Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =... - Page 4

me_irate · February 21, 2001, 21:42

Since you don't like the idea of necessary resources early on, how would you like if they became necessary later. Like in ceasure pharoh and other games you could make luxuries necessary or at least increase the growth population levels. For instance every city above size 10 would need one luxury a turn be it, spice, potery, or skins.

Also in later ages, you would need a certain quatity of oil for every so many people. And in the event of a lack of oil you would have a oil crises(as in the 70's) that would lower hapiness and production. Also the powerplants that creat resources would require a resource a turn, 1 coal for every coal power plant, 1 oil for every oil plant, and the nuclear plant wouldn't require any but has a chance of meltdown.

Cyclotron · February 21, 2001, 23:27

Fiera's ingenious idea is... well, ingenious.

The reason I have always been against such strict resource codes is because different cultures find different ways to cope with the same problem. Example:

Culture 1 has a large supply of iron early on (having descovered iron working) and so has strong legions, and quickly becomes the leading power in its area. Iron working never really becomes high-tech (i.e. mideval european swords, when compared with katanas and the like) in their culture, because basic iron is enough to beat most of the neighboring peoples (who have bronze or stone weapons).

Culture 2 has a good supply of bronze, but no iron. Their units have bronze weapons, but they quickly realize that bronze is simply not powerful enough to defend themselves form Culture 1 forever. They now have a few options:

ONE: They decide to send out explorers and find iron, then settle there and use domestic caravans to supply their whole empire with iron.

TWO: They decide to find other nations that are threatened by Culture 1, and attempt to trade for iron. Once a few routes are set up, they begin pumping out legions and phalanxes to deal with the threat.

THREE: They pump out bronze-using units as fast as possible and make alliances with other enemies of Culture 1, in order to overwhelm them.

FOUR: With no other options, Culture 2 wise men develop bronze working into a high art, and over time their bronze is so well worked and their weapons so well designed that they are on par with the more primitive iron weapons of culture 1. This would be done by spending ADDITIONAL research points on bronze working. For many advances you could research an invention, and then spend more time to refine and improve that invention. Necessity is the source of invention.

Other ways are possible. I hope with this model to show how non-essential resources can still become important and add to game depth and strategy.

Lancer: Very true. Why does a caveman need oil? You are entirely right, of course.

The Diplomat: Good start, although it needs some work. No time now...

About regional vs. national resources: Stuff like silk only benefits the one city. Why should other stuff be nation? Only a city recieving or mining iron should be able to get iron bonuses. This means, in turn, two other things must be established:

- There must be a limit higher than three caravans, so iron can be distributed to more places. Perhaps 5?
- A city that trades another city iron must still get the iron bonus. Trading doesn't mean you give them all of your goods, just a small regular sum every now and then.

Alright? I kinda just put out my final thesis on resources here, so if you are interested please read it entirely! What do you think?

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited February 21, 2001).]

tmarcl · February 22, 2001, 00:09

One of the concerns that I would have with this whole idea is that it might make Civ too complex. While I favor realism, and indeed feel the game needs more realism in it, I also think that one of the greatest features of Civ is that it's so easy to figure out.

I like the current method of resources-but maybe with a twist. Metals would add shields when producing a fighting unit. (You need iron for weapons, armor, etc, even today). Fuel (coal, oil, etc), would increase overall production (if you have a fuel source readily available, you can produce more factories, thereby increasing production). Trade (gold, furs, etc) increase just that-trade for the city. Also, I'd like to see the trade resource actually show up in the trade commodities. I've had a few cities where there was fur nearby, but it didn't show up on the list of goods I had available to trade.

This way, you have the realistic affect of various goods on the city, as well as the simplicity that makes Civ a fun game (at least in my opinion).]

