Production, Consumption and Exchange of Resources

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhhhh, my first full-fledged attempt at redesigning an aspect of Civ 3 (but not other games ) to hopefully get myself heard, and have my topic debated.

As I'm sure most people here know, one of the concerns of many people regarding Civ 3 is its inability to deal with resources in (what they feel is) an effective and realistic manner. Through my idea, I hope that people can agree on some way to better represent resources and how the game deals with them.

The Problem: Currently in Civ, resources are kind of like a computer 'on' or 'off'. You either have a resource or you don't. If you have it, then you can reap the rewards of possessing it as many times and for as long as you wish. If you don't, you're out in the cold until you get possession of a source of that particular resource. This is obviously a problem, because this is now how things work in the real world.

Case Study I: The USA has large oil reserves in Alaska and the South in areas such as Texas and Louisiana, but these sources are by no means enough to cover the entire country's need for oil. However, these sources do provide quite a benefit for our country, saving us millions (or even billions) due to the fact that we aren't forced to import other sources of oil from overseas. How do you represent this in Civ? Well, the answer is, you can't really. There's no way to show how that work. In addition to that, creation of units is dealt with in a somewhat unrealistic fashion as well. If you want to build a Battleship, for instance, if you have iron and oil at that point, then poof, you have a Battleship. Resources could be better managed in this manner as well.

Case Study II: Say you're playing Russia on a world map. You discover a nice source of iron near your capital in the Ural Mountains. Hooray you say, now I can build Swordsmen. Eventually as time goes on, your empire spreads from Europe to Asia, and you found Vladivostok (a city near Manchuria on the far edge of the Pacific Ocean). You are building Swordsmen in Vladivostok to help avert war with the Chinese. The mystery is, how did the Ural iron make it to Vladivostok? Civ assumes that the road network in your country is sufficient to assume that that particular resource is being moved between the source, and all areas connected to that network. The problem is, that this is not how things work in real life, and could be dealt with in a more appropriate manner.

My Solution: My solution for this problem is simply to eliminate the Civ 3 'switch' system of "you have it or you don't", and introduce a simple quantity system. While I realize this may seem to go against what is Civ, I will offer simpler alternatives should people disagree with my initial proposal. The advantage will be a more realistic portrayal of resource usage, as well as adding layers of depth that can carry over into other areas of the game. Resources would be measured in a numeric quantity. They could be traded in a quantity as well ("trade 5000 gold for 500 units of oil). Resources would be consumed in that quantity. For example, a "Swordsman" unit would require 10 iron to produce, as well as the 1 gold support cost, and the shields necessary to produce it in the first place. This eliminates the problem of "I have a source of iron, here comes my massive 100 Battleship Navy", because what you can produce is limited to the quantity you possess. In addition to that, support costs could be changed as well. For example, a Battleship unit could require 50 oil per turn in order to be able to move. If you don't have at least 50 oil, then that Battleship is immobile. Production costs could be changed in this manner as well. Instead of it costing 1 oil to produce the Battleship, it may not cost any oil at all, due to the fact that it uses oil to run, not to manufacture the ship. Then again, a small oil cost may be associated with it, due to the usage of machinery to build the ship. The system I propose isn't very complicated, adds much realism, and would offer much more game play value for the amount of effort it would take to change the coding within the game. I believe this system is a very viable alternative to what's currently in place.

Case Study I Revisited: A quantity-based system dealing with resources would easily and simply solve this problem. There could be two parameters for each source of a resource. 1) Source Quantity: This would be a measure of how much of a particular resource is present in a particular source. This number could be small or huge. For example, oil sources in the Middle East would have massive quantities, while sources in the American South would have much less. 2: Source Extraction Rate: This would be a measure of how MUCH of a particular resource could be obtained from the source each turn. Sources in the Middle East would have HUGE extraction rates, while those in the American South would have much smaller rates. The extraction rate could be increased up to a certain point by an upgraded colony of a certain type (colony type I, type II, type III, etc.).
Simplification: This may be a little too complicated for Civ, so I pose simpler alternatives. 1) Eliminate one of the resource's source parameters. There is only quantity, or amount that can be extracted from a particular source of it. 2) Eliminate colony upgrades.

