 |
| |
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Also the demand for each grade is already calculated in the wealth demographics.
If we have 5 wealth categories than it's easiest to have 5 grades of each good, or if we have 6 wealth categories then we have 6 grades of each good, and assume the percentage of each grade to be bought will coorespond with the wealth category...
It can be assumed that poor people who drink wine will mainly drink wine that comes in a box-you've seen the boxes. The not-quite-so-poor will drink something like Sutter Home or some other cheap mass produced wine while the richest are the ones buying from Chateau La Tour etc.
Sorry about oversimplifying my ideas, it gets kinda late here when I get home from work I don't feel too much likt going into depth when I'm this tired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Ok, here comes some chatter about the good grading system and stuff. Guildmaster's concern about what people will drive with, if they buy 10 cars instead of 15 just because they are better is justified. We need to do this reversed; first we decide the demand for cars for each wealthiness group. Then, the people check, how much money they want to put into cars, and then they buy those kinds of cars they can afford. When the people get more money, they can decide to buy fancier cars; but they will not "upgrade" to better ones just because they are better. An example makes this more clear.
Assume we have 45% of the population of our province belonging to wealthiness group 3. The province has 5 million people, giving us 2.25 million people in group 3. The group 3 people need 0.6 cars per capita, so the demand is 135 car units, when one unit is 10000 cars. Assume now, that grade 2 cars cost 40, grade 3 cars 60, and grade 4 cars 70 currency units at the moment. Available money per 10000 people to waste on cars is 50 units. So, they people will buy grade 2.5 cars; this means 50% of the cars are grade 2, and 50% are grade 3. Using the decimal values is easy; you can get the portion of the higher grade goods simply by extracting the fractional part of the number; 2.35 means there are 35% of grade 3, and rest are grade 2.
How do we decide the decimal grade level? If the people have 50 units of money, with the prices listed above, we find that the value is between grades 2 and 3. So it is 2 point something. The fractional part is (M-P2)/(P3-P2), where M is the amount of money to use, P2 is grade 2 price and 3 is grade 3 price. So, the grade level in our example is 2+((50-40)/(60-40)). Then we can use the fractional part to decide the amounts of cars bought; A3=FxD and A2=D-A3, where A2 is the amount of grade 2 cars, A3 the amount of grade 3 cars, F is the fractional part and D is demand for cars. This algorithm can be optimized a little with some tricks with the order of calculations.
So; we should first find the demand for each product, then the amount of money people have to spend, and finally the grades of goods they can buy. If people can't afford the amount they demand, they will buy grade F goods as much as they can, and leave the demand unsatisfied; next turn, the demand will drop, until the people can afford the amount they demand. When they get more money, or when the prices drop, the demand is checked again. This system would make sure everyone gets what they demand, and allow the people to buy more fancy goods if they have money.
Determining the demand for each good is much more tricky than determining the prices. Perhaps the tech level should be the main factor determining basic demand for each good; then this is modified according to the amount of money the people have, the prices, supply etc. The supply/demand calculations system Joker suggested looked great. It should handle this.
Completely another thing is to determine, how the people will spend their money. For basic goods, like food this is easy, as Joker said; we will find out how much money people use for basic things first. This includes food, shelter etc. What is left over from that is used for other things. This is where tricky things begin; my grading idea assumes, that we find out the demand for every good, and the amount of money people spend for that good first. This might require some changes to the Joker's system.
Generally, I think we should have 10000 people as the basic unit; income and demand would be decided for 10000 people, and the prices of goods would be calculated for a "unit" sufficient for 10000 people. Notice that one unit of people might well demand more than one unit of some good. Ok, this has been said earlier, I just thought about stating it once again.
What about the prices for each grade of goods? Should we make a system, where we pre-determine for each good the basic price, and how much larger the price for the different grades of goods are. For example we could set the basic price for every good to 10; this is the grade F price. Then we could define, that grade E car is always 2 times larger, grade D 4 times, C seven times, B ten times, and A 15 times more expensive than grade F. For all goods we would define the prices similarly. Later, if we find out that we can afford to have separate price for each grade, we could do so.
One thing we need to consider for the economy model; we should allow the possibility, that people don't spend all the money they have got during that turn. If people have very much money, they will spend very much, but they will also use the rest of it for investments; they put it into a bank, which uses that money for investing, or buy stocks, or let someone else buy stocks with those money, or they will found new enterprises themselves. Where else the money for running and building industries would come? Also, in modern world the rich people will have very much excess money. It would be ridiculous to try to spend all of that for cars or wines...
So; what do you think about these ideas?
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited August 17, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Sorry, I have been really buisy with my new job the last few days. I propably wont be able to give you an answer to all the questions untill the weekend. I will just type down some loose comments for now:
Amjayee:
I don't really know about your system. First we shouldn't have wealthiness groups. The wealth of people can not just be put into some group, and besides the wealthy people 1000 years ago would propably be considered poor today.
