22-06-2001 05:33									#1
	Economy Model Tired of ads?

I KNOW I'm going to draw fire on this but...
your economy model seems... quite wrong in places. I can see the intent. But it just doesn't seem right, and overly complex. Maybe I've missed some key concepts...

Feel free to scream, rant, or just chuckle and educate me.

Ok:
You have two kinds of goods... basic (survival) and luxury. Basic goods people will do whatever they need to get them. Cut back on luxury spending? Sure. Steal from their neighbor? You betcha. Riot and take from the noble? If desperate enough!

Luxury? Those needs are always met after basic.

Clothing isn't a basic need. People will choose to eat over buying NEW shoes.

A basic need is something that the people, ANY people, will make trouble over. Food and water are those two things. Clothing CAN become a survival need, if the area is inhospitable. Otherwise, it's just nice to have.

Ok... too many calculations... You might want to look at cellular automata for handling supply, demand and the movement between. If you are not already using it already. It's good and quick, as I understand it.

Now, one of my dislikes of your economic model paper... you are evening out the price. Don't do that. If City PepperWitch produces Black Pepper and Salt, (A luxury good and a basic good), PepperWitch will have a LOW price for both. The further you move away, the higher the price. At some point, it will be worth a person's time to go to PepperWitch, buy Salt, and travel home, selling it at a good market. (That's your high demand prices will encourage more of supply... GREED!) That's all cool. But even in a REGION, the price is going to be higher the more distance between source and market. Only competition will drive it down... and there just wasn't much competition to speak of as we think of it until the modern age.

labor... the basic unit of labor should be one man. You are GOING to need slavery, as it was the basis of HISTORICAL industry, until quite recently... when viewed throughout time. The common worker didn't exist in most cultures. Machines only came along to help replace laborers when the need for work was greater then the available work pool. Where there is a need, a way to fill it was looked for. Where there wasn't, noone looked around for a way to fill it. Historically speaking.

Where is the population model? That's going to drive all other models... disease, economy, etc... Your people model is the key to all the following...

And 10,000 people? That's one metroplex! Shouldn't you be looking at the start more then the middle or end of your time scale?

Sorry... I was going for a nicer introduction to the group, but the economy model just got on my nerves. Maybe it's just that kind of day. Apologies to those I've offended... but it just is overly complex.

At WHAT point in history are their "merchants" as a profession? In ancient times, the peaceful nomads tended to be the cities links in merchandising, didn't they?

How does this model address limited amounts? And recycling of products? Say... horses. let's say an ancient agreian society, with a religious guardian class (your military and government). They use horses for the military (light cavalry), hunting, and agriculture. Horses leave for several turns at 1 year=1 turn. How are you modelling horse production? A plow horse just can't be sold to the military as a lt cav mount, although it can do just fine as a pack animal. Maybe this isn't the level of detail you guys wanted to be at, but I'm curious HOW you see this fitting into your model. Horses and animals are long standing goods in history.

	22-06-2001 07:51									#2
	By the way... Get a bigger avatar today!

Please DON'T be too offended with me. When I first start considering a programming project, I tend to need to be sold on why one approach over another. It's how I just do things. No offense is meant. But until I understand, I tend to question everything... and why is it that way, and why you think it's better that way... I do accept "just cause" though.

	22-06-2001 18:35									#3
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

We are making it all to "stand the test of time". Perhaps not all models are going to be best possible(*), but they should be consistent with each other, and offer a good overall game. So you are more then wellcome to point out any holes in any model you see, so we may patch them together

quote: Ok... too many calculations... You might want to look at cellular automata for handling supply, demand and the movement between. If you are not already using it already. It's good and quick, as I understand it.

no we are not using it (cellular a.). The economy model is best understood by amjayee and Joker who worked on it in the first place. It looks complex at this phase, but it is not done yet. The goal is to have a realistic and yet fun/simple for the player system.
The thing is that the more "simple" economic rules we put in (realistic supply and demand, realistic earnings, realistic taxation, etc) more complex the system gets. A simple supply and demand system depends on a lot of things to work properly.

quote: If City PepperWitch produces Black Pepper and Salt, (A luxury good and a basic good), PepperWitch will have a LOW price for both. The further you move away, the higher the price

I agree. That is one of the basic economic laws we try to simulate.

quote: Machines only came along to help replace laborers when the need for work was greater then the available work pool.

or they were less expensive then a worker. I agree that we should have slave labour in, and machine labour in.

quote: Where is the population model? That's going to drive all other models... disease, economy, etc... Your people model is the key to all the following...

I dont know where it is, but it has been discussed
Yes, it is the key to everything. We have nailed it down... but there are some issues left that need to be solved, related to number of tiles.

quote: At WHAT point in history are their "merchants" as a profession? In ancient times, the peaceful nomads tended to be the cities links in merchandising, didn't they?

no, not really
But not to get in a historical discussion, I think merchants have a good gameplay reason. Trade is going to be very important in the game, so the merchant class will fit in well.
There are some classes which have simmilarily low percentage in pop, like priests, who we also plan to have in.

quote: Maybe this isn't the level of detail you guys wanted to be at, but I'm curious HOW you see this fitting into your model. Horses and animals are long standing goods in history.

as you will notice, the level of detail tends to be pretty high around here
about horses I havent thought, but maybe someone else can answer it, or just go ahaid and say what you would like to see done about it.


* as said before, there are much more sophisticated war games (Military model), economic games (Economy model), urban planner games (Region model) and so on, then we want to make. Instead we try for a grand scale strategy like civ, plus provide more realism and entertainment then civ. Sometimes we will have to go to great detail for this but hopefully we can pull it out without boring the hell out of players

	23-06-2001 00:16									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

Vet... Cool. The only thing I see at this point, PLAYWISE, is the player getting bored during turn resolutions. The computer does all the scut work of calculations. And more sand will just mean it calculates that much faster (in other words, it just means you need a decent processor).

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

	25-06-2001 04:56									#5
	Put an end to popups!

I haven't read the model myself (and I've been around for half a year now... shame on me!:rolleyes), but I think that from players point of view, economy should mean two things:

1. Prices are not constant. Some goods can be produced cheaper than others, based on available resources and competition.
   
