Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =... - Page 2

monolith94 · February 15, 2001, 17:51

Gee, people like my idea. . . What a great feeling! Anyways, I think that my biggest concern in these ideas is that it wouldd be made possible to build things to quickly, unbalancing the game. Maybe by making things more expensive later on in the game. . .

Roman · February 15, 2001, 18:16

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-15-2001 04:23 PM
I would propose that all trade goods also be resources; as to not overcomplicate the matter. If a city was being traded/ was currently using a commodity necessary for building (industrial commodity) they would be able to build up this commodity and thus recive discounts on buildings and units.

For example: CycloCity has a shield production of 15, is currently mining coal (1 per turn) and is trading with another city for iron and silk.

Let's say a heavy cruiser costs 250 shields. Normally, it would take me 14 turns to build it. But, what if its price was:

HEAVY CRUISER: 250 shields
3 iron: -75 shields
2 coal: -25 shields

If I had previously saved up the coal and iron I was getting for a few turns, I could get a heavy cruiser for only 150 shields in 10 turns.

This is just as I have imagined it.

Of course, I completely agree that all trade should than be done exclusivelly in resources/commodities or whatever one cares to call it. This is both realistic and avoids having an extra trading system burdening the game.
[This message has been edited by Roman (edited February 15, 2001).]

Roman · February 15, 2001, 18:23

Excelent, Cyclotron 7, we now have another convert!

Lancer · February 15, 2001, 18:41

In Civ 2 we could give away military units, but not trade them. I think that military units should be able to be traded for raw materials, or flat out sold. Certainly arms merchants exist and are supported by their nations...

In Republic and Democracy you should not be allowed by the senate to trade military units with certain other types of governments. (Unless you are allied w/ them)

What do you guys think?

Roman · February 15, 2001, 18:47

quote:

Originally posted by Lancer on 02-15-2001 05:41 PM
In Civ 2 we could give away military units, but not trade them. I think that military units should be able to be traded for raw materials, or flat out sold. Certainly arms merchants exist and are supported by their nations...

This will definitely be included in the game. See the Firaxis website for details.

February 15, 2001, 20:39

I have no problem with resources being used... just don't go to far (check out the game DESTINY to see what I mean).

As a side thought Hides and Bauxite are also very important resources.

Fiera · February 15, 2001, 20:55

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 02-15-2001 05:47 PM
This will definitely be included in the game. See the Firaxis website for details.

Sorry, Roman, but I don't seem to find that piece of info at the Firaxis Website. Where is it?

Cyclotron · February 15, 2001, 21:38

Yes, I agree that resources should not go too far, and that is what my above post tries to demonstrate. Everything (except possibly nukes) should be readily available for shields... the role of industrial resources would be a supplementary one.

By the way, I was talking about that these industrial resources should be commodities, too. There are only slight differences:

Industrial (i.e. iron, coal, bronze)
- Can be used (as stated) as supplements to building.
- Can be stored up, at a fixed rate.
- Fixed amounts of stored industrial resources can be traded, as can the resource routes themselves (trade routes).

Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold)
- Cannot be stored up or used for building
- Can form trade routes
- When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).

Okay?

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

Cyclotron · February 15, 2001, 21:43

Oops, in addition to above:

Some commodities should be dynamic; that is, they change status between industrial and commercial and vice versa.

For example, bronze was very important industrially in the bronze age, but is now purely ornamental. (industrial to commercial)

Likewise, sulfer(sp?) was valued by alchemists and as an oddity, until it was discovered as a vital component of gunpowder. (commercial to industrial)

These changes of commodity status should be based on civ advances, not just on ages.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

Fiera · February 15, 2001, 23:45

quote:

Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold)
- Cannot be stored up or used for building
- Can form trade routes
- When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).

I think these resources shouldn't be commercial per se.

I mean, you could use them in your own cities to generate luxuries. And you should be able to store them, so you could have a surplus and sell it to other civs, in exchange for, say, iron...

That way you have real trade. Every resource included in the game should have its own use. It's then up to you use it or trade with it.

February 16, 2001, 01:33

I agree 100%, the laborer should be added to the city's scientist, tax collector, and entertainer. This way you can have better control of the city's output concerning tax, reasearch, entertainment and now production.

Youngsun · February 16, 2001, 02:14

With monolith94's labour points, everything becomes so clear!

Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay
Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone
Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood
etc etc...

If your city can produce 5 labour pts every turn, a granary will cost 4 turns to be completed.

