeno Banks, Advanced Market Centers, or Entertainment Networks. These could be operated either by private industry (more common on established worlds) or by one's government (more likely on frontier worlds). With the right input of raw materials, labor, business services, and money, a sector of one's economy will be able to use its fullest productive capacity. Events like general strikes, terrorist attacks, war, or financial crises will hamper the ability of an industry to be productively utilized to its fullest extent.
For example, an Advanced Factory making consumer products would not be able to use its fullest capacity if there did not exist a trade network that would allow it to reach its customers. Such a factory would not be usable to its fullest extent. For this reason, it is important to maintain a well-balanced economy. Over-relying one one sector will lead to crisis and economic decline and will not be sustainable in the long run.
An example graph of productivity is below:
The units given are only important in terms of how they affect the currency. In any other respect it is not possible to easily compare productive capacity units across sectors. A farm might produce 20 units of food and be very productive, however this would have relatively little effect on the currency compared to an equally currency-altering 2 units of industry.
Part II: Currency and Productive Capacity
The value of one's currency would simply be one's total productive capacity divided by the total amount of money in circulation, combined with a moving-average factor in order to smooth out adverse effects any short-term changes in currency value. There would be various types of money, including money in circulation, money tied up in financial assets, liquid savings, and interest payments. Financial assets are created when banks lend out liquid savings, as is a matching quantity of money in circulation; this lent money would attract interest (at an arbitrary rate subject to a moving average) that would form the banks' profits. The amount of lending that can take place will be, of course, proportional to the productivity of one's financial sector but limited by the total amount of liquid savings. Bank lending will be the engine that drives growth.
A sample graph of money supply of various types can be seen here:
As stated earlier, bank lending converts savings into financial assets and a matching amount of interest-bearing money in circulation. However, where did the savings come from? These savings will originate in a player's central bank and will be credited to the government treasury, increasing the amount of liquid savings: spending this money will add the money into the circulating medium. In order to decrease the amount of circulating medium, players can simply tax more than they spend and return the money to savings. To curb bank lending as necessary a "Destroy Savings" option should be available for money in the government treasury.
It was mentioned earlier that the money supply would have an effect on inflation. As a result a player could pursue an inflationary, stable, or deflationary monetary policy as best suits the player. Inflationary monetary policy would liberate money from savings and cause it to be used on circulating medium and for investment (in real terms), increasing one's capacity for productivity. Stable monetary policy would not affect these variables, while deflationary monetary policy would reduce investment and spending and increase saving (in real terms). In extreme amounts, inflation and deflation are harmful; used in moderation, they can help a player further their empire's economic goals.
Part III: Private Enterprise
Private enterprise should become an integral part of one's economic system. Dealt with as minor races, corporations are treated as minor races and can be created ex nihilo, spun off from another corporation, or merged into another corporation. Controlling planetary improvements, ships, or both to produce and market their wares, corporations will sell to consumers/small business (making goods that contribute to the well-being and happiness of the citizenry) and to other corporations (ships, planetary improvements, trade route operation, and other services needed for corporate operation), as well as to the government (military ships, planetary improvements, goods and services needed by government employees). Some corporations will be banks, lending an amount of money to other corporations, consumers, and government in exchange for profit from later. The sum total of all such transactions taking place in a given currency on a given turn adds up to one's money in circulation, analogous.
Most of the time the player will not interact directly with corporations. Purchasing ships in one's shipyards, for example, will be similar to how ships are purchased now: one can opt to directly purchase it, or instead purchase it from a variety of different corporations. The difference will be that corporations will have competing bids and a limited productive capacity, forcing players to choose whom to place their orders with. Micromanagement will give way to macro-management of the economic aspect of one's empire.
