Economics

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Economics

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Economics

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Economics - 3/29/2005 1:39:59 AM

kisner

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline

I was wondering why this game appears to have such a heavy economic model. Given the campaigns will last no more than 20 years, and most economies would be on a more-or-less continual war footing, why manage resources and what-not a la Civ-style games?

Obviously, I haven't played the game and it might be very interesting. But my impression is that a pseudo-detailed sub-system that allows players to manage/manipulate their economies is not really needed. For instance, the game's description notes that player-decisions influence population growth. But to what end? An increased birth rate is meaningless in the context of the Napoleonic Wars. Let's try and keep this "real" and not just make it a computer game with a Nappy backdrop.

Post #: 1

RE: Economics - 3/29/2005 2:43:34 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

They probably just mean that the player's decisions affect the size of your countries recruitable population. More men in the army means less men on the farm so less food produced nationally so less food for the army. You know the drill.

As far as economics; of course the competing blockades will be huge and I am assuming that you will simply need to prioritize what you research and where your national focus will be. Do you dig canals to increase trade or build munitions factories so your army has plenty of powder. That's my completely uninformed opinion. The game sounds amazing and I am greatly looking forward to its release.

Can someone answer whether it will be DD only or both DD and retail?

(in reply to kisner)

Post #: 2

RE: Economics - 3/29/2005 3:36:45 AM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisner
I was wondering why this game appears to have such a heavy economic model. Given the campaigns will last no more than 20

Hi Kisner,

Thanks for your interest and so forth.

Aw shucks, and I thought that colonizing alpha centauri is one of the more enjoyable parts of the game!

Seriously though, there was a lot of economic restructuring during the Napoleonic era. The economic choices don't lead to dramatic, sweeping changes over short periods. We modelled several of the effects of improvements on historical rates of economic growth, as much as we could find this information.

As to your specific concern, population depletion and growth at the provincial level isn't so much a matter of babies being born and people dying of old age. Rather, it's more a matter of population freed from the necessity of agricultural work (because of the availability of surplus food) to attend to other aspects of the economy, including military service. At the end of the Napoleonic era France had definite problems finding new recruits among the available populace -- while still maintaining sufficient population to work the land -- and I think our model handles this reasonably well. When the population-factors in a province fall to zero this doesn't mean that every man, woman, and child has been eradicated from the land -- it means that the population is under such economic strain that no free manpower can be drawn from it into military service, nor to be allocated in other areas of economic production.

We tried to design the game so that players who want can ignore most of their economy, as some of our in-house beta testers tend to play. You may have to keep an eye on your monetary income, but your nation won't fall apart if you never touch a button on the Development Advisor.

All the best,
Eric Babe

(in reply to kisner)

Post #: 3

RE: Economics - 3/29/2005 5:35:25 AM

kisner

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline

I would agree there is a finite draftable population. In the context of the Nappy Wars, I also agree that efficiencies in the economy could be introduced that free increasing numbers for military service. Generally speaking, the French economy collapsed for a variety of reasons that your game covers.

I disagree that there is much of a "game" in this economy. Essentially there is no "winning" the trade between ever-increasing military spending and the resultant downward economic spiral. For a long time this didn't matter much, because these became "national" wars, and the rising sense of nationalism (along with a victory now and then) was much, much more important to maintaining morale than any monkeying with levels of "bread & circuses".

I don't mean to be overly critical. I am excited by the idea of this game, especially since Empires in Arms (and World in Flames) seem like vaporware years after the projects were announced. It's just that having players manipulate national economies circa 1800 at the level the game blurb suggests -- build "culture!" and "courts!"; trade "wine!" and wood!" -- just seems over the top.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 4

RE: Economics - 3/29/2005 9:04:07 AM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Hi Kisner,

Thanks for your interest in Crown of Glory.

Welcome to the Matrix forums, by the way. I noticed you just recently joined. I'm honored to have our game be the topic of your first two posts!

You seem to be a hard-core simulation type of player. Most of the feedback I've been getting must be from computer-game type players, since the economic features seem to be generating a lot of the excitement in the many emails I have received over the previous few days. If you do end up buying the game, I'd be interested in getting an email from you with your opinions on its various aspects.