2. Player doesn't have full control over economy like in most civ-games. Private sector exists.
   

Other than that, I have not given too much thought to economy. But I do like your approach, and I don't think anyone here will be offended by constructive criticism. Keep pointing the errors in our wicked ways, and perhaps our designs will evolve to something more robust.

	11-07-2001 02:41									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Can't believe i haven't seen this thread untill now.

As always you are making some very valid points. And to some extend I agree with you. I have made the econ model overcomplicated in some areas, and it will be updated when I am ready for it. The thing is that although it will be simplified in the next version I am still starting at university september 1st, studying - you guessed it - economy. And I am certain I will learn a whole lot of things that will mean making the next econ model much easier. Plus I will know what I should focus on, and what I shouldn't.

The big dilemma regarding economy is that although it should not get too complicated, it still has to be considerably more complex than most other games (Civ2, Imp2 etc), since our pop model is, and should be, much more complex.

In other words, when we use a real population, and when they live and die depending on whether they get the food they need, then we can not have an economy model where having access to iron lets you build tanks, without more complexity there.

We need supply/demand. We need prices of some sort, and we need money. Plus we need things like productivity, raw materials etc etc.

This all very soon makes the model very complex. And I don't mind complexity. As long as it does not take the computer more than 2 seconds to make all the calculations.

Actually my two top priorities for the economy model is that it is as realistic as possible (meaning that when something happens the effects throughout the system are realistic) and that the player feels involved in the model (so he can do things, like getting control of raw materials, raise the tarriffs or make trade embargos and SEE results, which could be slightly more extreme than they would be in reality).

I think I am going to present a ressource kinda model (the basics of an economy model) with a region sort of model within the next few days (tomorrow I'm going surfing all day, so it will propably not be untill thursday). Not anything final, more of a thing we can discuss.

	11-07-2001 18:09									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by The Joker The big dilemma regarding economy is that although it should not get too complicated, it still has to be considerably more complex than most other games (Civ2, Imp2 etc), since our pop model is, and should be, much more complex. In other words, when we use a real population, and when they live and die depending on whether they get the food they need, then we can not have an economy model where having access to iron lets you build tanks, without more complexity there. We need supply/demand. We need prices of some sort, and we need money. Plus we need things like productivity, raw materials etc etc. Actually my two top priorities for the economy model is that it is as realistic as possible (meaning that when something happens the effects throughout the system are realistic) and that the player feels involved in the model (so he can do things, like getting control of raw materials, raise the tarriffs or make trade embargos and SEE results, which could be slightly more extreme than they would be in reality). I think I am going to present a ressource kinda model (the basics of an economy model) with a region sort of model within the next few days (tomorrow I'm going surfing all day, so it will propably not be untill thursday). Not anything final, more of a thing we can discuss.

Please Joker Do!

In my opinion the Economy part of GGS is at the moment most in need of improvement and development. I have followed the discussion in your previous thread and saw some development in it, yet many very fundamental issues haven't been discussed at all -to my knowledge at least!

Thus far it has not been decided which raw materials will be represented in the game. I suppose GGS will not copy the three types ot resources in CivII (i.e.food, production and trade), because that was totally ridiculous! After all, one can only trade when you produce something.
And it is not the building of a Cathedral that gives religion influence over the loyalty of your population. You need priests, religious ceremonies, sacrifices and a sanctuary, with or without some building on it. In the long run, feeding and paying your priesthood will cost many times more than the building of that prestigious Cathedral. Nor will only one 'holy place' suffice of course!

Something else most absurd in Civ was the total absence of any private sector. Actually all government types were completely Communistic with more control over the economy than that enjoyed by Stalin and Mao! In my opinion the Caravans -I know you hate them- were the only somewhat realistic element in the economics of the game. Yet logic in this case didn't extend far: without having access to Coal or Oil you could still industrialize.

In my opinion, Imperialism did a lot better in many respects. At least you needed raw materials to produce something and you could trade with the other states. And very important: Demand and Supply influenced prices! In Civ having enormous gold reserves were a source of strength. In reality it should harm the economy, because without a lubricant -money- trade will suffer.

I hope you do not mind when I do add some quotations on Agricultural Society:

'Man needs capital to trap energy. And still more capital to exploit obtained energy for productive purposes. Capital accumulation is a necssary condition for any society's survival and progress. And, conversely, any society's survival and progress is in a way a measure of that society's capacity to accumulate capital and use it efficiently.

There is definitely a correlation between capital and output. In a hunting economy, the capital needs are very limited: a few bones -used as tools or as weapons- and (in more developed cultures) bows, arrows, and stone implements. In an agricultural economy the capital needed is of quite a different quality and magnitude: stocks of seeds, fertilizers, ploughs and other implements, draught animals, silos, mills, boats, wagons, and so forth. In an industrial economy, capital needs are still more complex and much larger: machinery, railways, chemical and atomic plants, dams, research laboratories, and so forth. The greater the production, the greater the volume of capital needed. On the other hand, it is also true that the greater the production, the greater the possibility of capital formation.

Capital is made possible by saving. If resources are consumed they are obviously not available for capital cumulation. If you eat your cow today you cannot hope to have your milk tomorrow. Only by forgoing present consumption can a society cumulate capital. It is generally admitted that in any agricultural society, given the low per capita income, per capita saving is -in absolute terms- rather low. This circumstance is badly aggravated by the way saved resources are used. Temples, pyramids, mansions, jewellery, warfare, and so forth generally absorb a large quota of resources squeezed out of current income. Furthermore, pre-industrial societies are typically characterized by inadequate transport facilities. Mass transportation is generally non-existent and communications are costly and insecure. Consequently any pre-industrial society must keep inventories in much larger proportion to current production than any industrial society does. This is true for any type of commodity, but particularly so for basic necessities. Such inventories are a form of investment, i.e., of capital accumulation, but with a 'stabilizing' character. Generally investment of a 'developmental' character is very small in any agricultural society.'
(source: C.M.Cipolla:'The Economic History of World Population',1962)

If there is any information with which I could help you , please ask me about it! Economics are not my subject, but I am certainly able to look up reliable information about Economic History, especially of early modern times. Unfortunately for the older periods we do not possess many hard facts, though our knowledge is still increasing.

