More insight into trade in Civ3 from the CVG article

[korn469]

CVG: Can you explain how the trade aspect of the game has changed and evolved?

Meier: We’re really excited about the expanded trade system. A big change is that trade has been abstracted to the diplomacy and trade advisors and will no longer require you to use caravan units. Trade goods are comprised of luxuries and resources. Luxuries are goods that improve the happiness of your cities. Resources are needed to make certain military units (iron, for example, is needed to make the Swordsman or Roman Legion units)

Many resources will not be visible on the world map until you have unlocked the secrets of a related technology. You will not see iron on the map, for example, until your scientists have discovered Iron Working. Likewise, uranium will not be visible until you have discovered Fission. The game will distribute resources throughout the map so that each civilisation will have access to several nearby resources. Additionally, simply by allocating population points to work the tiles inside your city radius, there is a chance each turn that your citizens will discover a new source of a known resource.

You can trade goods with another civilisation as long as you have a road, harbour, or airport that connects your civilization with theirs. Once you have a trade route, you simply negotiate with the other civilisation in the diplomacy screen.

ok now what i am thinking is that there is going to be a SMAC twist to the trade system...because at some point i think the barter system will collapse

what i mean by that is, i don't think players will barter special resources and luxeries with the AI once a player has secured everything they need...so in order to make trade profitable, i think that gold will change hands when you trade special resources and luxeries...and this gold won't come from any civ's treasury...it will be extra income from trade routes...so this system seems like the autotrade route feature of SMAC, once you sign a treaty with another civ and establish a physical link to that civ, then you start raking in the gold that comes from trade

is this the vibe that others of you out there are getting?

*sign a treaty
*establish a physical link to that civ (road, harbor, airport)
*then all special resources and luxeries from both civs are available to all of the cities on the trade grid
*trade routes also earns the civ gold

if trade routes do generate gold then it would encourage civs to trade...if not i could see most human players ignoring trade, except in a few rare instances

[Colon™]

I must says this sounds good, but I don’t really understand how this all will work.
In civ2 you had arrows and shields, will one of those or both be replaced by resource production and trade or will that just be an addition to the existing model?
For instance do you need shields and iron for a legion or just iron? (and maybe another specific resource) And in case of trade, will you derive luxuries solely from certain resources or also from the traditional arrows?

I noticed in several screenshots arrows and shields were still present, hence my confusion.

[korn469]

Colon

ok here is my best understanding of how all of this is going to work...all three resources from civ2 are in civ3, food, shields, and trade arrows...

however in addition to that civ3 is also going to have resources and luxeries which are special squares (ie, not every square is going to contain iron or silk etc)

now to build a legion for example you will need iron, so either the city building this legion will have to be connected to a colony by a road, harbor, or airport...or it will have to have the special resource square fall within your civ's cultural borders...or it will have to be connected to another city in your civ that is connected to a special resource...or it will have to be connected to the capital, and then it can get resources and luxeries from other civs

on your city is on the trade grid and has access to iron, then you use normal shields to build this unit...if you get cut off from the trade grid this city cannot continue building that legion

i am also fairly sure that you will be able to devote money to luxeries in the tax window

most likely when you have trade routes setup between your civ and another civ it creates trade arrows, in addition to linking your trade good to those resources

now a question i have is are resources and luxeries a yes/no item in the game, either your city is connected to a supply of iron or it is not...this is how i am assuming they will work...or are resources and luxeries implemented in a quantitative way? i mean will a city only be able to build a legion if it is connected to an iron special resource or will a legion maybe require 40 shields and 25 units of iron? i wouldn't think that would be the case, from the screen shots and how it has been explained so far...but i would like to know for sure

[Rhuarc]

I think that is the type of thing we are just going to have to wait for the game and start figuring out when we play it. I doubt firaxis is going to want to provide that kind of detail to us beore the game even comes out. I mean they want us to be in suspense over the game, and we wouldn't be if they told us everythig about it!

[To_Serve_Man]

I have never played SMAC, but from what you describe in your origanal post, I understand the basics as to what your explaining korn469. In understanding that, I also feel that if a player can achieve the correct amount of resources to build units and keep people happy without trading, then resource - resource trading will not suffice. So logically, other things will be traded, gold, units, techs, units, land. In a way this is understandable... maybe this should be one of the many goals that are set in Civ3. To be able to have a self sufficent civ. But, what if it was hard coded (in the normal single player mode at least) that there wouldn't be enough resources to allow everyone to do this. So if your playing in a certian area on the map, the game does not put any uranium there... or at least small amounts... would that increase the need to trade?