Windborne · February 16, 2001, 04:31

I am totally against a complex system of manufacture. I would deffinitely support more types of resource, say shields, food, energy, and population, each of which is needed for something, but don't make it too complex.

Oil fields could provide extra "energy" which could be traded, just like buffolo provide extra shields in the current game.

The diplomat · February 16, 2001, 09:19

It is a really intriguing model, but I think it does not have to be as complicated as that! Why not just let special ressources give special bonuses. It could work something like this:

spice: +1 happiness empire wide.
elephant: allows war elephant unit
iron: +1 attack for phalanx and legion units
timber: +1 movement, +1 hit points for ships
stone: +1 hit points to city walls

etc...

Shields would still be used to build most everything. But with special ressources, a civ would gain something extra.

This idea would make trade really interesting. For example, a civ with an abundance of "spice" might want to trade with a civ that has "elephants" so that it can get some war elephants, the other civ really wanting some extra happiness from the "spice". Trade could also be central to wars. Would you want a trade partner trading your "iron" to your enemy? We could have real trade embargoes in the game that make sense. This fits well with what Sid said about being able to deny a ressource to a powerful enemy.

Last, I think my idea fits well with what we heard from Firaxis about "unique benefits" for civs. My idea would give something extra to civs making each one unique in a sense. But the benefits are not fixed. They come from the special ressources the civ has found. These ressources can of course change hands during the game. You can trade, pillage, conquer for those ressources!

[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 16, 2001).]

Roman · February 16, 2001, 15:06

I hope Firaxis doesn't keep us waiting and provides some information on this in their next site update ... and I hope this update will come today!

Cyclotron · February 17, 2001, 01:19

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-16-2001 01:14 AM
With monolith94's labour points, everything becomes so clear!

Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay
Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone
Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood
etc etc...

I don't like this very much. If your civ is unfortunate enough to not have any stoone nearby, does this mean it can't build city walls? Resources should be simple and, in the end, nonessential to represent the use of unconventional building materials to replace commodity shortages.

In addition, I disagree with the +/- system of commodities... I think that this is overly simplistic, and the Civ2 system is better.

Youngsun · February 17, 2001, 01:44

cyclotron7 I forgot to tell you something!

Some baisc resources like "stone" and "clay" should be numerous enough so almost every civ gets easy access to them whereas some key strategic resources like "oil" and "coal" are less accessible thus forcing the players to engage in international trade.

quote:

In addition, I disagree with the +/- system of commodities... I think that this is overly simplistic, and the Civ2 system is better.

If there is no need to trade, people will not trade at all. That was exactly what happned in whole civ series. Oil embargo should make industrialised nation in complete standstill if sufficient amount of oil hasn't been stored in reserve. Vast "coal" and "iron" deposit should give good excuses to those warmongers to invade their neibours. Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions. People should be afraid of getting sanctioned or isolated from international trade and this will eventually lead intense diplomatic activities around the globe.

Resource system will definitely encourage:
1.International trade
2.More diplomatic activities
3.Economic war/Colonialism

Do you seriously think "resources become mere bonus factor for production" can accomplish above things? I don't think so.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 17, 2001).]

Youngsun · February 17, 2001, 01:49

diplomat

quote:

This idea would make trade really interesting. For example, a civ with an abundance of "spice" might want to trade with a civ that has "elephants" so that it can get some war elephants, the other civ really wanting some extra happiness from the "spice". Trade could also be central to wars. Would you want a trade partner trading your "iron" to your enemy? We could have real trade embargoes in the game that make sense. This fits well with what Sid said about being able to deny a ressource to a powerful enemy.

Hmmm it seems diplomat is thinking exactly what I'm thinking.

Fiera · February 17, 2001, 07:49

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM
Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions.

I couldn't agree more. Besides, is it good to have two different systems working to get the same result? It would be simpler to have just one system.

quote:

Resource system will definitely encourage:
1.International trade
2.More diplomatic activities
3.Economic war/Colonialism

From now on, I appoint Youngsun as my official spokesman.

Roman · February 17, 2001, 09:27

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM
Resource system will definitely encourage:
1.International trade
2.More diplomatic activities
3.Economic war/Colonialism
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 17, 2001).]

