New commodity system

[Stefu]

Since... ah, you know.

1. New commodity system.

Maybe if terrain is like in Alpha Centauri, each tile could have, shall we say, certain number of many commodities in it? Note that to reduce the complexity I assume they get processed in cities and then trader, for instance Coats from Furs, Wine from Fruits and Jewelry from gold. These commodities are part decided by terrain type it is in (Coats in forests). For instance, one square could have 3 Coats, 1 Wine and 1 Jewelry. These commodities can be in squares next to each others (large forest yields much Coats). And here the city placement comes in play.

Each city is considered to have access on goods which it has worker on. (ie if the city is 2 people city, it has two workers. It was in Civ2. You get the idea.) So, if you have 1 worker in square producing two Coats, 1 in square producing three Coats and one Jewelry and one in square producing one Jewelry and one Wine, the city produces 5 Coats, 2 Jewelry and 1 Wine. And here the trade comes in.

Trade is handled as crossbreed of C:CTP and Civ2 trade systems. Caravans are built and dealt with like in C:CTP. However, instead of trying to gain monopoiles you simply buy cheap and sell dear. Laws of supply and demand are in force - city with Coats productment has got no idea in selling their stuff to another city with Coat productment, while big city with no Coat productment would be -eager- to buy them. This will effetually remove the stupid instances that happened in Civ2, for instance selling Gold at high prize to city with 4 gold resources next to it.

There are two sides combatting in me about do the goods have any effect on gameplay prime. Other side says goods have only effect of being labels used in trade system, while other claims that having many kinds of different goods coming to same city should have positive effects on happiness, trade or production, depending from goods (if you don't handle the necessities of life to big cities the denizens are gonna get *quite* unhappy about it.

Now, the "effects" part is good in that in the long run it would make civilizations dependant of each others, making economical combat maybe as important as normal combat!

[Stefu]

This idea didn't get attention. I want attention.

[fryman]

I like the idea of your supply and demand, but having support on trade from another civilization isn't all that idea. I don't think economical warfare would be that fun or interesting. More people will get frustrated with it then people iwll get enjoyment out of it. This game would get too damn complicated and bogged down if you have economical warfare as important as normal combat.

------------------
Buddha said, "What isn't enlightenment?"

[MidKnight Lament]

I think an economic victory would be cool. I just haven't decided which way I'd like to see it done yet.

I liked the way CTP handled trade routes from a seperate screen. I think ideas like Stefu's regarding trading a number of commodities would be good, but I'm unsure as to how this could best be done without getting too complicated. So many commodities per square.. So many trade routes...

I like the idea though. It's just that I'm yet to be convinced on how it could be done simply enough.

And how is demand dictated? Buying and selling is all well and good, but is the benefit just gold, or is it appeasing citizens as well? I'm assuming the latter, but you haven't explained how you'd like it done. After all, these are goods, not shares. And are commodities dictated purely by terrain?

Judging by Sid's post, I'm assuming they've already given an economic model a fair bit of thought anyway. Not that that should stop us thinking about it, of course.

- MKL

[Urban Ranger]

If you want to do trade, it should be done on a separate screen just like what is being proposed for intelligence operations. It is far easier to see what's going on at a glance.

However, if trade is to be expanded there are serveral factors:

1. Tech. You can't produce plastic until you get petrolchem. Some stuff is easier than others.

2. Infrastructure. This is related to the first point. Say you have petrolchem and has access to oil. Do you need to build a plant?

3. Cost. This includes the building and maintanence of facilities and labor. It seems that if you have a pop point working in a factory, then you can't have him growing food.

4. Complexity. Trade can be vastly complicated. For example, you can make simple gold bars or you can have master craftsman making works of art. How is this to be handled?

Hm..., can't think of anything else right now.

[MidKnight Lament]

You're right, Urban Ranger. I just didn't go into manufacturing because Stefu was just working with raw goods and assuming the rest. My question as to whether commodities should come solely from terrain was my hint-hint way of questioning this. After all, if someone can manufacture cheaply, they should be able to buy in raw goods rather than it being mandatory for them to get the raw good from their own terrain. But of course this complicates things much further.

A satisfying and realistic trade system that is still simple is a hard thing to balance. It'll be interesting to see what they've got in mind.

- MKL

[tniem]

I think a possible solution is a cross between Colonization and Imperalism. In Colonization you appointed citizens to work not only the fields but also the buildings in a city. In Imperialism you bartered for raw materials with other nations and then sold your finished goods you did not need. So you could buy up all that cheap lumber no one needs and hoard it and create much needed paper and tables and other such items. Just a couple thoughts