I think maybe the disagreements we have may have something to do with the cultural differences (at least between me and Guildmaster). Guildmaster is American. And in the US cars are seen as a necesity. It is assumed that people simply NEED x amount of cars, and that their wealth level will only determine the quality of these cars. In Denmark the government has put a 180% sales tax on cars (!). Partly for enviromental reasons, to avoid US style highway madness, partly made as a hidden protectionism, as no cars are produced in Denmark. This has caused cars to be viewed differently in Denmark compared to the US. In Denmark the average amount of cars per family may be down to 1,3 or 1,4 (30 years back the number were lower than 1!). This means that the wealth of people doesn't only decide what cars they buy. It also decides how many cars people buy. This is what caused me to make the amount of cars demanded a function of the wealth of the people in my system. It seems as if Guildmaster's system just assumes that x number of people means x number of cars no matter the wealth. And I just don't think this is a useable assumption.
I can't really see what you all think is so wrong with my system. Why is it unrealistic to assume that when a family can afford 4 Ford Fiesta's they would rather ditch them and buy 2 BMW 320's in stead?
Either way, I can see why my system may be a little too unflexible. But I think the same about Guildmaster's (and Amjayee's) system.
I will think about this and return with more comments.
Demand:
I think my original economy model handled this. It is simply all put into a function, where increased wealth means that people will buy certain goods. What these goods are can always be determined via the demand function. This may not fit completely into the truth, but it is the only way to make a real economy system without way too much complexity.
It could work like this for a 10,000 pop unit (for whom 10 food per turn would be the basic level):
The first 100 credits earned will be used for food.
The next 20 will be used for shelter.
The next 20 for clothes.
The next 20 for more food.
The next 20 for basic consumer goods.
The next 30 for shelter.
....................
The next 200 for cars.
The next 80 for wine.
The next 50 for clothes.
etc etc.
These last 3 would of cause be when people have incomes of several 1000 credits.
The computer will then simply start from the top of this incredibly long list (it will be so in the game) and move it's way downwards untill the people are out of money. Changes in the price of a good will of cause change the demand for it and sometimes also the amount of money spent on it.
Investment:
If you look through my economy model you will see that I have mentioned it somewhere. I think it should work as you described it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I definately agree with the perspective difference you have pointed out in that people in Denmark simply drive less...
But also there is more to it than just culture albeit culture does play a big role.
But there is more:
1) Public Transit in America is something that most people have to look up in the dictionary to know what it is. Sure in places like New York where there actually IS an extensive subway/bus system you will see that the per capita automobiles drops significantly, people don't need their cars to survive as there is alternative transit. Most US cities don't even have anything more than a bus service that doesn't have but one or 2 lines that are operational 24 hrs. Even so, the bus is usually more expensive than gas and less convenient than parking.
2) Even if there was public transit, you're again right about the cultural issue here, in that people here live so far away from the city that even for people living around major cities there is no bus system at all way out in the boondocks so the only way to get into town some 100 km away is to walk/bike or drive you can guess what gets you there in a reasonable ammt of time. BTW to live closer in town is waaaay more expensive than the average american can afford. While there may be some bus service that runs every hour until about 6pm on the outskirts of city limits, most people don't even live that close.
3) the cost to buy a car is so cheap here. the only tax you pay is the same sales tax that you pay for any other good liek groceries. Sure you have liscence and registration other fees, I have my little Geo Metro which the price was $895 for it and I paid a total of $1152 including tax, tag, title fees, registration, insurance and everything. Probably would have been well over twice that in Denmark, which means I wouldn't have been able to afford it but then there's public transit there so I wouldn't need it.
4) In America, at least where I live there is anumber of things you will not be able to do without a car. a)get a job b)meet a girl c)go out d)go shopping e)go to school
basically there is no alternative here except a bicycle (which I have BTW) and usually there is no place to lock up your bike so someone doesn't steal it.
So what I'm saying is that it does make sense for a family who can afford to buy 4 camrys to get 2 BMWs assuming two people in the family don't need their own transportation. But mt new question is this:
Do we want to have a separate demand structure for each good which would make the most sense but would take a lot more doing than no one wants to do, or do we want to have a few special cases or have the same demand structure for each good?
eg.
Wine is an aquired taste. Ever noticed that the cultures that produce the most wine also consume the most wine, even though export of wine is as lucrative as it is? Perhaps when winegrowing is a part of culture, winedrinking also becomes part of the same culture. I notice that in California everyone drinks wine (most wine grown in the US is California, best wine in the world I must admit) while here in Florida, while there is always connoisseurs the numbers are about half I think. Just a guess, probably nothing.