Marc

young newbie forever · February 22, 2001, 00:30

gee diplomat thats so much like what i was saying and what i was going to write. I support dips idea considering mine is the same thing (hmm i guess great minds do think alike

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 01:16

This thread is getting so hot!

cyclotron7
"Colonisation" is not bigger than 10MB I reckon.

In WWII, The German army invaded Norway to secure supply of iron ore and coal then took Ukraine for vast wheat production then Caucassus for desparately needed oil. Those decisions were made largely based on pursuit for more resources.

Now What if resources becomes supplementary to the shield? The Germany don't need to attack Norway while the action is still desirable and it is totally not NECESSARY. The Germany still can produce armours and air planes in fairly large quantity without securing Caucassus region. The strategic importance of Ploesti,Caucassus,Norway and Ukraine drops significantly.

The Player who control the German civ will attack any nearby land target which can get easily. Since the shield can produce everything, more land ensures growth not more resources so invading Spain,Portugal and Turkey might be good option for the Germany.

A Nation which holds largest land will be the victor not a nation which holds balanced mix of vital resources. THIS IS NO FUN AT ALL!. Why not give some small nation which hold much key resources some advantages? While themselves become subject of intrigue and diplomatic manipulation of bigger civs which are interested in those resources.

USA wouldn't send its fleet to the Middle East unless the region holds vast deposit of crude oil. When Nuke can be made without Uranium, Uranium's significance will drop and why even bother to control the flow of Uranium?

The resource system works just like automated inventory system of any business. You have resource pool which holds stock of resources like inventory warehouse of factory. Every action you take to produce or construct will cause certain type and amount of resources get deducted from the pool. When the stock runs low, a message will be sent to you to purchase certain type of resource whereas overstocked resources will make you do the opposite, the selling. You don't have to know what type of resources are required to produce certain things. You do only two things Buying and Selling and based on what your partners buy and sell your civ will form its own national interest and create,maintain and drop the relationship. You will be interested to know what other nations out there and what they have then this leads you more diplomatic activities. You want have more friends not just because of more military ties but economic prosperity.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 22, 2001).]

Cyclotron · February 22, 2001, 01:23

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-21-2001 01:54 AM
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.

Yes... see my above post (end of 1st page) on supplementary resources and industrial/commercial commodities.

quote:

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

In easier games, yes; but in harder games you are sunk if you aren't trading. Civ II makes trading desirable, but not mandatory. That's the way it should be. And in Civ2, trading was not just for revenue... also the science bonus, and the increased trade giving you more luxuries and science.

Me_irate: It is true that Civs without iron did not last long against those with it. But if your civ is unfortunate enough to start without it, do you want to face an almost certain doom? As said, resources should be supplementary at most for industrial purposes.

quote:

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.

Heh, easier said than done... my computer has 21 MB left on the primary drive, so if I squeeze anything else in I won't be able to play it

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited February 21, 2001).]

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 01:31

But the current situation means that special resources add more shields (increasing production). They add more trade arrows (more money). They add more food (increasing growth). It seems to me that most of the things you guys are suggesting are already in the game. They're not explicit, but they have the same effect.

As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

Gary

Henrik · February 22, 2001, 01:31

Thats the whole point!
You have to trade for the iron if you dont have it from the beginning!

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 01:37

CivA holds 20 coal fields no iron fields.
CivB holds 5 coal fields and 5 iron fields.
CivC holds no coal fields and 20 iron firlds.

Under the resource system(Supplementary), civA,C gets more production bonus. Civs don't need to trade while it gives slight benefit of production , the trade is not essential to them.

Under the resource system(Primary), civB gets more production bonus and civA and CivC need to trade otherwise they are doomed. If they trade each other they can out-produce civB. Trade becomes essential to them. Diplomacy will flourish!

People should know the beginning of trade, "Bartering" came from the motives for exchange of different goods. People don't trade reduntant goods, never! You need hold different cards to be a worthy trade partner.

