25-11-2000 03:20									#1
	Foudamental philosophy of an empire building game Enter the AD-FREE zone

In my opinion, I think the foundamental concept of Civ III needs to be changed. With this foundamental concept changed, a lot of new things can be changed.

Anyone who take economic courses know that it is greed and gain that fuels economic and interactions. And it is economic and interactions that makes cities, civilization and empire possible.

The foundation of civilization and empire is therefore material wealth, not war. Thus, Civ III should be designed so that the end is to gain wealth and if there are any wars at all, it should be for the sake of wealth

Many may argue that Civ II is designed so that war is so heavily stressed because war is the mean through which to gain. So in that sense, Civ II's foundamental concept is also to gain.

Two points I want to make about this argument is that first Civ II, from what I've observed, is disigned so that war exists for war iself, not for gain's sake. Second, there are much much more means through which one may gain wealth other than war.

Some other may also make the point that war is the only thing that makes the game interesting. Without war, the game is boring. The refute I give to this argument is that the way Civ II is designed is such that war is the only challenge. But in a true empire building, the challenge lies in how to keep citizen's loyalty, how maintain a cordial relationship with neighoring countries, and how to keep a country's economy prosperous. If an empire building game is truely an empire building game, then war is not the only thing that will make the game interesting.

So again, I come back to the point that economic is important and must be given more weight to it. Dom Pedro II makes a very good point in one of his threats. He thinks that wealth, being the foundamental of any empire building, should be the first priority. Diplomacy exists for the primary purpose of making gaining of wealth possible, and the only reason for war in the first place is that it serves as the last option if all else fail to bring wealth.

Civ II isn't designed so that the above is true. In fact, Civ II is designed so that war is the ultimate end, and that econ is the mean through which to achieve that end. Civ III, must reverse that by making war and diplomacy the mean through which to reach the ultimate end of gain, and wealth.

If designers of Civ III really understand this points, and realize the implication of this change in foundation of a game philosophy, then they will find themselves with lots and lots of revisions to do. But I think, this revision is going to be worthwhile.

	25-11-2000 06:35									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

There are many, many, theories of the basis of politics, of which economic theries (such as Marxism) form a small subset. To Quote from my Politics Syylabus: Liberal, Structural, Behavioural, Functional, Marxist, Pluralist and Classical Economic Theories, and these are just some theories selected for a first year introductory course. It is impossible to say that any one theory is "The truth"; many poeple will always disagre with you.

I totally disagree with the model you've picked, though. My personal choice for founding the internal workings of Civ on is Marxism/Historical Materialism, which is based on the Means of Production which beside capital also include things like Science, Labour and Raw Materials, well represented in the game by Trade and Shields. These stand in direct relation to progress, and change will come about with sufficient change in Means of Production.

On top of this base are the relations of production, the class system and the economic system. Society is dicvided into classes, and these fail and suceed depending on how well they can keep achieve or maintain the relations of production that benefit them. However, if the Means of production and the Relations of production are sufficiently far appart, a revolution will be triggered changing the class structure fundamentally, but also economic and governmental systems.

But this is just an easily implemental example, there are many more possibilities.

	25-11-2000 06:51									#4
	Got spare money?

: om Pedro lifts his venerable head::

Ah, grasshoppers.... listen well as Master Dom speaks, or I'll break your heads!


But back to the point, I have been a strong advocate on an economic games. The fact is that every world power has expanded and founded colonies for the purposes of raw materials and special goods found in distant lands. Almost every historical event has had something to do with commerce and economics. Every war has its economic reasons. Many of the Europeans got into wars because they wanted to control the valuable commodities in far-off lands. It is what drives civilization. Very few do it for the shear sake of taking over the world.

That is why we need a large group of commodities that control what can and can not be done in the game. Civilizations will fight to gain these commodities, and some civs will specilize in certain areas. That will determine how cordial they will be with their suppliers. A rather simple example is with the American colonies of the British. The reason why New England led the charge in the struggle for freedom had to do with the fact that their economy was based on all of the things that England produced. The South, meanwhile, was much more dependent on England for manufactured goods. A colony that is more economically independent will sooner or later want to be politically independent. That is only one example though.




------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3

	25-11-2000 08:29									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

This has been one of my favorite threads in a long time...

