The Resource System

[Admiral PJ]

Very interesting looking at the resource tutorial..

It makes sense you need iron working before using iron, though it is a bit bizzare that you can't seem to predict where theres going to be iron and build cities there first.. though this makes sense, how would we know to build a colony in the middle east before we knew the uses of oil?

This makes sense to me , coal wasn't useful for warfare till the steam ship etc so it wouldn't help producing vehicles as in Civ2 (though coal could be used for things like metal furnaces etc in small numbers).

Admiral Pete
Head of 3d God game Mantra by VIRE tech.

[Grumbold]

I like the current FIRAXIS model of commodities. It seems to combine simplicity with utility. No stockpiling (Without access to oil for a year, it wouldn't matter how large the US stockpile was, prices would go sky high.) I was initially worried about commodities appearing in bad terrain or in an area impractical to colonise because of your earlier city placements. Colonies and the expanding culture radius neatly solve those concerns. If random map creation continues to allow for maps with scarce or copious resources it should be possible to cater to everyone's tastes.

Limiting resource production and having to choose which cities get the benefit could be good - its the only way you could ever get the historical Rome to be the massive city it was in comparison to every other city in the Roman empire. Every city gets one or two local luxuries but only Rome gets the combined effect of all of them and consequently expands far beyond the size of any other. Increasing industrialisation could allow one tile of commodity to support more and more cities. Probably too heavy on micromanagement though.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited May 13, 2001).]

[java4me]

I still don't understand if you can use more than one of the same resource in your city radius? If you can than can you speed up production on the unit that requires it?

Maybe these have already been answered, but i didn't find it, so can someone please give me the answer to those questions?

[Grumbold]

The way I read it, one Iron (or whatever) is enough to supply all of your cities you have connected to it.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Unlike what you seem to claim, shields has nothing to do with Labour. As is shown by forests and mined hills, shields represent the resources, the raw materials needed to construct things.

First off, I said manufacturing capability, not labor. Don't twist my words.

If shields are not manufacturing capability, what are they? Factories give you more manufacturing capability by amplifying the workforce. If factories give you shields, I don't see how manufacturing capability could not mean shields.

Of course shields increase with population! More people, more shield tiles worked. Shields represent both labor and manufacturing capability, and to state otherwise is simply and utterly false.

Youngson: What I mean by resources still being secondary is this: Once you have just one, all ya gotta do is sit on it. Arms races and wonder races still rely on shields for speed. Once I find a resource, I get it... and then the rest of the game and the bulk of the game seems to be still trying to seek out more shields. How does that make resources central to the game?

Actually, this conversation is kind of irrelevant. I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be about anything anymore except you trying to convince me that you somehow "won" and that your way is better. You should know by now that:

1) I still think the supplementary way is the best way.
2) Niether system is "right," different stuff for different folks.
3) Asserting your opinion just makes me angry, not more receptive to your ideas.

Firaxis is doing what it is doing. I believe I have both won and lost, and you believe you have won. That's fine, but don't try to convince me I have lost. I'm the only one who can judge that.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "The Rajah of Resources"

[java4me]

This is a very interesting thread!!!
I think that sheids are going to be the same thing as they were in Civ2, and factories will most likely create more just like in Civ2!!! Cyclotron7 is also correct on the more pop you have, the more sheilds that you get!!!

[java4me]

I meant shields, not shelds or sheilds!!!

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: What I mean by resources still being secondary is this: Once you have just one, all ya gotta do is sit on it. Arms races and wonder races still rely on shields for speed. Once I find a resource, I get it... and then the rest of the game and the bulk of the game seems to be still trying to seek out more shields. How does that make resources central to the game?

OK, I'll ask more specifically this time.
To build a certain type of unit, which is the decisive factor, the shield or the resource?

quote: Actually, this conversation is kind of irrelevant. I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be about anything anymore except you trying to convince me that you somehow "won" and that your way is better. You should know by now that:

Yes, I'm very much afraid so as you think but who started this silly "victory and loss" game first? I never claimed victory or anything while you were constantly saying "my marginal victory" or " this is where my victory comes from",etc. What I said here was a simple fact and if you can't stand the fact, just say so.

quote: 1) I still think the supplementary way is the best way. 2) Niether system is "right," different stuff for different folks.

That's your opinions so I respect that.

quote: 3) Asserting your opinion just makes me angry, not more receptive to your ideas.

Why? So you think I'd better just shut up and never talk about it?

quote: Firaxis is doing what it is doing. I believe I have both won and lost, and you believe you have won. That's fine, but don't try to convince me I have lost. I'm the only one who can judge that.

