The Trade Model

[Shadowstrike]

Lately, I've been playing CTP2 quite a bit, and I've got to say that I'm impressed with some of its features. The trade model for one.

Civ2 uses a method involving getting caravans into distant cities. Not too realistic by any means but it was effective enough for Civ2. CTP2 uses a differnet approach. It puts every caravan unit produced in a "pool", and you can establish trade routes by using up a number of caravans and sending a "good" (more like a terrain special) from a city you control to another city. The longer the distance, the more caravans are used. The profit is calculated from a formulae which incorperates the distance of the destination, the size and who controls it.

While CTP2 does use a more realistic, and more effective system, it is far from perfect. Small tweaks, such as allowing the sending more caravans for extra profit (since they can carry more) and conversely less for less profit (when the caravans are not readily availible).

Your thoughts on this?

------------------
*grumbles about work*

"Where hope has no champion, evil reigns supreme." - Magic the Gathering
"Peace and Prosperity through Democracy" - UAS Motto
"And thus begins Ragnarok, the end of all things..." - Starchild & YYYH

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I think its a good system. It was a bit difficult to manage though. It gets a little screwy at times. I would prefer to have it so that the financial return is determined by the type of commodity and its rarity (i.e. how many people currently sell it).

To import, you would have to actually pay out of your pocket. And then you can use the raw materials you import to build units or increase luxuries, or to use the materials to manufacture other commodities that can be exported later or used to build units, etc.

I've said this many times over. Read my other posts.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I have not played CTP2 yet, but it sounds like a good system, could you explain it a little more to me?

[Grumbold]

The biggest flaw in the CtP2 method was that the caravan 'cost' of transporting goods seemed only dependent on distance and took no account of the ability of road, rail or air transport to affect it. The routes chosen are frankly ludicrous, make no effort to stay away from hostile powers and cannot be set by the user, either.

[Pangaea]

Yes, I never understood why my sugar from London to New York would go through Beijing?

the Chinese would be like "thanks for the Sugar, yankee"

heh

Also, as you get more advanced, you change from sending sugar and spices to sending cars, and electronics, and the more "luxury items" and such your city aquires, the happier the people are....

Also, maybe have trade depot tiles, where all the good for a certain area can be dropped off/picked up, and dispersed to cities in the surrounding area (like the warehouse) because to get, for example, Belgian Chocoalte from Belgium, you wouldn't need to make a trade route with every city you want to sent it to.... you send it to a distributor, and they get it out.

just my two cents, but at the way the US-Canadian exchange is, is worth about 1 cent

------------------
-=Pangaea=-
31291353

[Shadowstrike]

Those are some good ideas. The advancement of goods as time passes.

However, the inclusion of goods as something you must manage to buy and sell as well as make will make the game much more complex. For one thing, micromanagement would go through the roof. Consider that eve if a simple system is implemented, one where iron could be imported, and converted to cars in an Automobile Factory (a city improvement) and then sold off, that would quickly add up. 10+ routes would be hard to manage. That said, one-step manufacturing chains like this one would be relatively easy to manage, but once we got started on the complex chains, micromanagment adds up.

In my dreams, Civ3 should not exceed a hundred goods, and there should not be a single two-step chain (i.e. iron ore to steel to automobile). However unrealistic, we must balence with acceptable gameplay. The game would bog down too much if we tried to recreate the entire economy. We can create a "global" economy, but we can never hope to duplicate the real world inside a strategy game based on running a nation!

I hope Firaxis reads this idea....

[weird god]

the CTP2 trade sytem is based on the rarity of goods. there more you have of one, the less money you get...also you have to use carvans to establish routes - more caravans for geater distances which pay more gold/turn.

i think this is a good idea though the simple civ2 systems makes managing easier. i´m not sure it does any good in multiplayer games because it favors large civs even more - caravans are expensiv, trade routes can easily be pirated by a strong army and if you owe a large territory you can hardly be pirated yourself and have lots of goods......all in all it strenghten big civs even more - keep the civ2-system for civ3!!

[Shadowstrike]

I'm BUMPing this.... Surely there are more opinions on this.

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't think my plan is so far-fetched. I mean, the trade route remains open and trading a certain number of a particular commodity per turn without any management on the part of the player. Conversion to manufactured goods is automatic and functions in the same way.


They only time you have to be responsible for whats going on is when: war is declared, a city is taken, when a blockade or embargo is formed, or when you are establishing a new trade route.

[Dom Pedro II]

The diplomat, your two examples are ones I myself have used. I have posted many many posts promoting a system just like this. It is the most important change I think that needs to be made. In fact, if Civ 3 DOESN'T have a market economy with tile resources to be used for raw materials for unit production and city management, I don't think I'll buy it. Simple as that. I'll stick to CTP2... without the market economy, it would be the same thing anyway.

[Pangaea]

heh, if it didn't have a different trade model, it'd be like Sony TV over a Panasonic... sure they have different names, but its pretty much the same on the inside... heh

But, I digress...
I like Don's ideas about making the elephants from elephant trading places.... but it shouldn't only be cities, it should be through your entire empire (for things like elephants) so that if one of your cities is trading elephants, all the cities close by can make them too....