Part IV: Inter-Empire Trade
Each empire will possess its own currency, with which domestic transactions can take place. Foreign trade, however, requires that one civilization involved has the currency of the other and vice versa. As stated earlier, the value of a currency is determined by the productivity backing it divided by the total amount of circulating medium of that currency (excluding inter-government trade in third-party currencies); other civilizations will sell you their currency based on this rate. Corporations can conduct foreign trade by buying this foreign currency from your treasury at the same value and then immediately paying their suppliers, but governments can conduct trade in any currency that they desire. In order to maintain the status of one's foreign trade, it is important to maintain an ample supply of foreign currency reserves in order to meet demand from your corporations (which can only deal in your currency).
It is possible to enter into single-currency agreements with other empires for a period of turns, in which both empires' currencies are converted into one based on the combined circulating medium and productivity of both empires. Doing so eliminates the fear of running out of foreign reserves in the other empire's currency and will give a slight boost to productive capacity associated with Trade improvements: however, two central banks will print, and two governments will spend, one currency, with policy differences that could derail one's entire economy.
Overvalue and undervalue agreements should also be possible, in which another empire agrees to overvalue or undervalue your currency by a specific amount in inter-empire trade. Furthermore, an empire could demand that another empire accept only its currency as payment for a certain strategic resource or manufactured good. This could give rise to a petrodollar-style situation, in which an industrially stagnant but militarily strong empire maintains the value of its currency by militarily protecting important industrial and resource-producing empires while financializing its economy.
A United Planets resolution should be introduce to create a Galactic Credit, a single currency for use in inter-empire trade. A Galactic Reserve Bank would be created in order to issue this currency, which would be bought by countries using their own local currency at market rates. All overvalue and undervalue agreements would be nullified by the passage of said resolution, as would all single-currency agreements. The Galactic Credit would give a moderate boost to foreign trade, and could be enacted temporarily or permanently.
Part V: Economic Warfare and the Criminal Underworld
What was described above is the legal, standard method of running one's economy for the benefit of all parties involved. But what if one wants to destroy an opponent's economy?
It was mentioned earlier that the circulating medium was the sum total of all transactions in a currency taking place, and that the value of the currency was a moving average of the ratios between productivity and circulating medium on the previous several turns. If one has a large quantity of a given foreign currency in reserve, one could pilfer it through the criminal underworld (with various gangs represented as minor races, just like corporations) into the economy of the opponent issuing that currency, causing massive inflation and crippling the economy of that player until taxes are raised (a difficult action to perform) and money is removed from the economy. Upon discovery, the player performing the action will receive a minor diplomacy hit.
Alternatively, one could issue counterfeit currency of another empire through use of spies, driving up inflation to a degree and causing a moderate diplomacy hit. Conversely, to remove currency from a player's economy and cause undesired deflation, a player could send spies into the revenue service of an opponent, bribe tax collectors, and divert money to themselves or destroy it entirely. Both of these methods would result in a moderate diplomacy hit with the aggrieved empire.
As a third, drastic method, a player could use the criminal underworld associated with an empire in order to bribe the central bank to produce more or less of the currency as desired, resulting in a massive diplo hit upon discovery but of course producing the greatest effects while still active.
Part VI: Labor and Income/Wealth Distribution
Wealth and income distribution should also play a role in the functioning of the game. High income inequality will lead to general strikes, lower approval ratings, and protests in one's empire, while an excessively even income distribution will lead to little money being put into savings and ultimately will cause stagflation. Inequality in wealth will be the effect of this income distribution and will lead to further unrest and problems. Unemployment and employment will also play a role in happiness; in general, when economic conditions are normal and productive capacity is fully utilized, a society should be able to reach maximum employment.
As a sample income distribution I have the graph below:
The above is a moderate income distribution approximately where the United States was in the 1960s (its most equal time in history). A distribution like this should not be the cause of unrest.
Part VII: List of Possible Game Events
Part VIII: Common Concerns
This idea is multifaceted and completely changes the economics of Galactic Civilizations III, and in fact is different from the economics systems in much of the genre. As a result, there are likely to be concerns regarding this idea on a variety of levels.
I think you want a different game. This is not an economy simulation.
