A simple, elegant way of making extra resources domestically useful

Roman · December 11, 2003, 04:04

In Civilization III, having more than one resource square of the same type is useless unless you are willing to trade the resource with another civilization. I do not like that fact at all, but the current resource system is simple and effective, so discarding the system would be unwise. A simple solution to the problem is to have each additional resource of the given type beyond the first give a +1 shield bonus per turn for the production of units or structures that require that resource. It is simple, intuitive and makes the player actually loose something by trading away a resource unlike now. A game is all about tradeoffs and this would add another tradeoff to the player's decision making.

chequita guevara · December 11, 2003, 20:23

Interesting.

DarkCloud · December 11, 2003, 23:18

Quote:

A simple solution to the problem is to have each additional resource of the given type beyond the first give a +1 shield bonus per turn for the production of units or structures that require that resource. It is simple, intuitive and makes the player actually loose something by trading away a resource unlike now. A game is all about tradeoffs and this would add another tradeoff to the player's decision making.

I like that... a lot!

Good idea Roman!

Fosse · December 12, 2003, 00:38

Nice thought, Roman. I agree with tradeoffs being important. And your solution is a nice one. But... (as always

)

I'd rather get rid of the "one is enough" model that we have. So let's say that one source of spices is enough to go around to 100,000 people or so (numbers out of thin air, here). Now securing a second source is good if you don't trade it because that's twice the spice, and none of it is extra (unless you amass enough spice to outnumber your citizens... unlikly I hope!).

The trade off from trading is now simply... if you trade it, it's worth a lot. If you keep it, your people get it.

Kuciwalker · December 12, 2003, 00:44

That would complicate it a LOT.

As Roman stated, simplicity is the strong point of the current model, which IMO is quite good. However, his addition is very innovative. I like it.

Jon Miller · December 12, 2003, 01:23

I like it also

better than some of the other suggestions I have seen

Jon Miller

Fosse · December 12, 2003, 01:33

Jon and skywalker, you'd both rather stick to the ON/OFF resource model of Civ 3, where one source of incense can make your 1000 people in 1000 cities happy, but not two people in one city?

Jon Miller · December 12, 2003, 01:45

I like it better than some things I hvae seen

I like this idea, which is different than that found in Civ3, a little better, I believe

even though I reserve the right to change my mind

Jon Miller

Skanky Burns · December 12, 2003, 02:04

It would be appreciated if you could continue this discussion in the {The List-} Economics/Trade thread.

Jon Miller · December 12, 2003, 02:05

hmm

I missed that one, sorry

Jon Miller

Roman · December 12, 2003, 02:41

Thanks for the voice of confidence.

We can do something similar for luxuries. Again, having more than one luxury square of the same type currently yeilds no benefit beyond the ability to trade. I suppose we could have a single luxury square only be sufficient for a certain limited number of people, but this creates the same complexity problems as having a single resource only be sufficient for a given number of cities. A simpler approach would be to have each extra luxury square plus one, provide the same benefit in happinness as the first square.

e.g.

1) 1 luxury would increase happinness by 1.
2) 2 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
3) 3 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
4) Etc. (There could but would not have to be a limit.)

This is a simple system that ensures the benefits of additional luxuries of the same type apart from trade yet does provide an incentive to try to gain different types of luxuries and indeed to trade your luxuries for different ones.

Roman · December 12, 2003, 02:41

Hmm, I suppose I should post this in the other thread.

Roman · December 12, 2003, 06:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
Jon and skywalker, you'd both rather stick to the ON/OFF resource model of Civ 3, where one source of incense can make your 1000 people in 1000 cities happy, but not two people in one city?

Fosse, forget a system that adds a lot of new compexity - it is simply not going to happen.* Firaxis want the game to have mass appeal and simplicity is the key to that. Even if everyone on these boards agreed that a very complex system is desirable, I doubt Firaxis would implement it, as the people on these boards by definition tend to be the hard core gamers of Civ and Firaxis must also think of the casual gamers. In any case, the present system is not bad and a little tweaking at the margins can perfect it even more.

*I speak from experience - I remember when Civ III was being designed and suggestions were being given by fans.

Fosse · December 12, 2003, 09:37

I don't think that having one resource = x number of benefits is copllicated.

I'd like to draw a difference between complication and depth, as the term "complexity" is often used to refer to either of these things, and they are very different beasts.

A feature that is complicated is trying to hard. It's confusing the player and leading to insane levels of micromangement while providing little increase in fun for the player.

A feature that adds depth is relativly straightforward in its implementation and can add both fun and options to the player.

Comlicated is bad, deep is good.

I believe wholeheartedly that it is not asking too much of a player to make him understand that more of a good thing (resources) is a good thing.

All or nothing, as the current model is, is an abstraction that I think eliminates a potentially cool level of depth without removing any complication from the game. To me, this is an unacceptable trade off.

I won't forget a system that really strikes me as being a good one. We're here to compile a list of suggestions, and my suggestion is to do away with ON/OFF resources. I am open to listen to opinions from others and possibly changing my mind, but if and when I do change my mind it isn't because I am afraid of supporting an idea that Firaxis will leave out because they think it adds market appeal to dumb down the game.