Don't overlook Snapcase's response. There's some great information in there. It brings me back to my Economic classes in college....

There are many different theories about government and economics. The relationship between these two very intertwined. In Civ many of these concepts are indirectly represented by the rules of the game. Sometimes, the designers do not specify exactly to the "why" of any particular rule and then we speculate on these items day after day on these forums....

For example, as Snapcase mentions, the class system is fundamental to every government and economic system. There are economic winners and losers... Where in Civ II is this? You indirectly see this represented in a few concepts like

1.The city riots
2.The demo/republic government collapses - Senate actions
3.Ability to declare war under different governments

This relationships is assumed and not clearly defined as what we studied in our Economics programs.

As for the Communist Gov't, you don't really see anything that's going to match an Econ textbook. It really matches up against the Soviet example better (less corruption due to KGB, reduced production compared to republic/democracy would be Soviet production compared to US production, there may be other examples...)

Splitting hairs aside, this is why I like Civ so much. Of all the simulation games ever created, this one does the best job of unifying so many different concepts.

	25-11-2000 14:57									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I apologize in advance, but I just have to say this:

For the love of God, do not base CivIII's economic model on Marxism.

I'll admit here to being a libertarian, and thus biased, and that I've never actually taken any formal economics courses. That said, I've done some reading, and it has seemed to me for many years that Marxism is based on a set of premises, some of which are provably false. I mean, even without any formal training, *I* can prove to you (or at least to myself) that the Labor Theory of Value doesn't hold in the real world.

I don't really want to get off onto a flamewar about Marxism here, I just want to make it clear that since there are some of us who believe it to be inherently seriously flawed, it may not be the best choice as the basis of CivIII's economy. :-)

Mind you, a debate about the relative merits of Marxism and free-market capitalism might be fun, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. If you must, email me about it.

	26-11-2000 00:43									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

What it all basically comes down to is, that what we would LIKE is not necessarily what IS. It would be nice if something cost the labor and materials that went into making it, but as modern clothing companies have proven, that is not true.

Now, anybody who would like to dispute that people in general are looking to profit, would have to do some serious convincing. My heart goes out to that poor ideological fool. So if people act in their own interests, does this rule apply any less to kings and presidents? No, of course not.

Since the earliest days of man when people attacked each other in small tribes for a waterhole, to the conquistadors invasion of the Americas, to the Nazi desire for world conquest, the goal has always been to get new resources, rich farmlands, or regions of wealth. Otherwise, the purpose of war is to defend those things that you have from a possible enemy. Profit has guided history since the beginning. Even when a leader wants to act out of goodness, shear malice, or religious beliefs, there is always some consideration of profit.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3
[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited November 25, 2000).]

	26-11-2000 11:04									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Or if your like me, you try to conquer the world for personal glory!

	26-11-2000 12:30									#15
	Suffering from ads?

Hi guys, I think Dom Pedro is mostly right in his assesment that civilizations that expand do so for the obtainment of wealth, land, and resources (later on, because of overcrowding)

I also agree with Ralf saying the future is not history. However, the gameplay of Civ games doesn't seem to change a great deal as time passes, so if a more economic system was implemented in the game, I don't think they would institute a very sharp goal change as the game nears the "future" years.

	27-11-2000 00:30									#17
	Remove this text

Raingoon, I think you are the one that has misunderstood the game a bit. Afterall, you said that the acquistion of land is the important thing in the game, but why does anybody acquire land? A desert is not nearly as valuable as rich farmland. Half the Sahara isn't worth a quarter of Ohio territory. (Let's not get technical about that point. Its just an example). The fact is, that as it stands, you could basically take or leave the resources in the game. They are convenient but not essential. I think they should be a necessity to functioning in the game.

Afterall, during the Age of Imperialism, if you didn't have a colony, you weren't a world power. If you didn't have a colony it meant you weren't in control of Sugar, Fur, Spices, Tea, Gold, Tobacco, or any other things that were valuable commodities. If you didn't have them, it meant somebody was selling them to you and it put you at a disadvantage. Thus all countries with power sought to have colonies.