Actually, I was intentionally keeping the silence very long about the issue because I just wanted move on and concentrate on other issues but it is you who have been the constant reminder of the issue(even by carrying the signature with you all the time)and saying directly "who's victory" ,etc.

[JamesJKirk]

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 05-13-2001 11:18 AM But it's unlikely such a 'radical' system will make it into Civ3. However, a few weeks ago, I thought of a way, by modifying some rules, to realisticly represent Labour (+ food, population growth, recruitment and diseases)in Civ3, even if it keeps the old Civ2 food&shields-system (the goods system should be needed though for my 'modpack'). The only problem is, I need a Labourer specialist for that purpose. So you can imagine I was disappointed when I read somewhere on the Firaxis site that the player would be able to convert his citizens into taxman, scientist and entertainer specialists. No mentioning of a Labourer specialist, giving you a certain amount of shields. Therefore I would like to propose the following, small, not radical, not difficult to program addition to Civ3: (I really hope Jeffrey Morris, Dan Magaha or Chris Pine read this) GIVE US A LABOURER SPECIALIST!!!! I will start an unofficial poll on this. Please vote.

Yes, and to simulate the full effects of the industrial revolution, it perhaps should be necessary to "force" some of your workers to become laborors just to stay competative. I'd also like to have mad population increases once the Ind Rev happens, but, well at least I have my dreams

[Maniac]

quote: First off, I said manufacturing capability, not labor. Don't twist my words.

All right. Then prove me manufacturing capability is something else than Labour.

quote: If shields are not manufacturing capability, what are they?

Read my post. They are basic resources.

quote: Factories give you more manufacturing capability by amplifying the workforce.

That's indeed as it should be. But in Civgames, factories increase the amount of shields (thus resources, not labour/manufacturing capability). Show me the logic in that. Can factories create resources out of thin air?

quote: Of course shields increase with population! More people, more shield tiles worked.

I never claimed otherwise. But you never really touched that I was making. Did you really read my post well? I'm wondering. If you did, did I really explain my point that bad???

[Cyclotron]

Maniac:

quote: All right. Then prove me manufacturing capability is something else than Labour.

It is both basic resources and labor. Coal gives you shields, so it must be basic resources, and more tiles give you more shields, so it must be labor... it is therefore a mix of the two, which I call industrial capacity.

quote: That's indeed as it should be. But in Civgames, factories increase the amount of shields (thus resources, not labour/manufacturing capability). Show me the logic in that. Can factories create resources out of thin air?

Referring to my above comment, factories increase labor and therefore increase industrial capacity, increasing shields.

quote: I never claimed otherwise. But you never really touched that I was making. Did you really read my post well? I'm wondering. If you did, did I really explain my point that bad???

I certainly tried to read your point well. If I'm not adressing the point you would like me to adress, I would appreciate you clarifying yourself.

Youngson:

I just am trying to say that the sytem is how it is. I don't want you to be quiet, you have excellent points to make. I just want this to stop being a battle to convert the enemy. Your post:

quote: So you now like the mandatory nature of the resource system. Will you call the civ3 resource system a "mandatory one" too? You wouldn't would you? Because now you understand how the resource system can work beautifully even if the nature of the resources are "mandatory". Please, don't tell me only my model was mandatory and civ3 one is not. Whether it's simple or not it is still mandatory, simple mandatory or complex mandatory. there is no supplementary...

Really threw me off, because it seems to be trying to convince me I have been wrong all along. It seemed like you waited for me to make a small concession, and then leaped at my throat. Maybe it's my fault, but I just don't want to fight about things like which is more important, because that is only our interpretation. Let's compromise: They are both equally important.

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!

[Maniac]

cyclotron7

quote: It is both basic resources and labor. Coal gives you shields, so it must be basic resources, and more tiles give you more shields, so it must be labor... it is therefore a mix of the two, which I call industrial capacity.

Despite there are, since the Civ3 goods system was presented, people around here who claim that you get as much coal or iron out of 1 mine than out of 100 mines, the opposite is actually true.

!!!You get more coal out of 2 mines than out of 1!!!
What a discovery!

So it's kinda obvious you get more shields (in my eyes, resources) if you work two mined hills tiles than if you work one tile. Nothing to do with labour, in my very very humble opinion.

M@ni@c
Sorry, couldn't resist the slightly sarcastic tone. No offense intended.
(Just saying to be sure. Don't wanna get in a flame war like you and Youngsun a while back )

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

You know, I have respected your opinion all along during our argument and I spent many hours to convince you my model could work and there was one fundamental thing in my model that you vigourously opposed was that the nature of the resource, so called "mandatory"(though I prefer the term "primary").

