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

[Henrik]

You are going to have to start a new thread about this now, this one is full

Henrik, I do believe you're right

Henrik, I do believe you're right

[Cyclotron]

quote: 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.

How are the Chinese in this case going to get units to take that territory from the russians, if the russians have a more powerful military from the outset due to their high production?

The prolem with a mandatory resource system is it

a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

These things being said, I must say that the idea of a resource system is a good one in general. You say I don't agree just because I don't understand... the reason I don't agree is because I see the above 4 flaws in the system. I am sure if these were corrected I would support your ideas.

Speaking of which, looking back on this thread I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you put it is to "make trade more important." I am wondering, wouldn't it be easier AND achieve the same goal to just give trading items more value? Like, make it so when you trade for fish you get food along with trade, and with iron you get additional production along with trade. If you make trade items valuable enough there will be no need to make them mandatory, since a player would be foolish not to trade. This solves all of the above problems: it does not restrict possible units, is not based on luck since just lke in Civ2 everybody will have some commodities, does not make trade the centerpiece of other facets like war and diplomacy, and is as simple as the Civ2 system. This makes trade vitally important and crucial to any war effort. Any country that wishes to wage a war or build a wonder quickly will need to trade for lots of iron and coal and other production-giving resources. It isn't quite as realistic as a mandatory system, but I think that would be excessive. Realism isn't always good for a game.

Youngsun, I'm a tolerant person, but I really don't understand where you are coming from about me starting it. I did not call you anything, my comment on "expecting a scathing reply" was just an ironic joke, as I was comparing your system to the shield system which your system was designed to get away from. I apologize if you took this the wrong way, but this is no reason to call me names.

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

[Cyclotron]

airdrik, you have some valid points, but I would ask you to post on the "part two" thread of this so I can respond.

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

[supremus]

Hey guys, hold on with this new game within the game. Remember that Civilization is from de beguine a war game and that's the most important factor in the game in spite of all the trade, social development and cultural aspects. Trade just became a key factor in the humankind history from the XI century on. Of course ,today trade and financing are the two most important factors. So what we can say is that war has to be the most important factor in CIV III in order to be loyal with Civilization tradition, and trade should be of low importance in the ancient phases of the game, mediun importance in the midleage, great importance in the modern age and the most important factor in the XXI century. But remember everybody: IT IS A WAR GAME !

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 03-19-2001 06:22 PM The prolem with a mandatory resource system is it a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

Actually, it increases tactical possibilities because 'everyone is restricted to certain units'. Except that everyone has access to all resources and all units, it is just that some civs have more of some resources than others.

quote: b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

Wherever you are, there is going to be plenty of every resource to sustain a civ through the entire game, it is just that there are areas of the map that contain more of a certain resource than others. Like there are high concentrations of oil in Canada and Alaska as well as in the middle east. It will not be likely that any civ who does not already control half the world will get a monopoly on any specific resource.

quote: c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

You don't half to trade with other civs. Even if end up in an area with only one resource that isn't that great (like bronze or coal, or something) you will still be able to take on everyone else and win without doing any trading, it will just be really hard.

quote: d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

Here is how it works:

You have a stockpile of the following resources:
Oil: 50
Iron: 100
Coal: 125
Uranium: 5
Bronze: 500
Wood: 1000
etc.

a Neuclear missile costs 5 Uranium, 20 Iron, and 5 Oil to build. Since you only have 5 Uranium at this point so you can only build 1. Next round, though, you gain another 5 Uranium (you just started mining Uranium so you can build these missiles) 5 Oil 10 Iron 15 coal 5 bronze and 5 wood. You can build another neuclear missile.

A tank costs 20 oil and 40 iron or 100 bronze. Right now you can build 2 tanks, but it will take 2 turns of gathering resources before you can build another tank. But you can choose whether to build it out of Iron or Bronze (the only difference is the cost in that resource).

You have two neigbors who both have larger reserves of oil (civ a has 200 oil and civ b has 250 oil) You go to civ b and ask for some oil (since he has more and would likely offer the lower price). He is already at the same technological stanpoint you are and says he wants 5 gold, 2 iron, or 10 coal per unit of oil. You turn him down and go to civ a, he is a little behind and says he will give you 2 units of oil per unit of wood or per 2 units of bronze you give him. Obviously you trade with civ a and drain his stockpile of oil, and he doesn't mind because he doesn't need it, and the next turn you turn arround and crush him with the 8 new tanks you just made from the oil you got .

[airdrik]

Also, if you don't have enough in your stockpile to build a unit, then you can have it add the resource to that unit as you gain it. Of cource you can only build units so fast. That brings up a question, how do you determine how fast you can build a unit?

[Henrik]

Dp
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited March 21, 2001).]

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by supremus on 03-20-2001 03:38 PM Hey guys, hold on with this new game within the game. Remember that Civilization is from de beguine a war game and that's the most important factor in the game in spite of all the trade, social development and cultural aspects. Trade just became a key factor in the humankind history from the XI century on. Of course ,today trade and financing are the two most important factors. So what we can say is that war has to be the most important factor in CIV III in order to be loyal with Civilization tradition, and trade should be of low importance in the ancient phases of the game, mediun importance in the midleage, great importance in the modern age and the most important factor in the XXI century. But remember everybody: IT IS A WAR GAME !

Ok first, you should really post in part two of this thread, this one is supposed to be locked.
Second: Civ is not a war game!!!!
It was meant to be an empire building game!
It turned out to let itself to wars, but sids intention was to let you build an empire, not to wage wars!
Also trade has been important since the time of Egypt and Mesopotamia, not since 1000 AD!
Don't you know any history?

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 03-21-2001 03:08 AM It turned out to let itself to wars, but sids intention was to let you build an empire, not to wage wars! Also trade has been important since the time of Egypt and Mesopotamia, not since 1000 AD! Don't you know any history?

Well, I didn`t say trade was not important at all before 1000 AD. I said war was by far much more important, and I think it has to be clear in CIV III. Trade started to be more and more important from the XI century on, and it became extremely important from the XVI century on, and It is dominant now. I think Sid tried to put Civ series as accurate as possible to the history and it is the most glamour aspect of Civ II. If Civ III will be part of the serie it has to cotinue as accurate as possible to the history and it means to put dominant influence for trade only in the XX and XXI century. Of course this influence can grow from the XI century on.

How to transfer this to the new thread ?

You can start a new thread and then just reference this one

You can start a new thread and then just reference this one

[Henrik]

I wonder if MarkG and DanQ remembers that they are now admins for this forum, they haven't been locking any threads at all since they fired Jin, maybe someone should send them a PM?