Economics/Trade thread 1.2, hosted by: Harel

Harel · June 22, 1999, 10:38

ECONMICS/THREAD SUMMARY 1.2

Hello everyone! I am now the new thread master of Economics and trade. I hope we can continue the excellent work of Pythogras. In order to put things into speed, I posted here the old summary I was asked to create by Yin a few days ago.
I intend to change this model, to a more easier to read and manage thread, with more elborate summaries of the great ideas people suggested.
Expect that in the upcoming 1.3.
In the mean time, take the time to read what we have now. If I missed something, as ever give me a howler.

A. Economical concepts
B. Carvan issue.
C. People quotes.
D. List of thanks.

A. Economical concepts

1. Having a number of key materials per Era ( copper, oil, etc. ). If you lack enough of those materials you gain minuses to production. Only the used materials for the Era are showen up on the map. You may trade resources with other civ's. ( Eggman, Korn469 )

2. Having a budget screen. The usefulness of city improvements are decided by a Tax slide: how much money you put in Eduction dictates the bonus gain per schools, etc. Military is divided between the upkeep of the units, and give minus/bonus to morale. Wealthfare money gives extra happiness. In democracy / Rebpulic, the Sanete may demend minimum budgets to some parts. ( Harel )

3. Having 3 global types of resources: Fuel, building matertials and exotic, instead of shields. Works in other ways like idea number 1. ( Flavor Dave )

4. Economy model should be like Imperlism, you find the resources with a
Geologist unit, then build roads to the patch and build "mining buiding" on
the patch and move the resource to the closest city. ( Colon )

5. Besides resources, a consideration to the processing ( industry ) has to
be notice as it's the main issue in economy.( Colon )

6. You should be able to trade with barbains. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

7. Some nations based soley on trade. It should get much bigger economical
bonus from trade routes. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

8. The more types of luxury goods you have, the happier the people are. Trade goods should be seperated from gold and have four main type of luxury items. Also, combing many food sorts will give a happiness bonus. ( Ecce Homo, Korn469, Stefu )

9. You should be able to be a third-side trader contractor: be able to ship resources for some civ to another civ, gaining a small percentile of the money yourself ( Holland traded for most of eastern europe in the past. ( Harel, Mindlace, Diodoros Sicilus )

10. City should be able to build several things at the same time ( with sliders to refelt percents of labor ). ( Korn469 )

11. Have a new type of civlian: builder. ( Korn469 )

12. Base/City squres don't produce anything, they give a bonus to outlaying squares. ( Korn469 )

13. Each city can build as many Improvements as it has Population, with perhaps a bonus at the start so you aren't stuck with only one or two improvements for umpteen early turns - each city could start with a Base Number of improvements you can build. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

14. The number of tile used should be as the city size, not size+1. ( Isle )

15. City should be depended on one another, like in modern economy. Be able to group cities to a shared pool of resource and support. ( Druid, Hans2 )

16. Having "contracts" to reduce micro-manage. ( Don don )

17. Have commodities, like in Colonization. Have around 10 resources and 10 finished goods and revolve the economy around them. They are replaced with more fitting ones along history and deplet over time. ( Don don, Bulrathi, Diodorus Sicilus, Zorloc )

18. Be able to build docks, airports and the like in other country area by being a sum of money. ( Trachymr )

19. Have "two" level of trade - internal and forgien. Forgien will be automatic, ala MOO and internal economy will be based on commodities. ( Fugi the Great )

20. Trade advisors, like SMAC governors will automaticly control all trade. ( Fugi the great )

21. Trade will also generate shields ( production ), not only trade arrows ( CapTVK )

22. If you have commodites, controling most of the world supply of a certain item allows you to get more money for it, Monopol of the market. ( Pythagoras )

23. The type of Goverment and Market status dictate the control on your trade, and the income gotten from it. ( Pythagoras )

24. Black market: automatic caravans created in cities with a high criminality, or to trade goods which are greatly lack, or trade routes with enemies. You gain no income, and it's a drain on your trade cause it lower the income of your trade. Needs military units to destroy. ( Pythagoras )

25. You can build trading posts, which act as airports and fortress ( maybe give a small bonus to trade in near by cities? ). built by explorers. ( Flavor dave )

26. Spys can destory trade routes. ( Flavor dave )

B. Carvan ( only trade ) issues:

1. Have the trading bonus relate to supply and demand. ( Bubba )

2. Have an more expensive sort of caravan which delivers finished goods, not materials, and give a bigger bonus. ( Bubba )

