In my last post I wrote about my great investment in a war to expand my territory. I ended up winning the war and am now building new cities in Australia. At this point in the game there are two very large civs, my civ (which is on the rise), and three puny civs that have no chance of getting back in the game. The two large civs have not expanded for quite some time, while I have been crossing oceans to build new cities in the lands that I have conquered.
My actions are comparable to those of Great Britain in its imperialistic era. The British were land and natural resource hungry, so they set up colonies all over the world, from the New World to India. They moved in and defeated anyone who opposed them. I have taken the same strategy and am driven by the same desires that the British had. As the world map seemed to be shrinking due to new technologies like airplanes, I knew that I would need to take advantage of the resources around me before one of the already larger civs did. Imperialism was my only way of catching up with them.
Now that I have more land and power, the gap between my civ and the two larger civs has decreased. I don't have to worry so much about defending myself because a war would bring either one of them huge losses. I can now focus on increasing my civ's culture and technology. Improving my new cities is my goal, and I won't need to expand (nor would I be able to) for awhile.
Defeating those who oppose you is only the first step in imperialism. The next step will be difficult, as I need to get my new cities up and running quickly before somebody else tries to come in and take over. After America was discovered control of the land changed hands quite a few times, and that is why we see French, Spanish, and English influences today. If everything goes according to plan and no one else tries to take over, the Australian continent will only be subjected to my Viking cultural influence. I need to protect my investment, after all.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Great Investment
Up until recently, the entire world map in my game was occupied by civilizations. No civ was able to expand without taking away land from another. There were five remaining civs, two of which clearly dominated, and three of which were about even. Mine was one of the lower three civs, but I vowed to get ahead of the other two. The only way that was possible was through war.
I knew that a war would be quite costly to my civ and would slow down production for quite awhile. How I could limit the risks involved with war was my main problem to figure out. I ended up striking a mutual protection pact with the most powerful civ on the map, and this came at quite a high cost. I had to give them extra technologies and gold for them to accept the deal, but I knew it would be a great investment that would help me to be successful. And it was! As soon as I declared war on the Egyptians (who occupied all of Australia), my ally joined the war and helped me obliterate them. It turned out that the Egyptians had a mutual protection pact with my closest neighbor, the Aztecs, and when I realized that they had also declared war on me, I began having second thoughts about starting this World War. In the end, however, our alliance proved to be much stronger than our enemy's, and now they are almost completely wiped out.
Phase two of my investment plan was to build new cities in the now unoccupied land. Producing more workers and soldiers to help build up these new cities clearly slowed down the growth of my already existing cities, but again, I saw it as an investment that was worth the initial losses. Having not built new cities would have actually resulted in a higher opportunity cost because other civs would have moved in and taken over the valuable resources if I hadn't. Only a few years have passed since the founding of my new cities, and my investment is already starting to pay off. My treasury is increasing and I am now able to produce more units per turn than before. The purpose of making these investments was to expand my territory and be able to contend with the two powerful civs, and I am happy to say that I am much closer to that goal than I was before the war.
Not just anyone has the ability to make investments that will turn out to be successful. A large amount of saving beforehand is required because investments require giving up resources that would generally be used for normal production. "The Making of Economic Society" states that "saving regulates the pace at which investment can proceed" (78). This is very true because if a civ doesn't have any extra resources saved, then making an investment in something will take away the resources needed to maintain stability. Having extra resources, however, makes it possible to invest in something without having drastic consequences in other areas. In other words, you can only maintain that which you have enough resources to support.
Investments are an extremely important aspect of the game, and no civ can survive without making them. Pretty much every action in the game is an investment because most don't have immediate effects, but rather are beneficial later on in the game. For example, building railroads is an investment because it takes a lot of time and effort to do it, but when a war calls for soldiers to be highly mobilized, they are obviously a wise investment. Without investing, a civ simply can't keep up with the rapidly changing world. Investment leads to growth, and growth to survival.