Cars: the demand for cars needs to be linked to 1) the availability of public transit and 2) the ratio between urban/rural population in addition to income level. I have noticed that in the city there may be 2 or 3 cars per 4 ppl household but in the country 5 or 6+ in a 4 ppl household!
so does that make any sense?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
You're making perfect sence, Guildmaster.
I agree with you on everything you have said in your latest post (which is great, as it means we are finally thinking in the same direction) except about the best wine in the world being Californian. I really, really must disagree here. I am not really an expert in Californian wine, but what I've tryed have all been beaten by French and Italian wine (unlike most people I actually find Italian wine superior to the French)  .
But to get back to the subject:
I don't really know which one of your three options we should choose. I agree with you on the pros and cons, but I am not quite sure which one would be best.
Having the same demand structure for all goods, as I have assumed in my economy model would be the most simple thing to do, it would take far less time implementing, and it would require less calculations by the computer.
Having a special demand structure for all goods is probably not needed, as many basic goods (like food and housing) don't really need special cultural algorithms - well, maybe housing would be determined by the weather, but at least food demand would always be the same. Or maybe even this isn't even so... Maybe the price elasticity of food will be determined by the income level of the wealthiest people. They will overbid the poorer ones up to a point where only they could afford to buy all the food they want.
I propably think that we should start out by simply having the same demand structure for all goods, while we develop the model and the rest of the game, and then, when we have most of the model settled (including, but not at all restricted to deciding what goods we are to have) we can add the individual demands for one good at a time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Here's one for you...
we could have the same demand structure for all goods... but some goods we would add "Flags"
or, say the demand structure for diamonds, emeralds, rubys, sapphires all is the same demand structure. But suppose there was a cultural thing where the Iroquois bought up all the emeralds, then you would have a flag next to emeralds saying "Iroquois demand +5" or something like that. In the case of automobiles, it might be "Demand -2 city +2 rural, D= Pop-M(mass transit)" or something like that where we're still using the same demand model for each good but with the ability to add small alterations where needed.
BTW I agree about italian wines, only wines that come close to CA wines! =)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
...but some goods we would add "Flags"
or, say the demand structure for diamonds, emeralds, rubys, sapphires all is the same demand structure. But suppose there was a cultural thing where the Iroquois bought up all the emeralds, then you would have a flag next to emeralds saying "Iroquois demand +5" or something like that. In the case of automobiles, it might be "Demand -2 city +2 rural, D= Pop-M(mass transit)" or something like that...
|
I'm sorry Guildmaster, but I really don't understand what you mean. Especcially with the emerald thing.
But I think I get the big picture, as you described in the end. All goods have the same basic demand structure, but if we want we can later add some special abilities if we feel the need for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I am having a lot of trouble figuring out the implementation of the two types of calculating the supply of a good:
The first is calculated via the price of the good. Higher price means highe supply.
The second is calculated via the production factors needed to make stuff - capital, raw materials and labour.
These two sides of the supply can not really be linked together. I would like to have a system where the price of the good determined how many of the production factors are needed, and then these determine how much the supply will get. But this is really tricky to do.
I will continue to think about this and return when I have found some way to solve it. I would really welcome suggestions if anyone has any.
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Why don't we add a demand factor that is category dependant? Instead of having a seperate demand calculated for each good and having it be an inacurate demand, why not have a demand for each category of good calculated independantly and any trade good will satisfy the demand?
Say for example:
The resourse demand is dependant on the ammt of industry and production ques, also on the ammt and wealth of available consumers for all goods
The transportation demand includes everything from horses and chariots to automobiles and bullet trains, and is dependant on the population and density of any given area, (greater density means less of a demand per capita, but a greater overall demand.) Also, this could be used to solve the dilema Joker and I got into over, by saying the availability of public transit satisfies a major chunk of the transportation demand leaving less demand for automobiles.
Communications demand is tricky, anyone else want to do this you're welcome to it! =)
I would think there is a constant demand for better technology...
(note also that each demand has a severe effect on ctual gameplay, lack of adequate transportation or communication can destroy an empire just as easily as lack of food)
Textile demand, or fabrics, clothing and blankets depending on population, but also on grade bought as lower grade clothing wears out faster and has to be replaced more often.
Example, you need textiles for 10000 people... you have enough cotton to satisfy 6000, can import enough silk to do another 500 and can manufacture enough nylon to cover the rest. (just a rough idea)
Construction demand is dependant on a)income per capita, b)population, c)population density, d)projected growth, e)quality of prior construction, etc etc a number of dependants for this demand.
You get the general idea. I think the problem with a set calculation for each demand is that it isn't actually creating a demand. I don't know how much generalization we can do with this before we have to start saying "This makes sense but that doesn't."
If this doesn't work we might try this:
Have a number of seperate demand formulas, label them formula A, B, C, and D. For each trade good, you use the right formula. Say for food, cotton, and beer you use formula B but for wine and silk you use D. If we have different variables in each formula, we can have all the benefits of separate calculations without taking up all the space...