3. Having pirating and pillaging the trade routes, ala CtP. ( Bubba, DanS )

4. Caravans automaticly move back and forth, not just trade routes. ( Pythagoras )

5. Carvans need to evolve along history, with sea and air types. ( Pythagoras )

6. Trade should be a part of diplomacy, automaticly created a "carvan" building contract. Good trade will increase the level of diplomatic connections. ( Pythagoras, Hans2 )

7. War should cancel all trade bonues. ( Jele2 )

8. Be able to give military protection to carvans by arming them. ( bab5tm )

9. Have air-lift carvan which can help besieged cities ( give them less damage from artilery, you get a trade bonus, civ attitude to you is better ). ( EnochF, Harel )

10. Have SMAC-type way-points for carvans. ( Trachmyr )

11. Have a MOOII trade, gaining an automatic money&Science bonus, no caravans. ( Prefect )

12. Once a caravan is built, he is automaticly sent to the most profitable
town, and gives and automatic bonus ( no actul movement ). ( Harel )

13. Caravans act like spies and show parts of the other-side maps. ( Utrecht )

14. Caravans are automaticly built by the AI, and sent. The entire trade process is done by the computer for you, a bit like SMAC. ( Lancer, Pythagoras )

15. Be able to hire caravans, and get a percent of the income. ( Trachymr )

16. If you enable free-market SE, some of the caravans will belong to a private company, and you get a percent of the income by tax. ( Ecce home, Harel )

17. A new wonder that will increase the movement rate of caravans. ( Flavor Dave )

18. A new city improvement to increase the output of caravans ( Diodoros Sicilus )

C. People quotes:

"With just two or three materials per era, this could do a good job of simulating the need for vital materials. If you can't get them (see Japan after the US cut off its oil supply in WWII) you are going to fall behind which forces war. It also allows a civ to capture and/or cut off key materials and devastate a civ economically. Run out of oil - production drops by 50% - OUCH!Stockpiling in case of war is a good idea too. Plus, the demand for those key materials would grow as the civilization gets bigger (more cities) so you would need to make sure that you can secure those resources to expand"
( Eggman )

"Actually, from the beginning civilizations had to trade for critical materials: copper and tin are relatively rare as recoverable deposits, but they are both required for Bronze. The bronze age in Europe was marked by long-range trade in tin, all the way from Cornwall in England to the Mediterranean. The trick is that most of this early trade was not with other (rival) civilizations, but with what, in game terms, are 'barbarians'. Give us more flexibile barbarians, who sometimes trade because ( for instance ) they've got the tin you need and you've got civilized goods like wine that they want, and you can put critical resources into the Trade System and realisticaly spread over the map and still not cripple some resource-deprived civ from the start. Also, in most of those early trades, the civ got the better of it, in that they also made money in the trading".
( Diodoros Sicilus )

"Resource Development: In order to develop your resources, you use special units similar to the settler units of Civilization. You start out with a prospector and an engineer. The prospector searches for various minerals that can be found in the hills and mountains, and the engineer builds railroads and ports that are necessary to transfer those goods to the capital. Unlike Civilization, virtually all your production is centralized at the capital. Thus, in order for those resources to be of any use to you, you must have a path, either by sea or by railroad, to your capital. Later in the game, as your technology advances, you gain the ability to build additional units which can further improve on your resource squares."
( Colon )

"For Civ this could work by having 10 raw materials, and 10 manufactured goods. All of these will be shared between all of your cities. Then to trade, you make an agreement with another Civ (similar to CTP) and a caravan creates a trade route from your closest city to their closest city. Then your caravan (or whatever) will travel this path continuously - and can be pirated."
( Zorloc )

"Why not have a real budget in civ III? For example, let's take hospitel. Each one, takes lets say 2 gold per turn? Why not have an advanced budget section, when you have "Health care". Here you allocate a budget that is shared between ALL hospitels in the empire. The more money is per hospitel, the more useful it will be. The more useful is will be, the happier people will be and will live longer. Same thing with schools ( "Education" section ), that will decide how much +% to research it gives, army which decided how useful the units will be ( a minus if support per-unit is below standard, a plus if above, etc ). You can even have the council fight for different increase in sections. In the realigon section, someone said that the popes ( or other big-shots ) of the religon would be like civ's inside your civ, you will need to debate with them. Let's show up how terrible are the democartical struggle for budgeting in civ III. Each party would demand something else... This could be fun...
( Harel )

