Comprehensive revamp of trade and infrastructure

Still no comments on the transportation system? The roads? THe ports? The airports?

Come on, people!!

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Earthling7]

I like the transport system idea. Having specific rail and stations is more realistic. Roads would still be an open system though... right?

About the recourses. I think your system is a bit complicated. Micromanagement is fine, but this looks a bit nano...

A good concept, absolutely

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[Earthling7]

I like the transport system idea. Having specific rail and stations is more realistic. Roads would still be an open system though... right?

About the recourses. I think your system is a bit complicated. Micromanagement is fine, but this looks a bit nano...

A good concept, absolutely

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[DarkCloud]

A good read... BUMP!

[OreoFuchi]

This thread convinced me to register so I could post. So here goes. I don't know if this idea is original or not.

Cities should only be able to trade in resources they have. So if a city is on the plains and has no resources, it can have no trade routes. If a city is in a resource rich area, it can have many trade routes (more than 3). However, there will undoubtedly be resources outside the range of the city, but these shouldn't go untapped. Engineers should be able to go to these resources and set up a mine or something to take advantage of these squares. Then either the city that made the engineer or the nearest city should be allowed to trade in that resource (oil for example), though it shouldn't get the shield bonus that an oil tile brings. If the concept of international borders is incorporated, a civilization gets control of all the mines it makes within its borders and other civs can't come and make mines. Otherwise, the mines can behave like the airbases in civ2, where the last civ to be there has control of it. Claiming control of another civ's mine could have severe diplomatic consequences, such as a declaration of war, and units would inevitably be used to defend the oil mines when oil is valuable.

BUMP

Wow... That bump happened months after the last post..

BUMP!!!!!

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980

[tniem]

I like the idea but have one major gripe.

I do not want to have to use a unit to go looking for resources. I would be willing to instead have a certain percentage of my budget going to have someone look for these resources. They would then from time to time come back and say "Your majesty, I have found a major Gold deposit" or "President tniem, the Congressional commission to find Titanium has come back with five locations in the Americas where we can mine this stuff."

Then I could put a mine or a city near the found locations and take advantage of the new resource. But if I have to find resources with units I think it will become too tedious.

[Ralf]

If below is a true Sid Meier rule, i think you have something of an uphill struggle promoting this idea, Sir Shiva. I shall not mention the obvious AI-problems this time. Below can speaks for itself:

"What I remember is that Sid wrote that the hardest part of designing Civ was not in adding features but in keeping them out. Sid made the point that each and every feature added to a game has a cost, not just in developer time/effort but a GAMEPLAY cost.
Each feature will require the player to think about that feature. It may require clicking or micromanagement. It may require screen space or game time. Every time a designer adds a feature, the game gets larger, more crowded and more complicated.
So Sid refused to add features that, although they sounded neato, would be overburden the game with details. I have always thought of the idea that adding features must be balanced against overloading game detail as "Sid Meier's Rule"."