For example:
formula A) D=a+b(2c)
formula B) D=2a+3b+c
for cotton we say Use formula a where a=supply, b=consumers, c=molasses
for dildos we say a=hookers, b=lonely housewives and c=1/avg. penis size
for cars we use formula b where a=wheelbase, b)top speed, and c=# of cupholders.
Or whatever. I think this might work what do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
That is truly a fantastic idea, Guildmaster!
It would really solve a lot of our problems, without much trouble.
Would it be reasonable to say, that when people have bought the food they need they would simply spend a certain amount of money on certain categories? This would mean that the amount and the categories chosen would depend on the income of the people, but not on the actual price on the goods in each category. This would really make the job easier, as we don't have to check the amount of money spent with the amount of money earned all the time. We simply know that when people earn 1000 credits per turn they will spend 200 on housing, 50 on information, 150 on transport etc - this amount would not depend on the actual price of the goods in each category.
The price on the goods in each category would simply determine what goods in the category to buy. Of cause when people have some of the demand for health covered by free medical insurance they will spend less money on it, and when they have access to extensive public transportation they will spend less money on cars.
I think that this system will propably be the last demand system we will have to develop!
I will think about it and return with more thoughts on the subject.
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
I agree, this idea sounds much more sensible than the earlier ones, and it simplifies things quite a lot. It will also support the large timespan better than earlier.
As Guildmaster said, any product would satisfy the demand in that category. Perhaps the system would be, that people will always try to get the best technology; if there are cars available, they will buy them instead of horse carts; though cars are more expensive, so the people who can't afford cars would still buy carts. So, there would be demand for several levels of technology. Also with communication; there are mobile phones available, but still ordinary telephones are used very much.
This is not only because the people can't afford buying the mobile phones, but also because changing from ordinary to mobile requires great deal of investments in infrastructure. In future we will propably use only mobile phones; in Finland there are already more mobiles than ordinary phones, and many people have a mobile as their only phone.
Just some thoughts of the demand for better technology. We will need to think about this more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I can not believe how hard it is to create this economy model. It may very well be the most dificult thing I have ever done! At least no schoolwork has ever come close to it.
I agree that we should use Guildmaster's new demand system. But it means that we will have to make the demand function all over again, which means even more work.
What groups should we divide demand into?
Some suggestions:
Food (elementary)
Housing
Luxury consumer goods (like wine and caviar)
Transportation
Communication
Education (primarily for the people's kids)
Longer lasting consumer goods (like clothes, furniture and such)
Entertainment?
What else should be in??
And how excactly should we determine how much money people spend on each type? And a more basic question: Do we really need all this complexity?
I was just thinking out loud here. But I really think it is a tremendous task to make this economy model. I feel that when we have completed the pop, the map and the economy model designing the rest of the game will be a walk in the park. Of cause this is not true, but it makes me keep on going!
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I am REALLY getting tired of this.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited August 28, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Why didn't I listen to Amjayee? Why did I have to click submit three times just because I waited 10 minutes without anything happening? Why can't I delete my own post? Why is the lag at Apolyton so heavy?
The truth is out there!
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited August 28, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Ok, I have done some thinking about the complexity of the model, and right now I actually don't think we need all the complexity in it.
For instance, price elasticity. Of cause food should have a low price elasticity, but all the other goods, couldn't they just have an elasticity of 10%, so people always spend the same amount on a good no matter how expensive it is (the price of the good will just determine how many items of the good is bought). Does it really add anything to the gaming experience if cars have an elasticity of 17%? I don't think so. I think there are other ways where we could turn down the complexity. This will not only help us use less computerpower on economy, it will also (which is the most important thing) let us develop the game significantly faster than otherwise.
What do you think?
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Food (f); D(f)=P, very simple. One pop unit eats one food in one turn. We should use this as the basic number. While it is true that some people eat less and some eat more, generally people across the world given identical financial circumstances and supply would eat right about the same ammount of food on average. If S(f) is less than D(f), people are proportionately unhappy and unhealthy. If S(f) is .5D(f) or less, people starve. If S(f) is greater than D(f) people are happy and healthy and populations grow more. S(f) is primarily a function of farming techniques, rainfall, irrigation, agri-tech, fertility, etc. S(f) is modified by D(f) as follows: if range of S(f) is less than maximum, (ie. if the capability to produce/import more food is available) then the actual supply is the initial supply +10%. Subtract this number from the wealth of each class according to the population of each and the remainder is used to buy other goods. If this is a negative number (the poor can't buy enough food to survive) then S(f)=as much food as the poor can buy until they run out of money. then assume the demand has NOT been met even though the supply is there because the supply is inaccessible. People are unhappy unless S(f) is less than .5 in which they starve.