"I think the trading from both SMAC and Imperialism should be used. The basic average everyday items that get traded if ou are a friend of another nation should be automatic like in SMAC. Then there are certain commodities like wheat - bread, oil -petroleam, iron ore-steel-guns, uranium - plutonium ... that should be traded on the market like in Imperialism ( the important things you need to grow a nation / empire ). You could then do what the US does with Russia now with the selling of wheat to them when they have a surplus. Could also get food if there is a major famine in your country. Trading for oil like the world does with OPEC. If you don't have oil, tanks don't move and planes don't fly; so make sure you have enough to get you through a war - don't be stuck like Germany or Japan in WWII. Iron ore/steel production with different nations trying to corner the market or dumping it on other countries to kill their industries ( Japan was accused of this ). If you don't have steel, then you don't make tanks or factories. If you don't have uranium to make plutonium, then you don't make nukes, try getting it in trade or on the black market. Not every nation on this planet is blessed with an abundance of goods. Countries like Japan have to rely on the exports of other countries to stay alive."
( Fugi the great )

"Please, please, Please no comodities as in Colonization. This system is ok with a very few "centers", but putting a system with detailed commodities in a many-centers (cities here) game like civ produces mind-numbing amounts of micromanagement. I intentionally would stop expanding in Colonization (even though I would have liked to strategically ) because the micromanagement burden became rapidly intolerable after about 10 cities."
( Mark_everson )

"Having industry treated like it is in Imperialism is a VERY BAD IDEA. I like Imperialism but in that game the economics are the main focus. Not so in Civ. Considering that in my experience Imp1 games tend to last a whole lot longer than Civ2 games, having a complex economic model in Civ3 will make the game unplayable. You know that joke that if you want realism in Civ, you should play two turns and then die of old age? Well, that wouldn't be too far from the truth."
( Eggman )

"If you have several Production Improvements ( Barracks, Armories, or Logistics Depots for military units, Mills, Factories, Robotic Plants for equipment, Shipyards for ships, etc ) you can build one New Thing for each such improvement OR you can combine several such to build one thing faster. Each Improvement would add to the cities total Manufacturing Points, which could be divided or applied as wished.This would also allow/cause you to concentrate the production of certain cities: you would tend to have, as countries' did historically, a Steel City that cranked out all the heavy stuff (artillery, tanks, etc), a University Town whose points all went into Schools, Science Parks, Universities - Research, and perhaps an Artistic City ( Athens? ) in which the points went into Happiness / Cultural improvements that affect the entire civilization's Happiness/Contenment ratings."
( Diodorus Sicilus )

"What do you think of putting these materials into a generic form--fuel, metals, maybe two more? Also, in every "age", where each of these generic goods are concentrated would change, to reflect the evolution from wood to coal to oil to nuclear power."
( Flavor Dave )

D. List of thanks:

Special thanks: Pythagoras

Eggman, Ecce Homo, Harel, Bulrathi, Bab5tm, Korn469, Lancer, Matthew, Don don, Mark_everson, Trachymr, Mindlace, CapTVK, Stefu, Fugi the Great, Itokugawa, JamesJKirk, VaderTwo, EnochF, Croxis, Delcuze, Kerris, DanS, Didorus Sicilus, NotLikeTea, Flavor Dave, Hans2, Colon, Bubba, Druid, Prefect, Isle, Utrecht, Jele2

[This message has been edited by Harel (edited June 24, 1999).]

EnochF · June 22, 1999, 15:33

The thread should read:

ECONOMICS/TRADE (ver 1.2): Hosted by Harel

Ecce Homo · June 22, 1999, 16:38

I thought lower cases looked better!

Harel · June 24, 1999, 00:37

Ok, ok EnochF

)
Next thread, I promise, which I'll do this weekend.
In the meantime, meaningful posts, ok?

Ecce Homo · June 24, 1999, 18:07

Shall issues about resources be discussed here or in the Resource Management thread? I would suggest a merger of that thread and this one, like it will probably be in the Firaxis forum.

Matthew · July 4, 1999, 19:26

One thing needs to stay the same: getting a trade bonus for moving your caravan on a boat, plane, rough terrain, or whatever, to another city of your choice and getting a trade bonus based on various factors once it gets there. It adds a lot of variety to the game and ways to win it. It also gives a reason for shipping resources other than for carrying troops once the world has been pretty much explored and settled. Some better tools for managing this would be helpful, but the CtP method of establishing trade routes, as well as the SMAC, are lame. If you're a pacifist and the world has been settled then navy is of little use to you except for defense if you have nothing to carry around.