This game is abstracted, you start of with a planet similar to how earth is now: it has population, infrastructure, etc already in place, even on uncolonized or recently nuked planets this is the case. (this is the way birth rates are rationalized)
When you build a factory you are simply saying: you guys in this region are going to focus the part of your production that the government takes to producing stuff for the government rather then private business.
To me a empty tile is simply a region of a planet doing it's own thing, and a improved tile is a region where the government steers infrastructure development and taxes a certain amount of production/wealth/food/etc.
Basically all the stuff you say happens under the hood, and you are so high up in the government that you don't care about it.
I know a lot of this stuff already. As for the central bank being private, we are just going to assume for the purpose of this game that humanity has moved beyond this and that they are government-owned, creating money free and clear. Furthermore, it's not the central bank which originates most currency in circulation but private banks when they make debts, who list loans as assets and money as liabilities. The only "real" money is cash, coins, and central bank reserves that banks move between each other. This is possible to an extent (banks lend out savings) but ultimately the central bank has to create the money free and clear. Furthermore, central bank money is created primarily in open-market operations, where financial assets issued by private organizations and government are bought by the central bank with money it creates (this is how quantitative easing works, anyway). The idea is that the species of the galaxy have moved beyond this.
The lower prices of the weaker economy are accounted for with productive capacity. An unproductive economy with too much money would have high prices, one with too little money would have low prices.
Also, international trade has not required gold or any international currency since 1971 when Nixon abolished Bretton Woods.
The problem with modelling a space empire's economy based on current understanding of economics is simple: it'll be wildly wrong.
Economic models change rapid, and seldom last for more than several decades. The system we're using now bares little resemblence to the one in the 1970s, the international trade and finance market has changed radically at least 3 times since I was born in 1970, and economic systems vary widely in implementation details, not to mention that it's hardly a given that the Regulated Market Economy we're using now is appropriate for anything more than the current century.
As pointed out: who says we'll have one single currency. Will we even need currency? Will currency be fiat, or specie-backed? Should inflation matter? What do we care about consumer spending? How do you handle major changes in commodities markets (i.e. what happens when you open up a huge new resource - e.g. The Comstock Load)? Can you possibly model disruptive technologies and ideas at all, and if you can't, what's the point of doing a model at all? These are a few of the basic concerns.
You absolutely don't want to do this, and not just because it's a whole lot of micromanaging details. We can't do it today, with Ivy-League PhD economists, and have a reasonably understandable system.
Sorry, but I'm going to vote a big NO on this kind of subsystem.
didn't read any of this OP (too fu!$ing long). But maybe some more in depth trade would be nice to have. Nothing to complex but more strategic would be a dream. IMHO.
Also X3 AP would be worth looking Into trims2u as everything changes constantly.
(again, I didn't read anything)
DARCA
Hello
hmm, i failed to understand OP's point...
OP started with the issue of having planets able to make money out of nothing:
(population + minting buildings = lots of BC) x tax rate = BC available for player in order to pay for maintenance/rush buy/diplomacy
Good, i can understand that it doesn't make sense.
OP's solution is to explain where this money comes from (production/productivity) and add to this the creation of the currency concept (creation since it didn't really exists before).
Why not. But where is the money available for the player to use? is it something like:
(production/productivity + minting? + population? ) x tax rate?
Let's say there is a formula, so the player ends up having BC to spend out of a different formula, which is used for maintenance/rush buy/ diplomacy.
So what is the difference in actual gameplay, except that the player won't really grasp where his money comes from (especially since OP seems to favor an independent private sector)?
This is where i don't understand OP's point: what does it brings to the game? in what way such economic management makes the game more fun/interesting? What tools/options can be available for the player to influence/lead the economy of his empire that are more interesting than the existing ones?
For GC2, here are the principles:
- population makes BC at a fixed rate => more population, more BC and economy is always stable and flowrishing
- minting buildings can improve the "productivity" of the money making population.
- starvation doesn't exist since population stop growing once the maximum population is reached, according to food production.
- all other buildings and ships cost maintenance.
