Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =... - Page 3

Youngsun · February 19, 2001, 02:11

OK Mark has brought up "AI issue" here and I want to tell you guys something..

Anyone played these before?

HOMM series(simple resource system with national level resource pool)
Imperialism(complex resource system with national level resource pool)
Colonisation(complex resource system with city level resource storage)

None of these games I listed above suffered from "AI incompetence" in terms of resource management and they are all better in general AI than that of civ and sometimes kick the human opponent's arse. Even the most civ-like game like Colonisation handled the system superbly while having the most difficult resource storage mechanism "city level resource storage"
Colonisation is one of Sid Meier's babies too and it showed the possibility to people resource system can work good in civ-style game. Furthermore What I had in mind for the system was that use of national level resource pool which is one step easier/simpler than colonisation's city level storage mechanism while using reduced number of resource items which have/had been crucial to Human history such as oil and coal. Colonisation was released almost 6 years ago and you guys seriously think AI developers of today can't handle something that was handled good 6 years ago?

quote:

Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

After so many years of waiting and hope, expectation may grow big but I'm not asking something that are impossible to implement or not interesting to enjoy.

young newbie forever

quote:

your right im not a newbie,

haha I knew it I knew it

I haven't seen your town idea. where is it?

Fiera

quote:

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

Yes Sir! you're the boss

cyclotron7

quote:

full-blown resource system is excessive and translates into work, not play.

What gives you that idea? Are you saying those tens of thousands of people who played HOMM,Colonisation and Imperialsim were working rather than enjoying the game to ultimate pleasure?

Roman

quote:

Personally, I would like to see a full-blown resource system you describe

You should follow what your heart tells you.

quote:

Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple.

There are 4 kind of people here.

1."Everything has to be simple" kind of people(a game like civ doesn't suit them at all)
2."Everything has to be complex" kind of people(their brains need some surgery to lower their IQ down)
3. "Some parts of game needs to be more complex while others kept simple" kind of people(These are true civIII builders)
4. "Keep that! Keep those! it worked good! never change it!" kind of people, who are afraid of changes and feel comfortable with old ways(Counter-revolutionaries who want to make civIII nothing more than modified/beautified version of the same old civII. This kind of people are very good at making things tidy and neat but lack creativity)

Firaxis should listen to those people of category number three.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 19, 2001).]

Lancer · February 19, 2001, 06:03

5. Very interested, taking it all in, but being quiet.

One thing I'd like to say, 60 posts is a fairly large amount. It shows that there's interest, and I hope Sid & Co pick up on it. I hope they kick around some of these ideas...

young newbie forever · February 19, 2001, 08:21

youngson. my idea about towns is in my first thread with the a,b,c, empires (the one where i made something that could be explaind in 3 words into somthing real long and complicated)

i like smileys

Cyclotron · February 19, 2001, 16:02

Youngson, I find your "kinds of people" list to be divisive, personally offensive, and misrepresentative of your opponents.

quote:

There are 4 kind of people here.

1."Everything has to be simple" kind of people(a game like civ doesn't suit them at all)

I haven't seen anyone like this. Are you accusing me of being simple? Civ doesn't suit me, huh? So I guess I just have been playing for all these years, and I really shoudn't be, hmmm? This is a joke.

quote:

2."Everything has to be complex" kind of people(their brains need some surgery to lower their IQ down)

I don't see any of these, either. I think your system is too complex, but I wouldn't put you here.

quote:

3. "Some parts of game needs to be more complex while others kept simple" kind of people(These are true civIII builders)

I consider myself here, and I consider everyone else here.

quote:

4. "Keep that! Keep those! it worked good! never change it!" kind of people, who are afraid of changes and feel comfortable with old ways(Counter-revolutionaries who want to make civIII nothing more than modified/beautified version of the same old civII. This kind of people are very good at making things tidy and neat but lack creativity)

I don't see any of these, either!!!

I think that overall, you have put people into four groups, three of which are entirely fictitious and don't exist. Your post looks to me like a silly attempt to denounce those who do not agree with you, by portraying them as extremist. I find this post offensive... why don't you argue for your ideas, instead of putting down others?

quote:

Firaxis should listen to those people of category number three.

Actually, Firaxis should listen to everybody, as everybody's input is important. One-sided input makes a one-sided game.

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

Youngsun · February 20, 2001, 00:13

Lancer

quote:

One thing I'd like to say, 60 posts is a fairly large amount. It shows that there's interest, and I hope Sid & Co pick up on it. I hope they kick around some of these ideas...

