Idea for Civilization IV-Like Realistic Simulation of Economic Choices

Miscellaneous General
1

There is a trope known as Command and Conquer Economy in many strategy games where the various governments of the in-game world seem to be the only factions constructing base facilities. This makes sense in military situations (outside of ones involving private mercenaries and their bases) but makes little to no sense in ones modelling economics other than communist ones.

Accordingly, I have come up with an idea for simulating the private sector in game. There would be an additional “slot” for building facilities (such as temples, hospitals, schools, etc.) in each of the bases/cities/settlements/etc and doing research that would represent the private sector, not being directly controllable by the player.

The player (be he human or computer), in some economies (socialist, fascist, environmentalist and mixed ones) would be able to choose a priority (exploration, research, culture, etc.) for the private sector to focus on in construction and research, while still having his own slot representing government works and research.

In other economies (communist and simple ones), there would be no second slot, and all development would be controlled by the player. While in the free market option, the second slot would not be player controllable, but would work twice as fast and build/research according to demand (i.e. if your society is highly religious, temples and monasteries will be build, if it is highly intellectual, universities, academies and colleges will be build, if it is highly cultural, theatres, studios and art galleries will be built, etc.) while the player’s first slot can only be used for research and construction of military units, representing the restriction of government under laissez faire capitalism. Also, these new facilities would not cost the player anything to run, unlike in other economies, where they carry lesser maintenace costs (representing subsidies and regulatory costs).

The free market system would, as it is in real life, have great benefits, but other economies would have benefits to players who want more control over their civilizations or want to wage massive wars, much as in real life.

A second idea I had is to have multiple options for currency civics, namely:

Barter: Low upkeep with no effect other than limiting city size

Commodity: Medium upkeep, with steady growth and normal city sizes.

Fiat: Creates temporary booms, but with great busts. In general, the best usage for it would be for players who were planning a blitzkrieg assault. For example:

1900: Player switches to Fiat

Next 15 years: Player pumps out lots of units thanks to this quick wealth.

1915: Player switches back to commodity with a recession, but not as severe as that normally caused by 20 years of Fiat.

Carbon: This one’s a little more speculative. It would only be available in the late stages of the game, probably from the same tech unlocking environmentalism as a civic option, and be tied to the amount of pollution produced by cities.

Energy (A tip of the hat to Alpha Centauri): Highly speculative, probably tied to power production in same manner. Would only be available much later in the game, around 2040s or so. Would increase production greatly.

Any thoughts, critiques, questions?

2

Still the program will be determining the results of investing in whatever paradigm, right? I think the turning point comes when the game engine only facilitates trade and the creation of legal and economic structures (if any), allowing the transactions to play out according to actual economic principles.

3

Then it would cease to be a game. Voluntaryism: The Game would simply be Voluntaryism: The Infinite Movie.

4

That’s called a simulation game.

5

That would make anyone just go as much market-friendly as possible. Although tat would be good from a “libertarian propaganda’ (not in the negative sense) viewpoint, it would make the game rather linear and mono-path. There just one way to win, and it’s easy.

This could be countered by having the player manage not the state budget but his own. As a ruler, one would be able to amass money only if something would be left from the budget. Thus one would like to bolster taxes (but that would slow down the economy), and at the same time be as liberal as possible (to incite the economy). A typical statist dilemma.

Adding that increases of public spending would be welcome by the population (increasing happiness) and that decreases of public spending would be very difficult and, after a certain point (say, when public spending reaches 55% of GDP) without lead to the breakup of the empire (the payer would be left only with the capital settlement), would give a much more dynamic and unique experience.

Again, too easy. Why not assume, realistically, that one cannot switch to commodity after using fiat. One could only revert back to barter, and even that only in inflation would be pushed to far. In this case the breakup could be simulated again, as above.

Additionally one could limit the monetary regime form to a linear path (can’t switch from barter to fiat, without passing through commodity) and tie different regimes with the expansion of the empire (ex. 154 cities, barter allowed, 5+ commodity is unlocked).

These two addition could make the game much more dynamic (much more than any present strategy game I know of), forcing different players to try to time theyr inevitable breakups as to conquer the world (or maximize personal wealth) and, as a plus, would also convey the idea of how the state really works.

What do you think?

6

It’s not that you’d “make free-market the way to win,” it’s that - if you modeled the economics well enough - free-market would be the way to win.

7

would progressively giving up control to free market forces allow for giving up the monopoly on defense and military arms?. or are we going to end up with NeoCon the game…

8

That depends on the objectives. I can think of many ways that freedom will not give the result desired by a player.

9

I have the game on the Xbox 360.

It makes me laugh that every time I switch to Communism, I actually get +50% production xD

10

If any strategy game was realistic anything other than market policies would result in weakness. The only benefit would be the rulers slush fund or glory for the state. There is already a game called Tropico that does this quite well, though is limited in scope.

11

I think you’ve confused neoconservatism with minarchy. Neoconservatives favour government intervention in the economy, whereas minarchists favour restricting government to the areas you mentioned. The reason one couldn’t switch to that is because then there would be no game, because there would be no government for the player to control.

12

Actually that’s true. If the players are controlling an empire, they’d probably want it to be a minarchy in order to be most successful (for them). Or maybe they would be a business owner. The possibilities are endless. I’m really looking forward to a game like this.