- Every hammer/research point/shields cost BC
Therefore, a successful economy in GC2 is defined by the ability of the player not to spend more money than his empire is making.
The issues are not in the game mechanics but in the overly simplified view of game concepts versus real life.
I mean, one of the issue is that an empty planet full of citizens makes a lot of money, how is it possible? another is that people stop making babies the moment there is not food left available (yeah we're in sci fi, no doubt about that )
This can be considered as abstractions: an empty planet is full of cities and people running their life with no concerns about the state. People stopping making babies can be considered advanced population control policies. Neverfailing economy output is due to sci fi economy theories.
I'm for every new mechanism that would explain better how the planets work, but only if it's not for the sake of simulation, but for the sake of interesting gameplay. Having a good simulation is only a mean to a good gameplay, it's not a goal by itself.
So for OP, question is: where is the improved gameplay in your suggestion?
As for you view on money available for players: the player would have total control over the money supply. In order to exercise this control, a player could set a nominal inflation rate (nominal as in bank loans do not rise faster than economic growth, nobody bribes your central bank or pilfers counterfeit currency, etc.). This nominal inflation rate would require a certain tax rate to maintain as is explained in the next paragraph. The value of one's currency would be equal to the total productivity of one's empire divided by the total number of currency units.
The amount spent should be roughly equal to the amount taken in (based on your inflation target, anyway). An excessive government budget surplus transfers money from circulation to savings, causing deflation and potentially touching off a lending spree by private banks--a cure for deflation that may be worse than the disease itself. Conversely, excessive spending will transfer money from savings to circulation and cause inflation: if done in excess you will lose the savings capital necessary to sustain economic growth.
The whole section on economic warfare and the UP resolution on a Galactic Credit covers what my idea adds to the gameplay. Beyond that, inflating, deflating, or holding constant one's currency will have a variety of different effects on gameplay. As stated earlier, economic growth is affected by a player's inflation rate.
A wide variety of systems for international trade can be created with this. Petrodollars, single transnational currencies, Keynes's bancor, and the current forex system can all be created with the mechanics given. And since according to GCII lore anyway, humans created the United Planets, it makes sense that the system of inter-empire trade reflects something that humans have devised. After all, how are we supposed to know how the Arceans and Drengin handled international trade before they became interstellar species?
In a sense, currency will be both fiat and specie-backed. Fiat because there is no specific financial asset or material (gold, duranthium, tri-strontium, whatever) backing the currency. However, even in cases when the currency was backed by gold, it just meant that the currency was convertible into a given quantity of gold at the central bank, not that there necessarily existed enough gold to meet all demands simultaneously. The currency is specie-backed in a sense, however, because productivity causes the currency to have value. As with the old specie-backed systems, it will not be possible to exchange every unit of currency for a unit of productivity, hence savings will exist.
When I say "currency" I am implying nothing more than "coins, notes, or electronic data entries that entitle a the bearer to settle a debt or purchase an item from another at a mutually-agreed-upon price". This aspect of currency has remained constant throughout human history. Furthermore, productive capacity has existed from every period throughout history and has been the ultimate determinant of whether one can use currency (can't get anything from a store if there's nothing to buy), and societies which lacked or misallocated (Soviet Union comes to mind) their productive capacity experience currency collapse. You absolutely don't want to do this, and not just because it's a whole lot of micromanaging details. We can't do it today, with Ivy-League PhD economists, and have a reasonably understandable system. [/quote]
There isn't much micromanagement here as that will be done by private industry 75% of the time or more. I have based the economic system on fundamentals and allowed for a wide range of variation - avoiding straitjacketing the game into one system.
I wouldn't mind something like this in, say, Distant Worlds, but it wouldn't fit here for a multitude of reasons. I have to disagree.
I'm not at all saying the game couldn't profit from more depth in economics, and I totally agree with the idea that trade is the best place to do that. In the context of the game, internal economics aren't that fun, basically like balancing your checkbook. Trade, on the other hand, involves other civs and so has ramifications beyond your internal economics. I think expanded trade would make an excellent expansion pack.