I certainly hope so.

young newbie forever
There have been many similar ideas around Apolyton and I do like the idea of having distant mine complex,work camp, town or whatever which collect special resources.
I do support the idea young newbie forever.

cyclotron7

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Having read that thing again now I feel that was little bit way off the track.
I shouldn't have said that.

quote:

I find this post offensive... why don't you argue for your ideas, instead of putting down others?

No intention of putting others down never! and I did argue my idea that resource system doesn't raise serious AI problem by providing examples of other games which managed the resource system successfully. My arguement(resource system and AI issue)and the statement(kinds of people)were two separate things and both of them are not related in any manner. Also you didn't make successful rebuttal against my argument about AI issue and rather concentrated your vigour on attacking my silly statement.

Cyclotron · February 20, 2001, 01:00

All is forgiven. I would like to apologize myself for repeatedly spelling your sn wrong, and I will now remember "Youngsun" and not "Youngson".

As for your arguments, I must actually say that I agree with your point on the AI, and so have no need to form a rebuttal. I have always thought that omitting features because the AI "can't cope" is more of an excuse than a reason. If Firaxis needs more time to have the AI catch up to the features, so be it. I meant that I agreed with Mark that you guys were going way overboard, not the AI issue.

And as for your resource argument, my last comment (work, not play) has gone unanswered... you gave me examples of three games where this was not true, but I have never so much as laid eyes on these games so this is a mute point to me. Besides, Civ3 will be a game of itself so we should discuss it in its own terms.

The reason I spoke against your "silly statement" is because I am not easily offended, but when I am I tend to get a little overheated... sorry if I was too "vigorous"

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

young newbie forever · February 20, 2001, 01:28

Youngson, thanks for supporting my idea.

now back to the topic that does NOT involve cycltron and youngson argueing. ( im not dissing just want to get back to what this topic was started for

)

my final arguement (in my eyes)

bad= units requiring different resources or they cant be made. economic sanctions from your biggest oil producer crippling you. thirty years to hoard the resources to build one battle ship whip is sunk by a real cheap bomber while still in port. not being able to go to war becouse of economic worries. EX. well if i attack this guy who no one cares about hell sanction me wich wont hurt me to much but he gives me occaisional lumber which is rare on my continent and becouse it is needed to make the tiremes i need to get troops to himn, lets leave him alone and starve to death in my dessert.However if firaxis does go this way please make sanctions hurt the a1 as much as me and make the a1 smart so they dont sanction me at random.

GOOD= anything i said

and making resources help you alot but not kill you if taken away.

final arguement= its not realistic for certain units to cost exact things becouse in history civs have used different resources to make the same things ( i bet the pyramids would have been a little different if built in europe. actualy i think they were built by aliens but thats just me

)

p.s. calm down cycletron

p.p.s. if firaxis is watching UPDATE THE SITE!!!! *breaks down in tears*

edit. cycletron you posted 28 second before me!!
[This message has been edited by young newbie forever (edited February 20, 2001).]

February 20, 2001, 03:59

You'll just confuse the poor AI. Anyone here play Space Empires IV. Really good game - but . . .
You capture an AI planet and find that the planet is brimming with organic resources but has no minerals. What has the AI built? Inprovements dedicated to mining minerals. I have the bad feeling that the AI will be stumped by complex combinations. Sorry, but even a pentium 4 ain't HAL!

GaryGuanine · February 20, 2001, 04:08

I think we have to worry about over-complicating the game. We're talking about making things quicker if resources such as coal or iron are nearby.

Civ2 already does that by increasing the number of shields given to the city. Until the cities get very large, that one square can really make a difference, as it should, but it already does. As for commercial things, gold adds a lot of trade to a city. Trade is then directly translated into lightbulbs and coins, as it should be.

Trade has really little to do with the physical act of manufacturing something, unless you're talking about technological innovation, which trade in Civ2 already helps. I agree that trading with other civs isn't important enough, but we shouldn't make it the point of the game. That would be taking a remarkably capitalist track in the history of the world.

As for wars being fought for particular resources, it's really a modern concept. Up until the modern era, wars were fought because the other guys were different. Again, we have to look at the history of the world without our capitalist goggles on.

Gary

yin26 · February 20, 2001, 04:35

I made a similar argument against an ever-complex negotiations model. Just as the computer can't handle even barely complex negotiations with a human player (though it might parrot a good response every so often), I'm afraid a resource model that requires the computer to do more than it does now is just asking for trouble.

Consider, as has been just noted, that comps usually just sit on resources. In the case of SMAC, even, the comp could NEVER match a skilled player who mastered the resource model (as in one or two maxed out cities could match resource production with the computer's ENTIRE production!).

