Making Trade Essential Part Deux

[Lancer]

One thing I've learned, a new trade model is needed. I'm becoming convinced that it can be done and not be the end of the world. If we look at how Sid handled it before, in Colonization, if you don't have one component needed for manufacture you can pay extra to get it, without fail. That's one way of doing it. The other is to make trade truly essential, if you can't deal your way to what you need, or fight your way to it, your screwed. I think there are ways to make the commodities readily available on an open market, for a price. I'm for making trade essential.

Your views for 'part deux'?

[Lancer]

Straybow, got ya pal! It seems to make more sense when a tactical battle map is refered to as a 'game within a game'. Conquest of the World had this, and it truly was a little tactical wargame within a strategy game.

Retirement? huh?

[Cyclotron]

Umm... I guess I missed this 2nd part, so excuse me if I post a second time here

I don't want to continue the nasty exchange I had with Youngsun, do I won't.


The problem with a mandatory resource system, IMO, 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 fully support your ideas.

Speaking of which, looking back on this thread I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys 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.

As for the "game within a game" stuff, I suppose that's for Firaxis to decide.

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

[Youngsun]

quote: I did not call you anything

Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Now let's concentrate to the main issues!

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

It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

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

I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable". If you elminate random probability, everything becomes predictable thus making the game boring. Even when the odds are against you, you can still overcome the odds by making the wisest decision every turn. In other word, when your civ's surrounding terrain is not very productive, you have several options First, you can move to more fertile regions and this is very common and likly practice for early stage of the game. Second, you can use some diplomacy and trade, if your way out is blocked. Invasions will be the last option and can be used when the other two options are not viable.
To summarise the point, your action is the most decisive/important factor not the random probability.

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

Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

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!

How do you know, when you don't have the actual experience of playing a game which uses resource system? Many of the supporters of the resource model do have experiences of playing it and they know it's very fun.

CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

quote: I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys put it is to "make trade more important."

Not only for improved trade but for fun.

quote: 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?

You do have enough time to expand before you face the Russians face to face. The situation that the Chinese civ faces here, is the direct consequence of how the civ has behaved. The Chinese AI is not very expansionistic compared to that of the Russian.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 20, 2001).]

[jglidewell]

I hope that Trade takes a larger role than it has in the past two Civs but I am not sure that a specific resource types should become absolutely essential for a specific unit type or improvement. You should also have an option in the game setup so that you can have it as complex and many types as you want. The option being for all the Caesar’s and Alexander’s out there.

Rail Baron was a good game and it’s resource scheduling was complex and did not detract from the fun. As a matter of fact I think it was its pupose

The Caravan unit should absolutely go. You never did get it to that foreign port did you? What a waste.

Shields should represent general production (i.e. It takes 20 shields to produce a warrior unit but the 20 shields could be represented by say 1 commodity taking 20 of them, or 2 commodities taking 5 of each(10 total) or 3 commodities taking 1.6 of each (5 total). This is why trade is preferable to war.

Resources should not be consumed unless you use it(improvements and units), sell it, or store it. They should also be able to be pillaged if stored.

I would propose that Trade take place on 3 distinct levels;
1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal.

1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and time to deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals).
2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation.
3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

There only has to be one type of barter screen the only difference being what the level or other side as to offer’.

I have 2 cloth and 50 and four cards. Ha ha, that’s piracy.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Uh, I don't think I called you anything, I didn't mean to if I did. Sure thing, let's quit this and do what we're here for!

quote: It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

quote: I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable".

The difference here is that losing an occasional phalanx due to luck or not getting the 100 gold you would have liked due to luck is not likely to cost you the game. If you are unlucky enough to not have access to better units due to unlucky resource placement, you are likely to lose. If resources become mandatory, they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

quote: Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

quote: CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

If I want to know which military unit to use, I just look on one screen (my unit build list).