This would provide the necessary scenarios I think, like the great depression when food was plentiful but no one could afford to buy it so they all starved.
I have to go now, I will do housing later...
------------------
Peace and trust can win the day despite all your losing
-Led Zepplin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Korn:
Unfortunately I have never played Imperialism I or II. But from what I've heard it seems to be a great game with lots of features we could use. Could someone who have played it explain how it works? Or better yet: I will find it somewhere and buy it. It is pretty old, so I should be able to find it for nearly nothing. Besides, I actually miss playing computergames. I haven't really played any since I stopped playing SMAC about 6 months ago.
I will also, as I wrote in the other thread, download Starknights and see what it can offer.
Guildmaster:
I think that we could propably just use 1000 or 10,000 people as the basic pop unit. But I actually think that the demand for food should be far more advanced than you described. I agree that 1 food (or alternatively 10 food) per pop unit should be the basic. This will be the minimum amount. When the amount of food per pop drops below this the mortality of people will rise, and reach a level of 100% when people get no food at all for a turn. But when people become wealthier they will also eat more food. This can easily be seen just by looking around us. We don't just eat grain or potatoes. We eat MEAT! And meat is really not efficient when being produced. If you use the food you use to feat the animals with to eat, it is actually possible to feat 10 times more people, compared to when people eat the meat that comes from the animals. In the western world we have become wealthy enough to demand only the good parts of the animals. This means that when compared to the basic demand for food we eat at least 10 times more. Not in a way that we actually eat 10 times more food, but that the quality of the food we eat is better, which means that it will take more "basic food" to supply us.
This could all be done by having different grades of food, but since it all comes from the same basics I see no need for this. I therefor suggest that when the wealth rises the demand for food will too. But when people eat more than 1 food per pop unit their health will not rise. They will just become wealthier.
I think that the supply function should actually more depend on the money earned per produced food unit. If this amount is high then the supply will rise, if it is low then it will drop. As the demand rises when the price is low and drops when the price is high this will make sure that the supply follows the demand.
I actually think that I have the supply of all the goods pretty much figured out - I have a working system ready (although most of it is just inside my head right now). My main problem and concern at the moment is the demand function. When will people demand what, how will we determine what a rise in income will be used on etc. Especcially with the new demand groups and all (note that I support them, I think it's a great idea, I am just not sure if I understand them).
But you seem to have a pretty good idea on how to work out the demand of people. If you could describe this in details then I am pretty sure I could work out a good supply system to handle all the supply, investments etc in all sectors to work with it.
quote:
This would provide the necessary scenarios I think, like the great depression when food was plentiful but no one could afford to buy it so they all starved.
|
Yeah, this is one of the things that our economy model should be able to work out on it's own, meaning that we should have a realistic way of developing an economic recession. The economy model should have the mechanisms to by it self create a crisis when certain things happend - no special "crisis economy model" should take over just because a war starts.
Another crisis scenario - the oil crisis thing, where increased oil prices means that the costs to buy goods rise, meaning that the producers earn less money on their production, which causes the supply to drop, causing higher prices and therefor lower wealth to people. It also means that the producers will have less profit, causing less investment and therefor higher unemployment.
I think I can work out a way to make this scenario come true.
When we have the model pretty much set we should propably try to effect it in different ways, to see what happends when certain things happend. Thereby we can check if the effects are realistic.
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
ok i will try to describe the starknight economic system but instead of listing the whole thing i will only post a part...it is a space conquest game...in that game you build ships, but instead of being like civ and taking 50 shields to build a unit it takes actual resources
ok for simplicity's sake i am only going to go over part of the system...