Case Study II Revisited: Again, the quantity system of keeping track of a particular resource provides for an easier and more realistic system. This problem leads into my idea for the re-working of the trade system, which is very intertwined in with resources:

I propose the idea for "fat roads", or something to that effect to be reintroduced to Civ 3. Having to build a 'trade route road' between cities would be a better way to keep track of what resources are going where. After all, a trade network isn't just the road... it's the carts/wagons/trucks/trains/ships that take the resource between cities on the roads, and it takes more effort to move goods than it does to simply create a network for them to move on.
In addition to the reintroduction of 'fat roads' I (and many others, though Mike may disagree ) believe that a better way of managing overseas trade must be addressed. If I understand things correctly, the only way to blockade an enemy's coastal trade is to put a ship next to each and every tile adjacent to every one of their ports with a harbor. This system falls to pieces when you consider that if you are connected to a neighbor with a harbor that isn't at war with your enemy, then your trade goes through his ports at no expense to you... thereby making blockades (and maybe even naval vessels themselves) useless. The solution is to establish either 1) Transports or traders going between cities that hold a certain quantity of a particular resource that is being traded (and that can be pirated, as was true in real life). 2) A simple 'trade route' like that present on land with 'fat roads' could be created. In the first manner, blockades would be effective in the manner that if you find a ship with a resource, you can either A: capture the cargo and sink the ship, or B: sink the ship with the cargo (in case your ship gets captured soon after, you don't want them to regain the cargo). In the second manner, the trade route would be visible in a 'trade map overlay', or maybe in some sort of on-map visual, and a ship could be on or adjacent to this route which would prevent the trade of that resource. Either one of these proposals is much more realistic than what is currently in place, and would make naval issues much more pressing and interesting.

These ideas are the basic premise of my proposal. I may add on later, should I feel the urge. Feel free to comment on my proposal. If I find a problem that a majority of people agrees with, then I may change my proposition.

[Jon Shafer]

As Spiffor did in his other feature-proposal-attempt, I'll summarize what I said in my previous post in a shorter one afterwards.

Basic premise:

- Resources should be measured in quantity. Resource sources should have 2 parameters: amount that can be extracted and the amount that can be extracted per turn.

- Trade network should be reworked as well. Quantity of resources should be moved over 'fat road' network on land, and over individual ships or sea trade route over the ocean to promote creation of naval units and make a more fun and realistic way to blockade, etc.

[MiloMilo]

I applaud your attempt to improve the system. I really enjoy seeing all the apolytoners come up with creative ideas for reinventing bits of the game. I do it myself actually.

So, don't take it personally when I say that I think it would be a nightmare in execution. There has been a backlash against Firaxis's simplification of some game concepts, but to have to manage and guard specific quantities along specific trade routes would be way to much of a hassle. Even civ2 didn't make you do this.

Some quick points: the fact is, the Ural iron will make it to Vladivostok. When miners found iron in the mountains near Ural (i.e. when you discovered iron working) why did you build a road there? So that people could go mine the iron and sell it in the Ural markets. Why have roads to Vladivostok? Very few raods in the world are actually strictly for military use (this would be the effect of your plan). There are no government-owned trucking companies, they are run by private citizens out to make a profit by moving goods to different markets, on government-funded roads. It's Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' principle of markets: build roads, and commerce really will happen, all by itself. Gov't intervention (which is what the player is) is not necessary.

I do strongly agree that naval blockading has to be made more effective. There have been threads about this, though people have not agreed on a viable solution. Personally I think disallowing the use of foreign harbors is a no-brainer, if it's programmable. Then make it easier to actually blockade - a single enemy ship in the trading port's city radius should be enough. The having a navy to protect your harbors would be absolutely necessary, to drive off enemy ships.

[Jon Shafer]

My main goal is to reform the resource system. I think that using a quantity-based system is best used in in a more definitive style of transportation, and I must admit the land trade route thing is the point I care least about. If that part would be excluded in favor of simplifying the bit about using quantity, then I would support it wholeheartedly. I feel that the "you have it or you don't" style currently in place is a nightmare for those of us who enjoy realism in games. This is why I offer alternatives, and am quite leniant on what I would like to see included, because I simply want to improve the game. If running 400 iron here, and 200 coal there, while whisking off 50 uranium there would be too complicated, then maybe centralizing the #s may be a better alternative. I just feel there have to be numbers somewhere. That is all.

[MiloMilo]

I rationalize it this way: each source contains enough of a resource to supply the entire globe. I.e. on a standard map there's a 700% surplus of iron. If you could control the entire globe (without getting booted out into a domination victory) just one source of iron would supply all you swordsmen. If two nations use two sources, just figure that they have excess.