Sincere regards and good luck!

S.Kroeze

	13-07-2001 03:31									#8
	Ressources and goods Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We need a list of goods that we are using. So I have looked at Amjayee's original list (which is really old) and made a new one, using the best from that list.

As with the terrain types this is by no means final. But I think that with a little discussion it could become so within a fairly limited amount of time. It's not hard, we just have to figure out what goods we want.

I think we all agree that somewhere between 30 and 100 goods is best.

Here are mine:

Raw materials (things found directly on the land):

Meat
Grain
Vegetables (I have decided to divide food into these to allow a more complex food system)
Wood
Stone
Iron ore
Cobber ore (Although tin is required to make bronze, which is something we should have, I still do not think that we should have it as a ressource, since the former is it's only use. In stead I believe we should just allow cobber to be refined into bronze)
Aluminium ore
Uranium ore
(Rare metals ore) (for use in industry)
Gold ore(including all precious metals)
Coffee
Tea
Spices
(Hides/Fur)
Wool
Silk
Cotton
Wine
(Water)
Oil
Coal


Things used in production:

Chemicals
(Timber) (I am not sure whether we should have this AND wood - perhabs it is not required)
Plastics
Cheramics
Electronics
Iron (again I am not sure if mining the metals should be seperated from refining them)
Gold
Steel
Bronze
Aluminium
Uranium
(Semiconductors) (perhabs it can just be put into electronics)
(Superconductors)
(Antimatter) (far future)
Machinery


Refined consumer goods:

Clothing
Housing
Computers
Automobiles
Consumer electronics (TV's, radios etc)
(Software)
Long lasting consumer goods (futniture, kitchen stuff etc)
Medicine


Services (should be divided into different services - services do represent a very large part of the GNP of modern countries)


What else should we have?

Can anyone find a list of what people spend their money on today, divided into sectors? Then we would be able to use them. To be included a good has to either be a considerable part of GNP at some point in history (like automobiles), or have a large importance through some special feature (like Uranium).

I think we should decide on the goods, plus the map and the terrain types some time soon, so we will at least have that covered. So tell me something, fellows!

	13-07-2001 13:54									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A few suggestions:

quote: Vegetables

I suppose, but they'd have to be called something else. The word 'vegetables' sounds unprofessional. Some further subclassification might not hurt.

quote: Cobber ore

Agreed. You mean copper, right?

quote: (Rare metals ore)

I don't think they're necessary. You could, of course, classify Uranium and whatnot under them.

quote: Wine

This should come under vegetables, perhaps?

quote: (Timber)

As you said, timber is wood.

quote: Cheramics

I'm not sure what they are, but they sound useful .

quote: Cotton

Perhaps 'fabrics' would be a better word. There are other plants, too, like jute.

	13-07-2001 20:35									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks for the responce.

Vegetables:
You are propably right. But do you agree with me in dividing food into a few (3, perhabs?) sorts?

CoPPER:
Yeah, I mean copper.

Rare metals:
You may very well be right. I think Uranium should be included, but Rare metals can be removed.

Wine:
Hmm. I think it is pretty much a luxury product, that qualifies to stand on it's own. But I am not sure if it is important enough...

Timber/Wood:
Right. Timber is wood.

Cheramics:
High tech material, used for the space shuttle and other advanced stuff. Again I am not sure if we should have it.

Cotton:
Yes, we could use fabrics in stead. But wont it make sence to have animal fabrics (Hides/Furs and Wool) and plant fabrics as two different types? Of cause the end result is pretty much the same, so I'm not sure.

Nothing else? Suggestions for new materials or services, perhabs?

	14-07-2001 01:02									#11
	Re: Ressources and goods Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The Joker We need a list of goods that we are using. So I have looked at Amjayee's original list (which is really old) and made a new one, using the best from that list. As with the terrain types this is by no means final. But I think that with a little discussion it could become so within a fairly limited amount of time. It's not hard, we just have to figure out what goods we want. I think we all agree that somewhere between 30 and 100 goods is best. Can anyone find a list of what people spend their money on today, divided into sectors? Then we would be able to use them. To be included a good has to either be a considerable part of GNP at some point in history (like automobiles), or have a large importance through some special feature (like Uranium). I think we should decide on the goods, plus the map and the terrain types some time soon, so we will at least have that covered. So tell me something, fellows!

So far I have found a plan, classifying different economic groups:

0. Food and Live animals
Live animals
Meat and meat preparations (!)
Dairy products and eggs (!)
Fish and fish preparations (!)
Cereals and cereal preparations (!)
Fruit and vegetables (!)
Sugar, sugar preparations, honey
Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices
Feeding stuff for animals
Miscellaneous food preparations

1. Beverages and Tobacco
Beverages (!)
Tobacco and tobacco manufactures

2. Crude Materials, Inedible, except Fuels
Hides, skins and furskins, undressed
Oil seeds, oil nuts and oil kernels
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed)
Wood and cork (!)
Pulp and waste paper
Textile fibres and their waste
Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (excluding fuels)
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap (!)
Crude animal and vegetable materials, not elsewhere specified

3. Mineral Fuels, Lubricants and Related Materials
Coal, coke and briquettes
Petroleum and petroleum products (!)
Gas, natural and manufactured
Electric current

4. Animal and Vegetable Oils and Fats
Animal oils and fats
Vegetable oils and fats (!)
Processed oils and fats

5. Chemicals
Organic chemicals (!)
Inorganic chemicals
Dyeing, tanning and colouring materials
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (!)
Essential oils and perfume; toilet and cleansing preparations (!)
Fertilizers, manufactured
Primary plastics (!)
Non-primary plastics (!)
Other chemical products (!)

6. Manufactured Goods Classified Chiefly by Material
Leather and dressed furs
Rubber (!)
Wood and cork (excluding furniture)
Paper, paperboard (!)
Textile yarn, fabrics (!)
Non-metallic mineral manufactures (!)
Iron and steel (!)
Non-ferrous metals (!)
Manufactures of metal, not elsewhere specified (!)