I knew that a war would be quite costly to my civ and would slow down production for quite awhile. How I could limit the risks involved with war was my main problem to figure out. I ended up striking a mutual protection pact with the most powerful civ on the map, and this came at quite a high cost. I had to give them extra technologies and gold for them to accept the deal, but I knew it would be a great investment that would help me to be successful. And it was! As soon as I declared war on the Egyptians (who occupied all of Australia), my ally joined the war and helped me obliterate them. It turned out that the Egyptians had a mutual protection pact with my closest neighbor, the Aztecs, and when I realized that they had also declared war on me, I began having second thoughts about starting this World War. In the end, however, our alliance proved to be much stronger than our enemy's, and now they are almost completely wiped out.
Phase two of my investment plan was to build new cities in the now unoccupied land. Producing more workers and soldiers to help build up these new cities clearly slowed down the growth of my already existing cities, but again, I saw it as an investment that was worth the initial losses. Having not built new cities would have actually resulted in a higher opportunity cost because other civs would have moved in and taken over the valuable resources if I hadn't. Only a few years have passed since the founding of my new cities, and my investment is already starting to pay off. My treasury is increasing and I am now able to produce more units per turn than before. The purpose of making these investments was to expand my territory and be able to contend with the two powerful civs, and I am happy to say that I am much closer to that goal than I was before the war.
Not just anyone has the ability to make investments that will turn out to be successful. A large amount of saving beforehand is required because investments require giving up resources that would generally be used for normal production. "The Making of Economic Society" states that "saving regulates the pace at which investment can proceed" (78). This is very true because if a civ doesn't have any extra resources saved, then making an investment in something will take away the resources needed to maintain stability. Having extra resources, however, makes it possible to invest in something without having drastic consequences in other areas. In other words, you can only maintain that which you have enough resources to support.
Investments are an extremely important aspect of the game, and no civ can survive without making them. Pretty much every action in the game is an investment because most don't have immediate effects, but rather are beneficial later on in the game. For example, building railroads is an investment because it takes a lot of time and effort to do it, but when a war calls for soldiers to be highly mobilized, they are obviously a wise investment. Without investing, a civ simply can't keep up with the rapidly changing world. Investment leads to growth, and growth to survival.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Benefits of Peace
Since my last post I started a new game, this time with a new plan. From my last game I learned how devastating war can be to a civilization, so in my new game I vowed to avoid war at all costs. What a difference it has made! The year is 1930 and I have not been at war once. Three civs have already fallen, but mine has not because of good relations with others. Remaining at peace has allowed me to focus on scientifically advancing my civ without interruptions.
Scientific advancements eventually led to an Industrial Revolution for my civ. The revolution was very similar to what the U.S. had experienced in its three different revolutions because production increased dramatically. I researched new advancements such as "the corporation", "the factory"and "interchangable parts", all of which stimulated mass production. The book "The Making of Economic Society" notes that mass production increases efficiency and reduces costs (85). Civilization stays true to this economic concept because the building of factories in my civ has led to a huge increase in output, while the amount of workers has stayed the same. Naturally, being able to attain more output without increasing the input results in the production possibility curve shifting outward. My civ's Industrial Revolution will have long lasting effects, as I will now be able to increase the culture, population, and military advancements much qicker and with less opportunity costs.
Scientific advancements eventually led to an Industrial Revolution for my civ. The revolution was very similar to what the U.S. had experienced in its three different revolutions because production increased dramatically. I researched new advancements such as "the corporation", "the factory"and "interchangable parts", all of which stimulated mass production. The book "The Making of Economic Society" notes that mass production increases efficiency and reduces costs (85). Civilization stays true to this economic concept because the building of factories in my civ has led to a huge increase in output, while the amount of workers has stayed the same. Naturally, being able to attain more output without increasing the input results in the production possibility curve shifting outward. My civ's Industrial Revolution will have long lasting effects, as I will now be able to increase the culture, population, and military advancements much qicker and with less opportunity costs.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The "Friendly" Iroqouis and the Importance of Relationships
I made a big mistake about 100 years back in Civilization III. The Aztecs landed their ships on the shores of my territory and demanded gold, so of course I told them to take their empty threats elsewhere. Well it turns out that it wasn't an empty threat and they declared war on me. I thought that I had a chance of winning, but I was wrong; the Aztecs were far more advanced.
