 |
| |
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I think I am cross-posting from military thread, but I have done a few things since, so it may differ a little:
This is about the cost of training armies.
How should army training be handled? In particular, what should the training/existing facilities relation be? I think it is a general issue of what do you need in terms of infrastructure to build another kind of infrastructure (here, service).
I model training as solely a services cost for units.
I propose that basic training cost be presented on a civ-level (maybe province) so that the user don't have to micromanage each unit training.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
*bump*
It is possible to produce goods (eg cotton) on farming grounds, and there is the possibility of synthetic food as well. How is that handled in the model?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I thought mainly of using ordinary ground for growing cash crops. f.e. Enclosure movement, the early incentive of the IR.
We could define some specials in another way: f.e. 'cotton' special means when you grow cotton on (or on part of) the available sites you get a site bonus.
Synthetic food: margarine, bubble gum, fizzy drinks,.. have a nutrition value so they're more than luxuries; but people who use them have plenty of food normally. But the margarine is an important daily foodstuff (developed last century for the french army, by the way).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I think 'lifestyle' is a very important choice. While hunter/gatherers never assembled empires, both settled and nomadic societies did so. We could impose the rule that an empire must contain a homogenous, either settled or nomadic population,with trade and alliances still possible.
So the player (or the AI) could choose to stay nomadic until a (or several) big empire emperges nearby and then conquer it (them), like the Khans did. Of course, to rule it they must give up their nomadic status. The advantages of being nomadic would then be: mobility and military power, the disadvantages: limitations in technological development and social organization.
To make this choice available, the starting pop of a civ must be nomadic. Then the player/AI can choose, depending on the terrain etc. to settle or to search for a better spot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I never intented to make hunter-gatherer available as a player option. But when the computer places a tribe on a really poor spot to start or when their territory becomes unsatisfactory, you should be able to leave for a better place.
A few examples:
The Germanic tribes. Their incentive was overpopulation and the result was the fall of the western Roman empire (instead of the decay).
The Vikings: again, overpopulation. A few centuries later, their descendants owned England, Normandy and half of France.
So 'going nomadic' should always be available as an option. The disadvantages are significant: all remaining infra in your homeland decays very fast, tech progress only in a few areas, tech detoriation in others. Advantages: the full male population becomes available as warrior. I think players should start nomadic or as farmers depending on their homeland, but if they have the good enough technology (transport for nomads, agriculture for farmers) they can always switch. The advantages of settled life are much higher, but in emergencies you can always make a gamble..
The main reason to include hunter-gatherers is that you can generate all tribes/ civs at the start of the game, and once every while one of these hunter-g tribe becomes a civilization, be it nomadic or settled. For example, the Islam or the Mongols.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I still think there have been migrations of a complete civilization. Nearly all Germanic tribes (they were settled) broke with their homeland and travelled across Europe during the next century, going as far as North Africa. Only the Franks were more cautious, and did their journey in two parts.
It was more than individual people who left their community. Instead, whole communities were on the move. Afterwards, new empires existed almost everywhere, be it with largely the same population as before. And the start of all this was the invasion of the Huns, whatever their motive might have been.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Whatever the reason, it certainly happened and it had a great impact, by replacing the leaders of the conquered areas. In Europe it gave a nice German/Gallo-Roman cultural mix. Only christianity had to be added and all major contributions would have been made.
And of course, they would have stayed home if the Roman Empire hadn't been in such a sorry state. If they did, we would now speak neo-Latin, or pidgin Arab  .
We can generate from the start a number of larger tribes (hunter-g) and then pick a few (on the best spots). These tribes become civilizations and the game starts. After that, once every, say, 1000 years one of these becomes a civilization. Players who want a challenge can start later. You will have a broad range of fresh and maturing to ancient civilizations throughout the game.
Another use: now and then such a tribe 'goes nomadic', probably bringing major upheaval to the settled world.
Nomadic civs only at the fringes is very good. They also want luxury goods, but cannot produce them and therefore have to obtain them by trade or raids. Unfortunately, they usually haven't much to trade with either..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gary Thomas
|
 |
New Zealand
Mar 2001
time: 17:13
|
|
The book "The Emergence of Agriculture" (Bruce D. Smith, Scientific American Library) follows the emergence of agriculture, using recent detailed archeological data. It appears that agriculture emerged (around 10,000 year ago in the Middle East) on settled sites that had been previously established on the basis of harvesting wild plants or animals in the area. It is an extremely interesting book.