7. Machinery and Transport Equipment
Power generating machinery (!)
Machinery for particular industries (!)
Metal working machinery
General industrial machinery (!)
Office machinery (!)
Telecommunications and sound recording apparatus (!)
Electrical machinery (!)
Road vehicles (!!*)
Other transport equipment (!)

8. Miscellaneous Manufactured Articles
Prefabricated buildings, sanitary, plumbing, heating and lighting fixtures
Furniture
Travel goods, handbags and similar articles
Clothing (!)
Footwear
Scientific instruments (!)
Photographic apparatus, optical goods, clocks (!)
Miscellaneous manufactured articles, not elsewhere specified (!)

(source: 'The Statesman's Yearbook 1998-99', ed. B.Turner)

I wouldn't suggest to copy this list, yet it might help sorting out our economic goods. All goods that are important in the current British economy (imports/exports) I have marked with a !.
I might also point out that many of these goods weren't produced at all before industrilization. Some came into being still later. And the relative importance of most agricultural products declined, when industrialization got going.
Once the economic importance of Animals, Furniture, Sugar and/or Salt was huge!

Here is a list of important goods in the current economy of the USA:
Corn
Meat and preparations
Soybeans
Vegetables and fruit
Wheat

ADP equipment, office machinery (!)
Airplanes
Airplane parts
Chemicals - organic
Chemicals - plastics
Chemicals - other
Clothing
Electrical machinery (!)
Footwear
Furniture and parts
General industrial machinery
Iron and steel mill products
Metal manufactures
Paper and paperboard
Power generating machinery
Scientific instruments
Specialized industrial machinery
Telecommunications equipment
Textile yarn, fabric
Toys/games/sporting goods
Vehicles/new cars (!)
Vehicles/trucks
Vehicles/parts

Crude oil (!)
Petroleum preparations

Fish and fish preparations
Cork, wood, lumber
Cigarettes
(source: 'The Statesman's Yearbook 1998-99', ed. B.Turner)

Here are some goods that in my opinion should definitely be added to 'our' list:
Water, a basic physiological need
Electricity
Oil
Gas
Coal
Firewood

Slaves
Women

The Major Five Domestic Animals:
1. Sheep
2. Goat
3. Cow, ox, cattle
4. Pig
5. Horse

Vehicles
Ships

Bricks (essential building material)
Salt (important for preserving food)
Weaponry
Writing

I like the introduction of Wine. It is a luxury article indeed, like Silk!

Per cent composition of private consumption in selected countries, 1950

____________________          U.S.     France

Food                            22.1     38.4

Alcoholic beverages              1.4       9.4

Tobacco                          1.5       1.2

Clothing and household textiles 13.7      11.3

Housing                          3.7        4.6

Fuel, light, and water           6.4        3.0

Household goods                 15.4        7.8

Household and personal services  2.6        2.8

Transport equipment and service 15.2       4.8

Communications services          1.1       0.4

Recreation and entertainment     5.4       8.0

Health                           3.4       4.7

Education                        2.6       3.1

Miscellaneous                    5.5       0.6 

	14-07-2001 21:42									#12
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Thanks for your input, S. Kroeze! This is very useful.

So refining the list:

Since some goods have a lot of different uses I have divided the goods into groups depending on how they are made:

Goods found on the ground

(Live animals) (I am not sure if I want this to be a trade good - for simplicity I think there should rather just be a "present" or "not present" for each animal on each hex (or area/region, whatever))

Meat

Cereals (I hope this means grain products, and not, well, Corn Flakes...)

Fruit and vegetables (yeah, but could we find a better word for it?)

Sugar (perhabs?)

Coffee

Tea

Cocoa

Spices

Tobacco

Hides

(Crude rubber)

Wood

Pulp and waste paper (hmm... is this used for anything?)

(Olives)

Slaves (Although this has to be handled differently from the othe goods, since it involves, well, people - it can be compared with Machinery)

(Women)


Goods found in the ground

Gold ore

Iron ore

Copper ore

Aluminium ore

Uranium ore

Coal

(Gas)

(Salt)

Oil


Goods produced from other goods, or on their own

(Beverages) (is beer and Coke important enough to be a good?)

Petroleum

Electricity

(Animal oils) (not really that important, is it?)

(Vegetable oils) (ditto)

Chemicals

Medicine

(Consumer chemicals)

(Fertilizers)

Plastics

(Paper)

Iron

Gold

Aluminium

Uranium

Steel

Machinery (different types? I think I have a fairly good idea on how to handle these in the econ model)

Cars

Computers

Electronics

Consumer electronics

Housing

Clothing

Long lasting consumer goods (including furniture)

(Airplanes)

(Ships)

(Scientific instruments)

Household goods? (what does this mean, really?)

Pottery/Ceramics (there is in fact a huge difference between the two - pottery is ancient, ceramics is a hightech material used in space shuttles etc)

(Weapons) (for private use)


Services

Education

Medical services

Security services

Smaller consumer services

(Accounting and business services)


How does this work? I hope we can decide on some goods soon.

Last edited by The Joker on 14-07-2001 at 22:16

	14-07-2001 22:03									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: (Women?)

I guess they will be pretty important for any civ
...but after I laughed my ass off I seriousely think women should not be a trade good or a resource or anything. They simply consist population (which we should not differentiate by gender - WARNING, do not reply to differentiation of population here - it is not the topic of this discussion! )

	15-07-2001 00:34									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I can't say I do anything but agree with VetLegion here. Honestly, women can't be considered a trade good. It is just too far out. Pretty entertaining concept, though.

	15-07-2001 03:07									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Joker (Women)

Man would they be expensive all the time!

	15-07-2001 05:26									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Joker Since some goods have a lot of different uses I have divided the goods into groups depending on how they are made: Goods found on the ground (Live animals) (I am not sure if I want this to be a trade good - for simplicity I think there should rather just be a "present" or "not present" for each animal on each hex (or area/region, whatever)) Meat Cereals (I hope this means grain products, and not, well, Corn Flakes...) Fruit and vegetables (yeah, but could we find a better word for it?) Sugar (perhabs?) Coffee Tea Cocoa Spices

I think you exaggerate the importance of these luxury goods.

quote: Tobacco Hides (Crude rubber) Wood Pulp and waste paper (hmm... is this used for anything?)

