ya, I know, it really starts to get political.  and i wouldn't argue the direct effects either,  the Idea is simply that such a system should have Immideate rewards (build stuff for you for free) long term costs (the building never functions perfectly, or functions at a cost every time you use it, stables), and should additionally come with long term risks if you over use it (lots of money you don't control, side effects there of,)  


Of course you could Tax the snot of of everything, or argue that a finacially perfect system wouldn't have downsides, Or even have a faction which is immune to downsides.  

All i was suggesting is A way of handling the +ives and - ives.

Good idea for GalCiv, not Elemental.

Similarly, in the Middle Ages there were no dragons or channellers, the world hadn't just suffered an apocalyptic event that left all lands infertile save those which the few survivors capable of channeling magic could invest their magical essence in to revive, and, most importantly, there was no semblance (or acceptance) of anything resembling magic. My point is that there are means available to the denizens of the Elemental world not available to the average medieval peasant or merchant.

I hope that transportation networks will be improved from the historically-accurate norm to the point of feasibility for this game, since the complete inability to move large quantities of goods from one city to another with relatively high frequency (which I think is what you're getting at as one of the free-market requirements that are missing) would probably be annoying to most people, and, at least in my opinion, not contribute enough strategic value to be worth it.

I'm also fairly sure that Stardock won't end up implementing a barter-based economy. At least I hope so; I'd hate to have to negotiate the cost of building my new fort in terms of fish heads and beads.

And since we can assume the existence of fixed currency and decent transportation, I see no reason why something like the 'free market' idea should be vetoed on grounds of gameworld consistency.

I, too, would like to avoid spending increasing amounts of time on colony management. I always hated the late game economic management even in games like MoO2 and MoM, not to mention games like Space Empires IV/V and their absurd complexity. However, I personally wouldn't feel that the 'flavor' of said free market system would be wrong. I actually think it would be really cool (granted, of course, a competent enough AI market).

I'm pretty sure that the devs mentioned somewhere that the game was designed so as not to become a patchwork quilt of cities in the late game - which probably means slower settlement that goes on for longer, FWIW.

I agree with some of the ocmments that this idea is better suited to Gal Civ than a medieval/fantasy setting. But some of the real worlld examples don;t really hold tru, because we are talking about development of these concepts for the first time. In Elemental's post cataclysm world, it would be assumed that most of these did exist pre-cataclysm, and it is possible that the concepts had been passed down, but as putting food on the table (or slab of rock, being clothed and sheltered has kind of been a priority since the cataclysm and some of the more esoteric ideas haven't really had the opportunity to be reintroduced. So with towns and settlements springing up, I see no reason that some pretty advanced concepts couldn't spring up.

I am not suggesting steampunk or advanced technologies - but some basic ideas about markets, banking, etc I don't see why not and it needn't ruin the medieval feel of the world.

I also like the "free market" concept applied to research. Not spell research but a lot of the mundane tech I think it would be cool for it to be a lot more of a bottom up approach.

i.e. you direct tech research in very general, large areas. From time to time one of your citizens has an idea (would be cool to have a little "light bulb" or candle since medieval animate above a citizens head.) Basically you get a dialog that one of your citizens has had an idea on how to "improve housing" (or tame bears, etc) and should they pursue the idea Y/N? and of course if yes you would need to fund the research etc. Now maybe it is a tech that you don't care that much about having, but you would get bonus research for this type of thing because your citizen that came up with the idea, this is his passion...so do you go with the free market approach and get a tech that you hadn't initially set as a priority but get the bonus research due to this guys passion? Or do you say no and take a firmer hand in channeling research in the area that you want (but get lower ROI because everyone is working on YOUR dream not THEIRS)

I've always felt that the more a game like this can give the individual citizens the semblance of having a life of their own, the more engrossing and fascinating the game becomes. It actually presents more choices and your civilization gains a life of its own. Depending on how heavy handed you are (or willing to be an invisible hand) your civ might develop along completely different lines than you initially planned. And there would be +tives and -tives to both approaches.