To Wer900let's see if i understood well:Initial situation- i start with my initial colony, lets say 10 hammers production.- i suppose these 10 hammers generate wealth, lets say 100 currency units for a currency unit value of 0,1.- i suppose this generation must be tied to population somewhere, since a product needs to be sold to generate wealth.- lets say that initially, the first colony is an eden working by itself and doesn't have any maintenance cost.- if i keep tax to 0, there is then no inflation nor deflation (right?)
First ship produced (how are ships produced from production capability is quite blurry since hammer production is used to generate the economy)- this ship cost 1 currency unit to maintain- i don't tax people to maintain the ship. - Therefore, i must create 1 currency unit out of nowhere, which lead total wealth to 101 currency unit, which means a inflation of 1%
- if i decide to tax for 1% the initial 100 currency units, there is no deflation nor inflation.
Forget the ship, lets build a factory.- Factory is build. Since economy is based on production, lets say that maintenance costs are abstracted in the generated wealth, so no maintenance cost.- the factory produce 5 hammers.How is it handled?- is the total wealth generated now 150 currency units?- or is the total weath still 100 currency unit, but the currency value goes up to 0.15 (15 hammers /100 currency units)?- maybe the decision is in the hands of the player?
Coming back to the inflation mechanism and forget about the new factory.- lets say i have a fleet costing 10 currency units in maintenance.- i don't tax.- therefore, i introduce 10 currency units in the economy out of nowhere for a production of 10 hammers => 10% inflation.- 2nd turn, my economy wealth is 110 currency units, but the currency value has dropped to 10/110.- 3rd turn, wealth is 120 currency units, currency value is 10/120, inflation is 9% (10/110)- 4th turn, wealth is 130 currency units, currency value = 10/130, inflation is 8.3% (10/120)
so... where is my economic crisis?
I think i'm wrong when i set the maintenance cost in currency units.Lets say instead of 10 currency units, i set it in hammers.Since i said that the fleet initially cost 10 currency units to maintain, it means 1 hammer.
so i restart the scenario:- i have a fleet costing 1 hammer to maintain.- i don't tax.- first turn, i need 1 hammer maintenance. With a currency value of 0.1, it means 10 currency units. I set inflation to 10% so i have my 10 currency units but my currency value has dropped to 10/110.- 2nd turn, i still need 1 hammer maintenance. The wealth is now 110. currency value is 1/11. i still need 10% inflation to get the 11 currency units matching the 1 hammer (since value is now 1/11)- 3rd turn, 1 hammer, 121 wealth, currency value is 10/121, inflation stay at 10%.
This scenario is better, but still i don't see when the economic crisis start ( where is my disgruntled mob angry about the price of bread getting higher and higher?)
Last scenario:- always the same, 10 hammers, 100 currency units wealth.- i tax to 100%- i spend 100 currency units in various things.- economy is stable- but people are obviously starving and most likely rioting everywhere.
So, questions: - what did i understood well and what not? - how is population included in the economy model? - how crisis are started (in relation to deflation/inflation or excess taxes)?
I also kept foreign exchanges out of the subject for now.
Don't get me wrong, i don't try to prove that your idea is bad or anything like that. I really try to understand how it could work.
How the population is tied to the economy seems critical to me in your idea, since this is where the gameplay is affected (bad economy can lead to colony defections).If such economic system is set, it should be used to counter early overexpansion (or even later) and in late game, helps fight the boringness by putting domestical problems in the center of the game.
Last point, even if it can be implemented, there is a risk for the AI not being able to cope with this system. The rules must be simple enough for the AI to follow, else, the AI will kill itself most of the time.
Sorry WER900 but I don't think your ideas here add anything to game-play, I still think the way to improve game-play and the Economics of the game is through an enhanced Trading system as we've discussed in other threads.
If you want an economics simulation game I suggest you try the "Patrician" series of games to see how well it does it.