I guess one can make newsprint and other writing materials out of it, perhaps it can be an ingredient for some chemicals. It is definitely not found 'on the ground'!

quote: (Olives) Slaves (Although this has to be handled differently from the othe goods, since it involves, well, people - it can be compared with Machinery) (Women) I can't say I do anything but agree with VetLegion here. Honestly, women can't be considered a trade good. It is just too far out. Pretty entertaining concept, though.

'Give up this bitter animosity. Agamemnon is ready to make you ample compensation the moment you relent. If you will listen, I will enumerate the gifts he destined for you in his hut. Seven tripods, untarnished by the flames; ten talents of gold; twenty cauldrons of gleaming copper; and twelve powerful, prize-winning race-horses. He said that with nothing more than the prizes they had won for him, a man would not be badly off or short of precious gold. In addition, he will give you seven women, skilled in the fine crafts, Lesbians whom he chose for their exceptional beauty as his part of the spoils when you yourself captured the city of Lesbos. These you shall have from him, and with them the woman he took from you, the daughter of Briseus. Moreover, he will give you his solemn oath that he has never been in her bed and slept with her, as a man does, your highness, with a woman. All these gifts shall be put in your hands at once. Later, if the gods permit us to sack the great city of Priam, you must come in with us when we are sharing out the spoils, load your ship with gold and bronze to your heart's content, and pick out twenty Trojan women for yourself, the loveliest you can find after Argive Helen.'
(source: Homer: 'Iliad', transl. by E.V.Rieu,1950)

Generally I think you tend to underestimate the importance of the agricultural sector. Did you notice that in France 1950, Food and Alcoholic beverages made up almost half of all private consumption? Before 1800 Food and beverages will have been the dominant part of all consumption by a large margin everywhere.

Here is another quote about present-day Denmark:

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Electricity Production (1996) 45,387m. kWh. In 1996 some 3,500 wind turbines produced 4% of output.

Oil and Gas Oil production was (1996) 10.3m. tonnes. Prduction of natural gas was (1996) 6.3m. cu. metres.

Agriculture Land ownership is widely distributed. In June 1995 there were 64,426 holdings with at least 5 ha of agricultural area (or at least a production equivalent to that from 5 ha of barley). There were 12,118 small holdings (with less than 10 ha), 34,642 medium-sized holdings (10-50 ha) and 18,205 holdings with more than 50 ha.
There were 23,257 agricultural workers in 1996.
In 1996 the cultivated area was (in 1,000 ha): Grain, 1,545; pulses, 69; root crops, 154; other crops, 194; gren fodder and grass, 563; set aside 191; total cultivated area, 2716.

--1996--       Area (1,000 ha)       Production (in 1,000 tonnes)

Wheat            681               4,758

Rye              72                 343

Barley           738              3,953

Oats              32                 164

Potatoes           43             1,617

Other root crops         111          5,656

Agriculture, fishing and quarrying        41,574

Agriculture, horticulture and forestry     29,190

Fishing                      2,479

Mining and quarrying             10,905

Branch of industry        Number of employees

Food, beverages and tobacco          93,105

Textiles, wearing apparel, leather     22,428

Wood and wood products              16,281

Paper products                   62,960

Refined petroleum products             991

Chemicals and man-made fibres        28,069

Rubber and plastic products          21,365

Non-metallic mineral products        20,938

Basic metals                     58,010

Machinery and equipment              76,294

Electrical and optical equipment       46,239

Transport equipment                23,066

Furniture, other manufactures        35,679

Total manufacturing:               505,425 

Leading commodities                       Imports     Exports

Live animals, meat and meat preparations      2,867     24,672

Dairy products, eggs                        1,602     10,089

Fish, crustaceans, etc., and preparations     7,476     13,251

Cereals and cereal preparations               1,991      5,673

Sugar, sugar preparations and honey            1,230      1,778

Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, etc.             2,277        773

Feeding stuff for animals                   4,483      3,664

Wood and cork                                3,817        810

Textile fibres, yarns, fabrics, etc.           6,729        727

Mineral fuels, lubricants, etc.               9,737     12,889

Medicine and pharmaceutical products           5,215     13,930

Fertilizers, etc.                             1,034        409

Metals, manufacture of metals                21,111     14,316

Machinery, electrical, equipment, etc.,      64,570     67,521

Transport equipment                          21,306     13,090

	15-07-2001 12:11									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: quote: Coffee Tea Cocoa Spices I think you exaggerate the importance of these luxury goods.

Spices and other luxury goods were quite important in ancient times, someone or the other (I can't remember who) brought pepper from India and sold it for 20 times the price in Venice or somewhere. I think that caused a conflict over trade routes.

	15-07-2001 21:24									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I think you exaggerate the importance of these luxury goods.

You mean Sugar, Coffee, Tea, Cocoa and Spices? Or just some of them? So you think it should be replaced by a "Luxury farming products" good? Perhabs you are right. On the other hand Nath disagrees...

What about Tobacco and Crude rubber, then? Does Crude rubber (or rubber in general) even have the importance to be included?

Pulp and waste paper:
Yeah, you are right. I just wasn't sure where to put it. I don't really think we should include it, though. Do you?

The Iliad:
HA! I just read that passage a few weeks ago in the Danish translation! It's all the stuff Agamemnon wants to give Achilleus if he will rejoin their little gang. I still, however, think using women as a trading good is a bit silly. It never had any importance to anyone except the very top social class, and it was never traded in very large quantities. Do you strongly disagree?

Food and beverages:
You are propably right. So Beverages should be a good, along with both Wine and Drinking water. Do you think that grain products should be divided into several types (wheat, corn, barley etc)? Doesn't this add too much complexity (especially when designing and programming the engine that takes care of it all) with no gameplay advantage and only little increase in realism?

Denmark:
Nice! I see where you are getting at. But please do consider my note from above. And in the list of employees in different sectors you are only including the manufacturing sector, totalling to around half a million workers out of a total labour force of 2,5 or 3 million. This is why we have to include the service sector as well (and divide it into different service types), since it employs the majority of workers in modern first world countries.

Olive oil:
Yes, perhabs it has enough importance to be included.