But right now, the overall goal in the game is to acquire cities. Then with those cities, you build more units to take other cities. So basically the entire purpose is to build units to take more cities, to build improvements to aid in conquest, or build wonders to make conquest easier. And then you win the game. What then? Are you supposed to build even more units to attack nothing? Money has only one purpose and that is to pay for units and improvements. It is not a goal in and of itself.

Even roads and railroads are constructed for the purposes of transporting troops, nothing else. Farms and Irrigation are meant to help cities grow so they can more efficiently produce units. All of the "improving" we do in the game is for the purposes of one day conquering the world (or for some to go to AC).

But most importantly, the AI doesn't place any importance on acquiring resources. If the AI had it set in its mind to gain all of the resources it does not yet have, it would be much more intelligent.

	27-11-2000 00:52									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ah! After all this wonderful discussion we are back to what CIV III could bring to the table to improve upon CIV II.

In reading Dom Pedro II's posts (yes, in all the different, similiar threads/threats ) there is one thing repeated that I firmly agree with.

Make the AI player have a similiar motivation (based in some logic and reality) to most accurately mimic the human player. These motivations would be based in theories of marxism, capitalism, socialism and every other philosophy developed over 4000 years on this planet.

Th AI should strive for the same goals that you as the human player strive for. The real question isn't what that is. There are many great ideas from several different posters on this thread, but the real question is how to do it. Good for us, we don't have to worry about the mechanics of this...Firaxis does. All we have to do is fork over 50 bucks.

If I could just see a little bit more range of human emotion from the computer player during negotiations... or maybe this too "out there..." I would love to think the AI player was an idiot for twenty turns to finally realize that I'm at the receiving end of some fabulous AI strategy!!! How cool would that be!!!!

	27-11-2000 03:50									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I completely agree that civ3 should put more emphasis on economic matters and that war needs to be a means to an end not the end itself. I have been saying that for a long time now.

I think we can sum up empire management with 3 basic rules:
1) make sure your population is happy and loyal.
2) make sure they have food and wealth.
3) make sure your people are safe from outside threats.

War has been a tool in the hands of leaders as they struggled to acheive these goals. But war is not the only way to acheive these goals. For example, if there is a risk of riots, you can declare martial law, send in the troops and crush anybody who is causing trouble.
But you can also try to negotiate with the rebels. You can give in to their demands. You can appease them.
If your people are starving, you can invade your rich neighbor and take their food. But you can also trade with your neighbor for food. You can ration food. You can build farms and try to grow more food.

I hope that civ3 really emphasizes these choices that the player should have. It is up to the player how he/she wants to deal with a specific problem. I think this gets to the heart of what a strategy game like civ is all about: choices.

	27-11-2000 11:15									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Dom Pedro, I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. I'd state it even simpler -- resources should be both essential and limited. Define essential as what is needed to dominate all rivals and limited as what the map is seeded with.

I did a pretty interesting Energy Model (IMO) in the Suggestions form sometime in the last 12 months. Someone might want to check that out, apropos of this discussion -- I think it was called something like Energy: The Most Important Thing Civ Never Had. I am a big believer in war being motivated by the movement of civilizations in contest with each other for essential resources.

But I stand by what I said in my last post. Some posts, including your last one, seem to think economics refers to money and gold. In fact it does not, per se. As we all know, it refers to supply and demand. I point out that even in a land grab (or city grab, whichever you prefer) the supply demand curve is operative. But I agree with you that the game should be changed to the extent that what is demanded isn't just a supply of more cities.

	27-11-2000 13:23									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well people, I think this topic is bordering on the futile. To make this clear I will summarize your arguments:

1) People do almost everything for profit, but profit does not have to be money - it can be resources, space, or just about everything else.

2) The other motivation for people doing something is that they want to do it, eg. Hobbies, etc.

The problem is that these two explanations (which are not that different, since fun could also be described as a form of profit) can actually be used to justify doing anything, anytime, because one can always say he/she wanted to it and the profit was (in the case of Civ II) extra resources, production, cities, science, potential, or land or anything else. Hence while this discussion might have some philosophical interest, it is not very useful in determining a shape Civ III should assume.

	27-11-2000 19:38									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

There are two, things that i personally think should be the ultimate goal of civ2.

1. Survival, against, disasters, war, plagues, starvation, enviromental problems, asteriod collisions e.t.c.

2. Happiness. if you finally succeed in building the perfect society (which we all know won't exist ever) You'll get a faboulus bonus.