Alright, the question then becomes why can't you trade that excess...

I think the system works pretty well without numbers, but if you're disappointed at having to rationalize so much, well, I definitely sympathize.

[Jon Shafer]

Ick... there's nothing worse than trying to justify the Civ 3 resource system IMO.

I'll try to simply accept what you said instead of start foaming at the mouth and whatnot...

[Spiffor]

Trip :
I had some ideas (but didn't bothered to write them down) about the resource system, which look like your own. I'd like to see a quantitative approach too. My ideas were :
- you get x of this resource per turn for each resource spot you have. For example, if I just connected my first Iron spot, I get 10 Iron a turn.
- you can raise x by mining the terrain, or irrigating in the case of horses.
- you can trade these resources with your neighbours on a per turn basis.
- each unit needs n resource per turn to be produced.
- Some buildings and even tile improvements (railroad) would need n resource to be produced.
I didn't come up with precise figures, but here's an example : As Caesar, you connect a source of Iron to Rome. You have 10 Iron per turn. You decide to build a Legion in Rome (which needs 1 Iron per production turn). Than you only have 9 Iron left to build other things in other cities. When you run out of Iron this turn, you can't build anything which needs it.
Saudi Arabia, in this model, wouldn't have faster-to-drill oil spots, but simple more oil spots than Texas. Every oil spot generates as much as anyone else per turn.

The main difference between your idea and mine is that (in mine) everything still thinks on a "per turn" basis. I didn't want to have reserves, because it wouldhave been confusing for the AI and the casual gamer... Civ3 is not Imperialism : you already have plenty things to do without worrying on your resource reserves (worrying about the gold reserves is enough).

I also didn't think of specific routes, ala CTP. I don't know if it is a good idea or not, because it has both edges and flaws :
- Edges are more control over trade, and more realism. It will be great to blockade enemies like this.
- Flaws are more micromanagement, and routes that are way too easy to pirate. I don't know if you tried to establish overseas trade routes in CTP while you were at war... It was ugly : you lost your trade route almost every turn, and you had to design it again, and again, and again... Without efficient ways to protect your merchants (you could place units on each and every tile the route crossed, but I dont call this "efficient" ), the flaws overweight the edges. And, well, maybe I just want to exorcise the bad CTP memories

I didn't think about oil being needed to move motorized units, but it looks like a great idea ! Interface should be tweaked a bit so that the player knows how much oil he has left, but overall, I find it very interesting. Only thing is that oil should come in great numbers or movements should demand very little amounts of oil.
I also didn't think about limited supplies. It will indeed be much more realistic and much less frustrating if the Iron resource you overuse since antiquity disappears, rather than the brand new Iron resource you conquered while settling on a new continent. Excellent idea !

MiloMilo :
Civ is really not capitalistic, not individual oriented... In fact, everything is collectivized, even in democracy ! The only thing which escapes the state is corruption That's why I don't know if the specific trade route idea is good or not. Too CTPesque for my tastes, but it has some interest.

[Spiffor]

Double post

[candidgamera]

Trip:

Nice work, and well thought out.

Spiffor:

"I had some ideas (but didn't bothered to write them down) about the resource system, which look like your own. I'd like to see a quantitative approach too. My ideas were :
- you get x of this resource per turn for each resource spot you have. For example, if I just connected my first Iron spot, I get 10 Iron a turn.
- you can raise x by mining the terrain, or irrigating in the case of horses.
- you can trade these resources with your neighbours on a per turn basis.
- each unit needs n resource per turn to be produced.
- Some buildings and even tile improvements (railroad) would need n resource to be produced.
I didn't come up with precise figures, but here's an example : As Caesar, you connect a source of Iron to Rome. You have 10 Iron per turn. You decide to build a Legion in Rome (which needs 1 Iron per production turn). Than you only have 9 Iron left to build other things in other cities. When you run out of Iron this turn, you can't build anything which needs it.
Saudi Arabia, in this model, wouldn't have faster-to-drill oil spots, but simple more oil spots than Texas. Every oil spot generates as much as anyone else per turn. "

Also good ideas.