I wouldn't be surprised if you said you don't like the model suggested by Firaxis(I would even respect that opinion)but one thing that put me into great shock was that you actually said you like the Firaxis model which shares the same principles with my model. The principle you had opposed so much! The principle which was the main issue of our long painful argument. The principle which I thought virtually uncompromisable. Why? Now I doubt if I say something, that sounds unconvincing but if Firaxis says something similar to it, it sounds very convincing to you, even if those two are almost identical? I find this extremely insulting.

I maybe over reacting on this but if you're in my shoes, how would you respond to that?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-14-2001 09:40 PM I wouldn't be surprised if you said you don't like the model suggested by Firaxis(I would even respect that opinion)but one thing that put me into great shock was that you actually said you like the Firaxis model which shares the same principles with my model. The principle you had opposed so much! The principle which was the main issue of our long painful argument. The principle which I thought virtually uncompromisable. Why? Now I doubt if I say something, that sounds unconvincing but if Firaxis says something similar to it, it sounds very convincing to you, even if those two are almost identical? I find this extremely insulting.

I understand now why you are insulted, so thank you for bearing with me.

Perhaps a point I should have made is that I like it, but not as much as I like my own system. The debates I had with you were debates between these two systems, so obviously I had to point out the fault in one and try to build up my own.

Now, when Firaxis announced its model, I compared this to Civ2, not my system. I realized that people here would not remember my position or my debates, and I had no interest starting another huge debate thread about resources. You will hopefully remember that although I argued against mandatory resources, I agreed that even they would be better than Civ2. Therefore, after Firaxis' announcement, I felt good that they did not regress to Civ2 trade and decided to voice this.

There is, however, some truth to the fact that I was at least a little more receptive to the idea because of Firaxis' presentation of it. Perhaps it was also in part to a "sudden revelation" of mine. I don't really know. What I do know, and I believe you will heartily agree with me, is that it is better than Civ2... and that is a reason to be glad.

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 05-14-2001 04:20 PM cyclotron7 Despite there are, since the Civ3 goods system was presented, people around here who claim that you get as much coal or iron out of 1 mine than out of 100 mines, the opposite is actually true.

Of course it is true that more mines gives you more . However, more coal/steel/whatever does not neccessarily give you more production. If I can only build something at a given rate of speed, as long as I have enough coal I can produce it. Excess coal is useless to me, unless some time in the future I lose my constant supply of coal... this is called stockpiling, and the idea seems to have been trounced by Firaxis.

So when I say that 1 mine gives you the same benefit as 100, it is to a certain degree true... Since stockpiling is not allowed, excess coal does not get me anywhere, and does not speed up my production.

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: I had no interest starting another huge debate thread about resources.

me neither.

quote: You will hopefully remember that although I argued against mandatory resources, I agreed that even they would be better than Civ2

Although I don't recall that, I'm very glad to hear that.

quote: What I do know, and I believe you will heartily agree with me, is that it is better than Civ2... and that is a reason to be glad.

True. The new model is definitely better than the one of civII.

[Maniac]

cyclotron7

quote: Of course it is true that more mines gives you more . However, more coal/steel/whatever does not neccessarily give you more production.

I agree! That's just the point. You also need labour. Which is not represented in civ2 shields for a number of reasons I've mentioned in my previous post.

By the way, you didn't respond to my reply to your assumption that shields represent both resources and labour:

quote: So it's kinda obvious you get more shields (in my eyes, resources) if you work two mined hills tiles than if you work one tile. Nothing to do with labour, in my very very humble opinion.

Can't you prove I'm wrong?
If no, then I persist in my demand for at least a Labourer specialist in Civ3.

[Grumbold]

If you are working two mines instead of one then you are employing one more point of population. There is the labour element of the equation.

[polymths]

For strategic resources like iron, surplus resource mines may actually matter even if access to 1 iron mine is as good as access to 100 mines for building, say, your own swordsmen.

This is purely speculative so hopefully a Firaxian can confirm this but it may be that when you trade resources, you can only trade in whole units.

So if you have 10 iron mines, you will use one and can use the other 9 surplus mines to trade for access to 9 other resources.

But if you only have access to 1 iron mine, you would then be trading away your only access to iron and would thus not have access to iron yourself.

Like I said, this is purely speculative but could explain why access to surplus is absolutely critical.

If my understanding is correct, then it satisfies cyclotron7's insistence that no stockpiling concept is implemented but still would mean that surplus access matters.