If I want to see what resources I need, and secure them, I must:

1) Look at the unit list and see what I want to build, and how many resources I need.
2) Look at some resource screen and see what I have.
3) Calculate exactly how much of each resource I need.
4) Go to a diplomacy screen if I want to trade for it, etc.

Shields eliminate this calculation, as shield surplus (or lack thereof) is simply put in a small bar. With the above expanded Civ2 system I would just trade for some shield-bearing commodities, and I wouldn't have to worry about excess shields because I can use all of them.

Two questions:

What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

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

[The diplomat]

What if the computer told you what ressources you needed automatically.
For example, the screen would show all possible units. But, if a unit required a ressource that you lacked, it would show that resource in bold red. This way the player would immediately see if a unit lacked a particualr ressource since it would show up in red!

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

[airdrik]

Or take it one step further and after the amount of resources it takes to build the unit, also have how many of that unit you can build. A list of how many of each resource would be easily accessable from the unit selection screen (beside it or have a button which toggles it on and off). But as I was going to bring up on the other topic, with this new system, how do you determine how long it will take to build a unit?

[Lonestar]

Trade needs to play a bigger role. Otherwise, alot of the historic importance of seapower is neglected.

i.e. Blockades. In the civ games naval units mostly battled each other, while subs and carriers provided the only really powerful land attack system. In SMAC/X the value of sea power was somewhat increased with sea bases but, IMO, not enough.

Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Cyclotron]

Lonestar, if you use a CTP style trade route system sea blockades become much more important... the real question is, how is Firaxis representing caravans? CTP routes or Civ2 units?

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

[Cyclotron]

oops, double post!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 20, 2001).]

[me_irate]

To me the seeding of resources would not have to be completely random. not counting the amount of resources in the game which should be selectable just like the amount of water. But if one was playing on easy you would have greater suplies of resources near your starting location. And on higher difficulties you are limited to all but the rarest resources around you thus increasing difficulty. In this way the computer would have a resource bonus instead of the huge tech, growth, and prod bonuses like in civ 2. There was nothing worse then a size 4 computer city beating your size 8 city just because of there unfair prod bonus. This way the bonuses for the computer could be lessened but the challenge would remain. Forcing you to trade or fight your way to them. Thus raising the difficulty without the computer cheating.

[Cyclotron]

airdrik, what you describe is very similar to the CTP system.

In CTP, you make a request to another nation for commodity x in exchange for commodity y between two cities of different civs, and next turn they tell you whether it is accepted or not. The main differrence is that you are proposing a quantity system (3 iron for 2 oil) and CTP uses an entire route system (one source of oil for one source of iron).

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...

[Youngsun]

quote: 1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal. 1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and timeto deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals). 2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation. 3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

good definition jglidewell, I like it.


cyclotron7

quote: What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

Every tile gives you resources. You may lack "Iron" but will be able to get great surplus of other resources. On the other hand, the Iron rich civ may lack food or wood which even things up very much. Everyone ,in that sense, is holding a card to play.

quote: they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

There are two types of resources, basic and strategic. Basic resources like wood will be numerous and readily accessible thus making the value of them less significant. Strategic resources like oil can be used only later stage of the game and they are relatively less accessible and vital for industry and unit building. Strategic resources must be important otherwise they wouldn't be strategic.

quote: I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

Subjective maybe, but important one since it indicates everyone's satisfaction level of trade aspect of the game and the game development should be guided by the indication.

quote: What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 12:16 AMThe 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 this buying and selling could be instant one turn transaction or medium~long term trade agreement. No calculation involved.

quote: What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

I think it's good idea but the primary resource system is better and more fun I reckon.

quote: With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-16-2001 01:14 AM Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood etc etc... If your city can produce 5 labour pts every turn, a granary will cost 4 turns to be completed. (5 X 4 = 20 lbr pts)

Labours are city specialists and they will provide labour points. Labour points can be modified by mill,factroy or powerplant. The higher the labour point, the faster the unit construction will be.

diplomat

quote: What if the computer told you what ressources you needed automatically. For example, the screen would show all possible units. But, if a unit required a ressource that you lacked, it would show that resource in bold red. This way the player would immediately see if a unit lacked a particualr ressource since it would show up in red!