Theben · July 5, 1999, 11:27

MHO's,
No tax/lux/science. Taxes only, which affects citizen's happiness. Taxes may be spent on lux, science, costs change depending on SE choices; city structures can improve the output.

Social engineering affects the amount of total production, money, science you receive. A slider bar would have laisse-faire free market at one end, communal at the other. Communal govts have full control of where to put the above. Free-markets have little control where to put production & science, however they generate much more trade, and may purchase production & research back from private individuals in times of crisis (war). The computer would select where it wishes production, science to go (on % slider bars). You may add to them with what you control. Generally the AI will pick non-military research & production. Excess money (not taxes) may pay for city structures if they are non-governmental structures.

There should be enough slider bars for variation, but not a number based on city size. The total production will dictate how many get used anyway.

Agree with Isle on #14 above.

Resources: If they are within your borders and you have means to transport them (connected road, port), you may use in all your cities. Otherwise you must trade or conquer to get these resources (or just - to production like #1 above). May inhibit certain lines of research. Outposts, forts would extend borders.

RE: #21 above-
As extra money can be used to quick purchase items I don't feel this is necessary.

Quick purchases would be city-size based. You could add x# of production by paying a citizen. Cost & output would be based on SE choices & certain technologies.

Agree with #22 & #23.

No caravan units. Trade routes would be constructed instead. Construction is incremental. Once built you would choose your destination. Trade would arrive based on distance & technology. Bonus is also based on distance, tech.

Bonuses can be added to current trade routes by adding excess food &/or shield production to the route.

Clicking on a hotkey will overlay trade routes on the map, allowing players to see where to intercept/pirate trade routes. Interception blocks the route. Piracy funnels some trade back to you civ. Both are acts of war, piracy would cause diplomatic penalties with other civs. Navies/armies can be assigned to guard routes. This would not guarantee protection.

Cities may send excess food, shield, trade arrows to another city as trade routes. These do not need to be constructed. Arrive based on distance, tech. If sent to other civs would count as a diplomatic "gift".
[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 05, 1999).]

Flavor Dave · July 6, 1999, 16:55

If you're going to have a slider bar for laissez faire and communal, then you've got to have a range after inudtrialization--from 30-70. Or, if you want to go outside of that range, you've got to use repression, or luxuries. After industrialization, England passed laws beginning in the 1830's for social justice, to prevent unrest. This is totally realistic. With industrialization, the working class develops enough that it demands certain things, to ameliorate the harshities of the pure free market. And you better give it to them.

Theben · July 6, 1999, 21:03

I agree. In the middle of those 2 choices would be others: regulated market, planned market, etc. Taxes could be used to purchase "entertainment"- whether that would mean college football, TV entertainers, or welfare checks doesn't really matter. There'd also be other modifiers to happiness, but it's outside the realm of economics.

Flavor Dave · July 7, 1999, 13:52

theben--maybe instead of slider bars, something like this.

Pure demand economy--exactly what we have now.

Impure demand economy--like we have now, except you can only change the tiles worked if a new citizen pops up, once you've started building something.

authoritarian socialism--

democratic socialism--

deomcratic capitalism--

pure laissez faire capitalism--

Here I'm out of good ideas. One not-so-good idea is that as you move toward laissez faire, you go from only being able to tell your cities to build a unit, or a wonder, or a city improvement, but the AI chooses which. Better, you lose control of an increasing number of your cities. At modest LF, you only lose control of a couple of cities. You lose more and more as you get more LF (but you also generate more trade).

Anyway, after industrialization, you lose the ability to use the two extreme governments.

Chowlett · July 9, 1999, 17:59

Sorry. Accidental double post.
[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited July 09, 1999).]

Chowlett · July 9, 1999, 17:59

Just a quickie about trading with foreign powers early in the game.

It strikes me that trade is a two-way thing, and so it doesn't make sense if I trade with a nation who haven't developed trade, and leave them still without the Trade technology! I have 2 solutions.

1) Disallow trade with powers who have not discovered Trade (or equivalent)

Slighlty less strict is:

2) If you trade with a power lacking the Trade technology, they automatically gain that technology as part of the process.

