Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[supremus]

I don't understand all this fussiness with Trade. Trade is important but Civilization Games were ,and still are, very historical accurated games. And in the humankind history war was, by far, much more decisive than trade especially in ancient and midle times. What was the importance of trade in the Middle Age ? Guys are trying to develop a very good new game in two threads related to this issue and I have a name suggestion to it: TRADE DOMINANCE. So go ahead with this new game and let us in peace with Civ III.

[Cyclotron]

Although trade did actually play a part in the ancient and middle ages, I agree that some are over-emphasizing trade. This is NOT a trade based game, and things like war and diplomacy should not revolve around it in Civ3. Too much realism and trade-dependence will ruin this game!

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

I too concur with both of your points ....is the game going to be called Civilization III or World Trade I?

I also concur with both statements.

------------------

[colossus]

Rejoice to all civers rather than traders!

We have to confess that civ games are already unrealistically biased towards trade advantages. Basically all strategies evolve around trade and caravans, which should not be the case in real life. If trade is handled differently in civ3, it should be less important rather than more important.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game. If you want historical accuracy (Civ games being historically accurate, what a laugher) play Europa Universalis. There you'll see how utterly ridiculous Civ2's war engine is and how important trade was.

[raingoon]

Trade is too important to dismiss out of hand, it certainly was hugely dominant throughout the history of world civilization and deserves to be central to the focus of Civ 3. And war alone was never the decisive factor in building a civilization, rather it was the attendant increase in resources (or decrease), which anyway had more to do with trade than war. In any case we DO know that the trade element has already been nailed down, as has the combat model, and both sound equally healthy. So I'm not sure what all this fuss-about-the-fuss is about.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 03-23-2001 01:19 AM I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game.

Imram,
Well, I posted in the two other threads about Trade issue and I said exactly that: Trade started to be important only from the XI century and it became very important from the 1500s on. So we agree over this point. When you say it STARTED to compete with war from that moment on, you recognize it was less important then war in Midle Age and ancient times, and we agree again. I added that Trade only became the most important factor in XX and XXI centuries. If Civ III can be implemented in this way and with this historical coerence, I think it will be greate. But that's not what we see in the two threads dedicated to this issue. They want Trade as the dominant element of the game from the beguine, and, of course, i it is a very big mistake.

[Zealot]

It's hard to believe that something like this is being discussed on Apolyton...
Of course trade is important! Every empire needs resources, but raw materials isn't equal to money! I believe that Civ III will improve a way to victory by an economic way. And trade is fundamental...

And conquering all is soooo boring!

[Henrik]

The first war over trade priviligies (rather than land, which used to be what war was about) was in the mid-17th century (between England and Netherlands) from that point and on Trade became more and more the one factor that was fought over, this only changed during the mid-late-19th century and on when nationalism played its roll too.

[jglidewell]

Who was it and and what time did someone says along the lines
'An army marches on its stomach'??

A spartan universe. i wonder what Aristotle would think about that?

nuff said

[raingoon]

I disagree totally. Trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on. This thread is more of a mistake than early trade would be, and triggering it at some point into the game according to some rough historical timeline would be the biggest mistake of all. That would make Civ 3 essentially a gigantic scenario. Instead, trade should be -- and will be -- a component part of the engine that you can emphasize or de-emphasize to your heart's content. And during the early centuries you mention, religion was a greater factor in the west than trade or war. As a footnote to the discussion, that ought to be available as a component part of the game engine as well.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 03-23-2001 01:36 PM And during the early centuries you mention, religion was a greater factor in the west than trade or war. As a footnote to the discussion, that ought to be available as a component part of the game engine as well.

Raingoon,
Of course, religion had its hole but that's not the point. the discussion is: Should trade be the dominant factor from the beguine or not ? In according to the two threads about this issue they say yes it should, and I say not it shoundn't. What do you say ?
Only to note: World is what it is now thanks to WWI and WWII not thanks to trade. Only when destruction power surpassed the human understanding (Nuclear Power) war became to low its influence. And that was the very moment when trade and dimplomacy took the dominance in the international affairs. Instead of hot and real war, commercial war. But it was only from the last 50 years wich means only one second in the humankind history.

[N35t0r]

IMHO, trade is there to make being a warmonger and being a pacifist balance.

[Cyclotron]

Nobody here is talking about eliminating trade, we are just saying that Civ3 should not be a trade dominated game. Of course trade is important, but it should not be the be-all and end-all as some are proposing. Rather, trade should be just one facet of the game that provides another means to get to your ultimate goal, whether that is AC colonization or world domination.

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

[raingoon]

quote: Raingoon, ...the discussion is: Should trade be the dominant factor from the beguine or not ? In according to the two threads about this issue they say yes it should, and I say not it shoundn't. What do you say ?

I'm confused, what do you mean what do I say? I said:

quote: Trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on...

That means I say that trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on. Obviously it should potentially be the dominant factor, depending on how you use it. To that end, the others are right to suggest very intricate trade models. And by the same token, war should also be potentially dominant, and you might suggest intricate war models. Others certainly have. But I disagree with your argument that trade should be reigned in at the design stage. I disagree with the title of this thread -- Civ 3 is a trade game AND a war game. And this is a non-issue.

Why? We already know that the machinery of war is clearly available from the first turns in Civ 3. So, if you favor a war game, you should be very happy. On the other hand, this thread wants to say that the ability to build your nation through trade should be curtailed, or at the very least should not be emphasized. I totally disagree. And arguing about when trade was or was not influencial in world history is irrelevant. Who cares? If you want to force me into using trade or not at a certain point in the game, make a scenario mod. But don't argue against a game design that gives me more options simply because you think it would deviate from history. Deviating from history is part of the fun of Civ 3.

Civ is obviously a trade/war/exploration & diplomacy game. I am for more options in all those categories, while I am against arguing for less in any, which is what this thread does. I've reviewed the other threads this thread seems to refer to and I have to agree that arguing for more trade options is not detrimental to the fun of the game or the players ability to make war. There are some seriously flawed assumptions going around this topic that are interesting to discuss, nevertheless.

The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you. And if a hypothetical trade model increased the element of chance by randomly seeding the map with resources necessary to make war, it would also increase your motivation to go to war in order to compensate for drawing a weak hand. Does anybody seriously want to remove the element of chance from a game? Particularly this game, where the stakes are so clear? "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...


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

[airdrik]

May I restate what I said before: perhaps we could have a poll about, on a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think trade is?

[raingoon]

Actually, having said all I know on this subject, may I restate my own original post -- we should question what all our fuss is about. I think it's pretty clear Firaxis has already nailed this down...

[Vitmore The Great]

Let us all just agree that Master of Orion II had the best model for trade, as well as diplomacy and espionage! That game was almost perfect. If Civ III added some of the MOO2 innovations to the Civ ones, Civ III would truly be the definitive TBS game ever made.

Just my opinion.


Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Cyclotron]

Raingoon:

For one thing, I don't like how you use "this thread" to refer to certain poster's opinions. I, for one, agree with you that trade should be available from the beginning. The fact that certain people in this thread believe one thing is not a basis to condemn the entire thread, and thereby the people posting in it regardless of their individual opinions.

quote: The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you.

Would you say that having only ten units restricts tactical possibilities? Probably not. How about 9? 8? How about one? Your thesis here is flawed. How far do I reduce it to get maximum "challenge?" Perhaps if I had only one unit, the "challenge" would be even greater? It very well might be, but at this point you have taken away the strategic diversity of the game and it is not fun anymore. I don't understand how reducing the amount of units could in any way ENHANCE strategic possibilities. This seems like the ultimate contradiction. If all pieces in chess were bishops, would that make chess more interesting? Would it make you "creative" with bishops? No, because a unit has no strategic depth within itself, a legion can only be that. Add a phalanx, an archer, a catapult... and you increase strategic depth. Take them away because of mandatory resources, and you decrease strategic depth. It's as simple as that: more options are better, with war and trade.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical of you to say that we are wrong to argue against "trade options," when your mandatory resource system decreases unit and military options. We are all for options in trade... a mandatory resource system, by it's very nature, restricts trade options my making trade enforced and telling us what we absolutely NEED to trade.

quote: "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...

Restrictions are liberating? I think this is all wrong. I want to play a civ game where I have choices and my empire is in my hands. I would like to hear from you exactly how, in any way, more restrictions in Civilization3 would "liberate" us Civ players and give us more choice and control.



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

[TheSocialist]

In response to all the discussion about the historical importance of trade, trade has been extremely important to mankind kind since language was developed. The ability to exchange one good for another needed one is necessary. And what about civilizations like the Phonecians, who prospered completely on trade? Trade should be at least on par with war, if not greater.

[Youngsun]

Raingoon

quote: Obviously it should potentially be the dominant factor, depending on how you use it. To that end, the others are right to suggest very intricate trade models. And by the same token, war should also be potentially dominant, and you might suggest intricate war models. Others certainly have. But I disagree with your argument that trade should be reigned in at the design stage. I disagree with the title of this thread -- Civ 3 is a trade game AND a war game. And this is a non-issue.

Raingoon fully understands it! Amen! God bless Raingoon!

quote: Civ is obviously a trade/war/exploration & diplomacy game. I am for more options in all those categories, while I am against arguing for less in any, which is what this thread does.

The greatest interpretation of all, which deserves to be carved into a stone obelisk to inform any future generation who might read it.

quote: The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you. And if a hypothetical trade model increased the element of chance by randomly seeding the map with resources necessary to make war, it would also increase your motivation to go to war in order to compensate for drawing a weak hand. Does anybody seriously want to remove the element of chance from a game? Particularly this game, where the stakes are so clear? "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...