This fits in well with your suggestion of staggered emergence of civilizations (if we accept that "civilizations", in this sense, equates with "agricultural settlements").
quote:
Nomadic civs only at the fringes is very good. They also want luxury goods, but cannot produce them and therefore have to obtain them by trade or raids. Unfortunately, they usually haven't much to trade with either.. |
They actually did very well, right through into Roman times, by trading animal products, either livestock for meat, or hides. They also traded products that were sometimes available in their area - furs and ivory are a couple of examples. In some cases, particularly in the Mongol era, a symbiotic relationship existed between nomads (animal products), agricultural people (grain, mainly) forest people (wood) with a scattering of mining settlements.
Cheers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Yes, that's true, and they also acted as traders between settled areas on each side of the area they frequented (the Arabs).
In case of the Mongols, when they conquered the surrounding agricultural societies, they took strong measures in favor of trade (better and patrolled roads, less tolls, ..). Later, when the empire fell apart again, the mongol dynasties were culturally 'absorbed' by the peoples they ruled.
In terms of models, maybe nomadic civs have more merchant agents. The cultural influence can be handled by shifting the numbers of the cultural attitudes a bit.
I think the vital point for being a civilization, is the presence of a surplus in production that is controlled by the leading figure/class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoav_Sissman
|
|
I agree with the several last above posts on nomadic civilizations.
I think that pasturing may have significant advantages in large maps and while the world is relatively unsettled; Perhaps we can introduce this concept into the game, by allowing increased gains from farm sites for a limited period after they are left barren for enough time.
So the nomads will be able to enjoy better agricultural results due to pasturing/hunting/gathering.
This probably belongs in another thread, but since the nomads don't have steady jobs and their lifestyle and culture encourages military might, they should be able to recruit large armies of good quality in a relatively short time and small investment.
They will obtain knowledge on a relatively large part of the world, which will allow them to be the first to know of good terrain, special resources and weak civs that can be plundered.
Their mobility will allow them broad borders (relatively to their numbers) so they will be able to trade with other civs that are outside their boundaries (or tax foreign merchants).
I agree that a nomadic civ won't progress much so this can't be a victory strat; On the other hand, it will be against the spirit of the game to have it based on settled civs only (and perhaps some barbarians).
This is why we can decide that in games that begin in the times of the first civilizations (and not 1000 BC) all civs start as nomads; They than have to choose between settling down right away and continuing to wander for a while, until they find a satisfactory location. This somewhat resembles civ2, where the player start with his first settler rather than town.
Some computer players should perhaps stay nomadic indefinitely, even though they will never win the game.
I'm not sure we should allow a civ to become nomadic after it has settled down; There are few examples in history of an immigration of a complete nation, even when the situation became very troublesome in their homeland. 
On to a completely different subject, I understood from the model that some special resources, such as salt, will add a bonus to the food supply. I thinks that such an implementation of them will miss the true meaning of spices and other food-related special resources; They have little or no nutritional value (salt is required by the human body but only in small quantities that are naturally found in agricultural products anyway).
This may have been discussed and decided upon already, but I think that those special resources should have their effect directly on the people happiness level. 
A third issue I would like to comment about is the rate of return on investments. I understood from the model that private investments will be made while they are supposed to yield 10% interest per turn; Is this done regardless of the populace income level? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yoav_Sissman
|
|
I appreciate the quick response. 
Your plans concerning nomads sound fine to me. I guess that we can overcome the unique pasturing qualities since the farming utility function already places a significant weight on the number of farm sites used, so a thinly stretched population that resemble the wandering tribes will get its bonuses. Also, since every turn in the game represents a long period of real time there is no need to represent seasonal wandering.
Also I agree with the spices concept; it’s just that I thought that they are all like salt.
Since the rate of return subject isn't concluded yet I would like to raise several ideas for discussion.
Investments, much like consumption, can be either public or private. The advantage of the first kind is that the ruler has complete control over it and can guide it to rely on his information and match his goals. The advantage of the latter is that it is made more efficiently, because the guy that is responsible for the investment also expects to enjoy its returns. 
The simplest way to implement the disadvantage of government investment is by deciding on an arbitrary adjustment to the cost of all government operations. We may choose to use the same factor that was proposed for the inefficiency of public consumptions - 80% (that was offered to represent the fact that not everybody gets exactly what he wants). This way all government purchases and investments will cost 25% (1/80%) more then they would have if they were to be done by the private sector. We may allow this percentage to vary depending on the social qualities of the people and their government, but I believe that a constant rate will also fill that purpose fairly realistically.
Now lets discuss the advantages of public spending, and start with a discussion of what motivates our civ citizens to invest.