[Colon™]

Korn, thank you for your interpretation, it seems plausible, although I don’t really understand why Firaxis would choose such a hybrid system. If you have resources of all sorts (iron, oil etc), why maintain shields, which represented resources in the previous civ editions? For instance, rather than requiring x shields and x iron for a legion, you’d need x hemp (for the clothes) and x iron.
Idem dito with arrows and trade in resources.

But I suppose we’ll have to wait for further details...

[Warm Beer]

First I must say, "To Sever Man" is the best Twilight Zone episode ever. Hands down.

Now to contribute to the conversation. I like the idea of resource scarsity and think it would add a lot to the game. For instance, a small, unimportant country that is located in an area of abundant oil when the automobile is discovered (all conjecture, mind you) will become wery popular and wealthy or very endangered... the same could go for large powers who happen to be short on a suddenly important resource: they may need to play nice...

[korn469]

Rhuarc
I mean they want us to be in suspense over the game, and we wouldn't be if they told us everythig about it!

Meier:
I think Civ III affirms a genre. Civ III will build on the legacy of its predecessors as a great empire building strategy game

so pretty much it's just like civ2 except better...like a potential car buyer i wanna look under civ3's hood and take a peak at what it's running (game mechanic wise) plus i hate surprises, always have always will...so there is no need to keep me in suspense...

to-serve_man

i don't think you are getting me exactly, in SMAC if you sign a treaty or an alliance with another civ this creates abstract trade routes between your cities and theirs...the game automatically pairs up your cities with the civ you signed a treaty with and each city in the pair starts getting commerce income (so if you have 2 cities and they only have one one of your cities will get commerce and one of their cities will get commerce) the extra income doesn't come out of your reserves, it just appears and represents trade

now the problem arises from the word trade, it is overused in civ3 and it has three different definitions

*trade: trade arrows
*trade: trade routes
*trade: quid pro quo exchanges in the diplomacy menu

what you are talking about when you say trade is quid pro quo exchanges in the diplomacy menu (i'll give you 100 gold and two tanks for advanced flight)

what i am talking about is trade routes

i think that in addition to linking two civ's trade grids (the network of roads, harbors, and airports that allow all connected cities access to special resources and luxeries) that trade routes will work in some kind of abstract and automated way like trade routes in SMAC to provide cities with trade arrows each turn that represent commerce income

if that is how it works then i see trade being something that most players will engage in...however if trade in civ3 only links a civ's trade grid to another civ's trade grid then i think that firaxis needs to think about that choice and think about making trade more appealing even after you have set up a self sufficent empire (which will happen once you get big enough)...firaxis has a list of the areas it's focusing on overhauling, and trade is one of those things...i just think that trade needs a few more perks than just linking trade grids, because what if you share a continant with another civ, and you both have access to the same resources (horses and iron for example)...then there would be no reason to trade with this civ, unlike in civ2 where it might not be the most beneficial thing ever, but ever trade route you created was worth at least a little

here is the areas firaxis is focusing on overhauling

the enhanced trade system, the new concept of culture, greatly expanded diplomacy, more powerful combat and the most detailed and beautiful art, animations and sound ever found in the genre

colon

i think the reasons they will stick with shields, and the either you have access to iron and you can build legions, or you don't have access to iron and you can't build legions is that it is simple, you don't really need more complexity than that...civ3 will always go with a simpler solution than a more complex solution...it would suck if you forgot to convoy resources from one city and suddenly you can't build any units at all

if you like resource gathering try a game called start knights

www.starknights.com

warm beer

i'm not sure how it will work if you suddenly find yourself setting on top of an oilfield and nobody else has it...yes you will be politically important, but maybe since you have a rare resource that you get more commerce income than the civ you are trading with...that seems like the simplest way of doing it...i just can't see you having to buy oil out of your treasury, especially with the fact that military units now require gold for support

[Alex 14]

if not i could see most human players ignoring trade, except in a few rare instances

Nukes require trade, as do many other units, i doubt people will ignore it.

[korn469]

Alex 14

nukes don't require trade, they require uranium, once you secure all of the resources you need then why trade unless it has other benefits besides linking trade grids?