Had been thinking in similar or the same directions as well. Either of you play Rail Tycoon 2? What we are kind of talking about is that without the trains. There's a little bit of Pharaoh and Caesar III to this too. One thing to do it right and address is spoilage and stuff building up that isn't used. Found a lot of that playing RT2: 15,000 steels build up at a station and no train to haul it. RT2 made stuff go away if you didn't use it after a time.

Would be soft and flexible and selectable on how many resources are needed for so many units to move or to build so many units/improvements. Trial and error to get to a good balance between supply and demand and scale (1 unit of resources/turn, 10 units of resources/turn).

Like the idea of reserves, total capacity, but that might go to far. Think just keeping it to each resource produces say 1, 2, or 4 units of stuff/turn.

Should think to that some method of arbritrating by city quantity and/or population how much consumption your civ burns just "doing business" at that tech level. Here's a premise too: civ requires so many units of a resource, you can violate that to build units, but a money or production or happiness penalty. Guns vs. Butter in more concrete terms.

with Spiffor on the trade routes some: how to do it without making a mess.

[Jon Shafer]

I'm glad people like my ideas. I feel that something needs to be done, and it's a fair complaint of people to want to change things.

The idea of each resource producing a certain amount per turn is viable, it begs the question: where does all the other iron go? We'd be sacrificing more realism than we provide. At least having resources like Civ currently has, there's some room for ambiguity. I suppose if all else was found to be too complicated, then we could fall back to something like that, but I still think having reserves makes things more flexible (in regards to both production and support of units).

As far as the bit about extraction per turn VS total available in the source, I'm just throwing out possible ideas. I suppose that the amount per turn being different between two sources may be somewhat unrealistic, unless affected by terrain, or current techs.

Re: Trade routes. I agree. Having to draw out trade routes every turn would be terribly annoying... so let's not do that.
Using freighter and trader ship units would simplify this (though adding a bit of micromanagement, though it could be a default 'goto' command enabled after the first time you take the route). In this manner things would be fairly easy. If people wanted to have actual 'trade routes' instead of ships flying around all over the place (personally, I like the idea of individual ship units best), then trade routes would automatically take the shortest route, but if there was an enemy ship present on the route, then there would be a certain percentage chance of catching the coming convoys. This could be based off of movement, or other things (the faster Privateers would have an advantage at last) to increase or decrease the % of being captured.

[candidgamera]

Trip:

The other iron or whatever, goes into being consumed by your economy, you can't use it all for war, the "people" expect to use some. Discovering Iron Working means not just that you can build swordsmen, but that its used by your civ in general once discovered.

Was thinking also that keep it simple and say 1 unit of oil can support 5 moving units that need it, smaller numbers might be easier, capture the right feel, but not bog the system down.

Different rates, different places: some oilfields better than others, easier to get to. Alaska vs. Kuwait. But only say 3 rates in a 60:30:10 ratio going 1to2to4 rates.

I'd be for having to do more to exploit the resource too -build a mine or a farm or something to get it not just a road - has to be an active square too within city radius.

Trade routes: a little like air superiority now then. might want to add an escort feature - cav guarding roads, destroyers, battleships - protecting against the Scharnhorst, UBoats ect. escort goes to port on trade route, button pushed for escort trade route and then pick which one.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by candidgamera
The other iron or whatever, goes into being consumed by your economy, you can't use it all for war, the "people" expect to use some. Discovering Iron Working means not just that you can build swordsmen, but that its used by your civ in general once discovered.

That's still another cop out. If you asked the team at Firaxis what happens to the rest of the iron, you'd probably get another answer. Besides, if it was really meant for the rest of that iron to be consumed by your economy, then they'd tell you that. Can you really say that if you have 1 source of iron, and 100 coastal cities and build 100 Battleships with them, your economy would work the same way as if you hadn't been building the ships (on 1 source, no less)?

Was thinking also that keep it simple and say 1 unit of oil can support 5 moving units that need it, smaller numbers might be easier, capture the right feel, but not bog the system down.

I don't know if that would work as well though. Needless to say, a Battleship uses more than a Tank does (even if a unit doesn't represent only one tank, we can assume nothing that they haven't told us ).

Different rates, different places: some oilfields better than others, easier to get to. Alaska vs. Kuwait. But only say 3 rates in a 60:30:10 ratio going 1to2to4 rates.

Eh? I'm not sure if I catch you here. Do you mean that each source can extract a certain amount per turn, i.e. Kuwait can extract 4 oil per turn, while Louisiana can extract 1 per turn?