People also should know the difference between the need and want. Trade won't be encouraged significatly unless there is a need to trade. The supplementary resource system may increase People's want but doesn't get close to the need.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 22, 2001).]

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 02:01

Youngsun,

I agree that helping the trade system would be nice, I just don't think that this resource plan does it right.

And people don't have to "need" something in order to trade, they just have to value the other thing ever-so-slightly more than that which they are giving up. Then it's worth it to them. Trade occurs because no two places are identical.

Gary

Youngsun · February 22, 2001, 02:14

Gary I'm not saying resource system should be in because it only encourage trade. The system, according to my experience,is also fun. It brings such strategic depth and ultimate pleasure.

Have you played any game that uses resource system?

Biddles · February 22, 2001, 08:30

quote:

Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM
But the current situation means that special resources add more shields (increasing production). They add more trade arrows (more money). They add more food (increasing growth). It seems to me that most of the things you guys are suggesting are already in the game. They're not explicit, but they have the same effect.

No they don't. What currently exists is bigger is better, not the way it should be - strategic is better. If special rescources add more shields or more food, then how is this different than having more mines or farms? It isn't. If special rescources exist though, there is a difference. You may have the greatest production capabilities of all time, but if you don't have iron, you can't make that tank - no matter how many shields you throw that way. You simply MUST get iron (through trade or conquest) to build the tank.

quote:

Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM
As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

You're kidding right. Almost every war in human history has been fought over rescources. The only reason it is more evident is because you live NOW, you didn't live then.

[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited February 22, 2001).]

GaryGuanine · February 22, 2001, 21:32

Youngsun,

Sure, I've played games with resources. Colonization is one that comes to mind right now. I thought that was done very well. I also think that it was a game played on a very small scale, and a significant portion of that game was economic. Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Biddles,

I don't understand your "bigger is better" thing. I assume that everyone's going to mine and farm, but if you spend a couple turns mining a coal square, and the Zulus spend those turns mining a normal hills square, you have a significantly higher production in that city.

You ask how it is different from having lots of mines or farms. I think it's clear. If you have a city of size 4, with four squares with no coal and mines, it has the same production as a city of 1 with one square of mines and coal. (Or whatever the multiple is). It takes significantly less time, and significantly less people to make the same things.

As for the wars over natural resources thing, I was referring to wars over specific natural resources. Not just "more land". The Gulf War is the only war I can think of that was solely caused by a need for specific natural resources. Most wars I can think of started because: A, the other guys are different from us, let's kill 'em; or B, expansionism. General expansionism is very different from waging a war because the other guy has iron mines that you need.

Gary

Fiera · February 22, 2001, 21:33

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 10:27 PM
Fiera's ingenious idea is... well, ingenious.

Hmmm... thanks, then!

Have I possibly converted anyone else to my thesis?

Fiera · February 22, 2001, 21:43

quote:

Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 08:32 PM
Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Yes, but why not making trade both fun and, in some degree, necessary in order to win the game?

Civ2 trade was oversimplistic and, as Youngsun has pointed out, you didn't really need it... you could get nuclear tech without trading much at all with your neighbours, and then... well, you know, nuke'em mercilessly...

Cyclotron · February 22, 2001, 21:48

quote:

Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 12:37 AMUnder the resource system(Supplementary), civA,C gets more production bonus. Civs don't need to trade while it gives slight benefit of production , the trade is not essential to them.

The idea of a supplementary resource system is not to give a slight bonus. Keep in mind one thing we both agree on is that trade should be more important, but we disagree on A) How important it should be and B) How to attain greater importance for trade. A supplementary resource system would give a very sizable bonus! A slight bonus is worthless. Yes, it is true Civs do not need to trade. But, with a supplementary resource system, you would be at a sizable disadvantage if you did not, which is how the world works. By making trade absolutely necessary to the game, you actually decrease the amount of strategy involved: Everyone knows what they need and goes about doing it. A tactical decision should be made (is it worth invading my neighbor to sieze iron that would greatly enhance my armies?), and a supplementary system creates the opportunity for that tactical decision.