I don't want to seem bullying but I think everyone should realise that we are all after a game that plays even better than "Twilight" and something that addresses the deficiencies of GC2. Then again everyone thinks that their ideas do this so sorry for stating the obvious.
What I think WER900 has a difficulty with is the fact that in the Game the Player is the Government, a very left-wing ideology for someone steeped in the right-wing realism of ultra-capitalism in the USA.
I consider myself a market socialist so I'm familiar. Even though I live in the United States I am very far from ultra-capitalism in my own views. I'm not a founder so I have no clue how GCIII plays. I'm fine with the player being the government but it's important to acknowledge that a private sector can and will exist in a galaxy of many diverse economic systems and races. For an individual player the size of the private sector can be as large or as small as desired; it would be possible to buy, sell, or simply seize planetary improvements from the private sector as desired.
The main inspiration for this idea was my dislike of the fact that minting buildings produced money that could later be used for rush-buying and diplomacy. If there is nothing to sell in one's Market Centers then why should they generate money?
As for the previous Comstock Lode question, what would happen is that one's productivity in the mining, fishing, and agriculture spheres would shoot up. If the amount of currency is held constant or grows more slowly than the production rise, then deflation will result. Deflation and price drop are essentially the same concept, so the change to the economy would fall into place with the new model.
Under a high-inflation scenario one's savings will progressively become worth less and less. As a result, there is a strong incentive to reduce one's level of savings in order to invest it profitably in growing one's productive infrastructure. However, if the player runs out of savings as a result of sustained inflation economic growth will essentially come to a halt until enough savings are built up to stop it from happening.
You understood it quite well, except for maintenance. Of course there will be a productivity cost to maintaining one's ships and infrastructure, that will have to come out of one's existing infrastructure (either government owned and operated or chartered from private corporations). The downside to maintaining an extremely large star fleet will be the problem faced by the Soviet Union, which spent 70% of the state budget on military expenditures: goods shortages will require you to import goods from foreign empires (Dominion of Korx?) and debase your currency in order to do so. And inflation, of course, will have the negative effects described above and will ultimately bring your economy to a screeching halt.
Maintenance will cost productivity units rather than actual currency. The player will have to produce currency to use this productivity, and the amount of productivity usable by a unit of currency is of course dependent on the currency value.
If such economic system is set, it should be used to counter early overexpansion (or even later) and in late game, helps fight the boringness by putting domestical problems in the center of the game.Last point, even if it can be implemented, there is a risk for the AI not being able to cope with this system. The rules must be simple enough for the AI to follow, else, the AI will kill itself most of the time.
Yes, that's part of the idea. It should not be possible to grow one's economy without actually building productive improvements. There should be real consequences for attempting to import or rush-buy the way to victory.
The biggest lesson I have to convey here is two words: "Moo 3"
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the franchise-destroying legacy those words represent.
Suffice it to say that any game system may be made arbitrarily complex, but if it comes to a point where player input begins to lack decipherable, meaningful impact, then gameplay suffers greatly.
In other words, a game where you play as a butterfly trying to make it rain in Chicago by flapping your wings in Europe sounds cool - but from the player's perspective, it would seem in the end like random success or failure regardless of how much chaos and fractal mathematical beauty your game was simulating under the hood.
I agree this needs to be done quickly someone tell stardock!!!!!!
I don't think Wer900 deserves sarcasm for his proposal.
It may sounds too ambitious or too complicated, or you can just don't like it but you should at least respect the time and efforts it took to write this.
It has at least the merit to try to get out of the everlasting model of production hammers and research vials that exists since civ 1.