Enemies just kept on coming in waves and I had to focus all of my production on soldiers, and not on improving my civ (I chose guns over butter). My medieval soldiers were no match for the gunmen they sent over, so my army got depleted to the point where I didn't have enough soldiers to have one fortified in each of my cities. Because of that civil disorder broke out in every city and I was unable to produce anything. The ships kept coming and I knew it would only be a matter of time before my last soldiers perished.
All of the sudden and very much to my surprise, however, I got a message from the Iroqouis saying that they were willing to sign a mutual protection pact! And this was coming from the same civ that throughout the entire game had continuously prohibited my men from even setting foot in their territory! I had no idea what motivated the Iroqouis to want to help me in a war, but I really didn't care. All I knew was that my civilization was not going to fall to the Aztecs anymore, and it didn't. The Iroqouis obliterated the Aztecs for me.
Sounds good, right? Not exactly. As soon as I started celebrating after my new friends killed all of the Aztecs, I came to realize their malicious plan. I thought that the cities I lost to the Aztecs would again be a part of my civ after the Iroqouis cleared them out, but I was wrong: The Iroqouis took the cities for themselves! There was nothing I could have done about it without declaring war on them, which I knew I would not survive. I thought I had started a good relationship with the Iroqouis but their real intention was to gain more land and resources at the expense of my civ. For this they would pay dearly.
The Americans became my new best friends when only a few turns later they also offered me a mutual protection pact. I accepted and immediately declared war on the Iroqouis. Justice was served when the Americans came to my assistance and punished the Iroqouis for attacking me. A huge battle broke out with huge losses for all 3 civs. My civ eventually fell, but not before inflicting a lot of damage on the Iroqouis. My soldiers had no chance of winning in battle, but they fought bravely nonetheless. They were like Japanese kamakazi fighter pilots in World War II who committed suicide in order to kill more of their enemies. The war my soldiers fought was a war of principle, not a war to obtain resources. The Iroqouis stabbed me in the back and I got revenge. Since my plan didn't work out, I did everything in my power to make it as difficult as possible for theirs to work. If they had not cheated me I would have helped them in the future, but they were disloyal and had to be taught a lesson.
In order to be successful in a global economy it is essential to have positive international relations with other countries. The Iroqouis hurt their ability to trade with other civs when they cheated me because afterwards other civs agreed to enter into trade embargos against them with my civ. Without the ability to trade, production possibilities decrease because comparative advantages can't be realized. Forgoing beneficial trade is an opportunity cost that is hurtful to any economy. This was the price that the Iroqouis had to pay for not being trustworthy. Their conquest strategy would give them many immediate benefits, but in the long term they would suffer from not being able to trade.
Enemies just kept on coming in waves and I had to focus all of my production on soldiers, and not on improving my civ (I chose guns over butter). My medieval soldiers were no match for the gunmen they sent over, so my army got depleted to the point where I didn't have enough soldiers to have one fortified in each of my cities. Because of that civil disorder broke out in every city and I was unable to produce anything. The ships kept coming and I knew it would only be a matter of time before my last soldiers perished.
All of the sudden and very much to my surprise, however, I got a message from the Iroqouis saying that they were willing to sign a mutual protection pact! And this was coming from the same civ that throughout the entire game had continuously prohibited my men from even setting foot in their territory! I had no idea what motivated the Iroqouis to want to help me in a war, but I really didn't care. All I knew was that my civilization was not going to fall to the Aztecs anymore, and it didn't. The Iroqouis obliterated the Aztecs for me.
Sounds good, right? Not exactly. As soon as I started celebrating after my new friends killed all of the Aztecs, I came to realize their malicious plan. I thought that the cities I lost to the Aztecs would again be a part of my civ after the Iroqouis cleared them out, but I was wrong: The Iroqouis took the cities for themselves! There was nothing I could have done about it without declaring war on them, which I knew I would not survive. I thought I had started a good relationship with the Iroqouis but their real intention was to gain more land and resources at the expense of my civ. For this they would pay dearly.