We need another obelisk for this, too!

TheSocialist

quote: Trade should be at least on par with war, if not greater.

That's what I'm saying, mate.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 03-23-2001 01:26 PM The first war over trade priviligies (rather than land, which used to be what war was about) was in the mid-17th century (between England and Netherlands)

Sorry, Henrik, but the Phocean Greeks and the Carthaginians fought just for trade privileges in the Western Mediterranean in the Batlle of Alalia (535 BC).

Check out my Tartessos trade in the Spanish Civ2 Site Forum.

But I believe you can find more examples happening before the waryou mentioned. How about Venice and Genoa wars in the 14th Century?

[GaryGuanine]

I think what people are arguing against in "this thread" is that they don't want trade to be the only thing the game is about. As you lead your people through history, it should not all be about trade and money. I'm all for increasing the role of trade in Civ3 over what it was in Civ2. It's just that when you put in a mandatory resource model, as people here have suggested, the game is then centered on trade. There should be an option for a civlization to be the Phoecan Greeks and the Carthaginians, and try to get great trading empires; but there also should remain the option to NOT be the Phoecan Greeks and Carthaginians, and try to win another way. With the mandatory resource system, you have to trade a lot just to compete with any civ. As cyclotron often says, making choices is a very important part of the game. I would like the choice to not trade, if I don't want to.

Gary

[airdrik]

Maybe they should start a poll on this: How important is trade in civ? 1:Civ revolves around trade ... 5: Trade like previous civ games is ok. 6: No trade in Civ 3

[Youngsun]

Gary

I said this in the trade thread too but I repeat.

People do have a choice but the consequences of economic isolation should be harsh enough to deter people not to engage in trade. Slow growth, halted industry in even worse case and weaker military all sounds reasonable to me and you and I know this penalty is so harsh thus almost forcing us to engage in active trade and diplomacy.

Strategic resource, in the model, comes only later stages of the game so the penalties will be harsher during later stages of the game whereas during early stages of the game the penalties aren't so harsh or even laughable.

I explained this so many times and some of people still don't understand the true nature of the resource model which is very flexible throughout all eras.(the consequences begin as laughable but become harsher as time gose by-lacking wood during ancient era differs from lacking oil during modern era)
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 24, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

But Youngsun,

Should the consequences for not trading be that great? I just don't know. What I think might be happening here is that we overlook the difference between international trade and domestic trade. Domestic trade accounts for a lot. I bet an argument could be made that domestic trade was the dominant economic force for a great deal of history. I wouldn't feel prepared to make such an argument (hell of a dissertation, though), but I just have a feeling that no one could make the opposite.

Gary

[raingoon]

What's wrong with my referring to "this thread" collectively? I said:

quote: On the other hand, this thread wants to say that the ability to build your nation through trade should be curtailed, or at the very least should not be emphasized.

If you have a problem with that, I refer you to the title of the thread. No need to start throwing around "quote" signs anyone, contrary to this thread, Civ 3 and trade are not exclusive. I stand by what I said.

Cyclotron. I brought up the paradox that restriction is liberating. And you pointed out that if it were so, a chess game of all bishops ought to be even more interesting than regular chess. But why did you stop there? Why not accuse me of suggesting that a game with NO pieces whatsoever would be the most "liberating" of all? I guess it would -- it would certainly liberate you from having to play chess! Honestly, what's with the sophistry? Do you think that's what I really meant? Perhaps you didn't know what I meant. Fair enough.

I guess I need to say for the record that I wasn't actually suggesting Civ be restricted to the point that it becomes unplayable. I was just loosely implying that restrictions are liberating inasmuch as restrictions make the choices more interesting and enhance the fun. And I believe the trade complexities stated on the other two threads are quite plausible, and their attendant restrictions sound like fun. While on the other hand, some of your statements there call for keeping out the element of chance and decry complexity as "tedious." Seems to me the other side is talking about playing chess, while you're suggesting chess is more fun if you play it like checkers.

That's not exactly the kind of restriction I had in mind, but I'll agree to disagree.

[Youngsun]

quote: Should the consequences for not trading be that great?

I said only after industrial age. Are you saying even during modern times the consequences of economic isolation should not be so harsh?

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 03-23-2001 10:51 PM Sorry, Henrik, but the Phocean Greeks and the Carthaginians fought just for trade privileges in the Western Mediterranean in the Batlle of Alalia (535 BC). Check out my Tartessos trade in the Spanish Civ2 Site Forum. But I believe you can find more examples happening before the waryou mentioned. How about Venice and Genoa wars in the 14th Century?

I forgot , well that was what I was trying to say: there was trade long before the times they talked about, I didn't do to well in expressing myself though and I picked a bad example, things doesn't allways come out the way you thought them up I guess