Sounds like a lot of people in this thread didn't attend a class on economic history. There's plenty of evidence for advanced financial techniques even during the early Medieval period -- after all, Genoa really got going as a financial center in the 12th century, and the Mediccis and Fuggers got their start not long after. Now, before you're all "but dat was local or some such I am ignorant wah", these folks were using letters of credit and double entry book keeping -- modern practices -- as well as insurance and currency exchanges. 

My own expertise relates to the 80 Years War, and the enormous number of private contractors who enabled the Spanish to supply and outfit their troops, but the techniques in use then were established centuries prior.

For instance, Carolignians gave official rights to market towns -- fairs where letters of credit were exchanged for specie -- in the 9th century, and there are plenty of primary source documents relating to insurance from the Achaemenid empire in the 6th and 5th centuries BC. And heck, the first joint stock companies originated in the 13th century, with the Swedish mining company Stora (or if you disagree with the available evidence for that, the Muscovy Company of 1555).

Much of early modern history relied on the ability of banking consortiums or families to provide the credit and specie necessary to supply, outfit, and pay soldiers, administrators, and builders. Just because it doesn't take pride of place in Hollywood movies doesn't mean banking only came to be with the advent of the internet.

That's in no small part because political science and economics were once a 'single' academic discipline, called political economy, and that parent discipline was a direct, and rebellious, offspring of moral philosophy (ethics). That fact of intellectual history is the main reason I've never really appreciated Stardock's past attempts to discourage discussion of politics on the GC2 boards or Stardock-wide Off-Topic. I'm all for keeping a civil forum, but I oppose hate crime laws in the real world for the same reason I believe it should be no crime in Stardock game-land to discuss political theory, current events, and history. Brad's OS/2 GalCiv (the real GC1) and Sid Meir's 'original Civ' share an essential syllabyle: civ. Civilization is fundamentally political and so are 4(5)X TBS games, so why is it such a faux pas to be direct about it?

At the risk of vexing the folks who are worried about the game having a story layer that means their sandbox is just a boring obstacle course, I have to say that this is entirely a 'story' question. And I'm saying that, with the shudder quotes, because I'm a lapsed social scientist and a lifelong lover of fiction that involves insanely long timelines. Maybe a lame reference to A Canticle for Leibowitz will make me seem at least half-resonable here (and yes, that was at least half a half-life joke).

Well, these private-sector entities could appear as researchable techs near the end of the "civilization" branch of the non-tree-tech-tree-that-really-doesnt-use-techs-per-se (NTTTTRDUTPS). That would solve a little of the realism problem.

As to whether the suggested system is viable in the game, I haven't given it much thought. As previous posters mentioned, I would also like to see a bit less determinism on the part of the player in favor of a more engaging populace -- far too often, games present the populace as an unthinking mob totally at the service of the player, which does a disservice to the people of the time presented, and our own. After all, parliaments and republics have had a major role throughout world history, from ancient India and Greece to early modern Europe and North America. 

As a side benefit, it would allow for lots of neat events and some role play on the part of the player. Do you become a tyrant amongst your people, crushing them beneath your magical iron seven league boots, or do you allow them democracy, and accept the limitations that come with popular representation?

I'd particularly like to remind people of the Hawks and Doves of previous versions of Civilization, where they might go behind your back to start or end wars, and generally raised Cain. While it could be annoying, it made the people you ruled over feel like more than just a bunch of resource generators.

In general, there are a lot of really cool ideas for the economy floating out there on the forum. However, I don't think that economy/politics should be the focus of a magic based game. It would just end up being a distraction if it got too complicated.

I have no problem with a playstyle position like yours; I'm often in a despotic mood myself. But I'm always at least a bit put off when I'm playing a game like GalCiv2, develop something like Star Democracy, and there is no change in my level of control over 'my' civ. The 'advanced governments' need different names, or they need to come with new mechanics that reflect the tradeoffs an autocrat makes when seeking to do something like boost the national economy by tolerating more autonomous decision-making at lower levels of gov't and/or in privately operated markets.

Sure. I think that bonuses and penalties are a better way of handling this. The choice the player has to make is what combination of bonuses/penalties are best, considering their current situation. In other words, the Civilization system minus the interference of the Senate. (Or, alternatively, the Master of Orion system, which makes government type a racial pick.)