Basically every household has a given amount of available income (after taxes) to spend on his private consumption and to invest in his business. Actually in the real world the people also own financial assets and debts, but I think we better disregard them on this for the sake of simplicity (for the same reason we ignore inflation).
I think we should assume, that the people consume as much as their income that is needed to keep them in subsistence level without any regard to their future. The rest of their combined free income is invested in real assets if they expect to achieve at least a certain rate of return for their investment. Otherwise it's also consumed.
That rate of return can depend on the amount of risk involved (increase with risk) and on social factors, perhaps most impotently the level of lifestyle (decrease when consumed income rises).
The amount of risk likely depends on the following factors: 
(1) The government and political stability. Is it possible that the government will confiscate all private property in the foreseen future? Is it possible that there will be a revolt or that the current government will be overthrown and replaced with a government that will do so?
(2) Geopolitical situation. Is it wartime or peaceful times? Is our civ winning or loosing? Is our province near the combat zone? Is it likely to fall into enemy hands? What kind of an enemy is it? This kind of uncertainty can be reduced if the government offers compensation to its civilians for war-damages and as far as we don't expect so much destruction that the government won't be able to do so.
(3) Type of investment. Infrastructure is generally safer than merchants, which are in turn safer than armies (if we will decide to implement private armies, and I don't think we will).
Having said all that it is obvious that often the government will want to intervene in those investing priorities, to encourage people to invest in the suburbs, etch. We can now discuss the ways in which it can do that.
(1) Taxes and subsidies. That was already explained. 
(2) Government investing. That is probably the quickest way but it will result in the penalty discussed above. The player will be able to set his policy in the civ level, province level, or drill down to specific investments.
I think we better ignore the influence on the rate of return that can be made by changing the amounts of money available to the markets, as we ignore other monetary issues.
We should notice the fundamental difference between public investments and private ones; Public spending benefits the entire population while private ones are meant to benefit individuals. Despite that, it seems that we generally ignore the class differences in our economic model and I would like to keep it that way and leave that issue to the social model.
How do we consider effects that don't have a direct economical value to the investor for the purpose of calculating the expect rate of return? That issue was discussed earlier, and is indeed troublesome. We should keep in mind that when the investment is private, the non-financial benefits are irrelevant. The private investors don't care about the safety, education, happiness or health of the people, unless they are going to get paid to supply it.
Does anyone still follows? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Hi Yoav:
I'm not sure how much time I'll have to respond, so first I'll tell you about a thread you should look over. (You may have found it already) It discusses some of the general issues that you're talking about. One thread is: Proposal for a Complete Infrastructure Model by Axi. I don't agree with his formulation completely, but you can learn a lot about where the design was at that point (it hasn't changed greatly since). Other threads that may be useful are: Demo 5 Econ Model and Government - Economic models interconnections .
This should give you the background to know where discussions have been on many of the things you are interested in.
I need to tell you right now that I'm no longer participating in long discussions of things we might do with the various models unless we are ready to implement... That's because its all too easy for me to get sucked into design discussions -- but my limited time is better spent in actually implementing things or discussion of things about to be implemented. (And my Clash time has unfortunately been Very limited of late.)
So with that, I'll try to respond briefly to some of your points!
Public vs Private investments are good, and we have them. As to whether they should cost different we will leave to playtesting.
I agree in principle with most of the other points you make, although who knows about specific implementation. Most of them are likely not to be implemented until D7 or later.
On your final point about investments without direct monetary value, I believe we should just Define a monetary value. The preferences machine that Axi talks about is another mechanism we will use for private spending allocation. Finally, for things like military units, we can define a function that gives a monetary equivalent depending on player orders, diplomatic and geopolitical concerns etc.
Hope this helps!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Simon Loverix
|
|
Tongeren, Belgium
Apr 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
The central Asian steppes were first inhabited by farmers, only later (when a decent horseback riding technology was developed) they became nomadic again, including the later Mongols. The Celtic tribes started migrating around 200 BC because they lost their profitable trade position to the region north of the Alps (and they were more inclined to do so because of their war-like culture).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2001 23:16
). And things like training depending on cost-effectiveness can be easily handled using a return-on-investment parameter just like much of the econ stuff uses. Essentially where training is cheaper per unit (due to training infra) more training will (or at least probably should) be done. The thing that will require a little extra effort is the idea of rotating troops thru the training facilities. But we can sure do something reasonable, if not optimal, on that front too. Perhaps letting there be just one training center per province that automatically supports training there is one way to do it.
|