Hey... I'm thinking about how the economic aspect of my civ game should work. Does anyone have resources that can help show me the structure and processes of economy/industry? For example, the different buildings and resources involved in turning ore into iron. I'm interested in the buildings/structures involved and the flow of resources between them.

I would advise using some simple math to build a simple and fun economic element that requires as little attention from you, as a developer, as possible. Simple and self-sufficient game mechanics are always the best.

I agree. Don't obsess about the details. Just make something that works.

I can't find the links right now, but a lot of googling led me to some interesting economic data that pertained to ancient/medievel times.

look up Adam Smith's: Wealth of Nations. A good book (probably a bit overkill) on economic theory in the real world. You could simplify some of the ideas in the book to work with games.

Economy is going to have more to do with supply and demand, and the transfer of resources between nations, than what is needed to produce some given good (though requirements do determine demand of products, of course). I'm also going to argue for simplicity of industry, though. Complexity just means that the player has to marshal many more resources and is more likely to be unable to make something because of unavailability of resources (e.g. one Civ3 game I played, I couldn't win through building the rocket because there was no aluminum in the world. That's bad.). I'd say that you should pick resource requirements that sound reasonable, then find the most commonly-required resources, and assume that everyone has an effectively unlimited supply of them (or abstract them into "money" or some other fungible resource).

My idea is that everything the user can build would have a money cost based on the physical resources needed to build it (minerals, labour, etc.) The cost in money would depend on the quantity and type of resources required. For example say I need 50 Aluminum to build my rocket. If 1 unit of Aluminum costs $10, that means my rocket would cost $500 to build. And the value of a unit of Aluminum would in turn depend inversely on how much Aluminum the player has. The more Aluminum the player has, then the less value it has. So as the player gets more Aluminum, the rocket gets cheaper to build. If there was absolutely no Aluminum, the player can still build the rocket, but it would be very expensive.

Hmm economy is all about managing limited resources right?
And industry is all about managing production efficiency right?

So you try to make the right choices based on compromises you have to take.
... but what are the right choices, I mean should there be a one right choice approach and the player tries to get better in finding it, or are there multiple choices and the player has to make them fit in a long term strategy,
while managing(compensatingand adapting) with the fluctuation of the market and production facilitys?
Hmm maybe i will be able to come up with some answers,solutions if i take some time ^^.

Quote:

Original post by polyfrag If there was absolutely no Aluminum, the player can still build the rocket, but it would be very expensive.

You could always mine for more aluminum in Alaska. =)

One thing I'd like to see worked into a game is the idea that a player may not necessarily run out of a given resource in their world but that it may become appreciably more difficult and expensive to come by. Not just monetarily either. Maybe you could find more oil, coal, or aluminum in another part of the game world, but harvesting/collecting it comes at a cost to the environment or the health of your virtual citizens. Then you definitely will have players thinking in a cost/benefit mindset.

“Is it worth deforesting 25% of my world’s rainforest just so I can get to the resources I need to build that pretty rocket?”

I think these types of decisions would make the game more interesting and rewarding when a player is able to develop a sustainable civilization.

Quote:

Original post by WorldPlanter “Is it worth deforesting 25% of my world’s rainforest just so I can get to the resources I need to build that pretty rocket?”

As a gamer, I can answer this question with 100% accuracy. Yes it is.

Quote:

Original post by glBender Quote: Original post by WorldPlanter “Is it worth deforesting 25% of my world’s rainforest just so I can get to the resources I need to build that pretty rocket?” As a gamer, I can answer this question with 100% accuracy. Yes it is.

Yeah, but let's say that deforesting 25% of your game world's rain forest melts the glacial deposits of the world by 10% due to the decrease in plant-life that is capable of offsetting global warming. This in turn causes the water level to increase 6-8 feet which floods several coastal communities in your civilization costing you 600 monetary units to repair and rebuild. Let's say that leveling the forest, collecting the resources occupied within, and constructing your rocket only cost 400 monetary units. Is it still worth it? It cost you more in the end, but if you really wanted that rocket I guess it might still be worth it in the eyes of the player. Your virtual citizens may not appreciate it though. Unless you needed that rocket to transport a terraforming team to a nearby planet, in which case it might pay off in the long run.