Also, maybe having resources added to the map as you go farther along... like people didn't really find a lot of the Oil in the middle east until fairly rescently....

And maybe make fresh water a resource... because there is so little of it in the real world....cities in a desert would have a heck of a time geting water, unless someone was shipping it to them (in the modern times, when water consumption is high, and you can build pipe networks)

------------------
-=Pangaea=-
31291353

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 12-22-2000 12:29 PM For example, spice would increase happiness in the city. A "Elephant" special ressource would enable the "war elephant" unit ...

Yes, and what if the Romans discovers 'Computers', and you are the only one in the world witch have silicon? They would have to pay exactly what you want, or they would have go to war! So if you just have a good enought military, you would 'rule' them!

Maybe you could even trade the advance, and so deny to sell them the resurce...

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't think it would be too hard to find silicon, it's the second most abundant element in the earth's crust

[This message has been edited by Rollo Tomasi (edited December 22, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

You have some good ideas there Diplomat. This would create an accurate repesentation of supply and demand, without excessive micromanagement.

[The diplomat]

Maybe this has already been offered but what if special ressources had unique benefits. For example, spice would increase happiness in the city. A "Elephant" special ressource would enable the "war elephant" unit ...

This would make special ressources more important to have. For example, a civ with unrest problems would then want to buy spice from a neighbor.

This would make trading and possessing these special ressources more important. And I think this is crucial to making the trade/ressource better! It is based on the simple principle that particular ressources are needed for civs to develop.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by Rollo Tomasi on 12-22-2000 06:23 PM I don't think it would be too hard to find silicon, it's the second most abundant element in the earth's crust

Maybe, but who is saying that it would be like that on every RANDOM map? And, it was just an example ...

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Dom Pedro II]

Pangaea, I think that instead of adding resouces, resources should just become available for trade later in the game. And I've made numerous suggestions about plantation tile improvements that let you grow numerous types of crops for trading.

I really think it is better to keep it to one city trading whatever commodity they produce rather than empire-wide. One reason is to make the blockade more effective. If you can instantly have certain products in every city... then a blockade is pointless. But if one of your cities produces iron, but its on an island that has isolated by a blockade... your in trouble. Also, it makes rivers more valuable because it is one of the means of travel for shipment of goods.

In order to trade resources with other cities, you need roads, ocean, or rivers.... each one can allow a certain number of units per turn. Roads upgrade to railroads which has a higher limit, and railroads to maglev...

I realize that this might all seem very complicated, but I have actually made a BOARD game using this very system! And a board game does not have the aid of the computer to work it all out.

[hHydro]

In regards to making trading commodities required ingredients for units/advances/happiness; This is some really great thinking by everyone, but I think this model has one big flaw in that it would muck up play balance.

The example I will use is Uranium. People have suggested that uranium should be required to build nukes, or to improve cities with nuclear plants or whatever. The same could be said if you require silicon for computers or a rainforest tile for medical miracle cures.

The biggest problem is the playbalance issue that comes up when you are winning a game, and all of a sudden you find yourself in the nuclear age with no uranium. I would NOT like to hammer through a whole game only to find out that I'm screwed in the nuclear age through no fault of my own. That's not what I call fun.

And likewise, the idea that you should see uranium deposits on the map at the beginning of the game is wrong. Prehistoric civilizations would NOT know to build their town next to the uranium deposit so they can develop weapons of mass destruction in 4000 years.

Lastly, this is simply not Age of Empires; I don't want to have to balance my supplies of 'food, wood, stone, and gold' in order to build my civs. Trade has been important in history, but I think the current solution (after some MINOR improvements) is a better idea than turning trade tiles into a commodity.

[The diplomat]

It seems to me that the tech advances should automatically reveal the appropriate ressource. So no, you would not see uranium in 4000 B.C but when you discover nuclear fission (or whatever tech), the map would automatically reveal all the uranium to you. I think ths is the most elegant solution to the problem. It is a lot easier than having a explorer unit!

hHydro: I don't quite agree with your example. By the time you had nuclear tech, your empire would probably be very large. So, it is extremelly unlikely that none of your cities would have uranium in their city radiuses since your empire would cover such a large territory. All you would need is 1 city to find uranium and it could build nukes or it could convoy the uranium to a different city where you do want to build nukes. And even if not a single city had uranium, you could still trade for it with an empire that does have uranium or you could go to war to seize some. So, all would not be lost. On the contrary, the game would suddenly become more interesting.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[hHydro]

Unfortunatley, that implies once again that a successful civ must be a huge civ. I don't necessarily like having huge civ's. I would rather that they impliment large inefficiency penalties for large civs, but of course that's a topic for another thread.

Revealing the resources at the appropriate tech level is the logical way to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that you could get to the nuclear age and suddenly find out that you have no uranium.