This would, in fact, benefit you, as they can then start to reypay you kindness in trade routes.
[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited July 09, 1999).]

Theben · July 9, 1999, 21:34

Flav Dave,
I originally envisioned several slider bars, 2 of them being tyranny <--> democracy (or anarchy) and laisse-faire market <--> communal. Your selections from each would give you the types of econ/govt you list above.
I agree with the loss of control for laisse faire, less so for democracy.
I was thinking that as you gained tech you'd be able to access the extremes of certain SE's, as opposed to not being able to.

Chowlett,
Even better would be Firaxis recognizing the fact that trade preceeded currency in history.

Harel · July 10, 1999, 06:22

A good way to show how trade was before and after currency, would be if will have one of the numerous commodity method people suggested.
In exchange trade, which was before trade, you will have to trade X items for a different X items. Meaning, 9 iron can only be traded for 9 lumber, etc.
Only after currency would you be able to exchange, for example, 1 silver for 100 lumber, or any one for credits.

Chowlett · July 10, 1999, 06:31

Theben:
Good point. That has bugged me occassionally.

Harel:
I can see that working. I do like the ideas of commodities, and that would seem to be a way out.

Diodorus Sicilus · July 10, 1999, 13:06

Not only was the earliest trade pre-currency, but it (apparently- we're talking only archeological evidence here) was in commodities. Advantage here is with the higher civ, almost always: they traded high-value goods like oil, wine, decorated pottery for high bulk goods (relatively) like tin, copper (required for Bronze), amber (early jewelry) or raw materials for medicines and luxury goods ('resins', spices, etc). Barbarians or less advanced civs having little use for tin, copper, etc, they usually gave more than they got.
This could be worked into the game by relating value of the commodities to tech: trading for tin or copper with a civ that had bronze-working would cost you lots of timber, hides, amber, spices, oil, resin, etc, while barbarians (who really, really should be a source of trading partners) who don't know about bronze yet lets you 'slicker' them - trading a small amount of wine, oil, or other 'exotic' goods for lots of tin or copper.
Money allowed both more flexibility in trade and the individual to accumulate portable wealth - it leads apparently inevitably to capitalism or at least individual entrepreneurs as opposed to state trading, and to serious inequities of income between the traders (getting rich fast) and the producers (farmers whose products don't appreciate in value). The Market improvement is a good indicator of this individual trading, but there should be an increase in Unhappiness associated with it: we have fairly good records of ancient Athens, and they nearly had a civil war over the economic inequities introduced by going to a mercantile (trading) economy.

Theben · July 10, 1999, 15:45

How about Barter tech; a starting tech like irrigation, mining, and roads?

ember · July 11, 1999, 23:44

Not quite sure where this goes:

Resources are a funny concept in civ.
A shield can represent either a resource or labour depending on what is in you city.
Maybe this should be split up.
Resources come from the terrain. Wood from forests, metals from hills/mountains, oil and coal from resource squares in desserts/swamps the ocean or wherever. More advanced mines/lumberyards give more per turn. Depending on play balnce issues this could be just one abstract type, or subdivided into the different classes of materials.

Labour comes from your population.
Each pop. point produces a certain amount of labour, modified by government, tech and improvments (like factories). Pop points not devoded to gathering produce double or more labour.

Resources are freely shiped throughout you empire (or within a region), and can be shiped between regions on trade routes of some type. Resources are stored for when they are needed, but reserves decay over time, maybe ~5% a turn. Resources can be sold to other empires or abstractly like capitalization. Resources can also be bought abstractly at a hefty premium, or from other civs.

Labour cannot be moved from it's city/region, and cannot be saved.
All units/structures require a certain amount of each component.
Ancient units tend to require a higher ratio of resorces/labour than modern units.
( a legion and a musketter unit might have the same amount of iron in tehm, but much more workmanship is required to make the muskets)
Infantry are less resource intensive than other unit types. Ships are the most resource intensive.
This, combined with the regional sharing of resouces will allow people to develop production centers seperate from the mining areas.
Food from agricultural cities (all pop devoted to resource gathering) is sent to the bigger cities to support industry (only the best squares are gathered, or could have lots of overlap with the resource gathering centers, most pop is devoted to labour) and mining comunities (all pop devoted to resource gathering, but in forested/hilled areas) Production from the industrail centers is used to build infrastructure for all areas, and military units.