So as with the negotiations model, this increased complexity could work well in games against another human being, but most of us will be playing against the computer (hotseat and PBEM being the rare but horribly drawn-out exception).

However, simple supply and demand issues could be made to work with profound implications in such a way that the computer can manage a great economic fight. Consider Railroad Tycoon. The computer ran the stock market quite well since it was a relatively simple mathmetical process. Of course, human players eventually figured out fool-proof methods to beat the computer anyway, but at least the casual player hardly stood a chance.

I'd shoot for something in that range with Civ3...and hope that Sid has some tricks up his sleeve to keep the jaded players on their toes.

[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited February 20, 2001).]

Henrik · February 20, 2001, 04:39

In imperialsim the computer handles all rescourses very good, all 20 of them.
Why wouldnt Firaxis be able to do as good as SSI?

yin26 · February 20, 2001, 09:02

Please See: SMAC

However, with Sid firmly in the mix, we may see a whole new ballgame...

Cyclotron · February 20, 2001, 14:54

Young Newbie Forever:

I couldn't agree more. Non-essential (but helpful) resources are the way to go. 'Nuff said.

Mark_Everson · February 20, 2001, 18:58

quote:

Originally posted by Henrik on 02-20-2001 03:39 AM
In imperialsim the computer handles all rescourses very good, all 20 of them.
Why wouldnt Firaxis be able to do as good as SSI?

Because it never has been able to, and I don't have any faith in that changing...

me_irate · February 20, 2001, 23:31

here is my personal opinion how the resource system should work. First i believe all goods(for trade and your own use) should go into one large empire storehouse. From this you should be able to use it in any city or trade it. Trade i believe should be done like it was in imperialism, which in my experiance has the best, trade-resource system ive played. In this you could buy and sell resources that you have extra and buy what you need. Also i don't believe that resources should be very plentiful; and scattered in pockets around the world. Like oil in the middle east and spices in the orient really are. That way to get such items you would have to conquer or trade for them. Necessary items would be infrequently located in other regions, for instance stone could be mined in every mountain, and iron in 1/5 of the mountains.

Also not being able to get certain materials would be realistic. The reason the egyptians were conquered was that they only had bronze weapons and the Assirians had iron weapons which egyptians had no access to. Resources such as stone, wood, and such would be easy to come by and thus not a problem to find the required resources to build walls, and certain buildings.

Heres an example how i think it should work

You have a size 10 city. you have 5 workers farming which provides enough food to grow, you have 1 working mining getting 1 stone and 1 bronze a turn. and another choping wood, and three workers for building(3 shields per turn). to build a city wall it will take 20 shields and 5 stone which equals 7 turns. thus when the wall gets finished you have an extra 2 stone which would be stored for some other town or for trade.

GaryGuanine · February 21, 2001, 00:53

My fear is that we are looking at history through modern eyes. Colonization had a similar individual people doing stuff approach. Of course, one of the main points of Colonization is that you had the problem of getting all the stuff where it needed to be. The idea of a national storehouse for ANYTHING could really only be accomplished with the advancement of the automobile. Maybe railroad and refrigeration together, but that's it.

I also think that we're overlooking the fact that Civ already counts in resources into the game. Like I've said in an earlier post, when you have special resources on the map, they already affect the production/trade in that city. I don't see what's wrong with the existing system.

Gary

Youngsun · February 21, 2001, 02:54

OK if any of you can tell me there is better way to encourage international trade & more diplomactic activites, spit it out! I will support the idea.

Has anyone of you wondered and felt there is no need to trade with your AI neiboughers?

Well, I have and ,in fact, I don't trade with AI civs at all. Because I don't need to. In civ, "the shield" helped to generalise but made each civ's economy rather insular. It's like every civ has the exact right mix of material for every production/construction. The only difference? quantity.. The only motive for trade is the extra revenue which can also be easily acquired by various other means in other word insignificant. Thus some people may still trade but not very enthusiastic or serious about it. People will truly trade only when they need something that can not be acquired from their land.

cyclotron7
Actually seeing/experiencing a thing is 100 times better than hearing from others. So I recommend you play those games then you will know what they are. You can download "Colonisation" from other abandonwares sites and you can get HOMM series & Imperialism at budget price.

GaryGuanine · February 21, 2001, 02:59

Youngsun,

People trade for a number of reasons, foremost among them, comparative advantage of production. The other guy need not have something you can't get anywhere else, he just has to be producing something cheaper than you can and vice versa.

Gary

Youngsun · February 21, 2001, 03:21

quote:

People trade for a number of reasons, foremost among them, comparative advantage of production. The other guy need not have something you can't get anywhere else, he just has to be producing something cheaper than you can and vice versa.