What a great idea! this is even better than sending a message.

airdrick

quote: Or take it one step further and after the amount of resources it takes to build the unit, also have how many of that unit you can build.

another great idea! if New York has 500 labour points and a F-15 squadron costs 250 labour points, New York can churn out 2 F-15 squadrons per turn!

quote: But as I was going to bring up on the other topic, with this new system, how do you determine how long it will take to build a unit?

The "Labour point", mate!

Lonestar

quote: Trade needs to play a bigger role. Otherwise, alot of the historic importance of seapower is neglected.

Yes, to do that we need new concept "transportation capacity" and vessels have outperformed their land-counterparts in this category throughout history. Transportation through sea lane should be easier than through land route until railway becomes dominant way of tranporation.


me_irate

quote: But if one was playing on easy you would haven greater suplies of resources near your starting location. And on higher difficulties you are limited to all but the rarest resources around you thus increasing difficulty. In this way the computer would have a resource bonus instead of the huge tech, growth, and prod bonuses like in civ 2.

Yes that can be another good way of using the resource system.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 21, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

The whole open market thing is absurd. It should only be available when all civs have refrigeration and automobile.

This labour point thing is weird too, aren't shields like labour points?

Someone a long time ago, on the other thread, suggested that making money more important throughout the game could force people to trade. I like this idea. How come no one has mentioned it?

Gary

[Cyclotron]

Seeing as my objections to your system is based on my 4 points, I suppose I should frame my reply in relation to these.

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

Although every Civ may have a card to play, I am in this question centered on the military (unit) aspect of things. You just said that resources would be divided into basically common ones and not so common ones. Assuming common resources (wood, iron, bronze) are available to everyone in certain quantities, this seems to be just like the shield system in that the more you have, the faster/more units you can build. Thank you for pointing out the difference in your system between these two types.

I suppose, if the below 3 reasons were dealt with, I could handle (or even support!) a system with your "strategic" resources, but basic resources as per your system seem to be identical to shields. In your system I would scrap the basic resources and keep the strategic ones, as they are so plentiful there is really no need to distinguish them from shields.

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

With basic resources this is solved, since there are plenty of them, but I still believe that it would take some more map-making algorithms to make sure strategic resources were fairly balanced. I suppose this is just a question of programming, so this problem B is solved as long as a good map generating program is utilized.

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

The Beta testing will probably have the last word on this, so we'll see.

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!

This still remains my biggest reservation about your system. I would be alright if you could trade whole commodities (i.e. if I start a trade route with another civ for steel, I can now build tanks in that city), but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game. I just don't want civ to become work.

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...

[airdrik]

I don't know how they did trade routes in CTP, but here is how I would think it should go:

You can establish trade routes between any city you know that exists, and you have a screen that you can bring up which shows all the trade routes from your civ. Each route sends a certain amount of various goods to the other city in exchange for an equally valuable amount of other resources from the other city, ex. a route from London to Madrid trades 5 wood and 2 food for 3 iron and 3 coal each turn. In the trade route view screen you can go in and edit the amounts of each commodity are sent, and propose an amount of goods in return. When you change an amount, a message is sent to the other civ saying they have changed the commodities in trade route a to b and c and would like to recieve d and e in return for it, is this acceptable (yes or no), if they say no than negotiations start where you discuss new amounts.

In the case of a trade embargo or blockade or something that would halt trade than those trade routes affected would be labled Halted and would not produce any trade until the embargo or whatever is stopped.

[Youngsun]

Gary

quote: The whole open market thing is absurd. It should only be available when all civs have refrigeration and automobile.