Like I said, there's some great thought going into this thread, but at a fundamental level, I just think this addition adds extra management, and very little extra 'fun' to offset it.

Suddenly having to manage my supplies of 20+ different trade goods to ensure I'm getting an adequate supply is just more work unless they manage to wrap it into one helluva slick interface. ESPECIALLY if, as per your example, I also have to convoy the goods to the town that intend to use it.

The stuff you guys are talking about would make a neat 'early trade route' game though... hmm... "Sid Meier's Marco Polo" maybe?

[Dom Pedro II]

Ah, but hHydro, you have, in fact, just given even MORE support to the concept of the market system.

You said you DON'T like having huge civs. Unfortunately, that is a necessity in Civ II. You absolutely need to have one of the larger civilizations. The great thing about that the market system is that through shrewd placement of cities and swapping of territory, you can horizontally integrate yourself into a vital market.

I call this the OPEC manuever. You can beat the game by gaining control of 90% of the world's oil or some vital commodity. You need not have more than a half dozen cities, and a small army, but the other countries of the world will HAVE TO allign themselves with you in order to be able to keep there armies and cities functioning.

And despite the QUANTITY of trade routes, it will not become unmanageable. The reason is that once a trade route is established, it continues to function until it is cancelled through war or lack of interest. So in fact maintaining 100 trade routes is the same as maintaining 5. It requires as much work which is NONE! The computer automatically adds the number of units of each commodity to each city inventory each turn. And unless you have HUGE projects like several wonders or MASSIVE military expansion... you will not even need to be concerned about city inventory!

And I don't know about you, but I rather HATE having the game all wrapped up by 1300. Anything that can throw a monkey wrench in the game can only make it more challenging.

And I DO think that uranium deposits should be on the map even if you can not trade them. Because the logic that prehistoric civilization would not know to build their cities near uranium deposits has no validity when it comes to civ. A leader of a country in medieval times would not be thinking of what technologies to research in order to get the space ship. And even blind research will not help because you still know what happened over the course of 4,000 years. So it should be a sacrafice... one that I'm perfectly willing to make.

[hHydro]

Firaxis has said that they plan to limit the effects of ICS and BIAB, so I don't imagine that this trade model is needed to restore balance. I will conceed however that it can't hurt if it does help that balance. But as I said earlier, it would have to have one hell of a slick interface.

The only point I'm trying to make is that if you start a game and within 10 turns find that you're on a tiny island while others are on huge continents, you can restart if you feel your starting position is grossly unfair.

I do not want to find out 600 turns into the game that I'm equally screwed because I've no access to something vital to my growth.

I don't mind the tables being turned suddenly (for good or bad) but I want it to be something I could have avoided. If I make a bad strategy decision and I get beaten down for it, that's fair.

Final word; I'm not fighting against an improved trade engine, however just like how the secret to success in Civ2 is having a huge empire, I don't want Civ3's secret of success to be having the best bonus trade tiles in your possession.

It should be a PART of this complete breakfast, but it shouldn't be the Froot loops, toast, jam, milk and OJ all rolled into one.

[lord of the mark]

i agree with hydro

as long as the diplomacy (in single player) works at all like it does now with all the AI's ganging up on the human, requiring specific resources for important units or improvements reinforces the bias towards a large empire. In historical reality a nation without uranium could trade for it - several aspiring nuclear powers kept good relations with South Africa for this reason. In Civ context either SA wouldnt show up as a civ, or it would be attacking me after 1750, and my caravans couldnt get through. I would have to conquer the uranium, (and any other essential items) or die.

IF a more realistic economic model is developed, with essential commodities from tiles, then diplomacy, minor civs, etc must be modified so that i have friendly trading partners in late game, hungering for the high tech prodcuts that my SMALL but ADVANCED civ can supply.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I hear the both of your reservations... I understand. We will definitely need a more trade conscious AI. There should be a power rating of trade that makes them just as submissive to the economically powerful as the militarily powerful.

Second, I think that city improvements should not be bound to any sort of raw materials for their construction. The reason being that many structures can be built of all sorts of materials.

And I think all Infantry units should not require any materials either.

And Iron along with a few others, should be extremely abundant. Actually, you should be able to have a sliding gauge of the different resources (or types of resources). That way you could put Uranium EVERYWHERE if you wanted...

But I seriously think that ALL raw materials should be exposed when the game starts. And many can be transplanted (Cotton, Tobacco, etc.), so you can work a little bit with your surroundings.

The best thing to do is corner one market and make it so that the AI HAS to trade the uranium if you have none. Or beat the game before nukes are developed by any other civilization.

The reason for trade goes beyond just balancing the big civs with the small ones. It goes into war too because you can blockade and cut off vital resources to your enemy. Actually thats what got me thinking about it. I was reading about the anaconda plan in the Civil War, and I said, that would be a good strategy in Civ, but OOPS completely undoable. I want to rectify that!

It establishes a whole new plane of diplomacy. It also is historically acurate because after all Money makes the world go 'round....

[Dom Pedro II]

[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited December 28, 2000).]