This is one of the major reasons why I support the resource system so much. Personally, I woould like to see a full-blown resource system you describe, but I can understand that Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple. That's why I proposed an efficiency based resource system.

young newbie forever · February 18, 2001, 01:35

i havent read this entire topic but i have somthing to say

I realize that a economic trade system like your suggesting would be realistic but in this case realism= no fun. I realize that some of you have been playing this game for years but what firaxis needs is newbies and younger kids like me. Im 12 i got the game when i was 10 and when i looked at it i couldnt give a damn about resources or economy i just wanted to conquer the world (and i still play with bloodlust on

). and if i had turned the box around and read what you guys are asking to be in an economy i would still be looking for the purfect game. Now i realize that some when reading this are gonna say that newbies arent important blah blah blah but look at it this way, i know some of you like to start a game and if your not in a good place restart but i dont do that no matter how bad the land i just keep playin but the way you guys are recomending it if i started in a dessert i cant build anything but sand castles (joke). i propose this

a,b,c=empires in game

a trades b buffalo for steel a's city with the new steel can now store the steel,send the steel to another city, trade the steel, or ad it to its production of lets say cannon. each unit of steel ads to production. now since a cannon needs lots of steel to make lets say each unit of steel ads 15 sheilds to production and the cannon already has 30 sheilds you put 1 steel into it now it has 45 say it needs 50 to be finnished and you city makes 5 basic production. next turn you have a connon. but since it was made with steel the canon now has + 3 hitpoints (not much but itle do). back at b his steel mine would automatically produe 5 units of steel but makes 10 becouse it has a mine on it. the buffallo from a ads food and trade to b's city for a short time. suddenly BAM b find a gold mine far away from its home land so it takes a settler,builds a town on the gold (a town would be a minie city and when built only works on the resource below it, it would not use the settler as population instead when its built it would take poeple that are tired of working as the settler and they would settle down and ther offspring would continue on as the settler. a town would have a pop of like 500 to start and grows very slowly, like 50 a year and when it reaches 1000 would beome a city , anyway a town would work of the source directly below it and produce 1 unit of, lets say gold, per every 50 people )and then this gold ads to the treasury and ads trade to a nearby city or whatever city you designate it to be delivered to. but in the end couse c is america it wins and conquers the cannons with tanks (america always wins in my games so can you geuss who i play as

)
[This message has been edited by young newbie forever (edited February 17, 2001).]

Youngsun · February 18, 2001, 03:08

Fiera

quote:

From now on, I appoint Youngsun as my official spokesman.

What if my opinion is different from yours once in a while?

Geez! I bear hugh responsibility from now on...

Roman

quote:

This is one of the major reasons why I support the resource system so much. Personally, I woould like to see a full-blown resource system you describe, but I can understand that Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple. That's why I proposed an efficiency based resource system.

Yes I understand Roman but there are too much at stake if we don't make resources more important than that of previous games. Whenever I played civ I never bother to trade with other civs. why? because I didn't need to trade for my growth and survival. My insular economy was good enough to keep up with my revenue requirement and further I didn't want to give any benefit to my enemies from my vast economy.

The resource system doesn't have to have 50~60 separate items for full simulation. I say 10~12 items will do for reasonable representation. Also those items must be something we are very familar with such as "oil" and "coal".

young newbie forever

You will not stay as newbie forever after you played civ some times. You will be turned out to be a hard core civ fan like me

then what? You will begin to explore more game features that had been kept hidden from your eyes for a long time. You will be able to enjoy other game features such as "diplomacy" which allows peaceful co-existance with your AI foes. You will enjoy other ways of achieving final victory. then you will be thankful and excited , when there are a lot more to explore in the game which also promise game logevity. You might be a newbie for a while(less than 1 month? I think)but you will be a hard core fan for the rest of your life. So you really want cut off very important game features, that would make you happy for the rest of your life, to satisfy your 1 month of newbie period?

quote:

a trades b buffalo for steel a's city with the new steel can now store the steel,send the steel to another city, trade the steel, or ad it to its production of lets say cannon. each unit of steel ads to production. now since a cannon needs lots of steel to make lets say each unit of steel ads 15 sheilds to production and the cannon already has 30 sheilds you put 1 steel into it now it has 45 say it needs 50 to be finnished and you city makes 5 basic production. next turn you have a connon. but since it was made with steel the canon now has + 3 hitpoints (not much but itle do). back at b his steel mine would automatically produe 5 units of steel but makes 10 becouse it has a mine on it. the buffallo from a ads food and trade to b's city for a short time. suddenly BAM b find a gold mine far away from its home land so it takes a settler,builds a town on the gold (a town would be a minie city and when built only works on the resource below it, it would not use the settler as population instead when its built it would take poeple that are tired of working as the settler and they would settle down and ther offspring would continue on as the settler. a town would have a pop of like 500 to start and grows very slowly, like 50 a year and when it reaches 1000 would beome a city , anyway a town would work of the source directly below it and produce 1 unit of, lets say gold, per every 50 people )and then this gold ads to the treasury and ads trade to a nearby city or whatever city you designate it to be delivered to. but in the end couse c is america it wins and conquers the cannons with tanks

This is even more complicated than What I proposed!