lets say we want to build a shuttle (you can equip a shuttle with all kinds of goodies from shields to antimatter missles...it is only a chassis but it will suffice)
in order to build a shuttle we will need the following:
10 ship structures
a space yard
4 turns
ship structures are built out of the following:
3 x advanced chips
3 x aluminum
3 x carbon fiber
a factory
1 turn
advanced chips are made with the following:
10 x silicon (basic resource it is simply mined)
5 x gold (basic resource)
1 x germanium
an electronics plant
2 turns
germanium is produced with the following:
5 x Ge Oxide (basic resource)
5 x energy (resource produced by a solar power plant)
an electrolysis plant
1 turn
the interesting thing about this game is there is a character class profile called production (you choose a character class when you start the game, each has various abilities) if you only have one level in this class then even if you have 50 energy and 50 Ge Oxide you can only produce one unit of germanium a turn. however if you have leveled this ability up enough then if you had 50 energy and 50 Ge Oxide you could build 10 units of germanium in one turn
as you can see i only went down through one branch of this resource tree...but the thing is that to have an advanced economy you will have to have a very large industrial base or some means to buy what you need (you can buy any good you need from the AI or from other players so getting a bad start isn't fatal but it is a setback)
there are a number of planet types each that harvest the same type of resource (but have random amounts) and and each house the same structures (that you must build of course)so if you have a jungle world it will mine Ge Oxide and Al Oxide (stuff to make aluminum) both of which are produced in an electralysis plant
each planet has a demand for certain goods...sand planets which house electronics plants will demand the resources it takes to build advanced chips...now there is one of two ways to get goods from place to place, one is the oldest method in the book...you take your ship load up it's cargo bay with good and ferry them around to where they need to go...but there is also a second method...you have a fleet of freighters which automatically move goods between planets. for each good on a planet you can set a freight attitude for you. you can choose from the following:
store the good on planet
import goods to this planet
export goods from this planet
whats even better you can set the amount of good you want to export to a planet or import from it
the higher the export number is the less the good gets exported from your planet...the lower the level the more good get exported from your planet. it is exactly the opposite for importing goods (high number lots of imports, low number few imports)
freighters are a limited resource that you can build more of...without a number of freighters your empire's war machine will grind to a halt and your economy will suffer, your basic goal is to make sure that goods are moving about your empire, and even more importantly that vital industries get supplied with what they need...the player in effect mostly manages the trade routes
ok now i DO NOT endorse this as our final economic system however i do think that using basically the same system as the bones of our economic system would be perfect
i think that we have to add in some factors to our game to take these bones and put some flesh on them
*we should incorporate labor into our system
*each provice should generate demand and it is up to the player to try to set up trade routes to meet those demands
*the player should not have the ability to manually set up trade routes (except under communism)
*the player can effect trade routes by various means, some of which could be, signing trade alliances, blockading a trade route, taxing a trade route (can be done at either end of the pipe line), subsidizing a trade route (done frome the export site) but basically the player should be able to reward certian types of behaviors and punish other types, so although the player cannot directly influence the exact outcome, the player can certainly have an indirect influence
*we should include the quality of goods into our system
*we should make it so that resource centers need to be profitable, centers that are not profitable should go bankrupt
*labor should have a cost associated with it
*transportation should have a cost and a time associated with it
*transports should also have a need to stay profitable
so what do you think of that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
It seems this system is more of a supply route thing, we could most certainly use that aspect of it in our game as it seems to work pretty well. As for trade, howevever, I don't see anything here to truely represent it, so there is no real supply or demand other than what you need to build your army.
The main point if I make a point here is that sims have needs too. Obviously, the player creates a demand in that the player seeks out heavy industry capable of sustaining a war machine, so the demand for war machines is high. Sims have needs too, and somehow we need to factor this in our model.
So what do sims want? Well if I were a sim, the first thing I would want is something to eat (I'm hungry) and I suppose I would want pretty much the same thing I want now, a better way to get around, more money, cleaner water, bigger house, less rules, etc.
Ok the food thing:
There are really several levels of demand, first there is just enough food to survive. That could be as little as a bowl of rice each day. Well then there is a balanced diet that is just enough to be healthy, which is perhaps a little more variety, perhaps only 3 bowls of rice per day. And then we figure there is the actual ammt of food people really want to eat. And that, I think, is the real "demand" because beyond that level there won't be much food bought. That's why I modeled my figures as I did.
As for meat, stuff like that, what do you think about this:
If we use graded goods for food, the grade would represent the quality of diet the people are eating...
here is an example of a dinner course for each grade:
Grade A: Caviar, roast duck in menuere sauce served with a light ratatouille preceeded by freshly baked 7-grain bread... Grade A foods purchaced automatically create a +3 demand for C or better wine. Health +3
Grade B: Caesar Salad followed by Mashed potatoes & Gravy side of steamed Broccoli in garlic butter to go with the BBQ Pork Chops. Add french bread as an appetizer. Health +1
Grade C: Choice of fried chicken or catfish, boiled carrots and generic sliced bread. Health +0
Grade D: Burger and Fries no vegetables or side bread. Health -1 for lack of adequate variety
Grade F: Bread and Water. Health -3
I dunno. Of course there would be additional health consequences for eating below the required ammt... so if you're so poor you can only afford to buy half as much grade F food as you need food, not only do you have -3 health for inadequate nutrition, but also you have penalties for not eating enough bread and water.
Ok...
People should automatically buy food before they buy anything else, including housing. However, there are degrees. I do think that a person would be inclined to spend some money on housing even if the minimum food requirement is not met, say if they have just enough money to buy exactly 100% of the food they and their family needs but not a penny more, they might be inclined to spend 70% of this on food and the rest on housing, and thus meet both needs inadequately as opposed to leaving either one unmet. For this reason I think that we should assign a priority to each good in that this is the order they are met...
Ok elaborate:
Each good should have a percantage of the initial demand that MUST be met regardless. Say if there isn't enough money to go around and meet all of them to 100%, it will go down the list and meet each of them in order to the minimum ammt.