I'd be for having to do more to exploit the resource too -build a mine or a farm or something to get it not just a road - has to be an active square too within city radius.

I agree with you here, but adding too much stuff is wishful thinking.

Trade routes: a little like air superiority now then. might want to add an escort feature - cav guarding roads, destroyers, battleships - protecting against the Scharnhorst, UBoats ect. escort goes to port on trade route, button pushed for escort trade route and then pick which one.

Yep, that's what I was thinking... another little button, where you could escort trader or freighter units from one port to another.

[Sava]

Interesting proposal, unfortunately, since Firaxis is not going to release the source code, this thread is irrelevant. If you really want to implement an idea like this, why don't you start designing your own game? Take some programming classes and one day you could be getting paid to do this .

[Jon Shafer]

Come come my friend, with ideas like this what do you think I am? I've already become quite fluent in Visual Basic, C, C++, etc., and well on my way to my Computer Science degree. Game designer one day as well.

I talked with Dan and Mike during the chat, and they said if I had a good idea, then put it in a thread, and email it to Jeff, and perhaps he'd consider things. With no reply yet, things are looking dim (), but I can still hope someone sees it.

[Sava]

You are in the same position I am in . I wouldn't bother with those Firaxis guys, my advice is to complete a degree, but in your free time, design basic algorithms for things like combat, economy, resources, government , etc; then write basic programs with these models. Map out what you want your game to be like; like a storyboard for a movie. Draw out the menus, the different screens. By the time you get a degree, you can get a job somewhere in the industry, then pitch your idea to somebody, and who knows, it might get made.

What I've learned is that if you want to do something right, you've got to do it yourself. Most of the successful game designers (Sid Meier, John Carmack) just made a game themselves. A good game will sell itself. The hard part is making a good game .

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhh, but it takes a passion to do such things. Most people lack the drive and will to make an entire game by themselves. And the problem begins with that most people don't understand the effort required to make a game. I've worked on a few things, that were good games. A pity that I have very little artistic ability (well, I'm quite a bit better than most people, but that doesn't help you much with games looking like what they do these days ). Oh well, I suppose my two 50-page design documents should be a bit helpful.

Maybe eventually I'll start working on a full fledged design, and maybe get around to working on it one day too! I have to admit getting around to working on it day after day after day is hard to do. 5 months or so is all I can admit to working on one game ever (I can't believe how I managed to do that!). Luckily though, when you're being paid to do something you're a bit more motivated.

[Sava]

What's cool about the game I'm designing is that the gameplay is going to stay the same, but the graphics and sound, etc can be upgraded according to hardware as it improves over the next few years. I'm only concentrating on the core of the code, not on any of the graphics. I'll probably make a working version with very crude graphics just to test the code, then I might dabble with putting better graphics in. Some of the keys to making a great game:

1. Fun
2. Replay Value (multiplayer, ease of editing, updatable)
3. Graphics and sound
4. Portability

I'd like to create a core engine that could be licensed to make other games. That's where the real money is . Then, I can work on the actual guts of the story, etc. Currently, my game is like a cross between RTS and TBS, there are aspects of both. The game sometimes moves in real time, but the player(s) issue orders to units and such at turn intervals based on what's going on in the game.

It's going to be an Empire building game with a main focus on Expansion, Military, Production, and Sociology. The models and algorithms are inspired by Civ games, Nectaris: Military Madness, EU2, and Empire Earth. The sociological aspect is what I'm most proud of. I'm attempting to not only create a "tree" so to speak of civilizations and culture, but I'm creating an AI that can create random Civilizations and cultures. So far, there are two modes you can play in: Historical and Custom. In the historical, if you want to play as the Americans, you start the game at a point in history where you have just declared independence from England. What's really cool is that you can choose which Era you want to start in. How about a Revolutionary War in the Stone age, or the Nuclear age?

[nato]

It certainly would be nice if resources were not an all-or-nothing thing.

Another example of this comes up when planning an invasion of a large enemy continent. Say the enemy has 8 sources of Oil. By landing Marines on the coast I can deny them 7 of those sources, but not the 8th one which is buried inland. Instead of hurting their Oil production by 7/8s, I will have not touched it one little bit.

It would definitely be cooler if resources weren't an on/off switch.

This way, each individual tile of the resource would actually matter. As it is, every single game I rack up TONS of Horses and Iron to the point that they have no meaning whatsoever.