Thank you. Although I went into exhaustive and gory detail so that Stardock developers would be able to work with this idea if they accepted it, I believe it is not that complicated in practice. The description of the butterfly game given by an earlier contributor was wholly inaccurate. On a basic level, you (and/or private corporations) create productive capacity and print money in order for this capacity to be utilized. You need to maintain a balance between all economic sectors in order to make the most of each sector and also to ensure that unusable capacity in one of the higher-tier sectors (Trade, for instance) is minimized due to lack of lower-level inputs (Manufacturing). Beyond that, you could fashion your economic system in any way you chose, to a Soviet-style central planning model where all enterprises of any size are government-owned, a no-holds-barred capitalist society in which the poor are all but ignored and private corporations own nearly all the means of production, or anything in between. You could engage in economic warfare, cornering the market for a given commodity or currency, reaping the benefits of high price, then precipitating a massive selloff in order to weaken your enemies. Really, it's not that hard to do or have fun with.
Wer900 it may be fairly easy to do, but it just doesn't sound Fun. I accept that it is somewhat illogical to have production capacity from a planet full of banking and service [Entertainment/Diplomatic/etc.] facilities and virtually no manufacturing capacity except for the justification that all improvements provide employment and so economic activity is thus provided implicitly. Thus GC2 rationalized Economic activity as based on population (a real world causal phenomenon) and adjusts it by some reference to the employment rate I believe [okay, here I'm guessing as to the exact mechanic used but it's still a real world causal phenomenon or should be].
Real world economics aren't always based on the system of adding value/profit to resources through the supply chains of extraction/manufacturing/merchandising/wholesaling/retailing however fundamental the supply of goods is. The Service Sector also plays an intrinsic role in the supply of goods. Services aren't just Hairdressers and Taxi-Cabs and their ilk. And all economic activity receives a tremendous boost from governmental/political investment in infrastructure, always a vital requirement of any thriving economy. Sorry if I seem to be teaching your granny to suck eggs but realism doesn't always make a game good and/or enjoyable.
Yes, it's good of you to try for improvements to game economic systems and you've clearly followed your train of thought right through your various stages but still limited your view to a modern moneytarised system when Inter-Galactic trade would revert to more of a Bartering dynamic. I still don't think it's as fun as re-basing the game economics more on trade than just the GC2 model's three way split between War, Research and Infrastructure [which admittedly has only moved from three sliders to a triangular balancing scale in GC3 so far]. It will take me some time to put in all the work you clearly did on your suggestion, to come up with a balance-able four-way split system of W, R & I plus Trade. It clearly begs the question though, of how fundamental to the game-engine is the economic system and sub-systems ? So is it too late to be even considered I wonder ? It is something more than worthy of being addressed, if not to say totally necessary for a 3rd-generation game sequel [not just a Game Extension pack] to be modified by the Dev's and their Mentors.
This is the point where truly evident real world economics enter the scene, and although Stardock has sold itself to the devils of the Alpha buyers for unconditional improvements to the game for up-front development cash, they will still want to launch a product near their target date to realise revenue. Meaning that the work involved in any suggestion(s) taken up will have to fit into their draft schedule of design, building, testing, feedback and refining cycles to the point where the money runs out.
Schaefspear, I believe there was a post by Frogboy stating that the Alpha price and selling was not an attempt to gain start up cash. Nor is there even a specific release date.
Stardock has release target goals but they are subject to change on Stardocks belief that the game is ready, NOT to justify a stock holder expectations to gain revenue.
With that said, I agree with what you have stated in your post about Wer900's ideas about the changes to the games economic system. I do not think it would bring 'fun' to the table.
I like the abstract system. Its complicated enough to be thought of, yet not so to burden the player with endless math formulas for best strategy.
Next time be like a politician Wer900. Be vague and promise prosperity to players, and try to avoid going into detail and explaining yourself. That way there is nothing to say no to and it all sounds great the first time, especially with your new fan club screaming "yes, lets try it!"
(JK*)
DARCA.
Just my opinion: Don't complicate the money too much for a game like this. The old GC 2 system works in its way and is reasonably easy to understand. I think Civilization 5 does a better job with economics (so far) but if GC 3 is close to it, that's good enough for me (I play Rise of Venice when I want a good economic challenge). A better trade system would be nice, though.
Why the (JK*)?
I assure you, this is the way of doing politics, at least here in France ^^'
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account