I agree that civ2 is modeled for war. It's mainly beacouse the military system isn't properly connected with the rest of the systems. But the most boring thing with civ2 is that you actually can solve every problem within a few turns (if you are rich and powerful enough). For instance, once you have captured all cities from a nation all their geurilla soldiers magically disappears. We all know that in reality the geurilla soldiers can stay for decades, supported by illegal drugs that causes problems for your own citizens. Also, pollution is so easy to cure that you don't have to worry about global warming unless you accidently start a nuclear war. In reality the envirmental problems are so complex that noone really has a clue on what to do.

What civ2 needs is more illoyal citizens, more problems that has to be solved in order to survive and gain happiness. The ultimate goal is happiness for your stupid and illoyal citizen and too accomplish that you
have to gain wealth, science and you also have to use power to get control (and to maintain control). The trade, the diplomacy and the warmachine is what you have as tools for this task.

	28-11-2000 10:18									#23
	Remove this text

This is a very interesting thread. I think everyone could benefit from reading books about the history of economics. Here is one particular book that correlates the growth of economics as a field to human history:

R. Heilbroner, The Worldy Philosophers

Please note the the idea of a society based around wealth and the acquiring of profit is a very recent philosophy. The pursuit of profit in the past has been either unheard off, or considered just plain distasteful.

It was only after the "Rennaisance" that societies and nations started revolving around wealth and money. Hence it is only recently that economics as a field has arisen.

Prior to this, cultures and civilization were based on tradition and heirarchy. Feudalism and castes systems were the norm, and wars were fought over land, ideals, ambition, racism, religion, and plain fear of the unknown. Revenge and feuds have also been part of the usual suspects.

Although national wealth has added a new twist to the international conflict, religion, and ideologies still remain just as important.
[This message has been edited by zaeta (edited November 27, 2000).]

	28-11-2000 05:00									#24
	Got spare money?

I think that the goal and way of acheiving your goal should change according to the time period you're in and your SE status.

In the ancient age, you strive to get land since more population equals more taxes. Also you want to lead in science since it's considered of high status.

In the medieval ages you should strive to get more slaves (workers)

If religion is implemented, it comes in now. There are holy cities that you want to control (see Jerusalem).

Then the renaissance - your goal is to capture land for expansion and capture / build wonders of the world.

Then the imperial age, when you want resources and land to develop.

Then science comes in. Your goal then is again to lead in science and wealth.

Suddenly, a new religion like charachteristic erupts and brings several ww's. It's called - nationalism. It brings fighting for land which you owned sometimes. It brings useless fighting for the sake of land grabbing with no other cause.

The last phase has the next goals:
1. Wealth
2. Peace
3. Science
And we are experiencing it now.
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited November 27, 2000).]

	28-11-2000 09:04									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ok, Raingoon, I think we're basically on the same page here. See, what I was getting out of your post was that you were in favor of the status quo in the sense of resources etc.

The actual physical gold to me is inconsequential. What I stress is economic dominance. I think the primary goal should be about attaining economic independence through gaining valuable raw materials and production of manufactured goods and growing of crops on plantation tile improvements. Then forcing others to be reliant on you as the next step. War is the method of attaining that goal. War should be for acquiring resources and forcing other civilizations into submission. I mean, if you want to fulfill your megalomaniac dreams of world conquest, by all means, fire away.

My numerous references to money had to do with the real-world causes. Money is obviously the reason for much of human action throughout history. Civilization is only a game, an empire-based game at that. My point that money was not a goal in and of itself was perhaps mistated. It was really to support the idea that the primary function of everything else in the game is the construction of military units. In fact, I don't think it should be because the money can not drive you to win because its not real. If my computer starts spitting out the money I win at the end, I might reconsider.

By the way, I read your energy concept a few months ago on the Strategic Oil Reserve topic. I found it very interesting and I think it is the best energy concept I've ever heard. I think that coupled with a true market system, could create the CivIII we all want.

	28-11-2000 14:16									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, I hear you right back. I've been away from the boards here for a while and the truth is I had even begun to stop thinking about all of our ideas without any feedback on them from Firaxis. But if you're all saying we need a new energy-resource system I'll go down that river with you in a second.