The Americans became my new best friends when only a few turns later they also offered me a mutual protection pact. I accepted and immediately declared war on the Iroqouis. Justice was served when the Americans came to my assistance and punished the Iroqouis for attacking me. A huge battle broke out with huge losses for all 3 civs. My civ eventually fell, but not before inflicting a lot of damage on the Iroqouis. My soldiers had no chance of winning in battle, but they fought bravely nonetheless. They were like Japanese kamakazi fighter pilots in World War II who committed suicide in order to kill more of their enemies. The war my soldiers fought was a war of principle, not a war to obtain resources. The Iroqouis stabbed me in the back and I got revenge. Since my plan didn't work out, I did everything in my power to make it as difficult as possible for theirs to work. If they had not cheated me I would have helped them in the future, but they were disloyal and had to be taught a lesson.
In order to be successful in a global economy it is essential to have positive international relations with other countries. The Iroqouis hurt their ability to trade with other civs when they cheated me because afterwards other civs agreed to enter into trade embargos against them with my civ. Without the ability to trade, production possibilities decrease because comparative advantages can't be realized. Forgoing beneficial trade is an opportunity cost that is hurtful to any economy. This was the price that the Iroqouis had to pay for not being trustworthy. Their conquest strategy would give them many immediate benefits, but in the long term they would suffer from not being able to trade.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Supply and Demand
My civilization is way behind all of the other civs both technologically and scientifically. This unfortunate circumstance has caused huge problems for me; from not being able to survive in wars, not being able to expand my territory with cultural influence, and most importantly not being able to trade.
I can't trade technologies with other civs because they all already have what I have, plus ones that I don't. With nothing to offer them, they are unwilling to give me anything in return. In economic terms, there is no demand for what I have to offer. This is because there already exists such a high supply of what I offer. As I have learned from Economics, when there is a surplus of some kind of resource, demand and prices are low, while scarcity results in a higher demand and higher prices because that resource is very difficult to obtain.
Since I am unable to trade with other civs, my civ is unable to advance at the same pace as others. A pretty good comparison can be made between my civ and Papua New Guinea. Both are able to survive on their own, but advancement is nearly impossible because they have almost nothing of value to the rest of the modernized world. Again, no one demands what I have to offer. This also reminds me off the early history between Britain and China, when Britain first traveled to China to obtain valuable spices. Spices were in high demand for the British, but at the same time the British had nothing of value to offer the Chinese. This of course changed when Britain introduced large amounts of opium to China, and the imbalance of trade flipped in the opposite direction. Like Britain, hopefully my civ will be able to find some valuable resource that some other civ demands. It would be really nice if my civ avoided a war like the Opium War, however, because my economy just isn't strong enough to support a large army. The ideal situation is to be able to trade with other civs and maintain long lasting relationships. In this way my economy will be strong and my civ will stay out of global conflicts.
I can't trade technologies with other civs because they all already have what I have, plus ones that I don't. With nothing to offer them, they are unwilling to give me anything in return. In economic terms, there is no demand for what I have to offer. This is because there already exists such a high supply of what I offer. As I have learned from Economics, when there is a surplus of some kind of resource, demand and prices are low, while scarcity results in a higher demand and higher prices because that resource is very difficult to obtain.
Since I am unable to trade with other civs, my civ is unable to advance at the same pace as others. A pretty good comparison can be made between my civ and Papua New Guinea. Both are able to survive on their own, but advancement is nearly impossible because they have almost nothing of value to the rest of the modernized world. Again, no one demands what I have to offer. This also reminds me off the early history between Britain and China, when Britain first traveled to China to obtain valuable spices. Spices were in high demand for the British, but at the same time the British had nothing of value to offer the Chinese. This of course changed when Britain introduced large amounts of opium to China, and the imbalance of trade flipped in the opposite direction. Like Britain, hopefully my civ will be able to find some valuable resource that some other civ demands. It would be really nice if my civ avoided a war like the Opium War, however, because my economy just isn't strong enough to support a large army. The ideal situation is to be able to trade with other civs and maintain long lasting relationships. In this way my economy will be strong and my civ will stay out of global conflicts.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Guns or Butter?