This is especially true as I kill off civs ... the number of resource users declines, but the number of resource sources does not.

Currently, resources are a bit like a game of musical chairs, but with more chairs than there are people. Pointless.

BTW Trip, what about Luxuries? Stay the same, or changed somehow?

[Jon Shafer]

Hmmmmm. I suppose Luxuries don't have that much impact upon the game as resources do, so they could stay the same. Besides, luxuries work nicely as it is (until you get about 5 of each ). But I definitely feel that the resource system needs to be fixed.

Okay, out of the ~8 or so people I've talked to, they more-or-less agree with what I'm saying... so who's voting against me and why...
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Trip
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

Personally I think that micromanagement detracts from the fun more than realism adds to it.

That said, if you could find an easy way to deal with reserves and trading of resources etc., then I'd be for it.

My suggestion would be to keep the diplomatic trade agreements the way they are, but instead of actually trading in the diplomacy screen, you are agreeing to the "Right to Trade" RTT.

Then in a separate area, maybe the World Market (WM) screen, you can trade with whoever you have a "Right to Trade with". How does this make it easy you ask. If you have the right to trade, and need a resource, the trade would simply automatically happen on the market, without you needing to do anything.

example: You as Germany want to build some panzers, but you don't have enough oil. You've signed an "RTT" with Rome, Greece, and America. On turn one Rome has no extra oil, Greece has one extra oil, and America has 5. You buy 6 oil off the market. Turn two Rome has 3 extra oil, Greece 4, and America 0. You buy 7 oil off the market. You don't really care which civ it comes from, and you don't have to do individual trades with each civ each turn which would be a huge drag.
Furthermore, you don't even have to micromanage the trade. You just build the panzers and, as long as you have the RTT agreement, the trades happen transparently in the background and the gold is automatically deducted from your treasury.

And if you want to micromange, say stockpiling oil before a war, you can do that through the WM screen as well, maybe setting your preferences for each resource like "Make all units of oil over 50 available on the market" or "sell all Iron".

The other key to making this idea work would be making the trade and military advisors more intelligent so you could count on them to warn you when you need to do resource trades to stay ahead like: Your military advisor pops up "Sir, we are running dangerously low on oil. If you plan on continuing this war, I suggest we find a supply of oil for our tanks." at which point the trade advisor pops up, "Sir, we know that the Ottomans have a substantial supply of oil, We should sign a Right to Trade agreement with them, and then I will buy oil off the World Market". I would want my advisors to be very intelligent so that I don't have to even think about resource trading if I don't absolutely have to. Think of it this way, when was the last time the president personally managed the trade of iron?

[planetfall]

Trip,

I voted no, not because your idea of resource management is not a good idea, but rather because it complicates the game too much for beginners. One of the biggest problems with civ game is too large of a learning curve. Resource management belongs as a expansion pack idea, rather than a key part of the game.

I would agree with previous post, the biggest problem is creating an enjoyable computer game. On way to get started might be to accept private messages and get a group of game players to review game play concept and options with you. The coding is not the hardest part, nor is the graphics. It takes a lot of work to make a good game, or it would be done more often. One of the suggestions I read in a game programming book was to first create a game in 6-8 months and release it. The point of the first game is not to be a great game but to become familar with the process and use this as an aid in future development. The keys at first are finding people who can give good feedback and getting something out. Especially if it is not perfect. More important than an ideal game is getting experience in the entire process from first idea to first paying customer. The difference between game life cycle and normal life cycle seems to be the short life span of a game. civ series is the exception rather than the rule.

[Jon Shafer]

Wrylachlan, that's a good idea, but unless you used a quantity system it wouldn't matter anyways. You only need 1 source anyways, so trade is you're getting it or you're trading it. Having a kind of 'market system' would be useless.

What I was aiming for was to change the system to use quantity values instead. Maybe I should have made the poll say "Do you support the idea for using quantity values for resources" instead, because that's the only thing I really care about. Unfortunately, with the poll being what it is, it's doubtful that even if Jeff came by, he would be convinced that was what people wanted. Oh well I guess.

[Sava]

I kind of agree with planetfall. I'd like a quantity system, but I don't want the game to become a micromanagement of resources. I am already mad that most of the game is moving workers around and building mines/irrigation. You'd think Firaxis would take an objective look at the game and say, "Hey, what's the dullest part of the game?" And then get rid of it... but in retrospect, I guess that so many of the conservative Civ'ers would have complained.