This could lead to different war strategies, such as a civ with only one major mountain and hill chain. Attampt to capture their resource producing area and force them to devote lots of their money to try and aquaire resouces from elsewhere.
Or siexe their oil cities and dissalow them from building tanks and ships cheaply.

In Canada, for example, most mining is in the north, on the shield and norhtern alberta, but the bulk of the industrial production is in southern ontario, which is basically grassland. The bulk food production is in the plains, and some in southern ontario/quebec.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

Harel · July 12, 1999, 11:27

Yeah Ember, it sure does belong here.
Great idea!
It's even more suiting to show the modern age: when most cities hardly produce minerals, but can have tons of labors. Sometime, I don't understand just why a mine allows me to build a plane faster

Theben · July 12, 1999, 13:18

I'll 3rd the motion. It's an excellent concept! If I was you, ember, I'd post it on other threads to increase your chances of it getting to Firaxis, and maybe to other people who don't read Economics/Trade.

Gregurabi · July 12, 1999, 16:03

I saw ember's idea in the REGIONAL MENU & CITY MENU IDEAS thread earlier, and responded there. This response is basically the same.

The separation of resources from labor, and the differentiation of resources into types (wood and metal), was present in Colonization. In that game, you needed Lumberjacks to harvest wood, and Carpenters to convert it into an intermediate form (hammers). You needed Miners to harvest ore, and Blacksmiths to convert it into an intermediate form (picks, I believe). The "hammers" and "picks" were used to produce city improvements and guns. If you had a stockpile of wood, but not enough Carpenters, you could tell your Lumberjack to do something else (act like a Carpenter, for example) for a little while. (Since Colonization had differentiated specialists, rather than just "people", the Lumberjack wouldn't be nearly as efficient at carpentry as a Carpenter.)

I do like the concept of differentiating resources (and separating resources from labor). And I add this idea: like CTP's public works, let resources and food be put into a national pool. If the mines of City A produce 9 units of iron per turn, and a cannon requires 3 units of iron and 30 units of labor (just to make up some numbers), then the mines of City A would supply enough raw material to produce 3 cannons per turn in the factories of Cities B, C and D -- if I can supply the labor. Meanwhile, the farms of Cities E and F can produce, say, 25 units of food per turn, which might be enough to feed all of my empire (Cities A through F). Of course, Cities A, E and F might also be building things with their own labor even as they supply food and resources to Cities B-D, depending on how closely we continue to follow the Civ1/Civ2 city model.

This would change how food is handled. Instead of having a local food surplus, the nation's food would be averaged out over all cities. This would generally eliminate starvation in all cities (but in the event of global disaster such as global warming, could mean your whole empire starves). In terms of game-play, this seems desirable, and in later years (after discovering refrigeration, railroads) it makes great sense. In earlier years, it may be slightly unrealistic -- food handling and storage and transportation technologies are inadequate and would mean some food would rot before getting to its destination. But this could be rationalized in game terms by giving a bonus upon the discovery of certain techs (e.g., refrigeration) -- similar to what Civ2 does.

On a related note, I don't believe that the birth rate (or better, population growth rate) should be a function of excess food. The United States produces more food than we need to feed ourselves, but we don't have a skyrocketing population. The excess food is either sold to other countries or goes to waste. The population growth rate should be determined by health factors (contraception or the lack thereof, longevity due to medical care), social factors (overcrowding, women's rights, religious tenets), economic factors, etc. But this touches on the whole concept of "population points" which the Civ games rely on so heavily, and which may require an overhaul. That needs to go in another post, possibly in a different thread...?

Scooter · July 12, 1999, 16:57

Hold on, guys. I liked where this thread was going right up until we started discussing lumberjacks to cut wood to make hammer handles and miners to get ore to make hammer heads to eventually make hammers to pound ore to make spearheads to make a spear. Ack! I do not like this idea. I've said this before in other threads. While it is feasable to do this early in the game to make spears, how will you handle tanks? Will we need schematics to an M1A1 and figure out how many bolts we need? And how much ore we need to make the tools to put in the bolts? Please no. This is not a manufacturing sim. This is not an industrial sim. This is Civ. I am god. I say make a tank. It happens. I have underlings to figure out the nuts and bolts. I just want a freaking tank!

Imperialism was another game that separated resorces and labor, so did Lords of the Realm II. This works for these games because the have a time/technology span that is relatively limited compared to Civ. Civ is a more general game by design and by necessity. Design because that's what Sid envisioned, and necessity because the mechanics of building a tank are much too much micromanagement.

