The Economy?? [NO goods import; migration unsettled]

[Coconut Kid]

http://tropico.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/cafe/index.php?topic=3850.msg66026#msg66026

As I have already posted similar message on Poptop's message board, this is turning into some kind of propaganda, but i hope no one would mind. The reason to write is because I saw a positive article about the game discussed in this message board on some russian gamesite.

This little I know about the game indicates that all economies will be state controlled, which I think only leads to poor and weak state, whatever tactics you use, it just can't compete with more efficient market economies. So the question is whether you can manage to rule very weak socialist economy /using propoganda and isolation to stress capitalist society problems and actually convinse people that they have good life and so on/ or not. In these conditions no wonder, that so many small states fell into dependance on western or soviets loans (even now Russia almost "owns" several extreme states like Cuba)

Of course, some diamonds or gold mines or some petroleum would make it different. The state could under such condition turn into consumers paradise not necessary investing into future, though.

For microscopic nations there are, however ways, in case of more free system. For example offering tax paradise.

Or simple making tax level low enoug to attract a lot of investors /there will hardly be any heavy production thoughl, because of impossibility to use scale economies, for example, but rather turism/. Turists prefer to come to high level hotels and attractions, that state can't simple produce. Because it is realy awful. Something like security agents as room - maides and soldiers under disguise as administrators. It is also believed by most of today leading economists that state is less effective in managing undertakings (because state s nothing less tan a huge monopoly and monopoly does not have competitor thus there is no need to develop and improve).

Socialist system is much more vital in case of huge state (again because it can use a lot of cheap labor and concentrate every branch of industry into just one hugh plant, making it a great example of scale, easy to handle and because in huge country must be some gold.

This system does not attract me. It is however possible, that i just got it wrong.

I personally think there's possibility to have "strong leader controlled free society" something like what we have in /IMHO/ China now.

[Coconut Kid]

I was thinking to myself as I read this that I wish I knew more about China because as far as I understood it, China is basically still based on socialism/communism, yet seems to still be very powerful and rich (and has been for an unprecedented length of time).  One could argue that there are large sections of China which are still very poor and living in "underdeveloped" lifestyles, but it would not change the fact that the nation itself is still very independent and powerful despite its governmental structure.

However, you could look at it from a perspective of control.  Govenrments which try to over-control their people are inherently weaker than more relaxed governments.  And the simple truth of the matter is that both socialism/communism and dictatorships tend to rely on "control-freak" attitudes, and thus tend to either wither or shatter.  Russia, Cuba, colonial British empire, etc.  The reason China seems to be the exception, from what I can tell, is that it has been so inwardly focused and self-contained that it could direct all efforts at retaining control without much interference from the outside on either the government or attitudes of the common people.

But anyway, sorry, I'm babbling.  The point is, Tropico is a game which does not try to rigorously model itself after the real world, and in fact often places personal growth above national growth.  We momentarily toyed with the idea of including a more capitalist model in which the private sector could own and control the buildings, but this lead to the realization that you, as the leader of the Tropican Nation, would be left with very little to do!  Obviously, gameplay requires government control of all buildings, even houses. So, um... what was the question?

[Coconut Kid]

But then PopTop never said it was a simulator for Latin American politics, and neither should it be.

As Phil Steinmeyer said,

"You're a Fidel Castro - style ruler, trying to build up your Caribbean island, keep your people happy, and stay in power.
 
Tropico is ultimately a game about people.

Most strategy games are either about money (i.e. Railroad Tycoon II), things (i.e. SimCity), or conquest (just about everything else).
Tropico is about exercising influence on people, to make them happy, or failing that, to repress them and/or otherwise keep them from tossing you out of office."

The publisher and the developer of T3 claim to understand that. Let's hope 3D graphics don't get in the way.

[Coconut Kid]

The biggest difference between Tropico and a game like Pharaoh is that you must concern yourself with the individual, and not a section of the population.  The goal of most city-builders is to make your population happy, however in Tropico you have to please different people from different walks of life on an individual level, as well as an entire society.  In Pharaoh, each person you see represents a section of the society, but in Tropico each person you see is an individual, and will be affected by your decisions as leader (whether they are pleased or angered depends on who they are).  Hope this helps...

[RedNovember1917]

I have a few things to say on the subject of Socialist and Communist economies.

Firstly, economies that are based on the state ownership of economic assets are not Socialist or Communist economies. While there may be certain types of entities* that like to state that such is the case, the truth is that Socialist and Communist economies are both economies that are based on the common ownership of economic assets, or, in other words, Socialist and Communist economies are both economies that are based on the conception that everyone has the right to collectively control the economic assets that are responsible for their current standards of living.