[Spiffor]

Sava :
You bet As a builder, moving workers is almost the only thing I do (and I like it ).

About simplicity, I find Wrychalan's idea very good, it's much simpler than going to trade by himself... But I wonder if it's possible to trade preferably with someone (to reinforce bounds with this particular Civ).

I still think the best way to make a quantitative resource system simple is to make it turn based only : no resources, no stockpiling. That's why I think resources shouldn't be used to move units even if it's realistic (w/o the ability to stockpile oil, a trade embargo would basically shut down a whole modern army, very frustrating).

Anyways, the more I think of it, the more I think Civ3's road system is good : after all, once you created the roads and harbours, why would you bother to make a new infrastructure again... I think it would add nothing in terms of strategic depht and fun.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Trip
Okay, out of the ~8 or so people I've talked to, they more-or-less agree with what I'm saying... so who's voting against me and why...
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

Trip, although you've clearly put a lot of thought into your proposal (and articulated it well!) I voted no for the following reasons: 1) it would add tremendous additional complexity to the game; 2) it would not, IMHO, add any significant strategic / tactical depth commensurate with the added complexity.

As the resource and trade system works in Civ3 today, if and when I run out of saltpeter / rubber / oil / etc., I'm either going to be able to trade for it, or I'm going to war to get it. I think this is common among many players. Under the system you propose, I don't see behavior changing all that much, if at all.

Catt

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Trip
Wrylachlan, that's a good idea, but unless you used a quantity system it wouldn't matter anyways. You only need 1 source anyways, so trade is you're getting it or you're trading it. Having a kind of 'market system' would be useless.

What I was aiming for was to change the system to use quantity values instead. Maybe I should have made the poll say "Do you support the idea for using quantity values for resources" instead, because that's the only thing I really care about. Unfortunately, with the poll being what it is, it's doubtful that even if Jeff came by, he would be convinced that was what people wanted. Oh well I guess.

I think you missed what I was saying. I understand that you were proposing quantity values for resources. What I was trying to say was that I opposed the idea UNLESS there was a mechanism in place to tone down the micromanagement that goes with it. The World Market was a suggestion for just such a mechanism. I'm sure there are a thousand other ways you could deal with the micromanagement, but if you want your idea of quantity resources to gain acceptance, you should probably put a solution to the micromanagement problem with it.

[candidgamera]

Trip says:
That's still another cop out. If you asked the team at Firaxis what happens to the rest of the iron, you'd probably get another answer. Besides, if it was really meant for the rest of that iron to be consumed by your economy, then they'd tell you that. Can you really say that if you have 1 source of iron, and 100 coastal cities and build 100 Battleships with them, your economy would work the same way as if you hadn't been building the ships (on 1 source, no less)?
I don't know if that would work as well though. Needless to say, a Battleship uses more than a Tank does (even if a unit doesn't represent only one tank, we can assume nothing that they haven't told us ).

Agree with you on battleship vs. Tank relative cost. What I mean on economy is maybe beyond intent of Firaxis. Am thinking of a consumption per city (including size) or per unit of population, linked in of course to your trade net. It goes along with consumption for moving units or building them - guns vs butter, ect. Could work in a more realistic treatment, per capita, of luxuries this way too.

Trip said:
Eh? I'm not sure if I catch you here. Do you mean that each source can extract a certain amount per turn, i.e. Kuwait can extract 4 oil per turn, while Louisiana can extract 1 per turn?

Well not all resource locations are the same. If that were the case we could tell Suadi Arabia to go to hell.
Am interpreting here some, subject to map size, but each resource square covers as much area as the whole area of the main oilfields of Suadi Arabia and Kuwait. That's what I was trying to get at.

[Adagio]

Now let's start saying, I haven't read every post in this thread yet...Actually I have only read Trip and Spiffors ideas, and I have to say, Trips idea is good, better than the one that is in Civ3 at the moment, but I prefer Spiffors idea, it's more simple, and fits better into civ3...Though I do like the idea about Battleships, Tanks, etc. needs oil to move

But sorry for not having read everything yet, I might have missed some interesting parts, but I hope I get some time later today, when I'm not

[Panag]

hi ,

they are both good , however , we should find a way to improve even them , ..

and there should be more resources , ........

have a nice day

[jpww]

I voted no because of the unwarranted complexity that your ideas would bring to the game - I have simple needs!-