Don't get me wrong, I like micromanaging my civ. What to build, who works where, that sort of thing. But I don't like the idea of having to micromanage down to the raw material of whatever I make. Spears and arrows are easy, tanks and fighters are not. That's why it works for some games and not for others. This will not work for Civ, IMHO.

------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

-E. Cartman

ember · July 12, 1999, 17:34

I'm not proposing to have to figure out stuff like
1 tank division:
10,000 t iron ore
5,000 t coal
1,000 t nitrates
1,000 t cotton, etc
all i'm proposing is a seperation of the resources (all those things in the list, but abstracted as 'shields') and the labour needed to make something usefull out of it.
You get your minerals in mining town, and a production centre ( high population, little resource gathering) uses these minerals (from a national pool) to make your tank.

I think there is a little confusion about regions, the details are in that thread, but basically i think that things should be built on a regional scale, and then placed locally, so you choose where the temple that was just finished goes. This allows you to build temples, and supermarkets in your farming comunity with no resources around.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

Scooter · July 12, 1999, 18:06

Portable temples?

I'm kidding. I understand what you are saying, but I think the realism people would get all over you for building portable temples, and they may have a point. Let's take your temple in a farming community idea for an example, it's a good one. In "real" life (as if there is such a thing) the temple would be phisically built in that town, not moved there from a production center. The farming communuty would import materials, but not people. While the temple was being built, the food production would decrease. I suppose in modern times a construction company would come in and do it, but for Civ purposes the labor comes from the town receiving the building. So of all you are asking for is a way to transfer raw materials from one city to another, there are simpler ways to do it that to have "production centers" and "resource regions". Off the top of my head, you could have a transportation screen where you could say "City A has X amount of surplus resource M, how much of this surplus would you like to send to city B?" or something to that effect. Of course the amounts you could send would vary greatly with your technology level (roads, railroad, etc.). Kind of like the caravan helping to build wonders idea. If you city is lagging building a bank because of lack of resources, send them some. But eventually, they could have built it on their own.

We'll call it resource sharing, or something equally cheezy.

------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

-E. Cartman

Diodorus Sicilus · July 13, 1999, 00:37

Labor and Resources as separate components: Somebody give that man a medal!
In addition to the current Tech Advances related to producing more resources, the whole history of production can be related to requiring a lower and lower ratio of labor to resources. Tech Advances like the Factory System, Machine Tools, Water or Steam Power, etc, would all allow the same amount of labor (% of population?) to utilize and manipulate more resources.
In extremis, the super-modern Robotic (AI?) Factory allows the minimum of labor to produce the maximum of product from resources.
Some Improvements would also improve Labor: Public Schools providing an educated (literate) Workforce, for instance, increases their ability to learn and use higher tech machinery.
Labor does move, in that population is attracted to cities or regions for various reasons: jobs available being a big one. A capital, a city with a lot of trade routes, a 'factory town' will all attract labor from regions/cities without a market for labor.
The mobility of labor also changes dramatically with tech advances: railroads, steam ships, automobile, airports and air transport, etc.
Labor could even be mobile between civs: a civ without the resource/tech combo to keep its population (labor) employed would see them migrate to another civ! Either institute Totalitarian closed borders (with attendant Unhappiness and other problems) or see a net loss of population.
The gaining civ, in turn, might see his new labor pool coming with associated problems of assimilation and Unhappiness.
The icons showing population/happiness, etc as in Civ II could have faces specific to civs, and as you assimilate foreign labor the faces on your city display would slowly change...
Gad! This concept has me bouncing from thought to thought. I'm going to back off and think some more before I post on it again...

Theben · July 13, 1999, 02:00

I saw ember's idea as more basic: shields from resources & shields from labor, that are combined in the city menu as production.

Resource shields are as civ2 standard; Labor shields are a multiple of the # of citizens in the city/region, which would be modified by technology & city improvements.

I don't see why labor "shields" can't be imported/exported from city to city, as the fruits of their labor=finished goods. Also resource storing is a good idea, but no reserve decay, or only at higher difficulty levels.

The shipping of resources from city to city would be treated as "trade" routes, but they don't need to be built, and don't count against any maximum the city can have. Time it takes to arrive is automatically calculated by the computer based on distance, tech. See my 7/5 post.