Ok example:
Food has priority 1, housing 2, transportation 3.
Food has a starve point 50%, housing has a minimum of 30% and transportation has a minimum of 10%. This means that the sim will try and meet at least 10% of the transportation demand even though it's not eating 100% of the food it needs to survive.
So it will spend it's $100 as follows, spend $50 on food, eating only 50% of what it needs to, then it will spend $30 on housing and another $10 on transportation meeting the bare minimum first. Then with the other $20 the sim will go back and spend it on food because that, again is the first priority, or better perhaps spend a percentage of the remainder.
I have to go now, will post more later
------------------
Peace and trust can win the day despite all your losing
-Led Zepplin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Food (elementary)
Housing
Luxury consumer goods (like wine and caviar)
Transportation
Communication
Education (primarily for the people's kids)
Longer lasting consumer goods (like clothes, furniture and such)
Entertainment?
Ok... I would take these and say my list would be the following:
Food
Housing
Communication
Transportation
Textiles & Manufactured Goods
Labor & Services
Specialty Luxury Goods
Food: Pretty self explanatory, I think.
Housing: From tepees and grass huts to Arcological Complexes, this covers the basic needs for people to have somewhere to live.
Communication: This is a fun one, because the degree of this demand being met can have a profound impact on the game being played in that if you're an ancient empire it could take several turns after you tell a unit to move it actually moves, it slows the information of diseases spreading, etc. It comes in the form of anything from foot messengers without writing (and then some with) to pony express and mobile phones, internet, etc.
Transportation: During ancient times, there isn't too much a need for this as everyone walks everywhere. Perhaps in the upper class there may be a demand for horses and buggys but that's about it. By the time you become industrialized, however, and railroads, cars, eventually planes-trains-and automobiles take rise it becomes a major MAJOR factor. Especially with the rise of larger cities and suburbs.
Textiles & Manufactured Goods: I renamed this from "longer lasting consumer goods" and it includes togas, blue jeans, cabinets, toys, stereos, etc.
Labor & Services: I took education and entertainment and made this category as it also includes medical personell, lawyers, engineers, etc. Basically this "good" is the trade of services by specialized skilled individuals. Remember this is a uber-category and everything underneath it is tracked separately.
Luxury Goods: People who have money like to spend money and what do you give to someone who has everything? Something to spend it on! So you become a wine connoisseur and start eating smoked Gouda and Meunster.
------------------
Peace and trust can win the day despite all your losing
-Led Zepplin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Korn:
Check out my economy model. It includes much more than a simple chessboard demo. I don't think creating an economy model like the one you describes is much or a problem. What is a problem, however, is creating a model where goods needs both capital and labour to be created, where we have 5 or 6 different classes, all with different incomes that all interact. Where we have the upper class providing capital and the working class providing labour, where we have a labour market where the cost of the labour effects the cost of the goods produced, which effects the amount of goods people can buy, which effects the cost of labour etc. Where we have to figure out a way to make trade and investment between provinces happend in a realistic way. Where an economic crisis can emerge.
This is why it is so incredibly dificult to create an economy model.
But maybe you are right about something: It might be good to make a simple demo of the economy model, actually program it and see how it works, and then add more depth and complexity to it. This would mean that there would be less blind discussion, where we are not really sure what things will do.
Either way, I agree with Guildmaster. What we need is to make sure that the majority of what happends in economy is not anything you do. It is something the people, as consumers do. Therefor the economy will have to work without player interference. It also means that there will be an enormeous amount of trade routes in the game, far more than it would be good to include on the map. The amount of trade should be so overwhelming that the player could not control it all. In stead the player should set the overall guidelines and make embargoes to his enemies.
quote:
1. people will spend no more than 60 dollars to buy fill demand A
|
We need to figure out a good way to determine exactly what people buy at certain levels of wealth. Right now it seems like we have each our way to do this.
Allow me to explain mine. It is really simple. It includes a list of goods, which makes it possible for the computer/us to always know what people will spend the next credit they earn on.
Example of a list:
0-7 credits are spent on food
8-9 credits are spent on housing
10-12 credits are spent on food
13-14 credits are spent on housing
15-17 credits are spent on textiles and manufactured goods
18-20 credits are spent on food
etc
These amounts are when the price on 1 item of each good is 10. The advantage of the system is that you can always see what people use their money for. So if some people have an income of 16 they will spend 10 credits on food (which would allow them to buy 1 food - the lowest level where they stay healthy), 4 credits on housing and 1 on textiles and manufactured goods. The list would simply go on and on as people's wealth rises, meaning that even when people earn 2060 credits per turn we will know excactly what they will buy. I am still not completely sure what to do when the price on the good changes. Of cause this will mean that the demand of the good will change too, but the rate at which this happends should be different for each good (the goods would have different elasticity). Due to this it will mean that people will end up spending a different amount of credits on a good when the price on it is 15 compared to when it's 10. And calculating this to determine this exactly is a rather complicated business. And with the graded goods we are adding things really start becoming complex.
quote:
Future Home of Comments
|
???