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by korn469

i'm not sure how it will work if you suddenly find yourself setting on top of an oilfield and nobody else has it...yes you will be politically important, but maybe since you have a rare resource that you get more commerce income than the civ you are trading with...that seems like the simplest way of doing it...i just can't see you having to buy oil out of your treasury, especially with the fact that military units now require gold for support

Actually I was thinking along the line that you need certain resources to build certain units. Keeping with my example, say, to build tanks, one needed oil. We know that we will be able to trade resources, so, you anyone who wanted to build a bunch of tanks would have to go through you to get oil (they could do this via diplomacy or, literally go through you militarily)

This brings the question up, Are resources like shields, each unit needing X amount of a given resource in order to be built. Or is it just one resource to build one unit? Can stock-plile resources, so you could build a load of tanks in a pinch, or trade them for a bunch of other services is someone else wants to build a load of tanks?

[Civ Pi(3.14)Fan]

I think it's simpley: you have a resource or you don't. For a legion you need iron plus the requied number of shields, so if you are connected you can build it, if you're not you can't. Like I said that's my understanding of it, but i may be wrong... then again I'm never wrong

[meriadoc]

My understanding of the new production/trade/resource model is this:

Production (shields) is the same as it always has been. Whatever buildings or units I want to build require x shields to build them. However, if a unit requires a special resource, say iron, then that city has to have access to iron. It doesn't need x shields and x units of iron, it just needs the presence of iron. Think of it more like a key. I need the key (iron) to start the production. I don't need ten keys, just one. Does that make any sense?

[Civ Pi(3.14)Fan]

Ya, i think that's right

[CapTVK]

Interesting, that's similar to the trading system i proposed for the Civ3 wishlist. I made a mention then that you could turn off (embargo) certain trade routes to cut off resources to other civs. I wonder how this embargo will work. Against the AI it will probably be useless because they'll work together anyway.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by korn469


if trade routes do generate gold then it would encourage civs to trade...if not i could see most human players ignoring trade, except in a few rare instances

Firaxis has said, repeatedly, that one civ will NEVER get all of the recources it needs on its own...so everyone MUST trade in order to survive and expand, even the human players, so I dont know what you are talking about.

although I do think that bringing in extra gold every turn from trading would be pretty cool.

[Inverse Icarus]

i beleive i read that resources are SCATERED all over, so there are, i believe, 3 different resources in any given area.

so if you have iron, rubber, and bronze (NOT REAL DAMMIT), you have to trade for nukes.

new question: will; resources become obsolete? what could bronze do in modern era?

[marcuspeddle]

Originally posted by UberKruX
new question: will; resources become obsolete? what could bronze do in modern era?

Along with gold and silver it's important for the olympics.

Actually, bronze is important for things like art in the modern world but I don't think that fits into the Civilization game so I guess you are correct in thinking that resources could become obsolete. Unless some civilization is waaay behind in the game.

[Inverse Icarus]

if your the only civ to discover Fusion, are you the ONLY CIV to see uranium?

then you'd have to give that tech away to someone before you go trade for it, if they had it.

[CivPatriot]

With the new emphasis on "culture" in Civ3 maybe the resources to produce ceritan "culture" wonders, buildings etc, will require those some of the older resources(like iron, copper, bronze(I know, I know)) They might play a differnt but still important part in the latter game. That's the only way I can see how they would remain relevant in the later stages.

UberKruk, I think that you are reffering to Fission as what reqiures urainium. Fusion just reqiures a very light element(usually hydrogen).

[korn469]

Civ Pi(3.14)Fan and meriadoc

i completely agree with your assessment of the trade system in civ3, i think special resources will be a key, if you have access to iron, you can build a legion...if you don't have access to iron you can't build a legion, and you still build with shields

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto

i cannot see how firaxis can guarantee that one civ won't have access to all of the vital resources that it needs...if i control 40% of the entire world, i can pretty much guarantee that i will have iron, oil, rubber, and uranium...that sounds like all of the resources you need to build a warmachine (armor units, and nukes at least)

and why in the world would i trade uranium to a civ meaning one day it could become a potential threat when it build nukes of its own? especially for something with way less importance like silk? screw silk, who needs luxeries when you have martial law?

i just hope that they include a little more incentive than simply linking trade grids, that's all...this would encourage way more trade, otherwise even if you do trade it would most likely be with just one or two important civs (those who have resources vital to arming my civ)

more than likely when one civ discovers a new resource all civs will be able to see it (especially a cheating AI)

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by korn469

i completely agree with your assessment of the trade system in civ3, i think special resources will be a key, if you have access to iron, you can build a legion...if you don't have access to iron you can't build a legion, and you still build with shields

I've read plenty interviews/reviews/previews that say that All the Civs need Iron the build Swords men, but the Romans need Iron to build Legions. Legions are unique to the Romans. So forgeting about the romans. All players will need Iron (if they build swordsmen).