I believe jglidewell suggested that to represent an entity which is not bound by any civ. During Ancient era, merchants were the open market for any nation. A merchant can be used as a medium for exchanging goods between civs or a civ can act as one like the Arabs. Pre-modern merchants can be replaced by corporations and the private sector which are the true form of open market for any nation.

quote: This labour point thing is weird too, aren't shields like labour points?

We talked about it a while ago, Gary. I thought we reached some form of agreement.

quote: Someone a long time ago, on the other thread, suggested that making money more important throughout the game could force people to trade. I like this idea. How come no one has mentioned it?

I agree the importance of money should increase. However, money can be acquired by various ways, mainly by collecting tax so players who don't trade still get money anyway. People might trade more but trade doesn't become essential. The only way to make trade essential by increasing the value of money is that making trade the only way to get money which seems not right. The resource model was suggested not only to boost international trade but to enjoy it as it is.

cyclotron7

quote: the more you have, the faster/more units you can build.

No. Even 1000 units of iron will never make a single legion unless there are some labours to work on it. The speed of production is decided by how much labour points you have. The presence of certain resource act as a condition to allow the unit to be built or not.


if an armour costs (200 lbr pts + 20 iron + 20 oil)

Greek civ resource pool(100 iron, 100 oil)
Athens(50 lbr pts)
Corinth(20 lbr pts)
Sparta(0 lbr pts)

Roman civ resource pool(10 iron, 80 oil)
Rome(100 lbr pts)

Athens will take 4 turns to complete an armour
Corinth will take 10 turns to complete an armour
Sparta will take forever unless there are some change in labour points.

Rome, in this case, is primarily affected by the resource, iron and if Rome manage to get 10 extra more iron, will complete the armour within 2 turns. If not, the production is halted.

quote: but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game.

I think the diplomat's suggestion makes the case a lot simpler/easier. You see the list of resouces in grey colour but badly needed one will turn in red while surplus makes the resource green or even blue. very intuitive indeed.

Good to hear there are some progress in our discussion.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I understand that the idea behind the open market thing was an "economic sphere" that encompasses all the civs. To think of anything pre-modern, much less in ancient times, is ludicrous. It has no basis in history. Is there some massive foreign trade network that is somehow possible with only the technologies of map making and horseback riding? The Arabs spent a lot of time and money getting things from the East to the West, they (the ones who traded) were dominated by trade. Other civilizations were not. And, by the way, trading through an intermediary such as the Arabs was not anything close to open.

Regarding the labour issue, the agreement we reached was that I thought the idea was pointless and anachronistic, and you didn't. But enough of that.

I don't think I understand your paragraph about my statement regarding money. You don't think money should only be available through trade only (which makes pretty good sense to me, if you're going to be spending that money outside your own civ [buying techs, buying cities, etc...]), but you seem to have no problem with allowing the production of military units almost exclusively through trade. I think the money makes a lot more sense. I see how your resource model boosts international trade while allowing one to enjoy it as it is, but it completely changes the production of units. I would like a system that might boost international trade while allowing the player to enjoy producing military units "as it is", as well as trading "as it is".

Gary

[me_irate]

I like the labor points idea. Here is how i think they should work. In any given city near the begining of the game half the pop in farming (working grass or plains squares would be plenty for food and growth) maybe 1/4 would be mining for resources and the other 1/4 would be labor. Assuming that it was a size 10 city 3 units would be for labour. The laborer starting out would produce about 10 labor. Thus 3 workers =30 labor a turn. Later in the game you could have better laborers assuming they are suplied with certain commodities as in imperialism. trained workers produce 20 labor but require certain luxuries. But they also cost a good deal more money thus making gold more important. It would be difficult to support a well trained workforce unless you have allot of income. Also later you could build factories and mills like you do farms that would increase labor points. Thus i worker working in a square with a factory would produce 50 labor but nothing else in that square. Also i believe later the gov. should have a greater bearing on support. Instead of just shield like in other games you must pay your soldiors also making gold more important and making trade more important.