You're absolutely right but this ain't happening in civ! You can get "Comparative advantage" when you have more resources which are mineral resource,land,capital,tech and skilled labour.

GaryGuanine · February 21, 2001, 04:45

What I'm saying is that trade of the kind of "I need that, you have that" just doesn't occur on the level of the civilization. I don't think it accurately reflects history. Eventually all you're doing is waging wars to try to get resources. An awfully capitalist interpretation of history of the world, no? The world (and Civs I and II) had enough wars that did not involve hunting down natural resources to remain interesting.

Gary

me_irate · February 21, 2001, 15:05

Trade i hope becomes more of a factor in civ3. In all the previous other civs caravans were nothing less than something for my cities to build when i didn't need anything else. At least until i reached capitalism. At least call 2 power 2 added a little dynamic of trading. But me personally, i believe that tradeing should be a far more important aspect of civ. Look to the civs such as phoenecians, dutch(holland) and the carthagans. Neither of these were started with territory, or resources, but they grew to be powerful within there own time. This is the most missing dynamic in civ. I just thought that while a national storehouse would be unfeasable, it would in turn add trade as a more important aspect.

Cyclotron · February 21, 2001, 16:11

quote:

Originally posted by me_irate on 02-21-2001 02:05 PMIn all the previous other civs caravans were nothing less than something for my cities to build when i didn't need anything else.

Really? What difficulty level do you play at? Trade becomes almost mandatory at harder levels.

OK. Here's a scenario:

I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources), and decide to venture out to sea to find somebody to trade with. I find them... but they are very expantionist and declare war on me before I can trade. They sink my ship, and since I now have no immediate way to reach other nations I only have warriors with stone spears when the enemy legions arrive.

So Henrik... I HAVE to trade iron? In your scenario, I think that I would find that the first few hundred years I would have almost no choice at all on what to do, having to quickly find all the commodities I need before people killed me. This is what I don't like about commodities: They are MANDATORY according to your model. I don't want my Civ games completely dictated by what I NEED. Civ is about choices and strategy, and mandatory stuff defeats that purpose. That's why trading in Civ2 was quite good: It was a tool of want, not need. All aspects of Civilization should be so.

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

Bender · February 21, 2001, 16:55

Cyclotron 7:
I guess if you are playing a game with limited resources, are stranded on a large island, have no iron and no goods with which to bribe or influence a hostile neighbor, and find yourself attacked -- you would probably lose the game very early and have to start over.

What's so bad about that? The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful.

The amount of resources available on a map could even be a factor in difficulty level. Then, only the finest and luckiest players would be able to conquer the Diety level. That doesn't sound so bad to me.

The diplomat · February 21, 2001, 16:56

What about my original idea that each ressource would grant a unique bonus to your civ? It addresses many of the concerns expressed in this thread.
1) it makes trade more important which is what this thread is all about.
Trade would be really cool. The seller would get more gold which would enhance his/her science and economy. And the buyer would get ressources that would give his/her civ a unique bonus that would enhance a certain aspect of their civ. Whereas civ games have up to now mostly focused on the seller, this model would also focus on the buyer. Having an important civ bonus would make trade much more worthwile. Trade would play a bigger role in diplomacy and war. Would you want a civ trading your "iron" to your enemy, thus helping your enemy have better legions? Would you declare war on a civ that is selling "spice" to you, and improving your happiness levels? We could have real embargoes. Deny a civ a certain ressource and you deny that civ perhaps a useful bonus. This would be a neat way to hurt a civ without actually declaring war.

2)The idea does not burden the AI.
I heard the concern about how a complex ressource model could hurt the AI. Since this idea does not involve actually collecting special ressources in order to build certain things, the AI would not suffer. The idea simply gives a bonus based on the special ressource that the civ has. This the AI could handle, I think.

3) The idea does not kill a civ that happens to start in a bad spot.
Cyclotron7 mentionned the concern that a civ with a bad starting position would be doomed. They can't trade for the needed ressources because the civs that have it can simply attack them intead of trading. With my suggestion, the civ would still be able to build the unit. Furthermore, the civ would get other bonuses since the civ would undoublty have other special ressources.
In your example cyclotron7, since you do not have any iron, your legions would be weaker than the other civ's legions, but you could still build them. But more importantly, your civ would get a strong naval bonus for being on islands. So, the other civ would have stronger legions but you would have stronger ships. You would probably be able to sink his transport ships before he even unloads his legions since you would have better ships!