You weren't a newbie after all....

Mark_Everson · February 18, 2001, 09:28

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM
Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions.

Just a friendly word that I hope will be taken in the right way

. I think you guys are going away overboard here... A system like you're talking about might arguably be desirable, but consider what would happen with this system in the AI's hands. As we all know the AI is about as clever as a cantaloupe

. It simply wouldn't be able to cope. I think the intermediate system where you can use either a specific commodity, or just general resources is the way to go. Right now we are using something even simpler than that in Clash, where the presence of appropriate amounts of special commodities give overall economic bonuses. This is simpler even than your intermediate system, but it allows for things like oil embargos reducing a civ's production by 30% or so.

An economic penalty of 30% reduced production due to lack of oil is no joke. Youngson, the only reason you never had to bother with trade under such penalties, is because the AI in Civ 2 is completely worthless... Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

If you guys were meaning to have a completely abstract discussion about "how cool it would be if" without considering any possibility of it actually getting into the system, then I apologize for my pedantic comments

.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 18, 2001).]

Roman · February 18, 2001, 09:43

quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 02-18-2001 08:28 AM
I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

If you guys were meaning to have a completely abstract discussion about "how cool it would be if" without considering any possibility of it actually getting into the system, then I apologize for my pedantic comments

.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 18, 2001).]

That's exactly why I proposed the efficiency based resource system.

Roman · February 18, 2001, 10:47

"The diplomacy model is being completely overhauled to allow trading of many, many types of resources, commodities, Agreements, Technologies, units, gold, and cities in practically any combination that you can trick your opponent into accepting"

Actually, looking at this quote from the Firaxis website, we might get some resource system in Civ3.

I admit, though, that it may also mean trading of resources/commmodities like in Civ 2.

young newbie forever · February 18, 2001, 11:49

your right im not a newbie, i just made up this name becouse i wish i was still at the point were the a1 challenged me

i proposed an idea like the intermediate one on a different topic a while ago.

if you dont understand what i proposed in my last post here, what i meant was that each recource speeds up production and makes the unit a little stronger. simple as that. i guess i went into to much detail with my example.

by the way do you guys like my town idea ? if not how about somthing a little more complicated like oil derricks or refineries.

p.s. ive played this game for 2 years and i still always have bloodlust on.

Fiera · February 18, 2001, 22:28

Uff... my third post in a row, excuse me...

I found this while re-reading the "Ask the Civ team questions":

quote:

We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources. These values and how they relate to each other cause all sorts of effects

A pretty abstract piece of info, but it means indeed that we're gonna have resources with different and important effects for the game... It won't be strange if they use these effects to improve the trade system, don't you think?

Fiera · February 19, 2001, 01:09

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-18-2001 02:08 AM
Fiera

What if my opinion is different from yours once in a while? Geez! I bear hugh responsibility from now on...

Nah... fear not, I'll send you my opinion via email and you'll post it here with the right words... (j/k)

Cyclotron · February 19, 2001, 01:18

I must also agree with Mark and I still support Roman's idea of supplementary resources. Embargos and such should be, well, somewhat important, but the full-blown resource system is excessive and translates into work, not play. Keep in mind that the only reason one would establish a new feature like resources is if it increased game depth and was fun. Now, resources are certainly more "deep," but I believe Youngson's system (forgive the pun) would plunge Civ3 into the deep end. It's too much, and not what most people are looking for in Civ3.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

Fiera · February 19, 2001, 01:19

quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 02-18-2001 08:28 AM
Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

Well, I know a perfect system is imposible to reach, but I strongly believe that Civ3 will be a disappointment if it features the same old trade system (you know, those little arrows that in a farly abstract way come to mean trade)...

According to the list, everyone seems interested in improving trade, and the Message from Sid said it would be done... We know Sid and Firaxis and we know they won't go for an overcomplicated system, and I'm sure they'll try to avoid something that the AI just can't handle...

But still, they have to give us something new... Different resources that have separated and maybe unique uses seem a good thing, and not that difficult to implement (I'm not a programmer, however). I still think they would give the AI a reason to trade... wouldn't they try to get coal if they needed it for their factories?