You gave a previous example about Hitler: You said that if he worked under a supplementary resource system he could still produce "a good supply" of tanks and planes without seizing the resources of Norway and Russia. Tell me, do you think Hitler would have gotten anywhere with a "sizable amount" of tanks? Hitler had cutting edge technology and a whole lot of powerful armies, and that made him sucessful.

I think overall you are assuming that a supplementary resource system by definition means one with small benefits. This is not true; a supplementary system refers to the fact that having the required goods is optional; but that option will cost you quite a bit. You misconception is somewhat our fault, as we do not have any benefits hammered out yet, but in time we will establish a more concrete model.

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

Fiera · February 22, 2001, 22:12

While I think a suplementary resources model would mean an improvement over the way Civ2 handles tarde, I believe that it won't make it into Civ3.

Why? Let me quote Sid Meier. This is from the old new item "Message from Sid":

quote:

We think it will be fun to be able to corner the market by specializing in the production of oil, or
wheeling and dealing with other civilizations to achieve mutual economic benefits or to cut
off resources to a powerful enemy.

Yopu never will cut off resources to an enemy if those resources are only supplementary. I think a resource based trade system will be in Civ3, and that resopurces will play a more important role in the game mechanics than some people here thinks...

However, that's just my interpretation of Sid's words...

[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited February 22, 2001).]

Youngsun · February 23, 2001, 02:15

Gary

I knew you would bring "scale issue" here but that can be solved easily by weeding out some of unnecessary resources ,which represent only The Colonial period, such as sugar cane,tabbaco and tea.

We can select some resources which have been crucial to Human history. Some resources like "coal" and "iron" deserve to be in the game as they have done so in history.
Trade in civ series has been always treated like sh*t whereas military aspect of the game has been under the full spot light with colourful unit variance ranging from a warrior to an aircraft carrier. It is time for some wake up call to balance things up. Don't you think so Gary?

cyclotron7

quote:

but we disagree on A) How important it should be

Yes I can certainly see that. As the title of this thread says, I want to see the trade aspect of the game becomes essential not merely desirable and that was Lancer's point after all. In fact, Trade has been desirable, ever since civ was released, by giving you extra revenue.

Strategy can be developed from thinking "what kind of balanced diet of resource should my civ have?" Eating up whatever resources available out there makes people hardly a thinker.

Under the supplementary resource system, WWII Japan will never declare war on USA. Despite the imposed Oil emargo, the Japanese army will siege more Chinese coal fields to compensate the loss of production caused by the embargo and getting stronger by days. Dutch oil wells in Indonesia doesn't attract the Japanese. They will just attack China to get more coal fields. The Japanese have no agenda ,no national interest, nothing but simple greed on land which contains any resource.

With supplementary resource system, you don't have to think and you just eat!eat!eat! You don't need oil, iron nor Uranium. 100 coal fields will take care of you good by giving you hugh bonus of production.
Because it's the quantity that matters, under the Supplementary resource system, not balanced mix of resources. Everything becomes plain and boring. Why even bother to have "coal" and "oil" when you use them as just supplementary to shield? why not just name them as "resource no.1 or resource no.2"?

When you don't need to trade, the need for peaceful co-existance with other civ drops. You don't need careful and well thought diplomacy. Your civ doesn't have any national interest since every type of resource will satisfy you. Simple & boring expansion after expansion, you will be forced to turn off the PC.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 23, 2001).]

me_irate · February 23, 2001, 15:24

Here's why i think trade with real resources is needed. I found civ2 to easy. I played diety. I would usually expand till i had at least 20-30 cities. I would then not build anymore and solely build them up. i would not trade a single tech, while in the beggining i was fairly week pretty soon all my cities were level 20+ and i was building parts of the space ship while everyone else was just starting to get gunpowder. At that point i could easily have killed them but i would build my spaceship completely(mostly by buying it) and would beat the game long before they even had spaceflight. If trade was required it would force me to actually interact with the computer. Thats the soul reason i want it. I don't want call to power with less bugs, nor civ 2 with better graphics, i want a more engaging and realistic game. But i would still by the latter.