I think the idea of attributing civ bonuses for each special ressources is a really good idea. It is simple too: for example, it does not require you to transform ressources into manufactured goods which would be to much for a civ game.

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

Cyclotron · February 21, 2001, 18:26

quote:

Originally posted by Bender on 02-21-2001 03:55 PM The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful... only the finest and luckiest players would be able to conquer the Diety level

Randomness? I don't want randomness to be any part of Civ3. Winning at any level should decide on how you play the game, and not on where you were lucky enough to start or what resources you are lucky enough to have. An idea that makes playing or winning "lucky" and "random" doesn't sound wonderful to me.

The Diplomat: I completely agree! Non-essential bonuses and such are the way to go. In addition, the idea of "island civs having better ships" is very realistic and fun. This idea is similar to the "unique benefits" for Civs idea, that where you start determines special abilities... but that's a different topic.

The point is, you are right on all your points. A supplementary resource system increases the importance of trade (and trade based actions like embargos), makes trade easier for the AI, and makes sure that random resource locations will never doom a Civ from the start.

Right on Diplomat... all we need now is to write up what some of these bonuses might be, specifically...

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

The diplomat · February 21, 2001, 19:26

Thanks cyclotron7 for your support.
About starting a list of specific bonuses for each special ressources, allow me to get the ball rolling if that is ok.

based on the special ressources in civ2:

stone: +10% production (city improvements only)
buffalo: ?
elephant: +10% attack for elephant units
timber: +10% hitpoints for ships
coal: +10% production (units only)
fish: +10 % growth
fruit: +5% growth
furs: +10 %happiness
musk: ?
gems: +15% economy
gold: +20 % economy
iron: +10% attack phalanx and legion
ivory: +15% economy
oasis: +15% growth
oil: +10% production (units only)
peat: +5% production (city improvement only)
silk: +20% happiness
spice: +10% happiness
whales: +15% growth
wheat: +20% growth
wine: +5% happiness

There should several ressources for each type of bonus, as you can see, so that every civ civ has a better chance to have a certain bonus. For example, the oasis would allow a civ starting in a desert to still have some decent growth and not be completely at a disadvantage compared to a civ starting on grasslands. Some ressources give the same bonus but a different amount. I did that to try to reflect the differences (for example, both wheat and fish are foods but do they feed someone the same amount?)between ressources and to make some ressources a little bit more valuable than a similar one.
Also, I think that the bonuses should be cumulative up to a certain point. So, for example, if a city was lucky enough to have 2 special ressources of a same bonus, the bonuses would add together.
Last, I can't decide: should the bonuses go to the whole empire (inter-empire trade spreads ressource around) or should the bonus just go to the city that has them? We need to make sure that the bonuses are not too powerful!

The bonuses that I listed are tentative and are just meant to get the discussion going.

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

Roman · February 21, 2001, 19:36

Even though I favour a more complete resource system, I think diplomat's idea is actually also very good. The bonuses should be infinitely cumulative if they are of different types and also cumulative (but only up to a point) if they are of the same type. They also ought to be completely tradable, through caravans or whatever economic system Firaxis devises. One resource unit should only benefit one city, though, not the whole civ.

Bender · February 21, 2001, 19:37

cyclotron7:
All of the best and most exciting games are determined by a combination of luck and skill. One of Civ II's pitfalls was the fact that a player could use one of a couple formulas - even on the Diety level - game after game to achieve victory.

I contend that a good resource system will challenge the best players to constantly adapt to the conditions of the game. Players will have to ride the highs and survive the lows many times if they are to come out victorious.

Look at it this way, if you were to win at the Diety level after starting out in an extremely challenging situation, what could be more satisfying?

Fiera · February 21, 2001, 19:53

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 03:11 PM
I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources)

OK, I know some of you will reply that I am overcomplicating things, but what if we link, in some way, tech researching with available resources?

I mean, the civ you describe wont be able to reach "Iron Working", since it has never had any contact with iron. But instead, it could develop some "alternative" techs, like of course "Bronze working", but also "Obsidian working" (like the Incas in real history)...

And second, randomness and luck is only important when you haven't explored the world, but that's what exploration is for... once you've discovered a large amount of the globe, the most part of resources will be visible to you, so that's when real strategy begins...

Lancer · February 21, 2001, 20:51

Because a guy in 4000 BC wouldn't know iron ore from any other rock it shouldn't become visible on the map until people discover the advance to know it's uses. Same with everything else. That way the whole world isn't fighting for a desert full of oil like the one in Saudi thousands of years before the first refinery. The oil would be there, nobody would know where however...if I was making Civ 3. Why don't they just call it Sid 3?