Pottery:
Likewise.

Paper:
Hmm... Well, Yeah. You're right.

Ore vs Metal:
Great you think so! That will simplify things!

Household goods:
Good! So these will replace Long lasting consumer goods.

Weapons:
The weapons for units will be goods as well. But they will be different. The total equipment for one unit of each type (keep in mind that there will be lots of different units types) will be one good that can be traded and produced as all other goods. So unit equipment for different units will be different goods. Add men (and training if you want) and you have a unit. However, these goods will not be demanded by anyone except governments, and perhabs partisan movements. Weapons, on the other hand, will be demanded by normal people.

Recreation and entertainment:
Good idea!

Water:
Sorry. I forgot to include it. It should be and will be, however.

	16-07-2001 22:53									#19
	drugs & stuff Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ok, this may sound like a silly addition to the mix, but shouldn't we at least consider adding illegal narcotics as trade goods and let the civs (players?) handle them accordingly?

Of course there were the opium trade the Britain enforced on China, the coccaine cartels of South America, etc. Funny thing is, some things can fuel an economy even if the player is trying to eliminate them.
Or then are they really trying?

Ok I've been gone too long, things have changed a lot for me around here...

	17-07-2001 19:00									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Heh, I had lots of comments to make, but S.Kroeze already made most of them, and lots more.

I think we should have only one good for cereal products to simplify, including all those wheat, corn, barley, rice etc. They are after all quite similar to each other, economically speaking.

Vegetable and animal oil was very important in ancient times. It was used for cooking, fuel, for making soap, and possibly many other uses I'm not aware of... olive oil was the most important, but perhaps we should have a general word, like "natural oil" or something? On the other hand, oil is quite a natural product in any case... any better word?

I agree with Nath that many luxury agricultural products should be added. Their trade volume might not be very large, but they are important nevertheless. I think silk, tobacco, sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, spices and salt will quite well justify their place.

Silk was mentioned, then I think fabrics is needed, and leather. Would these be enough? Leather would include hides, furs and the kind?

Paper is important, yes. Perhaps we should combine all paper-like products into one? Like, papyrus, parchment, early papers, and modern papers? And there would be many ways to produce it?

I think I had also more comments, but I have forgotten them. Perhaps someone should make a new list, and we could see if we agree on it?

	02-08-2001 19:48									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Try to classify not by purpose or whatever, but by means of production; Growing goods (vegetables), Animal goods, Mined goods, Light manufactured, Heavy manufactured.
Parallel to that, do the classification of purpose and the nessecity. That way you have a three-coord identifier for each good. For example, grain will be growing-food-basic, while wine will be light-manufactured-food-luxury.
Light manufactured is anything that can be produced before the industrial revolution, and therefore you don't need a biggie plant for it. Although textile, for example is both light- and heavy-manufactured - but since it *can* be manufactured using non-industrial tools, I'd classify it as light. Basically, every light-manufactured product is made in biggie plants nowadays.

	04-08-2001 02:15									#22
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Pretty good idea, Mark!

And one more thing: I know I have asked you programmers this once before, a long time ago. But I have to do so again. How much computer power does it take to calculate the square root of a number? Is it a really time consuming process, or is it something that I can use as a really basic thing in the econ model? It is just that they fit perfectly for a whole lot of great things.

	05-08-2001 02:02									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Though I think we are moving in the direction of consensus, I would like to make my position clearer. When I would be forced to select a list of only ten commodities, what choice would I make? After some thinking I came to this list (the order is arbitrary):
1 Water
2 Game/domesticated animals
3 Fish
4 Grain
5 Dairy products
6 Clothing
7 Building materials/housing
8 Wood/fuel
9 Metals
10 Slaves

Because by far the longest part of this game will take place before the Industrial Revolution, I think we should emphasize those commodities which were important under all circumstances.
Water, Game, Fish, Clothing and Wood were already in use before the 'Agricultural Revolution'.

'In all agricultural societies of our past we find that, mainly because of limitations of energy sources known and exploited, the great mass of people could hardly afford to satisfy anything but the more elementary needs, food, clothing, and housing, and even these at rather unsatisfactory levels. Correspondingly, most of the available resources are employed in agriculture, textile manufacture, and building.

Of these three sectors, agriculture is always by far the predominant one. It absorbs the greatest quota of available capital and labour. Further, it somehow represents the pivotal point around which all other activities tend to revolve. Building makes a large use of timber. And textile manufactures uses materials -wool or linen, cotton or silk- that are also produced 'in the fields'.

Thanks to the exploitation of new sources of energy, larger amounts of capital, and more efficient use of factors of production, per capita real income is vastly greater in any industrial society than in any agricultural society.

In connection with the exploitation of new kinds of energy and new prevailing consumption patterns, one observes a general decline in the relative importance of agriculture, which also suffers from the fact that the other productive sectors tend to lose their dependence on it. The building industry substitutes steel and cement for timber. The textile industry substitutes artificial fibres (rayon, dacron, etc.) for natural ones. The pharmaceutical industry substitutes chemical products for spices and herbs. Even the food industry follows the trend: vitamin pills replace natural fruits, and Coca Cola replaces wine. It has been said that before the Industrial Revolution, of all the things man used, nearly eighty per cent were derived form the plant and animal kingdom, with only about twenty per cent from the mineral kingdom. These figures cannot be accepted at their face value. But they can undoubtedly be taken as orders of magnitude. With the Industrial Revolution the situation they describe is substantially reversed. Correspondingly, both the percentage of total active population employed in agriculture and the proportion of income produced by the agricultural sector shrink markedly while a great expansion is generally experienced in the new key sectors: the chemical, the metallurgical, and the mechanical.'
(source: C.M.Cipolla: 'The Economic History of World Population',1962)

Yet the fact that a book like 'The Statesman's Yearbook 1998-99' still pays attention to take stock of the number of animals and the production of several crops tells me that even today agriculture is of fundamental importance. I just copied its pages about ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES of Denmark, only leaving out the 'Distribution of foreign trade according to countries of origin and destination'.