And, secondly, economies that are based on the state ownership of economic assets can compete with economies that are based on the private ownership of economic assets, however, this is not often noticed by most, due to the fact that the institutions that are responsible for developing and progressing those economies do not pursue a strategy of developing it on the basis of continuously manufacturing consumer goods as well as producing producer goods and chemical goods; instead, they often pursue of policy of continuously developing both the producer goods and chemical goods sectors of industrial manufacturing first, and developing the consumer goods industries second. This is something that ends up backfiring on these institutions as time passes because, when these institutions begin to develop the consumer goods industries, not only do they have to constantly borrow the necessary technology from other countries, they now have to make up for the time that was lost by their focusing on the two prior industrial manufacturing subsets. This, combined with various other factors, tend to lead to a situation of economic stagnation, which, in and of itself, is hard to get out of.

*"Entities" meaning "Socialist" States, individuals that call themselves Communists, but are actually not, individuals who privately own economic assets, and, especially, apathetic and apolitical individuals amongst the general population of both "Socialist" states and Capitalist states.

[Coconut Kid]

Thank you for those very cogent remarks. It is helpful to have a specialist pull us back on course. It is very easy to get lost in economic theory when playing with a deck mixed with political cards. 

... Firstly, economies that are based on the state ownership of economic assets are not Socialist or Communist economies. ... [they] are based on the common ownership of economic assets, or, in other words, Socialist and Communist economies are both economies that are based on the conception that everyone has the right to collectively control the economic assets that are responsible for their current standards of living.

And, secondly, ... [nationally directed economies] do not pursue a strategy of developing it on the basis of continuously manufacturing consumer goods as well as producing producer goods and chemical goods; instead, they often pursue of policy of continuously developing both the producer goods and chemical goods sectors of industrial manufacturing first, and developing the consumer goods industries second. This is something that ends up backfiring ... as time passes because, when [they] begin to develop the consumer goods industries, not only [do] they have constantly to borrow the necessary technology from other countries, they now have to make up for the time that was lost by their focusing on the two prior industrial manufacturing subsets. This, combined with various other factors, tend to lead to a situation of economic stagnation, which, in and of itself, is hard to get out of. ...

Your first point is very well taken! Collective or common ownership of economic/productive assets (as contrasted with personal/non-productive assets) is the signature difference between the Socialist/Communist economic system and the Capitalist economic system where individuals or anonymous associations may own not only their personal toothbrushes but also an unlimited number of mines, mills, factories, etc. which they may dispose of as they do their toothbrushes.

In my view, the problem is that the organization of the people through which they exercise the collective or common ownership of production/economic assets typically becomes confused with the civil government. Civil government has to do with law & order and the basics of common welfare. A line has to be drawn between managing the general common welfare/infrastructure and the collectively held economicl/productive units/assets. This is a conflict or tension which has not been solved by any economic system or political system. But the point I try to make is that in theory, collective ownership may be different from government ownership, but finding the line between the collective and the government taxes ordinary understanding.

Moving on to your second point, yes indeed the history of national states attempting to shift suddenly from one economic system to another is full of mistakes. You have described one of the most important. While something called "globalization" is a current cliche -- the welfare of the people of a nation-state depends on a balance in their productive/economic activity. A balance between consumer goods and producer goods -- clothes & sewing machines. Too many newly collectivized nation-states tried to leap from growing the cotton for the cloth to operating the steel-mills to make the ingots to be turned into sewing machines elsewhere. Meanwhile the mill workers were clad in rags. They were in a trap of too much steel and no pants & shirts. But their steel production statistics compared well with the old capitalist nation-states.

Thank you again for your comments. I hope I have added something to them.

 

[el_malo]

Now, let's bring it back to Tropico 3... and how this discussion on economies is related 

[Coconut Kid]

Now, let's bring it back to Tropico 3... and how this discussion on economics is related ?

If the Player/Dictator has total control of where and which buildings are built, and all wages and 'internal' prices (as in T1) -- it is a state owned economy because he/she is the state.

All the verbage about fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism is fakery which can be quickly unmasked by most Europeans who have graduated our equivalent of high school.

Therefore if the game is to have any verisimilitude of a real economy, it has to have active multi-players or reasonable AI substitutes. At the very least, it has to have a more active struggle over who runs the economy. The "unions" refusing work either as strikes in existing buildings or refusing to build some kinds of buildings.

On the other hand, any concern about what the economy means in the game may be silly because T3 is to be about "eye candy" and playing a god who lays out a lovely city. Or various armed factions shooting each other to pieces. Or whatever?

You are probably correct. It doesn't have anything to do with T3.

Sorry! 

[el_malo]

I'm sure the economy in Trop3 will be the same as Trop1... the player is an autocrat, who makes all decisions.

No matter how you think you are playing, good or ebil, you are still an absolute ruler.

I do not see this changing.

[Coconut Kid]

I'm sure the economy in Trop3 will be the same as Trop1 -- the player is an autocrat who makes all decisions.
No matter how you think you are playing, good or evil, you are still an absolute ruler.
I do not see this changing.