Straybow · February 23, 2001, 16:01

If anyone ever played Castles II it had four basic resources (Food, Timber, Iron, Gold) which could be traded. But to prevent anyone from getting totally screwed if you weren't in contact with anybody friendly with a surplus you could always trade on the black market. The exchange rate was lousy (1:3) and there was a chance of getting ripped off, but if you had gobs of Timber but no Iron...

Here's another idea (which can be found in the Resources section of the Trade & Econ summary in the List). Use generic shields, but they come from two distinct sources: materials (tile resources) and labor. Factories and powerplants would augment material shields while other improvements (barracks, shipyards, etc) would augment labor shields. If civ3 has specialists (a la SMAC) some could augment tiles/factories, others could augment labor.

Also, there has been considerable discussion on the number of resources worth including. This is a very large scale game (tiles are on the order of 100 miles across) and the "specials" represent unusually large resources assumed present in normal tiles. Some possibilities:

Generic shields plus Fuel, Metal, Exotic.
Generic plus Timber, Stone, Iron, Gold, Coal, and Oil.
Generic plus Coal, Oil, and Uranium.

Specials could give bonus shields for certain types of production (timber double value for ships and city improvements, iron double for land units, etc), or minimum number required (10% "mast timber" for ships, etc). But as someone said, the basic model was certainly decided long ago. Only truly stupendous "I shoulda hadda V-8" ideas will change it.

Cyclotron · February 23, 2001, 16:36

Under the supplementary resource system, WWII Japan will never declare war on USA. Despite the imposed Oil emargo, the Japanese army will siege more Chinese coal fields to compensate the loss of production caused by the embargo and getting stronger by days. Dutch oil wells in Indonesia doesn't attract the Japanese. They will just attack China to get more coal fields. The Japanese have no agenda ,no national interest, nothing but simple greed on land which contains any resource.

No, this is entirely wrong! You are't listening to me. Civ II made each resource give just a production bonus; supplementary systems don't do this. Certain resources do certain things... you obviously haven't read my above post. Iron gives you better legions, or perhaps it makes them cheaper, etc.

In addition, your historical model is flawed. The Japanese decision to attack hinged on far more than resources alone. You are oversimplifying.

quote:

With supplementary resource system, you don't have to think and you just eat!eat!eat! You don't need oil, iron nor Uranium. 100 coal fields will take care of you good by giving you hugh bonus of production.
Because it's the quantity that matters, under the Supplementary resource system, not balanced mix of resources. Everything becomes plain and boring. Why even bother to have "coal" and "oil" when you use them as just supplementary to shield? why not just name them as "resource no.1 or resource no.2"?

Once again, this is entirely wrong. I have no idea what you are talking about, a supplementary resource system as I have propsed does not rely on quanaty. You are describing Civ2, not a supplementary resource system. As I envision it, a supplementary resource system would give NO general bonuses for production. Since you seem to have a gross misconseption of my idea, here it is, spelled out:

Cyclotron7 Proposition of Supplementary Resources

I. COMMERCIAL VS. INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES.
A. COMMERCIAL RESOURCES. Some resources that are never used for construction or building (i.e. gold, spice, silk) will use a model similar to Civ2; that is, commercial resources will be found on certain tiles and can be used locally for trade or traded via caravans.
B. INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES. Other resources (iron, wood, bronze, oil) are industrial resources. These are also found on certain tiles, but provide certain BENEFITS (see below) rather than boosting trade like commercial resources. Industrial resources collected locally have their benefits applied to that city. Industrial Resources can also be traded, where they bestow their benefits to the city rescieving them, and the provider of the resource gains the benefits or trade bonus from the incoming commodity (depending on whether it is industrial or commercial).

I don't have enough time to finish this now. Next installment:

II. BENEFITS OF INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES

Please, your comments are welcome, but only on the topics I have covered here so far.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited February 23, 2001).]

Straybow · February 23, 2001, 16:43

Yikes! Multiplication of resources and ever changing roles of the resources over the millennia... that's partly what Sid is against when he says "no game within a game."

Cyclotron · February 23, 2001, 19:11

Hmm, that could be a concern... I'll suspend the dynamic resources portion.

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

Youngsun · February 24, 2001, 01:55

cyclotron7

However, under your model, battleships and armours still can be produced without "iron" and it's the shield which is the essential ingredient for unit production not a resource. I believe the system is not a genuine resource system at all but disguised or modified shield system. The importance of "iron" with primary resource system is far greater than with supplementary resource system and that difference will drive whether people will trade with enthusiam or not.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 24, 2001).]

young newbie forever · February 24, 2001, 18:20

Cycletron has the right idea. and id just like to ask you 1 thing, people who dont like this idea, did all civ build all troops exactly the same? no they used different resources, THE RESOURCES THEY HAD NEAR THEM, THUS REPRESENTING THE BASIC SHIELD. but i admit if you built a legion with iron and a leion with wood guess who would win. so supplementery is the right idea.

young newbie forever · February 24, 2001, 18:21

double post sorry
[This message has been edited by young newbie forever (edited February 24, 2001).]

young newbie forever · February 24, 2001, 18:22

Cycletron has the right idea. and id just like to ask you 1 thing, people who dont like this idea, did all civs build all troops exactly the same? no they used different resources, THE RESOURCES THEY HAD NEAR THEM, THUS REPRESENTING THE BASIC SHIELD. but i admit if you built a legion with iron and a legion with wood guess who would win. so supplementery is the right idea.

The diplomat · February 24, 2001, 18:35

I would just like to add that another way to make trade important would be to make money more important in the game. A simple way to do that might be, for example, to make military units require a small amount of gold for support. If a civ needed money to support military units then trade would become more important since it would be a way to get lots of money to support a larger army than normal.
What do you folks think? It is not the only way to improve trade of course, but it is a thought. I am not against ressources, on the contrary, I am just throwing another idea out there for consideration.

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

Optimizer · February 24, 2001, 19:57

Other examples of wars about certain natural resources:

The main purpose of the Franco-Prussian war was that Prussia needed control of Alsace-Lorraine with its iron and coal deposits. During WWI & II the area proved strategic again because of these resources.

Middle Africa has mostly been neglected by the world's superpowers because it lacks natural resources. An exception is the copper fields in southern Congo (Zaïre), which played role in giving the Congo crisis impact on global politics.

------------------
90% of the casualties in a 21st century war are civilians. Join the army!

GaryGuanine · February 24, 2001, 20:29

Again, all modern wars...

I don't think you're looking at the scale of the game. If you have a map of the world, the resource squares do not represent individual mines, they represent major deposits. A coal square isn't a coal mine, it's the Pennsylvania/West Virginia/Virginia area, that happens to have tons of coal in it. It does not mean that there is no coal in other places. The Greeks had bronze weapons, the Eqyptians had bronze weapons, the Persians had bronze weapons. Do we have to have copper sqaures near all of them? You're going too far with this resource management thing. The history of the world was not based on hunting down specific mines and natural resources, it was based on be fruitful and multiply.

I agree with trade needing to be a more important factor in the game. Someone else's suggestion a couple above mine (apologies, I didn't do Post Reply in New Window, so I can't read the name) that was to make money more important is a great idea. My beef is with the idea that production should be based on this trading scheme. You should be able to build whatever you want, but if resources are nearby, you can build things quicker (the present Civ2 system).

Gary