I also want to repeat my arguments for the importance of Animals (or actually the arguments of J.Diamond):

Why Animal domestication was one of the most important developments of human history

'They provided meat, milk products, fertilizers, land transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, and wool, as well as germs that killed previously unexposed peoples.'

'In human societies possessing domestic animals, livestock fed more people in four distinct ways: by furnishing meat, milk, and fertilizer and by pulling plows. First and most directly, domestic animals became the societies' major source of animal protein, replacing wild game. Today, for instance, Americans tend to get most of their animal protein from cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, with game such as venison just a rare delicacy. In addition, some big domestic mammals served as sources of milk and of milk products such as butter, cheese, and yogurt. Milked mammals include the cow, sheep, goat, horse, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, and Arabian and Bactrian camels. Those mammals thereby yield several times more calories over their lifetime than if they were just slaughtered and consumed as meat.

Big domestic mammals also interacted with domestic plants in two ways to increase crop production. First, as any modern gardener or farmer still knows by experience, crop yields can be greatly increased by manure applied as fertilizer. Even with the modern availability of synthetic fertilizers produced by chemical factories, the major source of crop fertilizer today in most societies is still animal manure -especially of cows, but also of yaks and sheep. Manure has been valuable, too, as a source of fuel for fires in traditional societies.

In addition, the largest domestic mammals interacted with domestic plants to increase food production by pulling plows and thereby making it possible for people to till land that had previously been uneconomical for farming. Those plow animals were the cow, horse, water buffalo, Bali cattle, and yak/cow hybrids. Here is one example of their value: the first prehistoric farmers of central Europe, the so-called Linearbandkeramik culture that arose slightly before 5000BC, were initially confined to soils light enough to be tilled by means of hand-held digging sticks. Only over a thousand years later, with the introduction of the ox-drawn plow, were those farmers able to extend cultivation to a much wider range of heavy soils and tough sods. Similarly, Native American farmers of the North American Great Plains grew crops in the river valleys, but farming of the tough sods on the extensive uplands had to await 19th-century Europeans and their animal-drawn plows.'

'Several domestic animals yielded animal fibers -especially wool from sheep, gaots, llamas, and alpacas, and silk from silkworms. Bones of domestic animals were important raw materials for artifacts of Neolithic peoples before the development of metallurgy. Cow hides were used to make leather.

Big domestic mammals further revolutionized human society by becoming our main means of land transport until the development of railroads in the 19th century. Before animal domestication, the sole means of transporting goods and people by land was on the backs of humans. Large mammals changed that: for the first time in human history, it became possible to move heavy goods in large quantities, as well as people, rapidly overland for long distances. The domestic animals that were ridden were the horse, donkey, yak, reindeer, and Arabian and Bactrian camels. Animals of those same five species, as well as the llama, were used to bear packs. Cows and horses were hitched to wagons, while reindeer and dogs pulled sleds in the Arctic. The horse became the chief means of long-distance transport over most of Eurasia. The three domestic camel species (Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, and llama) played a similar role in areas of North Africa and Arabia, Central Asia, and the Andes, respectively.'

'Of equal importance in wars of conquest were the germs that evolved in human societies with domestic animals. Infectious diseases like smallpox, measles, and flu arose as specialized germs of humans, derived by mutations of very similar ancestral germs that had infected animals. The humans who domesticated animals were the first to fall victim to the newly evolved germs, but those humans then evolved substantial resistance to the new diseases. When such partly immune people came into contact with others who had had no previous exposure to the germs, epidemics resulted in which up to 99 percent of the previously unexposed populaton was killed. Germs thus acquired ultimately from the domestic animals played decisive roles in the European conquests of Native Americans, Australians, South Africans, and Pacific islanders.'
(source: J.Diamond;'Guns, Germs and Steel',1998)

	06-08-2001 20:22									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think your list makes sence, S. Kroeze.

First, do you think we should have fish and meat as two seperate goods?

But my concern mainly rests with having live animals as a good. To do so we need to keep track of the amount of all animals (propably between 5 adn 10) in every single hex, or in every single region. And while the latter could propably be done, it would be a bit unprecise. And the first is totally impossible.

Of cause, when I think of it, you might have a point (I'm just having a revelation here ).

What I propose is that at the beginning of the game we find out what animal that exist on each hex (or other tile type, doesn't matter). Here all we need to know is whether the animal is there or not.

Then the game begins, and people can use the animals if there are any, by domesticating them. In that case we would consider the animals that are domesticated as goods, and keep track of the amount of each of these animals on a regional basis. This means we wont have overwhelming amounts of numbers that needs to be calculated.

So we CAN have live animals as trade goods. Of cause, like slaves, they would need some food (propably grain) to survive. Otherwise they would die. How many different animals do you think we should have, S. Kroeze?

And if you were to make a list of 50 - 100 goods that we should include, how would it look?

I am glad I am realizing this. It seems a lot better this way.

	16-08-2001 05:02									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Thank you for pointing out the domestication issue S. Kroeze.
I've been reading as much about this project as I could find in the past few days (since it has only been a few days that I known about the project.) It looks like it is aimed in a truly great direction and I am enthusiastic about it, however, until now I haven't seen any suggestions on the importance of domestication and was thinking that I would have to parse through the Guns, Germs, and Steel book myself to find appropriate quotes to show its absolute importance. Thanks S. Koreze.

I completely agree with you on this and think that perhaps a whole separate model should be used for domestication purposes. I also kinda like Joker's suggestion of having the different types of wild animals stored on the map, but these wild animals would still have to be domesticated first, then people could use them as such. Then, I think you have to change the domesticated animals into some sort of separate resource, so that wild animals and domesticated animals are sorted differently, perhaps along the line of slaves or what not. I.E. They need food, they act as a labour supply, plus all of the other things S. Kroeze mentioned from the GGS book by Jared Diamond.