All the best,
Eric

(in reply to kisner)

Post #: 5

RE: Economics - 3/29/2005 11:28:02 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I am excited by the idea of this game, especially since Empires in Arms (and World in Flames) seem like vaporware years after the projects were announced.

Aye, you have stumbled upon our true tactic here. Prentend we are working on the title, just to prevent our competitors from snatching it up! :P

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 6

RE: Economics - 3/31/2005 3:54:16 PM

grumbler

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Falls Church VA USA
Status: offline

quote:

I disagree that there is much of a "game" in this economy. Essentially there is no "winning" the trade between ever-increasing military spending and the resultant downward economic spiral. For a long time this didn't matter much, because these became "national" wars, and the rising sense of nationalism (along with a victory now and then) was much, much more important to maintaining morale than any monkeying with levels of "bread & circuses".

You are correct, for the most part, and as Eric noted you do not need to "game" your economy at all if you are willing to accept suboptimal results (and make up for them by winning big wars).

The problem with this viewpoint is the problem I see very frequently in wargame critiques, and which I think the game answers pretty well: what if every player is not playing France? What if a player is playing Austriia?

Austria does not have the military might to conquer Europe. In fact, for much of this period it will be passive, awaiting events elsewhere in Europe that will create an opportunity for Austria to act effectively. What does the Austrian player do during this period? Read a book?

In this game, the Austrian player still has things to do, even if not at war. While the player's intervention in the economy and social systems will not be decisive, they will have enough payoff to make it worth his time (and it will do the same for France, if the player is inclined to spend his time on them) and they offer additional routes to "Glory" that may make an absolute defeat of France unnecessary to an Austrian win.

What I say for Austria goes double for Prussia and quintuple for the Ottoman Empire. Only by opening up the economy to player control does the game make playing any country but France the least bit interesting, IMO.

(in reply to kisner)

Post #: 7

RE: Economics - 3/31/2005 4:51:16 PM

tolbox

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline

This could be a way for a non-militaristic country to grow and perhaps win.
Another way could be diplomacy.
But I sound the alarm bell for developers:
touching to a bit of everything usually makes a big whole of nothing, especially in strategy games.
I prefer a few well-developed, balanced features than a lot of under-developed ones.
War strategy already represents a huge mass of work.
Nevertheless, This game looks really exciting and I hope to see all this working well.

_____________________________

Strategy is a matter of time and space.
space can be recovered, not time.

Napoleon

(in reply to grumbler)

Post #: 8

RE: Economics - 3/31/2005 7:44:10 PM

kisner

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grumbler

The problem with this viewpoint is the problem I see very frequently in wargame critiques, and which I think the game answers pretty well: what if every player is not playing France? What if a player is playing Austriia?

Austria does not have the military might to conquer Europe. In fact, for much of this period it will be passive, awaiting events elsewhere in Europe that will create an opportunity for Austria to act effectively. What does the Austrian player do during this period? Read a book?

In this game, the Austrian player still has things to do, even if not at war. While the player's intervention in the economy and social systems will not be decisive, they will have enough payoff to make it worth his time (and it will do the same for France, if the player is inclined to spend his time on them) and they offer additional routes to "Glory" that may make an absolute defeat of France unnecessary to an Austrian win.

What I say for Austria goes double for Prussia and quintuple for the Ottoman Empire. Only by opening up the economy to player control does the game make playing any country but France the least bit interesting, IMO.

Wow! Are you speaking from playtest experience? All the Coalition powers have to look forward to is figuring out how to finesse the game's development model? Say it ain't so! But in a game not really set up for multi-human play, I guess it would come as no great shock if what you say is largely true. Managing a Coalition of "computer-players" from the vantage point of Vienna or Madrid or Berlin might be difficult at best.

I used to play the boardgame Empires in Arms quite a bit, and it was enjoyable to run the "peripheral" powers for several reasons. First, turns flowed quickly, so even while knocked out of the Coalition for 18 months it didn't seem like the end of the world. Rebuilding the army via simple production was still interesting, as was watching the other military/diplomatic action unfold. Finessing the economy would, in effect, just make it take more time at the keyboard to rebuild that shattered army and get back into the action. As such, I really hope players who don't want to involve themselves to an artificial degree into the working of society and the economy are not penalized.

(in reply to grumbler)

Post #: 9