I do not doubt your correctness.

However, I would submit that a whole ton of worthless chaff, straw and silliness could be eliminated from the "Dictator" configuration phase of the game "set-up."

The often repeated question, "How do you play the game as a Fascist, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist or Mentally Challenged?" could be answered right up front. Economic theory doesn't make any difference and has no part in the game because El Presidente is next to god.

I would support that 100%.

The player should arrive completely neutral and establish his character and style by his game play. That is how Hidden Agenda did it. I like that approach.

 

[el_malo]

heheheheh, games need some "eye-candy" for player appeal.

I would exchange all the superfluous economic junk for a nifty uniform ward-robe.

I should start each day, with having to pick the right uniform... for the day's activities 

[Coconut Kid]

I just happened across this old thread on Tropico as an "Agent Based" economic model:

http://tropico.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/cafe/index.php?topic=10050.0

 

[loverevolutionary]

Tropico is a 'God-game' and the player has ultimate control, so without radically changing the structure of the game, one can not institute a real free market economy. Oh, it could be done, but then we'd just have SimCity on an island. Perhaps El Presidente could choose a communist, capitalist or mixed economy. Communist would be just like the original, you place every building. Capitalist would be like SimCity: you place government building, and create zones for industry, commerce, and housing, and control the tax rate. Mixed would let you do both. But that sounds like a very different game.

[dierighty]

sim city would be an algorithm economy. how many people visited my store? let me calculate the algorithm.

[Coconut Kid]

sim city would be an algorithm economy. how many people visited my store? let me calculate the algorithm.

Exactly!
And that is what the German/European "city building" and/or "pirate/Hanseatic League" games are based on. They are buildings times assumed/derived populations run through algorithms.

Of course they are fun. But most of the fun is looking at the art work. The rest is cracking the algorithms by intuition. All you have to do is think like a European (German) game designer.

It is forbidden that the population should be individuals of some complexity which can not be controlled directly by the player. "Cultures" was an interesting series, but you had to micro-manage personal lives down to who got pregnant. Talk about algorithms!

Tropico has the best - and so far as I know - a unique population system which can challenge the player who is trying to play god.

Now all that is needed is a developer able to think "outside the box" about that unique population in different economic systems.

 

[Coconut Kid]

Tropico is a 'God-game' and the player has ultimate control, so without radically changing the structure of the game, one can not institute a real free market economy. ...

I would suggest to you that the player does not have ultimate control. The player has lots of control, but the units run though algorithms very independent of the player. Mechanical though they may be, the little buggers just do not submit to El Presidente as a god.

A Real Free Market Economy? Well, that's a matter of definition in the "game world" don't you think?

A real free market economy on this tiny island would restrict El Presidente; not restructure the game. Given the greatly expanded capability of the PC, the coding for an AI for the market economy could do interesting things. The problem is that this discussion seems restricted to the original game parameters which were defined by the PCs of nearly ten years ago.

It is not a matter of radically restructuring the game. That is going to be done already by going to 3D graphics.

What will the current PC support?

 

[Coconut Kid]

Tropico is a 'God-game' and the player has ultimate control, so without radically changing the structure of the game, one can not institute a real free market economy. ...

Given that is the case with T3 -- Could or should (and how) the effects of a trade embargo by the U.S. be included in the game?

T1 did not include it, so far as I have discovered. Yet it has been the favorite tool of U.S. diplomacy since gunboats and the Marines went out of style.

 

[Coconut Kid]

Let's see if I can breathe some life into this thread about the economy in T3.

Lyubo posted that doing the Almanac to fit T3 is not a simple, easy task.

That put me to thinking that perhaps T3 might lighten the load of economic micro-mangement that T1 gave the player -- probably not deliberately.

A big headache is setting housing rental rates. First, it is to hoped that T3 will reset the citizen's housing selection criteria on something more realistic than simply "CHEAP". It seems more 'realistic' to have to do with location per work (male if family) and quality suitable to occupation. Thereafter, rent is a consideration.

Then if the player doesn't wish to micro-manage the rates, why not use the same option as the "tourist accomodations" -- that is set an occupancy level and let the algorithm compute the rate.

Meanwhile back at the Almanac computations --- under what "industry" does the housing rent show-up? Should T3 elaborate between multiple units with rent and single units owned with taxes? Probably not.

But should there be an industrial category of the National Housing Corporation which might be financed by foreign investors? If so, the occupancy level vs rate algorithm makes sense.

A similar application might work if food, health care, and education are no longer to be free (dead weight overhead).

 

[el_malo]

quality suitable to occupation

This is a change that I would really like to see.

I'm assuming that to make it work, a island's population, and housing, would have
to be broken-down into...