Also, if you are planning on doing a more detailed domestication system, plants should like-wise fall in this category. You don't simply research farming and get all of the domesticated plants that have ever existed; it should be a slow process of selecting certain traits over thousands of years in the plants which result in better and better crops that produce more harvest then previous ones. This would also deal with the rediculous historical inaccuracies of tile improvements like in CTP for example where sometimes it is easier to not bother building the early irrigation tile improvements and simply waiting until you get agriculutural revolution and then lay down advanced farms without previously having any farming. Also, domestication of animals in early civilizations should be hard to accomplish and not necessarily be the norm for all civilizations, since most early people didn't develop domestication on their own. Rather, it started in certain areas and, due to trade and what not, spread. For example, modern domestication as we know it started mainly in the fertile crescent (to the best of my knowledge.) Some other areas developed domestication indepedently, but as far as I know, these were few and far between. How to determine which nations actually start domestication is beyond my knowledge right now, but it should be looked into. I suppose certain geographic conditions should exist i.e. good grazing land, temperature consistency, water, or even features like rivers couple with nearby mountains (as is the case in the tigris-euphrates area) et. al. Perhaps a more in dept look at Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel could help more in this manner.

But, I could see the whole concept of domestication working like a separate tech tree in a way(with some differences of course.) You accumulate "research" from farming which in turn helps develop better strains of plants or animals. So the only way to get better farms is from having pre-existing ones that help you develop better techniques or strains of plants and animals (or something along those lines anyways.) Of course, the regular technological advancement would also play a role in the domestication techniques aswell. This is all completely off the top of my head, but I think this adds a completely new dimension to the game that would be unique and very realistic and fun to play aswell. (But feel free to slap me in the face and knock some sense back into me if im just going off on a rant here that isnt really relevant.) You could also consider doing these different strains of plants or animals as zones on the map, and when better strains are developed, they start taking over the areas previously inhabited with the less effective strains in a Darwinian method. This would also mean that no one strain would necessarily be the best, instead, certain strains might do well in one climate type, and poorly in another.

And on a completely unrelated topic, this is my first post. I have always been interested in making an innovative civ like game with almost the exact same features you guys have been describing here but have always known that I could never do it by myself. So, I would like to get involved in this project and would be willing to help in any ways I can, but I do not consider myself an expert. I just play civ type games and have lots of ideas, and so far have read part of the book which inspires this game (I will read the entire thing asap.) So, point being, don't take anything I say too seriously. Also, I do have some knowledge with C++ coding and OOP and what not, although, again, I'm no expert. BUT, I would be willing to help if I can.

	16-08-2001 11:45									#26
	Suffering from ads?

Welcome to the project, Narcio. It is great to hear that you are interested.

And an interesting post you made.

In the big picture I agree with you. And we have already discussed how to include domestication of animals in the game - along the lines of Mr. Diamond's book. The trick here is to make sure that it is done realistic, and yet simple.

I think that when the game begins there should be stored on each map hex (or whatever we use) what animals was located on it. We should have some animal generator included in the map generator to make sure that animals spread to all possible habitats, although not over large bodies of water.

When the game begins animal domestication should propably be a technology that could be researched (although each animal should have it's own domestication technology). How to research this I think we should leave to the research model (which we have to create some time). But I do agree that it should take some effort.

When the technology has been researched it would be possible to extract animals from each hex where an animal is present (as if it were a metal or something) by putting workers on the job. When the animals are extracted they should be tradeable as a ressource. But they would also be much more. First they could give a production bonus to farming etc (using some rule to make sure that they will grow obsolete during the late industrial revolution). Furthermore they could be used for mounted soldiers, and could even be eaten if people wanted to. And they would require food to make sure they do not die. AND their numbers would grow exponentially if they are left alone with plenty of food.

So there is enough stuff to figure out about them. And much of that is closely linked to the pop and econ models.

	17-08-2001 12:30									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, it seems you have great ideas. I like the domestication idea from Narcio with some sort of 'tech tree'.

I think I'll keep out of this discussion because you have far more knowlenge of this then I do. I just want to add that one of you should start writing a real model for it I think!

	17-08-2001 15:14									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I agree, Elmo.

Narcio, are you interested in beginning writing such a model?

It should propably start with the overall ideas, and gradually work into more depth.

I am currently working on the econ model with Mark, but I would definately like to help you out with ideas, constructive criticism etc.

And in the long run the "animals" model should be integrated with the econ and pop model. Right now what we need is a paper describing how animals would work, what they could be used for (of cause in a little more depth than just writing Military, production and food) and what they would require.

What do you say?

	20-08-2001 00:34									#29
	Tired of ads?

Dear Joker, Narcio (and others),

quote: First, do you think we should have fish and meat as two seperate goods?

Yes, I do. Of course one could describe Fish as 'Meat from the sea', but I think that is just silly. Some cultures could have few if any domesticated animals; for these societies Fish would be a very important source of protein. And fishing requires other technical skills, like Seafaring and Salting. In many cultures Meat was actually a luxury article, reserved for the upper classes.

quote: Of cause, when I think of it, you might have a point (I'm just having a revelation here )

I am still curious to know what you were actually thinking here, though I have some suspicions...

quote: Then the game begins, and people can use the animals if there are any, by domesticating them. In that case we would consider the animals that are domesticated as goods, and keep track of the amount of each of these animals on a regional basis. This means we wont have overwhelming amounts of numbers that needs to be calculated.

Here I completely agree! I think keeping track of the amount by region will do. And this can be done roughly.

I am also very enthusiastic about Narcio's post. On essentials I completely agree. I hope he/you will contribute more to GGS. It is also my view, that Diamond's book contains lots of information on the subject. We can use is as our point of departure.

I also made two lists of trade goods, one of 20 and one of 40 items. Of course they are proposals.
On one issue I have changed my opinion: I found the following list of

World agricultural exports, 1929    Value(millions of $)    Percent of total

Raw cotton and linters                 1,400 mln$              11.3 %

Wheat                                    825                    6.6

Sugar, including glucose                 725                    5.8

Wool                                     700                    5.5

Coffee                                   575                    4.5

Silk                                     550                    4.4

Rubber                                   425                    3.4

Butter                                   400                    3.3

Rice                                     400                    3.3

Tobacco, raw and waste                   350                    2.8

Corn                                     250                    2.0

Enumerated items                       6,600                   49.9 %    

	20-08-2001 00:57									#30
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Thanks a lot.

Your post (as always) contains a lot of information, and I am in a little bit of a hurry right now, so in stead of giving some scattered remarks now I will post a thoughtfull and complete reply tomorrow.