I have come to realize that opportunity costs are a huge part of Civilization 3. Every decision I make about what to produce has a positive effect on one thing and a negative on another. An economic principle that I have learned in Economics David by Colander is that an economy can only produce so many goods, and therefore a decision has to be made about which goods should be produced and also how much. A production possibility curve demonstrates how many goods can be obtained (the output) based on how much is put into the production process (the input). Assuming the same input, many times the output of one good is much higher than that of another. When this is the case, the focus of production should be on the good with a better output, and the other good should be obtained by some other means that is more efficient (usually by trading).
The problem I am facing in Civilization 3 relates to the "guns or butter" dilemma. Since there are many very powerful civilizations in close proximity to my civ I feel there is a strong need to build up my military. A strong military would prevent other civs from easily defeating me in a war or bullying me into paying a tribute to them. At the same time, however, a strong military is also very costly and the opportunity cost is that my civ won't have as many luxuries and improvements for the citizens to enjoy. Unhappy citizens are unproductive citizens, so there is obviously a great need to cater to the "butter" side of the dilemma as well.
The principle of increasing marginal opportunity cost states that "in order to get more of something, one must give up ever-increasing quantities of something else". This means that the opportunity cost increases at a very unfavorable rate, and therefore it would be smart to strike a balance between the production of goods to minimize the opportunity cost. In the game I keep this principle in mind and make sure that I produce a fairly even proportion of military improvements to food/luxury improvements. A rule of thumb I use is to first increase my civ's population and build improvements, and then I produce a few more soldiers to defend my now larger civ. This ensures that one good is not over-produced at the increasing expense of another good. The only problem with this plan is that it will be hard for me to expand my civ because without an extremely large army I won't be able to conquer my neighbors. My mistake in the beginning of the game was not expanding fast enough, and now I have no room to start a new city outside my borders without encroaching on my neighbors' borders. My plan is a good one to merely survive, but not grow. I am still looking to form military alliances with other civs to conquer a neighbor, but I have not yet been able to do this.
The problem I am facing in Civilization 3 relates to the "guns or butter" dilemma. Since there are many very powerful civilizations in close proximity to my civ I feel there is a strong need to build up my military. A strong military would prevent other civs from easily defeating me in a war or bullying me into paying a tribute to them. At the same time, however, a strong military is also very costly and the opportunity cost is that my civ won't have as many luxuries and improvements for the citizens to enjoy. Unhappy citizens are unproductive citizens, so there is obviously a great need to cater to the "butter" side of the dilemma as well.
The principle of increasing marginal opportunity cost states that "in order to get more of something, one must give up ever-increasing quantities of something else". This means that the opportunity cost increases at a very unfavorable rate, and therefore it would be smart to strike a balance between the production of goods to minimize the opportunity cost. In the game I keep this principle in mind and make sure that I produce a fairly even proportion of military improvements to food/luxury improvements. A rule of thumb I use is to first increase my civ's population and build improvements, and then I produce a few more soldiers to defend my now larger civ. This ensures that one good is not over-produced at the increasing expense of another good. The only problem with this plan is that it will be hard for me to expand my civ because without an extremely large army I won't be able to conquer my neighbors. My mistake in the beginning of the game was not expanding fast enough, and now I have no room to start a new city outside my borders without encroaching on my neighbors' borders. My plan is a good one to merely survive, but not grow. I am still looking to form military alliances with other civs to conquer a neighbor, but I have not yet been able to do this.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
A new beginning
My first attempt at Civilization was a complete disaster. My cities were poorly located and not connected by roads, I made enemies with stronger civilizations, and I was unable to advance enough to be able to survive. My civilization was destroyed before I even advanced to the Middle Ages, but I did at least learn a lot about what it takes to survive (and I didn't have it). I started a new game and decided to not make the same mistakes again.
My plan was to build a strong civilization, and I did several things to get the ball rolling. From my failure in the first game, I realized that building roads and having connected cities was crucial. This would allow my citizens to move quickly to wherever they were needed and would promote trade with other civilizations. In history the Roman Empire made good use of roads mainly to help soldiers get from place to place fast, but of course roads did increase trade as well. Road building has made my civilization very efficient. I also used roads to bring horses and other valuable resources into my civilization, which I have realized can be very valuable commodities to use for myself and to trade if I have a surplus.