1.  Lower class
2.  Middle class
3.  Upper class

Of course, if a player is a "leftist"... these distinctions need to be lessened or done
away with.

 

[Coconut Kid]

[housing] quality suitable to occupation

This is a change that I would really like to see.

I'm assuming that to make it work, a island's population, and housing, would have to be broken-down into...

1.  Lower class
2.  Middle class
3.  Upper class

Of course, if a player is a "leftist"... these distinctions need to be lessened or done away with.

Good points.

Dealing with the buildings first ( and from the T1 perspective), there are eight for islanders/citizens and they have base quality ratings in the order: 5 (shack), 25, 35, 50, 60, 70, 85, & 95 (Luxury House). Those base codes might be reduced to three without much impact on game play -- 25 (3ea), 50(3ea), 75(2ea).

However, the bigger change has to come in the code which drives how individual units select housing. My game play has led me to believe that the rental rate is 90% and the other elements make only minor shifts. Further, micro-managing housing takes up entirely too much game-play time and effort -- particularly on larger islands when citizens spend years going home to rest.

I suggest that the quintile pay sort is a good way to divide the population into lower class (bottom & second quintle); middle class (mid & fourth quintile); and upper class (top quintile). Then the pay-setting determines whether there are actual leftists or not.

I then suggest the residence selection should be weighted 45% to distance from employment, 45% to modified base service quality, and 10% to rental rate which would be a make or break to be considered firstly.

• houses in rental range - yes/no
• shortest distance zone from employment
• modified base service quality matches pay class
• lowest rent of previous matches

.
Then comes the difference between what singles vs couples can pay, and who gets to pick the home.

<<grind teeth>>

[el_malo]

What about a drop-down or pop-up box for housing that listed all the occupations.

Each occupation would have a check-box next to it.

A player would then check which occupations he/she wishes to live in the dwelling.

From that point on... housing would basically work as in T1.

I think it would be the easiest to code and still retain the "flavor" of T1.

[Coconut Kid]

That's a fair suggestion which could work well.

Personally, I wish to see the units made stronger at the expense of the buildings. So setting/restricting buildings -- especially each specifically -- would be more mico-management than I like. If it were a setting for all buildings of that type, I would like it better.

BTW - That's a huge list.

 

[el_malo]

If it were a setting for all buildings of that type, I would like it better.

CK, that was my intent.

Being a dummy... l forgot to include it 

BTW - That's a huge list.

Trim the list down to occupations that would be appropriate for the building.

[Coconut Kid]

The weakness of T1's economic system is that it is focused entirely on exports and tourist income and mades the big four needs of the population simply dead-weight overhead.

That crippled it for any ability to simulate one or the other of the two poles of economic theory -- capitalist or communist/socialist.

Housing rents and entertainment fees are not sufficient to simulate a domestic economy. There is no way to calculate the ability of the island to maintain a domestic food supply within the economy. That is elementary to a game with any pretense of simulation. >>Hidden Agenda recognized the import significance of the economy. T3 needs to provide import options.<<

Players go insane when the Dockworkers fail to appear and load exports. It is still a question whether the doubling of tourist accommodation is an error or deliberate. A minimalist island should be able to survive for 20 years on recycling money internally and borrowing until its debt exceeds "twice" (or whatever) the starting treasury balance. That's like the player loses if his population drops too small.

I suggest that it might be useful to step back and look at the economy like a resident "Tropican". Why is everyone paid monthly and housed urban-like? O.K. - the code structure. BUT, some occupations are different: consider Farmers & Ranchers (Peasants) ; Fishermen; and Lumberjacks. Peasants live in their farm buildings without rent payments and are paid annually or per six-months at the most (by abstraction of averages). Fishermen live in bunkhouses attached to the wharf (if you have a wharf rather than a "village") without rent payments and are paid quarterly (by abstraction of a village). Lumberjacks live in bunkhouses attached to the Logging Camp Headquarters without rent payments and are paid quarterly (by abstraction that the "logging camp" is a collection of bunkhouses + a cook-shack).

The point I am trying to make is that if the economy is composed of "cookie cutter" components, the player is going to deconstruct the relationships in short-order and become bored. On the other hand, if the relationships seem a tad more realistic, perhaps the player will spend more time watching the game evolve.

Now, there are debates about what I mention above -- particularly about farming "collectives". Perhaps that is simply solved by the size of the farm and its building --- one size for the peasant on his own land; a larger size for the collective farm; and something entirely different for the capitalist landlord's very large holding. But I suppose that is a debate about what the game code can carry.

[el_malo]

As long as the player has "god powers", only a totalitarian form of government can be represented.

Players can be either, a corporate fascist or centralized economic communist. 

To be honest, I do not know if it is possible to escape this unfortunate situation.

I suspect that the coding to do otherwise... is beyond the capacity of the human mind.

Even if it was possible to code a more flexible economic system, would current computers be able to run it?