Also I suggested before to change the quick-buy to something similar to MOO1: you drop down x# of $$ and you get extra production for a number of turns until the money is used up. This could be solved with the labor production: you pay your laborers $$ and their standard production rate is increased by (??). You can pay more to allow the extra production to roll over to later turns. This makes larger cities more important, and doesn't allow players to quick-buy tanks from scratch in size 1 cities (also since larger cities will likely have more labor-inhancing buildings, the bonus will be even higher yet!

).

3 options for production:

1) The civ2 method. Specific resources are not considered in unit/building construction.

2) Specific resources are on the map; if they are in your borders you may use them in all your cities & can allow other civs access for a fee. Must be connected to your cities by some means (roads or port city). Units, structures will have the name of the specific resources needed to build them; if you don't have then either cannot build or face a penalty to build (as A.1. economical concepts at top). Shields are still treated as shields, so as long as you have 1 of a resource in 1 city you are considered to have access to it in all cities. Trade &/or conquest has some priority.

3) Shields are broken down into specific resources, and units/buildings have # of each resource needed to build next to it. Shields in City Menu are replaced with specific-resource icons. Otherwise as #2 above. Trade/conquest even more important, but micromanaging could be frustrating.

Personally I prefer #2; it allows some importance to resources while not overwhelming the player with micromanaging details. But all 3 could be included in Game Options, it Firaxis has enough time to devote to this concept.

Ekmek · July 13, 1999, 11:23

A lot of great ideas here. I'm totally for a consumable resources idea as compared to the shields. The shields was too simplistic. There should be like said above, about 10 raw resources and 10 commercial commodities. The raw resources should be required to build units and city improvements (like in Age of Empires) and the commodities you trade for cash. This way you can model Mercantilism and colonial economies a lot better. And being an economic power with monopolies, etc would have more meaning.

I do think that having some AI corporations (later in the game) as proposed in the General Suggestions should exist, so when you sell improvements (or trade routes) a private owner will own them as opposed to city improvement just disappearing. (or make it like CTP's franchises but for barbarians if its easier)

Also it was seen in some scenarios and somewhat in CTP but if you raid a trade route or a caravan you should be able to take the resources this would be a good model for piracy and for Barbarians and their nomadic/raid based economy.

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

Flavor Dave · July 13, 1999, 14:41

I like the idea of separating labor and resources. Why?

1. It's realistic
2. It opens up the game. You know how when you're in an area filled with grasslands, and no hills? Well, you are stuck then--you're going to be a science/gold powerhouse, not a military powerhouse. With this idea, your geography would be less important. As you add techs, your ability to use your labor will increase.

Cautions
1. Don't make the Pyramids or "we Love" too powerful
2. KISS (keep it simple, stupid)

Zorloc · July 13, 1999, 15:06

Sorry I have been silent for so long, but:

Ditto to everything Diodorus Sicilus has said. He has been an excellent advocate for everything that I support.

One note to add. For resources and manufactured good: there should be at least two levels of manufactured goods. For Example:

Copper + Tin (L0 goods)--> Bronze (L1 good)
Bronze --> Bronze weapons/armor (L2 good)

And the higher the level the more the item is worth. As long as there is not a glut, the L2 good should sell for more than the cost of the L0 resources.

--Zorloc

ember · July 15, 1999, 18:54

Divorcing growth from food.

Growth should depend on happiness, government, tech, infrastructure and location.

Food has a strong influence on happiness.
All food is pooled and distributed to a nuetral happiness level automatically. (losses to to bad transport can happen)

The happiness neutral level of food corresponds to current slow groth, maybe 2.2 food / person.
Having more than this much food slightly increases happines and hence growth.
having less decreases happines. At a certain level (~1.5 food/ person) starvation begins. Happiness penalties are SEVERE and pop losses are inevitable.

Inventions like contraception will slow growth rate slightly, but they will also allow you to slow it dramatically where popultion has started to outstrip food supply.

This idea allows the modern phenomina of overcrowding. The population will grow well past the point of sustinablility and then begin to collapse, but with riots and probably revolts in long term starving cities.

Aquatducts/ hospitals increase growth
Cities near oceans and on rivers have bosted growth.
cities by mountains and desserts are reduced.

Other ideas:

Surplus food (over 2 / person) is stored in the grannary. The number of turns of spare food gives the happines bonus (and the minimum time for a full siege) Food decays at a rate of 10-20% a turn, to prevent near infanite stores. Modern refrigiration techs/ canning might slow this.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark