Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =...

[GaryGuanine]

the diplomat, that's the name of the person who suggested making money more important.

Gary

[Biddles]

1. Maybe wars haven't been started simply for rescource acquisition, but the tactics within those wars would have always involved the acquisition of important rescouces.

2. Just because a square produces copper, doesn't mean that the whole square is full of copper, it means that the square contains area/s of important copper deposits.

3. Ancient crete became a powerful civilization because it was home to a number of copper preoducing areas. If no-one else had copper they would buy it off crete. Under a CTP like system, if no-one else had copper, then there is no reason for them to buy it, because they wouldn't get that monopoly bonus. Therefore under a CTP system, crete would never really be of importance.

[Youngsun]

Why "research" is so important in civ?
"Iron working" tech allows you to build legion. You can not make legions unless you've got the tech, simple as that. There is no compromise. The rule is strict and clear and it forces you to research a lot.

When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

Basic sustainability issue

Plain +5 food
Plain(shield)+1 wood or +5 food
Plain(wheat) +1 wood or +8 food
Forest +4 wood or +2 food
Forest(tigar)+10 wood or +2 food
Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal
Note: other metals could be iron,copper,etc.

While the special resource square gives you hugh bonus for the specific resource, other normal terrain also have limited deposit of resources. To maximise your resource gathering efficiency, you will be encouraged to collect the right resource from each squares.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 25, 2001).]

[Kuciwalker]

in ancient era, labor specialists would be craftsmen, but work inefficiently because they're disorganized. there would be a "guilds" technology that would increase their efficiency

[Biddles]

That sounds like a good compromise. Specialty squares where copper or iron etc. were present would produce say, 10 of that metal. This way everyone will still be able to build legions but those who have acess to the specialty squares would have the advantage of being able to produce many more legions, unless people start trading. The ratio should be high (non-specialty squares produce VERY little metal) so that the trade system is promoted, but isloated civs aren't totally disadvantaged.

[Youngsun]

Is everyone happy now?

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-25-2001 02:26 AM Basic sustainability issue Plain +5 food Plain(shield)+1 wood or +5 food Plain(wheat) +1 wood or +8 food Forest +4 wood or +2 food Forest(tigar)+10 wood or +2 food Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal Note: other metals could be iron,copper,etc. While the special resource square gives you hugh bonus for the specific resource, other normal terrain also have limited deposit of resources. To maximise your resource gathering efficiency, you will be encouraged to collect the right resource from each squares. [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 25, 2001).]

Hmm, this works well. Why haven't I ever thought of that before?!? Some resources should only be found in special resource squares. As the main example I offer Uranium. Otherwise the whole point of resource system encouraging trade and strategic thinking would dissapear.

[Lancer]

Happy? I'll be happy when Sid drops by this thread and says, great ideas! I'll get the boys right on it!

[Roman]

*bump*

[optimus2861]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-25-2001 02:26 AM When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

This counter-argument just popped into my head the other night, and I don't recall seeing it in this thread: without a much more robust and human-like diplomacy system, I think a need-based resource system could be disastrous. Consider the following scenario:

I'm playing as the Germans, and I've managed to get into the modern age as the #1 world power, generally on a peaceful footing. However, as oil exploration has begun I discover I'm chronically short on the resource. I enter into an agreement with my neighbours the British to trade his oil for my, say, coal. The game progresses a few more turns and suddenly the British come a knockin' on my door making demands. "What the -- ?!" I think, as he's generally been cordial to me throughout the game. I refuse to turn over a new weapons technology. "Then we declare WAR!" scream the British, and cut off my oil. Since my reserves are low I can't outproduce the British in tanks, and over the next dozen turns he progresses to smash my armies to pieces under his guns.

You know what that looks like? An AI that decided to turn the tables on me arbitrarily because I was #1 at the time. And that's the big fear, that a resource system could end up deciding the game all by itself. The only counter is to have much more stable diplomatic relations, particularly in the modern age where turns take less calendar time and there should be a growing aversion to full-scale war on the part of the world's civilizations. But then if you've already got the lead and are racing for Alpha Centauri (or equivalent peace-victory), there's little threat to your victory! Catch-22, anyone?

(Obviously I speak of SP here, MP's a whole different ballgame and I don't play it anyway)

- Ian Merrithew

[Youngsun]

optimus2861

Why should "the resource model" be responsible for unreasonable AI behaviours in diplomacy? barking at the wrong tree fella.

[Roman]

Check the "Has anyone mentioned..." thread and rejoice!!!

[Cyclotron]

I'm not happy. This cumpulsory resource system is too much for what this game needs. We need more emphasis on trade, but in the end Civ is not a game focusing entirely around trade and you are trying to make it that. Think about it. Under your system:

WAR is dependent on trade, since you need resources just to build basic units.

DIPLOMACY is entirely centered on trade, and how to procure trade goods.

Any concept of a mandatory system is onerous, unrealistic, and MOST importantly would mak Civ an entirely trade-based game. Now, don't come rushing to me saying "but history is a trade based!" History is different from Civ, and If I want to play a trade based game Civ won't be it, and shouldn't be. You are putting too much importance and eemphasis on only one of this games' many facets.

I'll be happy when Sid drops this thread saying "no game within a game, boys."

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

[Lancer]

Cyclotron, there are many 'games within games' in Sid Meyer games, Civ 2 included. If he was against such stuff he would get rid of Wonders, or the space race, or diplomacy. The type of trade that we've been talking about here will simply add another ball in the air to interest Civ 2 jugglers. Give me another game within my game!

Also, If you're playing Germany and the Brits cut off your oil, there's always the synthetic improvement, , also Ploesti in Rumania... I see there being multiple sources for different commodites, and cornering the market as a viable strategy. Some of you are worried by what others can do to your Civ with this sort of system, well, just think what you can do to others! As in everything worth anything, you will have to fight for it!

If Sid comes in here and says he's no longer making games within games, he'll be announcing his retirement to his favorite fishing hole...

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7 don't be so allegic to the word "mandatory".
In fact, many of the game features are mandatory in nature. Take the examples from research and unit application. You don't have "Bronze Working"? No phanlanx allowed, period. Once you are allowed to build nuclear missiles with only "Steam engine" or "Iron Working", you know what kind of chaos will happen throughout the whole game. Right tech gives you right unit. What's so wrong with that "right resource gives you right unit"? By making the resource system mandatory in nature, we will treat resources more seriously.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-14-2001 01:58 AM cyclotron7 don't be so allegic to the word "mandatory". In fact, many of the game features are mandatory in nature. Take the examples from research and unit application. You don't have "Bronze Working"? No phanlanx allowed, period. Once you are allowed to build nuclear missiles with only "Steam engine" or "Iron Working", you know what kind of chaos will happen throughout the whole game. Right tech gives you right unit. What's so wrong with that "right resource gives you right unit"? By making the resource system mandatory in nature, we will treat resources more seriously.

There is a fundamental difference. ANY civ can research technology, so there is little luck involved and all strategy. All civs start out more or less equally in this respect.

With your resource plan, NOT EVERY civ can have a certain resource. To build everything, you must have all resources, and there is no way to get them save a) being physically there or b) trading for them. So, if you are stuck without a crucial resource from the beginning, you may not be able to trade or win this resource because you are so crippled from the beginning. Your plan introduces more luck and less strategy.

By making the resource system mandatory, you may very well make people treat resources more seriously. But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start. I would rather have my sucess depend on my ability, not randomly generated resources.

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

[Youngsun]

quote: so there is little luck involved

Oh! Really? What about a civ starting near riverside compared to those which starts from arid grassland so no early irrigation allowed? 5~6 times more beakers for the civ which starts with river, no? You call that little luck? It's not the accessibility of the trade arrows that matters but the amount, you know? Now I really doubt you even glanced at my latest post which deals with "basic sustainability issue" you bring up every time. From my latest proposal, almost every resource is accessible to every civ but those civs which hold special resource squares can get more resources.

quote: NOT EVERY civ can have a certain resource

Of course, that's the way it should be othrewise civs will not trade at all! and that's the time for our little minor civs & local tirbes(huts) come quite handy. Are you advocating 7 civ limit, 16~32 civ or more? I wouldn't have supported the resource model unless there are numerous civs exist during the whole game so the market becomes pretty steady(no monopoly until very last stage of the game)

quote: But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start.

How come that condition leads to that conclusion? Arabs were superb trademen because they had plenty of resources? Now they have oils but countries like Japan, which lack natural resource, have upper hand in almost every aspects. why? because it's the technology and the will or vigour to trade not just resources so management matters. You really think your resources will save your ass when you manage your civ poorly? In other hand, strategy, tactics, planning and execution will get the ultimate crown for you even if you begin with pretty bad position.

[Cyclotron]

Actually, CTP introduced more fair starting protocol, where each Civ got a fairly equal shake. Civ2 also had checks for this, i.e. the map check for arable land. CTP did a better job of this, however.

Wait a minute... if every Civ has almost every resource... aren't we just back to the shield system? Civ2 handled it this way: There are so many resources in the world, and people have so many of them, that it would be simpler just to lump them all into one unit (shield) representing raw manufacturing power. Your "resource sustainability" idea just sounds like the Civ2 shield system with a few choice resources that are a bit rarer. If everybody has varying amounts of each resource, isn't this just like shields in that it's, as you say, "quantity and not quality" that counts (or something like that, forgive me if I misquoted). It's kinda like political extremism... once you get radical enough, right and left are esentially the same.

I think that the idea that if resources are not mandatory there will be "no trade at all" because even in Civ2 advanced players know the only way to suceed on higher difficulty levels is to trade profusely. It seems that even without making resources mandatory, Civ2 did sucessfully encourage trading. I certainly make trade a high priority when I play Civ2, as without it is quite difficult to flourish (and survive, at harder levels).

quote: But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start.

This is not a set of a condition and conclusion, but rather two seperate conclusions I believe would result from the "condition" of a mandatory resource system.

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

[Youngsun]

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

something wrong with my connection today.....
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: Wait a minute... if every Civ has almost every resource... aren't we just back to the shield system?

No, not at all. Countries like people need balanced diet of resources for growth. Shields represent perfect mix of resources like "super food" which contains protein, fat, carbonhydrates and vitamin all together whereas under the resource model, certain resource represents certain nutrient.

The shield system
CountryA total shields:110
CountryB total shields:110
CountryC total shields:110

CountryA,B and C don't need to trade and they are all at the same power level. Plain,boring and uninspiring..


Now the shileds get diversified as resources. The three countries do have access on three major resources but the outputs vary.

The resource system
CountryA oil:100 coal:5 Iron:5
CountryB oil:5 coal:100 Iron:5
CountryC oil:5 coal:5 Iron:100

CountryA get advantages during modern era(after "combustion")
CountryB get advantages during industrial/late colonial era(after "steam engine")
CountryC will be steady throughout the two eras.

CountryA will import coal & Iron while selling off oil.
CountryB will import oil and Iron while selling off coal.
CountryC will import oil and coal while selling off Iron.

So much spice added to the game! robust trade! "Rise and fall" effect through each era!

[Cyclotron]

You are, of course, assuming three things with your mandatory resource model:

1) All civs must have at least one large and valued quantity that is always pertinent to trade. Country B in your scenario would be sunk after the industrial revolution, as oil would become much more valued than coal. If I was country C with the iron in the modern age, I would trade with country A for the better resource and **** country B. At this point Country B would have nothing to trade, and would be left with its meager supply of other resources.

2) All civs must have a trade advantage with one commodity. If there are going to be more than 8 civs, it is almost certain country D could come along and upstage countries A, B, or C. I would personally rather trade with a partner who has a secure investment, ie. lots of the quantity. People will only trade with the guy who has the most goods and has the most reasonable price, i.e. the big country rather than the small one. Quickly, only a handful of civs from the original 8, or 16, or 32 are now viable civs with opportunities for winning.

3) All civs must have at least mediocre quantities of every good. If I was that guy with the iron, why not squash the iron-deprived civs and take their stuff? Your 5 to 100 model is unrealistic, since the iron civ would always come out on top. If the quantities were 40 to 60, for instance, then it would be reasonable. But wait... if everybody has the quantity, some more, some less, than isn't this just representing shields from Civ2 or a supplementary system, as everybody can build everything? At this point resources become merely production boosts.

Do you see what I am getting at here? I call it a mandatory resource system because you absolutely need a commodity to build a unit. Now, if everybody has at least a portion of every commodity, as per your example, there would be actually no limit on what units you could produce. Wouldn't then that extra 95 just be a boost to production? Which is exactly what a supplementary resource system does! Just like in your model, in a mandatory resource system the extra commodities are just for a production bonus, since everyone can build everything!

At this point, you have completely negated the central point of a mandatory resource system, which is that some units can't be built without certain resources, since everybody has every resource.

Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...



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

[Lancer]

Strange how the countries with the least oil have become some of the strongest. Germany and Japan for example. They achieved this because raw materials are fairly plentiful, at least in peace time. In war time they made the grab for the stuff they needed. Japan w/ its co-prosperity sphere and Germany by going after Russia.

Anyway, in peace there should be open access to unused raw materials. All of it should be floated on an open market, different nations may freely bid on it there. Witholding raw materials by a single nation or nations should only be done in relation to the market (ie OPEC), not to a single nation. One nation cutting off another (the gas crunch in, what was that, '73, or the US cutting off Japan's oil, which brought on Pearl Harbor) should be one of those things over which the senate lays an egg. If you are not in Republic of Democracy it should be easily done, but that bears it's own heavy cost in inefficient government...

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 03-16-2001 12:10 AM Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

Well Cyclotron, that's why we're in a Forum after all...

[Youngsun]

quote: Country B in your scenario would be sunk after the industrial revolution, as oil would become much more valued than coal.

It entirely depends on how the leader of countryB responds to the changing environment. Also I did not set the tech variance among these three nations thus it's up to who is the leader of tech race. If CountryB is the only country which holds "combustion "related tech, the only active oil buyer will be CountryB. CountryA has high chance of being exploited by CountryB, if that was the case. Thus high tech civs without much resources will outperform low tech civs with abundant resources. Just like 19C European civs colonising other parts of the world.

quote: All civs must have a trade advantage with one commodity.

That's not the way the World works. Some may have several advantages while some have zero advantage . However, those advantages should be earned throughout the game. Everyone starts with one city so it's up your exploration and conquest to acquire and maintain sizable territoy which provides you with enough resources.

quote: I would personally rather trade with a partner who has a secure investment

If you find someone, who can have mutually beneficial trade with you, a partnership will be formed naturally not the other way around. It is difficult to maintain rock solid relationship with other nations for eras due to constant change of political environment. Today's friend can be tommorow's adversary.

quote: If I was that guy with the iron, why not squash the iron-deprived civs and take their stuff?

Do I have to tell you everything? That kind of action is quite forseeable/predictable, don't you think?

quote: Your 5 to 100 model is unrealistic, since the iron civ would always come out on top

Can't you think better than that? Do you reckon those countries will be like that forever? Furthermore, that example was simplified for easy understanding and many people will see the principles beneath it but it seems you take every word quite literally. How come you judge the whole resource model based on one example which is very limited in variables and conditions? An example is to demonstrate a principle by showing a simple case within a limited environment not to describe whole things. Number "5" and "100" unrealistic? Don't you see the intention of mine to represent small number by 5 and big number by 100? Take everything literally then you will never be able to see the whole forest.

quote: as everybody can build everything?

in varing quantity. I mentioned the difference between the two systems several times already with "food" example. Even the pre-school kids will have no problem to understand the difference.

quote: Now, if everybody has at least a portion of every commodity, as per your example, there would be actually no limit on what units you could produce.

You're guiding yourself to the cliff with your limited imagination.
With the supplementary system, it doesn't matter what resource you have. You can build whatever units. Resources act as only production boosters but not essential for unit building. BUT! with the resource system, there is one condition which has to be satisfied. You need right resources. Country A,B and C have earned their resources throughout the game since they all started with one city. If you have planned to acquire oil rich terriroty along with your tech advance, good for you. If you haven't planned any and remained complacent all along, your civ deserves the downfall.

Resouces become relatively crucial as the game progresses since the so-called key/strategic resources like oil can be used only later stages of the game and are rare in nature whereas basic resources like wood and stone, which are in extensive use during primitive and ancient eras, are naturally abundant and quite evenly distributed.

In civ, shields represent all kinds of resource mix plus labour points. The supplementary resource model doesn't define what is a shield. so now I ask. Is it the same thing as Civ series has defined or is it something new? What is it? What is a shield for your model cyclotron7? If it is the same thing, why the resources appear in redundant manner? once as a shield and next as a certain resource.

quote: At this point, you have completely negated the central point of a mandatory resource system, which is that some units can't be built without certain resources, since everybody has every resource.

Not everyone will get access to every resource type. If they can, they deserve it since they have earned it. Sizable territory which produces satisfacory amount and mix of resources doesn't come cheap. You have to fight for it.

quote: Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

Huh huh, It is you who is having understanding problem. Roman and other people finally understood and accepted my proposal while you're having problems to understand what I'm saying. Who have you convinced so far for your supplementary system? People will see who is acting like a boy all the time. and very civilised and constructive of you cyclotron7, this time.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 18, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: That's not the way the World works. Some may have several advantages while some have zero advantage. However, those advantages should be earned throughout the game. Everyone starts with one city so it's up your exploration and conquest to acquire and maintain sizable territoy which provides you with enough resources.

No, but that's how your system does. How can one earn an advantage if they are randomly scattered? This is just as unfair as civ-specific traits, as your performance in a game should be based on your ability rather than which resources happen to be immediatly next to you.

quote: Do I have to tell you everything? That kind of action is quite forseeable/predictable, don't you think?

Predictable? That doesn't matter if I can get away with it. If I can use my superior iron to squash somebody and take their resources, why do I care about being unpredictable? An unforseeable strategy is irrelevant here, a nation with iron would just sieze the resources of others.

quote: Can't you think better than that? Do you reckon those countries will be like that forever?

According to your model, yes! What would make them change? Deciding to up and trade cities with eachother? Most countries in Europe since, say, the 16th or 17th century have remained geographically the same, with of course some exceptions. Would you mind telling me how a country experiences a sudden reversal, and suddenly is a big oil producer instead of iron?

quote: Furthermore, that example was simplified for easy understanding and many people will see the principles beneath it but it seems you take every word quite literally. How come you judge the whole resource model based on one example which is very limited in variables and conditions? An example is to demonstrate a principle by showing a simple case within a limited environment not to describe whole things. Number "5" and "100" unrealistic? Don't you see the intention of mine to represent small number by 5 and big number by 100? Take everything literally then you will never be able to see the whole forest.

The reason I used your model literally is because I have nothing else to work with; You have failed to show me any literal and concrete examples of your system in action. How do you expect me to judge your system any other way? Why don't you give me a realistic and usable example, so I can more effectively evaluate it.

quote: in varing quantity. I mentioned the difference between the two systems several times already with "food" example. Even the pre-school kids will have no problem to understand the difference.

Careful, Youngsun. I think the only thing "preschool" going on here is your namecalling. I'm here to debate Civ3; if you are here to make childish insults this is most definitly not the place to make them.

quote: You're guiding yourself to the cliff with your limited imagination. With the supplementary system, it doesn't matter what resource you have. You can build whatever units. Resources act as only production boosters but not essential for unit building.

Isn't production essential for building? As much so as resources, certainly. You say that a limited amount of resources means you can only build so many units, but isn't that the same as shields? With a limited amount of shields, you can only build so many units, too. Production is as necessary as a mandatory resource, so why would any player pass up a resource just because technically it isn't necessary? See the comparison:

Mandatory system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like oil and iron, which are mandatory for tank building).
Shield system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like coal or oil or iron, only certain resources like these give shields).

quote: BUT! with the resource system,there is one condition which has to be satisfied. You need right resources. Country A,B and C have earned their resources throughout the game since they all started with one city. If you have planned to acquire oil rich terriroty along with your tech advance, good for you. If you haven't planned any and remained complacent all along, your civ deserves the downfall.

This of course assumes that every player has an opportunity for such resources; if I simply cannot get that oil field due to random map placement, do I still deserve the downfall? Of course not! Games that doom players from the start are frustrating and not fun to play.

quote: In civ, shields represent all kinds of resource mix plus labour points. The supplementary resource model doesn't define what is a shield. so now I ask. Is it the same thing as Civ series has defined or is it something new? What is it? What is a shield for your model cyclotron7? If it is the same thing, why the resources appear in redundant manner? once as a shield and next as a certain resource.

Yes, a shield for both Civ2 and most supplementary resources would be a shield. I actually have no model, because I see the flaws in a supplementary resource system as well as in a mandatory once. I think Civ2 needs to be improved upon, but I feel your system is the wrong way to do it. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "redundant manner," please clarify.

quote: Not everyone will get access to every resource type. If they can, they deserve it since they have earned it.

Huh? Somehow a player "earns" fortunate random map placement? This, as you can probably tell, is where I find the most problems in your model. Using random-map placement for resources increases luck and sucess based on a favorable condition. Civ should not be entirely dependent on your initial map location.

quote: Huh huh, It is you who is having understanding problem. Roman and other people finally understood and accepted my proposal while you're having problems to understand what I'm saying. Who have you convinced so far for your supplementary system? People will see who is acting like a boy all the time. and very civilised and constructive of you cyclotron7, this time.

Oh, I see. So if I don't agree with you, it must be because I have an "understanding problem?" I understand what you are saying, Youngsun. Has it ever occured to you that I am against it because I disagree with it, and not because I just can't understand you? And youngsun, I son't have to have support. You are the one introducing the new idea; and so far very little support has been generated here for your proposal. But support doesn't make you or me right; so I am wondering why you are using it as a qualifier for who's ideas are more valid?

Acting like a boy? Well, I am one, so I'll take that as a complement. But if it is meant as an insult, let me warn you that the only childish thing here is your pety insults. If you are so sure of your ideas, why not save your breath insulting me and give me some good examples of your ideas in action?

Keep it together, Youngson. People who insult won't get much support at all, will they? I am arguing about the issue, I frankly don't care about your feeble attempts to put me down. I want to debate; you can do whatever you want, but let's keep the childish name-calling to a minimum, shall we?

------------------
"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 March 18, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

So if you say something like this, it is a debate and if I say anything similar to it, it becomes an insult eh? Why don't you jusy say the world revolves around you? I had responded to you in very civilised manner until you started this nonsense.

quote: How can one earn an advantage if they are randomly scattered?

By expanding your territory wisely.

quote: a game should be based on your ability rather than which resources happen to be immediatly next to you.

So will you stay as one city state all along, complaining "I ain't got a resource"? you wouldn't, would you? At least 10~15 cities you will have, no?

quote: An unforseeable strategy is irrelevant here, a nation with iron would just sieze the resources of others.

A civ which has "Iron working" tech & "Iron" not a civ which has only "Iron". So the technology comes first.

quote: What would make them change?

Superior technologies and leadership.

quote: The reason I used your model literally is because I have nothing else to work with;

Rules and application. I have set the conditions and variables and it's your job to work out based on those. However, I will kindly re-demostrate the how the model works.

You got two hills within your territory.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

If you want your economy to go insular, you need more metals. So two hills are dedicated for metal production. Now you got two units of metal every turn.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

If you are in active trade with someone who got several metal mines, you will specailise in coal production. Now you got a unit of metal and 10 units of coal per turn.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

You are basically a coal trader in peace time but if diplomacy fails and metal supply from outside is cut off, you can switch the coal mine to a metal mine even if it yields you less. It is your choice whether to go insular or not but you know specialisation and trade bring you more good.

quote: Shield system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like coal or oil or iron, only certain resources like these give shields).

Grassland(shield) also gives a shield as well as forest.

quote: if I simply cannot get that oil field due to random map placement, do I still deserve the downfall?

This kind of thing happens in civ all the time. Look at the Chinese civ in the earth map. The civ really suffers from lack of shields every time since it's territory is composed of vast plain. What about the Russian civ? This civ almost every time rocks due to blanced web of forest and plain within its territory. If you are playing the chinese civ, you wouldn't let your territory confined within the plain only , would you? To get more shields, you will expand to the regions with lots of hills and mountains, right? The same thing happens with the resource model. You pursue the resource despite you're lacking the resource and the careful planning is required for that process.

quote: I actually have no model, because I see the flaws in a supplementary resource system as well as in a mandatory once.

Once you understand the difference between the two system, you will see no flaws since the flaws come from your misunderstanding.

quote: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "redundant manner," please clarify.

Resources appear twice as a shield and as a certain resource.

quote: Huh? Somehow a player "earns" fortunate random map placement? This, as you can probably tell, is where I find the most problems in your model.

If you have a problem with that random placement puts a player in disadvantageous position from time to time, blame CivI and CivII. It's they which have used the system like this and I'm simply using CivII as a background for explaining the resource model.

quote: Using random-map placement for resources increases luck and sucess based on a favorable condition. Civ should not be entirely dependent on your initial map location.

I don't get it why you think this such a big deal. If you don't like the position around you, you begin with, leave and settle somewhere else. I do that all the time and it might takes few turns but the right position compensate the lost turns more than enough.

quote: but let's keep the childish name-calling to a minimum, shall we?

Well, who started it?(sounds very childish indeed but I have to use the sentence this time)
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 19, 2001).]

[young newbie forever]

well this has turned into one hell of a hot topic.

however i dissagree with both of you.
youngson. i like the part about different resources but i dont want to have to have one thing in order to build a unit becouse its unrealistic, all civs throughout time have used different resources to make the same thing , so why make me half to find wood, iron,ect to buildf a legion when realistically legions were made COMPLETLY different around the world.

cycletron. i agree with the idea of still using sheilds to make units but the old system is very stupid and unrealistic. i wont ressourses that give both production boosts and make the unit different. so maybe a jappenese phalanxe(sp?) is faster than a chinese one but isnt as damaging.

in closing what i want are different resources that make production faster and make units different but arent needed to make units.

[young newbie forever]

well this has turned into one hell of a hot topic.

however i dissagree with both of you.
youngson. i like the part about different resources but i dont want to have to have one thing in order to build a unit becouse its unrealistic, all civs throughout time have used different resources to make the same thing , so why make me half to find wood, iron,ect to buildf a legion when realistically legions were made COMPLETLY different around the world.

cycletron. i agree with the idea of still using sheilds to make units but the old system is very stupid and unrealistic. i wont ressourses that give both production boosts and make the unit different. so maybe a jappenese phalanxe(sp?) is faster than a chinese one but isnt as damaging.

in closing what i want are different resources that make production faster and make units different but arent needed to make units.

[Straybow]

Lancer: No retirement announcements yet!

I was the one who brought up Sid's prohibition against having a "game within a game," and I was referring to Firaxis' own statements. I can't remember if it was Sid himself or another designer, or which interview, but it was one of the website interviews within the last six months or so.

IIRC the "game within a game" prohibition was specifically mentioned in the context of requests for tactical combat systems but the principle applies. If diplomacy grew to the point of fixed "adventure game" story lines that would be a game within a game. If Wonders were entities to manage like cities and units that might be a game within a game.

I agree that the space race is a game within a game, primarily because there is no civlike exploration, expansion or exploitation of space and the "extermination" is a contrived end-of-game condition. I have lobbied for an extended tech tree and solar system expoitation to remedy that.