Diplomatic agreements with other civilizations is probably the most important aspect of the game to pay attention to. Being in the midst of a war early on in the game is devastating because it makes you focus on military production rather than on expanding your civilization (which peaceful nations are able to do). I now trade with other civs a lot to remain on peaceful terms with them, and I also make peace treaties and allow rights of passage whenever possible. Currently I am not at war with anyone, but other civs are closing in on my territory and it is hard to build more cities. For this reason, I am considering attacking the weakest civ around me so that I can takeover that land and its valuable resources. If it all possible I would first like to create a military alliance with the Americans because they are strong and can help me in battle.
My civ needs to expand in territory and get more resources because if it doesn't then I know that I won't have any resources to trade with other civs. Just as many European countries traveled to the West Indies in the 1400's to obtain spices and other valuable resources, I also am making the same attempt to gain control of a scarce resource. As Colander makes clear in Economics, scarcity of resources makes them of high demand because they are in short supply. If I can bring spices into my civ I will be able to offer my strong neighbors something valuable, and I can then get something valuable in return as well. It will also help my relations with my neighbors, which I really do think is the key to survival.
My plan was to build a strong civilization, and I did several things to get the ball rolling. From my failure in the first game, I realized that building roads and having connected cities was crucial. This would allow my citizens to move quickly to wherever they were needed and would promote trade with other civilizations. In history the Roman Empire made good use of roads mainly to help soldiers get from place to place fast, but of course roads did increase trade as well. Road building has made my civilization very efficient. I also used roads to bring horses and other valuable resources into my civilization, which I have realized can be very valuable commodities to use for myself and to trade if I have a surplus.
Diplomatic agreements with other civilizations is probably the most important aspect of the game to pay attention to. Being in the midst of a war early on in the game is devastating because it makes you focus on military production rather than on expanding your civilization (which peaceful nations are able to do). I now trade with other civs a lot to remain on peaceful terms with them, and I also make peace treaties and allow rights of passage whenever possible. Currently I am not at war with anyone, but other civs are closing in on my territory and it is hard to build more cities. For this reason, I am considering attacking the weakest civ around me so that I can takeover that land and its valuable resources. If it all possible I would first like to create a military alliance with the Americans because they are strong and can help me in battle.
My civ needs to expand in territory and get more resources because if it doesn't then I know that I won't have any resources to trade with other civs. Just as many European countries traveled to the West Indies in the 1400's to obtain spices and other valuable resources, I also am making the same attempt to gain control of a scarce resource. As Colander makes clear in Economics, scarcity of resources makes them of high demand because they are in short supply. If I can bring spices into my civ I will be able to offer my strong neighbors something valuable, and I can then get something valuable in return as well. It will also help my relations with my neighbors, which I really do think is the key to survival.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The first few hours of playing Civilization III was a very realistic experience that was true to the history of early human civilizations. The civilizations that were able to advance the fastest had both economic and military advantages over stagnant civilizations. Advancement required an ample food supply to promote population growth, a strong military to protect cities, efficient production methods, and a fairly large treasury to support the military and structures within the city. Achieving those prerequisites was not an easy task with limited resources, so the allocation of resources became the essential problem to figure out.
My initial strategy at the beginning of the game was to build a city with a strong military so that I could protect myself from "barbarians". I learned bronze working and iron working very early on, and also built a barracks so that my soldiers could heal themselves. My civilization fended off foe after foe with superior military strength, but my preoccupation with military advancements resulted in my civilization growing at a very slow rate compared to the other ones. I erected my first few towns in South America, a land rich with gold in the Andes Mountains. For that reason, funding my civilization was not much of a problem. Food, on the other hand, wasn't quite as plentiful so I created some workers to irrigate the land and produce more. According to Jared Diamond in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, farming is what allowed the earliest civilizations to advance ahead of hunter/gather societies because a larger food supply was needed to be able to support a large population. It also allowed for certain specialists to exist who could help advance the civilization by not having to focus on producing food for themselves. I took Diamond's food for thought and the result was indeed beneficial to my civilization's growth. The area in which I had huge problems, however, was the production of shields. Apparently I placed my towns in locations that didn't produce enough shields because I had a very hard time speeding up the production process. This resulted in not being able to advance as fast as other civilizations, and what I thought was a strong military ended up being very weak later on in the game. It took me awhile to figure out a good solution to the production problem, but in the end I learned that it was all about making the best trade-off decisions.
