Making Trade Essential Part Deux

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

quote: and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

Do I? Of course not. What I said and what you said probably have nothing to do with each other.

Roman,

quote: There is in fact absolutely no difference in principle between international and domestic trade.

Yeah, but there is absolutely no similarity between international and domestic trade as Civ2 treats them. That's the point I was trying to make.

quote: Anyway Gary, if you support realism than you support the resource system, which I would also like to see.

Of course I support some kind of resource system, I just don't want to see it dominate the game, and consist of some kind of "global market"

Youngsun (and applies to cyclotron),

Youngsun:

quote: quote: It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields. Gary said exactly the same thing and I already explained the difference between two systems.

I didn't understand it at all the first time, so it might be a good idea to state it again.

Youngsun (only ),

quote: CivIII should belong to someone who have great interest in history and how the civilisation of the past and present rised and fell.

This is the basis behind all of my arguments so far.


Regardless (not a person who posts, but a conjunction),

The game is going to be great. Look at all the new information that was just given out. It sounds like it's going to be an incredible game, doesn't it? Like I said on the other thread, I'm sure I'm going to play the game and say, "Wow, fantastic idea, better than mine." It's fun to debate things, but it's going to be wonderful no matter what. These guys always come through.

Gary

[Roman]

Look at all the new information that has just been released! The game is going to be amazing despite not using a primary resource system. The system they are using will still be a vast improvement on Civ2.

[lord of the mark]

"Because there is no infrastructure in place. In terms of world history (in other words, Civ3), we would have to be talking about thousands of tons of product to move. There was simply no way that the Chinese, over in East Asia could sell tons and tons of, say, iron to the Zulus in Southern Africa. It just couldn't happen. "

Nor did it need to happen - iron having been fairly ubiquitous - found not only on every continent but close to every major center of civilization (remember that the quanitities required, even to equip a legion, were small compared to modern requirements) How about tin, OTOH. Essential to bronze. Phoenicians became wealthy in part from shipping tin from Cornwall to the Med, no? Phoenie infrastructure was adequate because the quantities involved were not vast.

Lord of the Mark

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7 & Gary

No further discussion needed for me. I got what I want and I'm very much satisfied with what Firaxis has done so far and I hope that you guys too are satisfied on this. It's been really fun talking you guys.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngie,

Word up. Isn't it odd how we're both happy with what came out from Firaxis?

Gary

[Youngsun]

Very odd indeed, especially after considering the nature(so-called mandatory)of resources in the game which you had opposed so much so long.

quote: Resources such as iron and uranium allow a civilization to produce certain goods.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that you are happy, too.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 29, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

Youngie,

Don't worry, Youngsun, I have faith in the Firaxis team that they will not use anything remotely like your plan.

Gary

[Roman]

What I would be interested in is whether you can stack resources of the same type for added benefit. Basically I think that if you mine 2 ivory you should get more benefit than if you mine 1 ivory. However, this would have to be capped at some point (say 3 resources of the same type) to force you to look for diverse types of resources.

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun, I think we have also scored a few points for supplementary resources... after all, it doesn't look like there will be stockpiling, just shields. This was my main problem with your system, I am glad Firaxis killed it

Stop fighting, you two... I think they used stuff from both of our plans... compromise is the best way of doing it, anyway!

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

[GaryGuanine]

I have "winkies" cyclotron! I'm just kidding.

Gary

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

I had one strong principle when I suggested the primary resource model. A resource becomes a condition whether to allow to build certain things or not. Other following details are just details and I wouldn't dream of that Firaxis use the exactly same thing as mine in detailed fashion. I was actually pessimistic about the concept making into the game because it was new and untried in civ series. Anyhow, I maintained my view all along though it was under heavy attack. That's why I'm so happy about what Firaxis has done for resource(primary or as you say "mandatory") and trade(commodity-based) because it was so unexpected.

I and cyclotron7 have had radically different views and both of us were unable to pursuade one another. we had few times of nasty exchange of colourful words but somewhat managed to maintain the debate as it is not as a fight. cyclotron7 also demonstrated very mature attitude by asking me to participate his model for constuctive criticism though we knew we had very different views(I really give you a credit for that!) also by mediating me and Gary in the words "I think they used stuff from both of our plans... compromise is the best way of doing it, anyway!".

Anyway, we are both happy and that's the most important thing.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 30, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun,

Thank you very much. Truly, the highest praise comes from one's opponent (in resources, at least). We may not have convinced eachother, but I do believe we may have convinced a few others along the way! An incident once or twice, but for the most part it was a good, clean fight.
And to commemorate that exchange, note my new signature...

Well, I'll put my thoughts on the Firaxis resource method (as much as I can tell) in this familiar format:

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

This is still something that worries me... note that the review said:

quote: Resources such as iron and uranium allow a civilization to produce certain goods.

Youngsun, perhaps you were a bit quick to decide that goods meant units? Although that is possible, it is also probable that goods could mean a variety of other things, including maybe a host of manufactured commodities in addition to basic raw materials. Wouldn't that be interesting!

I am glad that it doesn't look like we'll be dealing with the basic resources (wood, stone) that I railed against.