Guildmaster:
Food:
I think it should be more analogue than that. Even if people only get 40% of optimal level some of them will still survive. If they get 20% some, yet fewer, will survive. I think it would make sence to simply have 1 food per pop unit as the basic amount, where people are healthy, and then if people get 0.9 food the mortality will rise a bit, if they get 0.8 food it will rise some more etc. This will make the most sence. But I must still oppose to having graded food. The main point in having graded goods will be to let smaller civs have the option to specialize in very high grades, and therefor not face too much competition. This makes a lot of sence when it comes to heavy industrial things like cars, but since food is the most basic good to make, and since it does not require any heavy investments to produce having graded food will add nothing but unneeded complexity. I think it is a much better idea to simply have people eat more food when they become wealthier.
Demand generally:
I have described my demand system earlier in this post. See what you think!
quote:
Ok elaborate:
Each good should have a percantage of the initial demand that MUST be met regardless. Say if there isn't enough money to go around and meet all of them to 100%, it will go down the list and meet each of them in order to the minimum ammt.
|
This is the problem. There is no such thing as 100% when it comes to the demand of a good. In stead there are real numbers. This is what my demand system does.
What we need to have is a system where we know how much money people got, and how the supply graphs look, and then use this to determine what people buy, how much of it, and at what prices. And this is tricky.
Imagine that 10000 people have an income of 67 credits, the price on food is 9, the price on housing is 13 and the price on clothes is 11. What will people buy? And how much of it? My system, although not perfect, and although it does not include the graded goods or any other flashy tricks, can do this.
Demand groups:
Yeah, they sound reasonable. But I think that any good in a demand group should be somewhat replaceable with another good in the group. This means that people can replace cars with public transportation or wine with caviar (more or less). But you can't replace medical attention with education. I therefor think that there should be more groups in the service sectors. Otherwise the concept of groups would fade away.
------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Ok so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if lss than one food is supplied per population unit, there will be a starvation mortality rate which would reflect the inadequate health of a starving people. I can see that we both agree about this except I'm starting from the top of a demand with a maximum ammt of food anyone would reasonably consume and you're starting from the bottom with the minimum ammt of food everyone needs to consume.
It honestly doesn't matter to me which way we go with this, but I do think you will agree with me when I say that whichever way we go we should follow that same pattern in all trade goods.
Ok so I revise my categories. I didn't want too many trade categories because I was afraid that might bog down the computer but let's see here, exactly how many groups do we want?
So from my previous proposition, remove the service group and add:
Healthcare (incl. both goods & services)
Education (incl. both goods & services)
Skilled Labor
Unskilled Labor
Now in actuality it's quite reasonable to satisfy a need for more doctors by producing more drugs, that way we have what it is in the US where a doctor is nothing more than a prescription-writer. This also goes the other way too. It also includes healthcare costs (something you europeans don't have to worry about) but in game terms even if your gov't pays public healthcare you have to pay for it, while if you don't it will be paid for by the people in one way or another.
Same holds true for education...
But what I'm thinking now that I think about it is this:
I don't think any one thing should be able to satisfy an entire group of goods all by itself. As such, We need to add a consession...
For a group demand, if only one good in the group is supplied, a penalty is added to the supply meaning you have to oversupply to meet the demand. This actually makes sense to me as if there are NO cars in europe at all you would need a whole lot more public transit than is normally reasonable, just like if there were NO public busses in the US the ammt of cars would be even more rediculous than it already is. So say you have the following goods in the transportation group:
Airplanes 0
Trains 0
Cars 3290
Busses 0
You ideally want at least four different goods meeting at least 5% each of the total demand, perhaps you might have 5% of three goods and 85% of another, and you could do that without a penalty but the further you stray from this you incur a larger penalty.
This penalty is negated if there are less than four goods in a group.
Also, say in the healthcare group you have the following goods:
Acupuncturists 10
Physicians 2
Surgeons 23
Drugs 15
Medical Equipment 5
Note that the first three in that group directly affect the employment rate of a province because they are all service personell. They are still treated trade good, because you can import/export doctors by having them train in other countries/provinces much like people in US colleges came to study medicine here with the intention of practicing in their home country. The US is "exporting" those doctors while India or whomever is "importing" them. This is all, of course, in relation to the education demand. Perhaps instead you could treat this as exporting and importing education instead of medical personell. I think it should count as both.
Bye for now more later
------------------
Peace and trust can win the day despite all your losing
-Led Zepplin
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2000 09:55
|