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man


I've read plenty interviews/reviews/previews that say that All the Civs need Iron the build Swords men, but the Romans need Iron to build Legions. Legions are unique to the Romans. So forgeting about the romans. All players will need Iron (if they build swordsmen).

I've read that the legion and impi were essentially swordsmen, but with minor upgrades (movement of 2 or whatever). Can anyone refresh my memory?

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by meriadoc
My understanding of the new production/trade/resource model is this:

Production (shields) is the same as it always has been. Whatever buildings or units I want to build require x shields to build them. However, if a unit requires a special resource, say iron, then that city has to have access to iron. It doesn't need x shields and x units of iron, it just needs the presence of iron. Think of it more like a key. I need the key (iron) to start the production. I don't need ten keys, just one. Does that make any sense?

Not to pick on you, Meriadoc, but... You make it sound like all you need is the presence of Iron...i.e. one iron will build all the legions (sake of example) you need. Thus, it matters not how much iron you own.. as long as you have at least one, it is enough to build all the legions you need... that makes special resources lame (excuse the devolution).. I hope that is not the case... So a civ with 1 iron can produce the same amount of Legions as a civ with 8? Scarcity means nothing? Please be a tiny bit more complex than that... one iron per legion, as you build would suit me fine.. but not just to have the presence...

[korn469]

warm beer

as far as i know the information available supports the conclusion that one iron tile can power an entire empire...however firaxis has also said that resources deplete so i think that means if many cities rely on one tile then that tile will rapidly deplete, while if they rely on numerous tiles then resources will deplete much slower

to_serve_man and sabre2th

romans can't build swordmen because legions replaces swordmen, zulus can't build warriors because impis replace warriors, germans can't build armor units, because panzers replace armor units, america can't build fighters because f-15s replace fighters...however special units cost the exact same as their normal breathen and takes the exact same special resources...a panzer will still require iron, oil, and rubber to produce and will cost the exact same amount of shields as an armor unit, it will just have some extra ability etc.

but what i'm saying is that if you must have access to the special resources a unit requires before you can construct that unit...and if you get cut off from that special resource you can no longer work on that unit, and that access (and not how much access) is all that is required

[Warm Beer]

but the question I am begging to ask you then, Korn, is why bother trading? (wow looks like I am asking it now!) If trade it that big of a factor and most civs have at least one resource in thier borders, then why bother to have that as a diplo option? I hope you get what I am saying... more resource=more units/capabilities makes for a really complex and realistic game. Colonization, for example: You find a continent that has a resourse that is scarce:.. If you send in the settlers, you may have a corner on the market, or a decided advantage over a country that has less... this is the reason that colonization happened for the first place: gather rare resources...

[Miatezhnyi]

It seems to me that some kind of resource stockpiling will be used. If you look at one of the same diplomacy screens

http://www.apolyton.net/civ3/images/...ots/image2.jpg

you can see that various trade goods are listed by quantity. The French for example have an extra diamond resource, while the other civ has extra dye and incense. Connecting by roads/harbours/aiprots means that any connected city in your empire has access to it. Though to trade a resource with another civ, it must be connect to your capital somehow. Given this, I don't think that by having one iron you could build an unlimited number of swordsman/legions at one time. Then again we really don't have enough information to say the resources are completely used.

[Grumbold]

The information Dan Magaha posted on Apolyton regarding colonies supports the idea that one source can supply your national demand and international trade. The more a source gets used, the faster it will deplete. No hard numbers have followed.

I'm more concerned about this idea that worked tiles can spontaneously generate new sources, but that is a topic for a separate post.

[meriadoc]

First of all, from what I've read, yes you only need one location of a resource (eg: 1 iron) for your entire empire to build the units that require that resource. That means that scarcity doesn't really come into play. I haven't really heard anything about resources depleting, but if they do then you would want to find multiple instances of a resource.

Second, in the diplomatic screen. The two nations were listed as having extra units of certain resources. I don't think that refers to stockpiling. In fact, I don't think that I've read anywhere anything about stockpiling. What I think the diplomatic screen was referring to was that if a trade route is established for that resource then you get that amount of extra gold a turn. What do you think?

[Warm Beer]

I just re-read my last post... Yikes, I didn't mean to come off like "El Jerko" Sorry.

meriadoc :
I see what you mean... It sounds like resources will be distributed evenly around the map (from the controvercial "Sid" interview). Looks like resource trade will not be a major part of the game unless you are unlucky, "Man, Every buddy gots at least one Iron but me!"

I see how that can work... like my idea better, but I am not designing the game now am I?