Verdict: marginal defeat for supplementary system

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

Firaxis seems to be using the same seeding as Civ2, so how important this point is depends on how important they make goods in the game.

Verdict: stalemate

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

From what I've seen; not likely. Although they are giving more importance to trade (talk about monopolies, power brokers) and this could turn sour, the lack of anything mentioning needed resources for that aircraft carrier Firaxis is making on the city screen, and any indication of any other building material besides shields, seems to point to a goods system that is more important but not all important.

Verdict: marginal victory

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!

Rejoyce! My biggest concern here was stockpiling and quantities (battleship needs 200 labor, 125 steel, 20 copper, 50 oil, 25 titanium, 5 uranium...), and it looks like these are history. Note that simple icons of the resources themselves are producing luxuries in the city screen, indicating that the route itself is being used rather than quantities of the good. The absence of anything but shields to build with also indicates the lack of stockpiling.

Verdict: decisive victory

Average: MARGINAL VICTORY for the supplementary system

... which, Youngsun, is why I am happy

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 30, 2001).]

[eric789]

cyclotron7,

I've been lurking and observed you guys' discussion with some interest. cyclotron7, I'm very sorry to say this but it's your model's total defeat though I'm not so sure whether youngson's model got a victory or not. Correct me, if i'm wrong but I think the supplementary resource model's principle was that resources are not the decisive factor for unit building but just bonus for faster production or increased unit strength. In other word, someone can build a unit with or without resources. In Youngson's model's principle, resources are the decisive factor and you need a certain resource to build certain unit. Judging from what's in the screenshots, I believe that Civ3 will be using a model that shares the same principle as Youngson's one. Part of the article says that "Possible drawback: Also, linking resources to unit building could prove frustrating". A principle is what the model stands for and if the principle changes, the model is gone. However, details can be changed at any time which means compromisable. You lost something un-compromisable for your model and it's your total defeat.

eric

[Cyclotron]

Eric,

It incorrect that the supplementary system lost, because there really isn't one.

Generally, like the term "mandatory resource system," I have used this term to define a resource system in which trade is more important than in Civ2, but not as critical as in the MRS (tired of writing "mandatory" ).

Given these broadly defined terms, it is impossible to say that the system "lost." If you look back on the 1st resource thread, you will see that I proposed and supported a variety of different such supplementary sytems, one of which was extremely similar to Firaxis' decision.

Overall, my satisfaction with Firaxis' system depends on whether I like it or not, despite the fate of any one of my proposed systems. I gave Youngsun a list of 4 problems with the MRS that I intended as guidelines for myself in creating a better SRS. As long as these 4 problems are solved, I don't care what they call it or whether units are truly "mandatory" or not. I don't oppose the MRS on its basic idea, but rather how it is interpreted here by its proponents.

So in fact, there was no "great defeat" for the SRS. Defeat shouldn't really matter at this point anyway, as we have a picture from Firaxis and we should concentrate our efforts withing those parameters Firaxis has already chosen. Defeat of past issues isn't really important, we have to work with what we are given... and I believe we have been given the makings of a great game.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Heres my model:

You don't need x amount of uranium to build a nuke. All what you need is a city which has uranium as a resorce. There is no specific number of what you need to build a battleship. If you have one resorce of oil, tin, copper, lead, or whatever you need to make a ship function, you can build them. You can trade to, but you never run out and there is no concret numbers to deal with. That way, you never have to worry about how much you have left, or such like that.

Well, I kinda like how civ3 seems to be going in its implementation of resources... however I have one suggestion:

Each resource allows ONE city to build a unit/structure that requires that resource... All available resources would be shown in the city screen, but they would have a number on top of them... as more cities use that resource the number is reduced until you finally have ZERO available. These resources are not used up, when a city using a resource stops building something that needs it, it becomes available again. (Kinda like dilitum in BotF) I also like that cities need to be connected by roads/ports for them to use/share resources.

>BUMP<

[Lancer]

I kind of like the idea that resources are used up, as long as new finds constantly occur during the game. Perhaps this would lead to a power shift, but it's been the contention of several people in this thread that being a 'have not' would ruin their game. Have and have not status might change as old fields and mines run dry and new ones are discovered. Certainly, some might be so great as to last the whole game, such as the Persian Gulf oil or the US midwest coal. Anyway, a persons fortunes might change several times this way, and so it would 'ruin' everyones game the same. If it does that, well, you've modeled the real world a bit better.

[Cyclotron]

Lancer,

That would be interesting, but I don't see any way to implement it since Civ3 does not have stockpiling. The only way would be to give a few warnings beforehand, and then suddenly the resource is gone. That's kind of sudden, but maybe its good that way... It would certainly add an interesting twist if you had to be careful not to overhunt (supply too many cities with) those ivory-giving rhinos.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Lancer]

cyclotron, there should be a warning, perhaps in reduction of output. Stockpiling, well why not? You would have to make the 'storage facility' improvement... Anyway, when you run out in one place you might find whatever it is in another, or it might pop up in an allied civ,or you could buy it on the open market I described earlier. Just like it's done in reality.