[jglidewell]

One of the things I think is confusing is that in the first two civs money/Gold as only another a form of shields. The only purpose for the money was to rush buy, and that is what it was used for.

If the money could equal other things

But what if I could use the money/gold to say buy a technology. Buy population. Buy population happiness. Buy foreign units (Traitors without changing countries ownership) and controlling them. Money/Gold should be the most fungible of all commodities.

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun:

What do labor points do? They determine how fast you can build units.

What do "basic" resources do? They determine how fast you build units, too. A nation with only a limited supply of a common resource will only get so many resources per turn, so this will limit how many units they can build as well. If a city has very few labor points they will not be able to build units quickly, and if a city has few common resources they will also not be able to build units as quickly, as they must wait to accumulate the required resources before building, like if an armor costs 20 iron and you only get 5 per turn, you could have a million labor points and you would still only be able to build one every 4 turns.

What I am saying is that they both accomplish the same thing: Your ability to build units over time, so it is better and less confusing to combine common resources with labor points (i.e. shields) in your model.

This makes no changes to your strategic resource system.

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...

[Bender]

Perhaps another way to improve the importance of trade without overcomplicating things would be to require both shields and gold for unit upkeep. If all units required at least one gold and one shield per turn to maintain, wealthier commerce-rich nations would have an advantage.

Too simple?

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by Bender on 03-22-2001 05:50 PM Perhaps another way to improve the importance of trade without overcomplicating things would be to require both shields and gold for unit upkeep. If all units required at least one gold and one shield per turn to maintain, wealthier commerce-rich nations would have an advantage. Too simple?

Not at all. I also feel that city improvements and units should require gold upkeep!



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

[Cyclotron]

Upkeep is a bit of a different issue... but you have valid points. I personally think gold and shields should be used. In the "unit support" thread I posted this idea for how units could have gold/shields/both support at the national/citywide level depending on governments.

quote: Okay, Gov't support revised: Despotism: Units supported nationally with both shields AND gold. Autocratic Governments like these were more centralized around a single ruler, hence the national cost. The shields are for maintainance, and the money is to pay the troops do they simply won't leave your oppresive regime. On the other hand, maybe gold should be not much, and the troops stay in line simply out of fear of your great person... Monarchy: Units supported by city with gold. The Feudalistic system of the time put more authority and responsibility on feudal lords, or vassals. Typically, military during this time were hired mercenaries (i.e. knights, samurai) who provided their own supplies but needed monetary compensation. Republic: Units supported by city with shields. Republics stress the autonomy of the city-state. Military service is usually required in event of a war, so although monetary compensation is not needed soldiers still must be supported with food and supplies from the government. Communism: Units supported nationally with shields. Communist governments are strongly centralized, and military service is often compulsory so only weapons and supplies are needed. Fundamentalism: Units supported nationally with a minimum of shields. Fundamentalist governments revolve around a central church or authority, hence the nationalization. The zealots that compose their armies, however, fight for your countries' sake and need no direct monetary compensation and little government support. Democracy: Units supported nationally with gold AND shields. Funny how this is like despotism, huh? A democracy like the US and most modern European nations has a centralized military, which it needs both to pay and to support with supplies. Given the freedom in a democracy, many will not part with it readily to fight with little compensation. Other goverments (CTP comes to mind, theocracy, fascism, and other "future" governments) can fit this model too.

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

I want a system a bit like (but much less complex that) Imperialism II. That worked fairly well, I thought.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 03-22-2001 04:59 AM Youngsun, I understand that the idea behind the open market thing was an "economic sphere" that encompasses all the civs. To think of anything pre-modern, much less in ancient times, is ludicrous. It has no basis in history.