My first solution was to build new cities so that I would produce more shields, but the real problem was that I was losing about half of the shields my cities produced due to corruption. My next move was to try advancing enough to be able to learn about new forms of government that would experience less corruption. This effort was useless though because it was taking way too long to advance toward a new government without a lot of shields to speed up production. In this sense, my lack of shields was preventing me from being able to produce more. This concept is a very real economic issue in today’s world: those who have very little find it hard to get more, while getting more is much easier for those who already have a lot (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer). I finally had to make a trade-off in order to solve the production problem, and this consisted of reallocating my human resources to the places where they were needed the most: workers were moved to the locations with the most shields, which had a negative impact on the amount of food and money I was able to acquire. But this trade-off was very necessary to the development of my civilization.
Trade-offs have always been an economic reality, and choosing the less beneficial alternative can be devastating. Governments must choose what is best for their people, and this is especially crucial when everyday needs aren’t being met. I made a good economic decision to expand my shield production at the expense of food production and money because shields were scarce while the others were in surplus. I favored this command style economy which enabled me to position workers exactly where they were needed. The market-based economy where the workers chose where they wanted to work themselves was not satisfactory, so I took command. At the time it was really the only option I had that could solve the scarcity problem.
My initial strategy at the beginning of the game was to build a city with a strong military so that I could protect myself from "barbarians". I learned bronze working and iron working very early on, and also built a barracks so that my soldiers could heal themselves. My civilization fended off foe after foe with superior military strength, but my preoccupation with military advancements resulted in my civilization growing at a very slow rate compared to the other ones. I erected my first few towns in South America, a land rich with gold in the Andes Mountains. For that reason, funding my civilization was not much of a problem. Food, on the other hand, wasn't quite as plentiful so I created some workers to irrigate the land and produce more. According to Jared Diamond in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, farming is what allowed the earliest civilizations to advance ahead of hunter/gather societies because a larger food supply was needed to be able to support a large population. It also allowed for certain specialists to exist who could help advance the civilization by not having to focus on producing food for themselves. I took Diamond's food for thought and the result was indeed beneficial to my civilization's growth. The area in which I had huge problems, however, was the production of shields. Apparently I placed my towns in locations that didn't produce enough shields because I had a very hard time speeding up the production process. This resulted in not being able to advance as fast as other civilizations, and what I thought was a strong military ended up being very weak later on in the game. It took me awhile to figure out a good solution to the production problem, but in the end I learned that it was all about making the best trade-off decisions.
My first solution was to build new cities so that I would produce more shields, but the real problem was that I was losing about half of the shields my cities produced due to corruption. My next move was to try advancing enough to be able to learn about new forms of government that would experience less corruption. This effort was useless though because it was taking way too long to advance toward a new government without a lot of shields to speed up production. In this sense, my lack of shields was preventing me from being able to produce more. This concept is a very real economic issue in today’s world: those who have very little find it hard to get more, while getting more is much easier for those who already have a lot (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer). I finally had to make a trade-off in order to solve the production problem, and this consisted of reallocating my human resources to the places where they were needed the most: workers were moved to the locations with the most shields, which had a negative impact on the amount of food and money I was able to acquire. But this trade-off was very necessary to the development of my civilization.
Trade-offs have always been an economic reality, and choosing the less beneficial alternative can be devastating. Governments must choose what is best for their people, and this is especially crucial when everyday needs aren’t being met. I made a good economic decision to expand my shield production at the expense of food production and money because shields were scarce while the others were in surplus. I favored this command style economy which enabled me to position workers exactly where they were needed. The market-based economy where the workers chose where they wanted to work themselves was not satisfactory, so I took command. At the time it was really the only option I had that could solve the scarcity problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)