Roman, your proposal on luxuries increasing happiness in diminishing returns is a very good middle ground between what I want, and what is currently there. I'd be very happy with that for luxuries, in fact. It's the similar treatment to strategic resources which I feel is leaving out lot of potential in the resource system.

If we don't suggest or support ideas that we would like because we think that they already won't get in, then that's a defeatist attitude and a bit silly, in my opinion, seeing as we're talking about a game that probably doesn't even have a design document yet, and won't hit shelves until 2006 at least.

MrBaggins · December 12, 2003, 09:41

However, "deep" is bad when the AI is at a strategic disadvantage...

AI's have never gotten "deep"... and they never will in this decade.

Roman · December 12, 2003, 21:04

Fosse, I suppose you are right that we should not be 'defeatist' at this time. Perhaps we should strive to provide at least two ideas for each category of gameplay - one radical idea that favours realism and requires substantial modification of the current system and one more conservative idea that builds on the current system yet does add something to both realism and gameplay. It is much more likely that Firaxis will choose the conservative idea in most cases (or an idea of their own, or not modify the system at all...), but in some cases they might be inspired to choose the more complex system.

Fosse · December 13, 2003, 03:34

Regarding AI not getting "deep." You're absolutely right.

However, I am a firm believer in having the program simply telling the AI what to do with good solid heuristics.

For example: People will say that the AI will be bad at organizing units into armies, or keeping stockpiles of resources, etc. I say, create a database for the AI of 50 to 100 unit-type ratios for armies, and a set of instructions about when it is good to stockpile and when it isn't.

The AI will never be as good as we are, but we can at least teach it to use some tried and true approaches.

For instance... nobody expects an AI to be able to "think up" clever flanking attacks. But we all get upset when the programmers don't provide code that simply says, "Attack on two fronts, with considerable force!" (in computer terms, of course

) Such simple code (which seems to have been added to C3C, though I have yet to play it) gets rid of the endless trickle of units that the AI "figures out" on its own.

I agree that it's a poor idea to have crippled AI because a game is too tough for the programmed AI. But I think that the mistake lies in the poor AI, and not the good game model.

Roman...

Totally. If we can get one or two great new ideas into the game then we'll have a great victory. But if we don't provide dozens and dozens of such ideas, then we might not hit on ones Firaxis likes...

Frozzy · December 13, 2003, 03:38

How about you need, say, 1 oil square per 10 tanks, otherwise their HP goes down.

Fosse · December 13, 2003, 03:57

A new poll takes the question of how to handle resources to task.

Hopefully it will help us guide our discussion.

MrBaggins · December 13, 2003, 10:59

The Civ3 designers saw the possibility for castastrophy with strategic resources, and fudged that by giving the AI knowledge of these resources beforehand... if they didn't then the AI would most likely not see the later ones, the human being predisposed in planning to deny them.

The situation we are talking about... "Extra strategic resources" giving significant production bonuses isn't a heuristic problem, except at the grossest level. The solutions aren't hard and fast... since there are competing solutions. You might go with a genetic algorithm over the top of heuristics, and then develop that to a point where it was smart... but thats not been done in an empire game... (except maybe Evo, but thats a bit of a backwater,) or use a fuzzy system, but again, implementation is on the tough side, and you still have to define the operators appropriately, which means you need to understand how the system works beforehand, then defuzzify.

The Civ3 team have done very well, in general on the AI, but its proficiency is largely its due to a brute force method of resources and strategems... like tons of bonus resources, rabid expansion, forethought and lack of ZOC's.

One of the biggest problems is that "point defence" isn't easy to implement, or actually, just that humans are so much better at "point attack".

Kuciwalker · December 13, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
Jon and skywalker, you'd both rather stick to the ON/OFF resource model of Civ 3, where one source of incense can make your 1000 people in 1000 cities happy, but not two people in one city?

Yes.

Kuciwalker · December 13, 2003, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Roman
Thanks for the voice of confidence.

We can do something similar for luxuries. Again, having more than one luxury square of the same type currently yeilds no benefit beyond the ability to trade. I suppose we could have a single luxury square only be sufficient for a certain limited number of people, but this creates the same complexity problems as having a single resource only be sufficient for a given number of cities. A simpler approach would be to have each extra luxury square plus one, provide the same benefit in happinness as the first square.

e.g.

1) 1 luxury would increase happinness by 1.
2) 2 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
3) 3 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
4) Etc. (There could but would not have to be a limit.)

This is a simple system that ensures the benefits of additional luxuries of the same type apart from trade yet does provide an incentive to try to gain different types of luxuries and indeed to trade your luxuries for different ones.

This system provides no incentive to trade. The strength of the C3 luxury resource system is that it REQUIRES that you trade for different types.

Roman · December 13, 2003, 17:03

Skywalker, it gives a very big incentive to trade. You will get a much higher bonus to hapiness by having 6 different types of luxuries (+6 bonus) than 6 tiles of the same luxury (+3 bonus). It therefore makes sense to trade your identical luxuries for different ones - the system merely ensures that the extra identical luxuries are not completely useless domestically.

Kuciwalker · December 13, 2003, 18:05

Oh, I see what you meant. Sorry, I though it meant 1 lux = 1 happy, 2 lux = 2 happy, etc.