Ever heard of the Hanseatic League? or the Italian trade companies, or how Ukraine used to be one of the richest regions in europe during the middle ages since they sold their wheat internationally? Or maybe the west/est-indian companies?
There have allways been lots of trade going on internationally.
Merchants have allways traded around the world, often with persons from nations unknown in the country the merchants themseleves came from.
The only part of the world that was not involved in international trade untill the 1500's was America, becouse there wasn't any way of getting there (well almost annyway, the vikings did arive a lot earlier but their collonies got burnt down by the indians) and Australia, both these continents where helplessly behind in advancement, but in civ 2 when you are the only civ in America you was lucky and evolving in isolation could be good (granted you would have an easier time if you traded, but you could still beat everyone by just filling america whit cities).
I'm not really sure which side of this argument I'm supporting whit this, but atleast I show that there was indeed international trade before refrigeration and the automobile.

[jglidewell]

Question,

Is it more important/valuable in the game to have a diverse set of commodities or strive for a monopoly in one? I was curious? Games have taken both ways.

The real value of Trade is in efficeicies(more of 'it'). To get this reflected in the game I guess you would have to have essential resources for a unit or improvement. Thats assuming your willing to Trade(Monopoly, I have all I need, go away sucker). If thats the case than a unit should have more than one essential resource to encourage trade 'diversity'


'Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades. ' I agree and would only restrict the rate of trade depending on how many ships you brought near the city. So trade must have a time rate attached to it.

A list of things I want to buy;

1. A traitor - Once bought by spy, the unit stays with and retains the original civs colors. Follows the original civs commands until such time as I give it my orders and then it changes to my civs color and thus counted as one of my normal units. In the meantime I get intelligence reports, normal unit map visisbility, city posture(if it is ordered into a city.)

2. I want to buy population out right (1000 gold per person) or even from other foreign civs.

3. I want to buy the other civs barracks while he is changing over to musketeers. That would be a fire sale. Forget about a game bank. Things are used, stored, sold, or lost. No trade in's.

4. I want to buy Manhattan isle. Or even have a Louisianna purchase, or even trade me for that cool Brooklyn Bridge you got there.(Be able to buy land in some ones borders or even rent it.)

5. I wnat to buy money (debit spending)

and the beat goes on.
I have 3 Iron and 60.

[GaryGuanine]

hendrik,

I didn't claim that trade didn't occur before modern times. My argument was that a global "free market" for things would be impossible before modern technologies. If the Zulus, in the bottom of the African continent, had thousands of tons of Tin to sell (and that is the scope we have to talk about here), they could not easily just sell it to the Aztecs in Central America. I was (and remain so) afraid that the idea I read about sounded like a modern day Wall Street commodities market. The Zulus would have to make huge caravans of Tin, and have to travel the incredible distances involved basically on their own.

The reason great groups developed to trade in the late middle ages (and mostly with each other and the Arabs, by the way) was because it was incredibly expensive. I don't want my international trade represented by some arbitrary transaction cost on a global free market. IF I want to trade, I want to have to build the English fleet, establish the Italian trade routes, set up the VOC (Dutch East India company) bases in Indonesia. There was lots of trade, but you had to work for it, not just pay for it on some "market".

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 23, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

What is so cool about limited strategic possibilities and predictable strategies?

quote: I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

Trade is not seriously missing from Civ. Trade was an essential part of Civ2, and although some steps should be taken to improve it I want to play the balanced game that is Civ3, not a purely trade based game.

I honestly will never understand why anybody should need trade for anything. Want? Of course. Almost necessary to so much as survive? Yes. But making Civ a game where you MUST HAVE something to do something else destroys the freeform nature of Civ, instead resricting you to certain strategies, tactics, and ways to win. Adding more rules does more to hinder the game than help it. If you guys want to increase the importance of trade, why not siomply increase the value one gets from trading, like I have suggested? If you want to get the realism argument too, here it is: Throughout human civilization, people have had a choice, in both trading and other matters. To take away choice in favor of enforced trading is not only unrealistic but destructive to the gameplay of Civilization. Go ahead and make trade more important, but no mandatory stuff! Keep Civ3 a game of choice, not of excessive rules!



------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...