Introduction
The economy is the backbone of a nation, and trade its lifeblood.
The following are suggestions of ways to improve the way it is handled in the game.
The Ideas
1.0.0 Resources
1.1.0 Use of extra resources
Each additional resource of the given type beyond the first give a +1 shield bonus per turn for the production of units or structures that require that resource. It is simple, intuitive and makes the player actually loose something by trading away a resource unlike now. - Roman
1.1.1 Extra resources have some benefit
I think that you should get more benefit from having different luxuries than many of the same luxury, like maybe just have additional luxuries increase gold. - Jon Miller
1.2.0 One luxury resource isn't enough
I'd rather get rid of the "one is enough" model that we have. So let's say that one source of spices is enough to go around to 100,000 people or so (numbers out of thin air, here). Now securing a second source is good if you don't trade it because that's twice the spice, and none of it is extra (unless you amass enough spice to outnumber your citizens... unlikly I hope!). The trade off from trading is now simply... if you trade it, it's worth a lot. If you keep it, your people get it. - Fosse
1.2.1 Luxury resources limited by radius
I like the idea that each luxury deposit can only help so many people, or perhaps cities at a certain radius. Additionally, you could tie this into certain techs or buildings perhaps that would extend the range. So at the beginning, only the city next to the lux would get the boost. when you research somehting like trade or alphabet or pottery (you get the point), the radius would extend. And you could have the city near the lux build, say, a diamond mining camp, or spice factory or something (sorta mix in a little colonization magic) - asleepathewheel
1.3.0 New luxury resources over time
And what about new luxuries as time goes by. Furs are sooo out these days. The tulip craze came and went. The diamond fad was manufactured. Etc Etc. You could randomize this as "events" (I know certain people that would hate that, as you couldn't micro your citizens as effectively due to the, eek randomness) -asleepathewheel
1.4.0 Strategic resources are finite
I would rather each resource deposit build up a surplus which you could use or trade, so that if it magically disappeared, you wouldn't be screwed. Say an iron deposit created 100 iron units a turn. A swordsman would require 10 iron units to be created. The left over iron accumulates and can be used or traded in the future. - asleepathewheel
Yes, though, more occurances of would almost certainly be needed to get any sort of balance. For example, on an earth map there might be five occurances of oil in Texas, and fifteen crammed into the Middle East. East occurance would provide exactly the same amount - to forgoe any unneeded complication - so having more in one place represents a very rich supply. - Fosse
1.4.1 Economic advisor keeps track of resource consumption
It seems to me that if you are mining aluminum and you go to build a fighter, but you are not mining enough to start another production using aluminum, you could consult the Economist Advisor (or whatever) to see what's going on. If you have enough aluminum, you can just select the build and not bother with the screen. This would make the trading subsystem much more important. You would think carefully about parting with some resource for a lousy 20 gpt. - Shogun Gunner
1.4.2 Limit storage of strategic resources, new city improvement increases storage
As a civilization, there should be a limit to how much iron or horses you can store. This would also lead in nicely to a city improvement which allows the national storage of a single resource to be increased significantly. Newcastle and coal, for example. Loss of this city would of course mean loss of a majority of that stored resource. - Skanky Burns, Roman
1.5.0 Strategic resources increase production
I just remembered an idea from the C3 list that I think may work well and satisfy everyone (for strategic resources). Make it so that you don't need a resource to build a unit that "requires" that resource. Rather, you can allocate each instance of each resource you have to a city, and it provides some number of extra shields (a lot) per turn towards the production of something that requires that resource. - skywalker
1.5.1 National benefit from a strategic resource
It would be nice to have resources that conferred a particular national benefit - for example, perhaps 10% increased production or so on, something like that. - Provost Harrison
Related links:
Majority say to give resources quantites.
2.0.0 Economic Systems
2.1.0 SMAC-Style Economic Systems
Free economies of two different civs automatically generate trade the way SMAC pacted bases did. Makes sense, simulates real world, and gives you a reaso to try to convince your friends to use the same economy that you do! - Fosse
3.0.0 Domestic Trade
3.1.0 Cities on Trade Routes gain extra benefit
Whenever a trade route is started, a path is made through cities and the like the cities that the trade route goes through all get bonuses to trade, as long as the trade route is in place as well as the starting and ending cities. - Jon Miller
3.1.1 Trade Bonus related to number of cities on trade route
Maybe have # of cities utilize affect bonus payoff - Jrabbit
3.2.0 Food trade
Make it so that food can be exchanged between cities with a road. - Jon Miller
3.2.1 Shield trade
Shields can be traded by cities connected with a railroad.
Make it so that there can be a choice when you are building (like hurry) but is emphasize production. What this choice would do is steal 1 production from all cities connected by a rail road to that city and give it to that city for the duration of the contruction (you would also need to make it so that there is a penalty, like 30% of the shields gotten this way are lost)- Jon Miller
3.3.0 Military garrison
Under certain government types, Military garrison help reduce corruption as well as unhappiness. - Strider_479
4.0.0 International Trade
4.0.1 Caravans can be built and stored
I like the idea of building caravans that can be stored for use for any trade links, then when you make a trade route you use one of your stockpile and define the route. - Rasputin
4.0.2 Caravans as units initially, then go to auto-trade routes
Bring back the Camel Seriously, the delivery of individual caravans, the dangers accomanying them, the use of caravans for exploration and making contact, was historically important. I realize that delivering large numbers of caravans got tedious in the late game, and that Civ3 seems to have done ok without camels, but is there not seem to work this in? Perhaps use camels, then trade routes after a give tech level achieved? - lord of the mark
4.0.3 Trade boats as units
I would like to see trade conducted via harbors and trading ships, instead of just harbors. i.e. harbor - tradeship - harbor, or harbor - tradeship - tradeship -harbor. The change involves altering the way harbor type improvements work and introducing a new naval unit the tradeship. This new unit behaves like a worker unit that is consumed when a colony or airfield etc is built. The tradeship has an operational radius (e.g. 10 tiles) and trade can only take place when either harbors or other tradeships are within this radius. It in fact behaves like a harbor but is at sea. - Harrier UK
4.1.0 All caravans computer-controlled
A boat or camel gets created that you do not have any control over. It is a neutral unit that travels the shortest possible distance, to connect the two land cities or the two ports it basically just moves back and forth but it can be raided by military units, and when it does so it stops the flow of the resources. - Jon Miller
4.1.1 Physical Caravans show trade routes
Civ3 bartering style to decide what gets traded to whom, but then GalCiv style trade routes with caravans are established from the supplying cities to the receiving. This serves as a visual clue to what trades are gonig on in the world, as eye candy (hopefull the immersion kind, not the gratuitous kind!), and gives a potential miliatry target. - Jon Miller, Fosse
4.1.2 Trade automatic (SMAC style)
Trade is another feature that was improved in AC but went backwards in Civ3. It should naturally increase with bordering nations with whom you are at peace. If you invest in a navy and build docks, it should also increase with other maritime nations. It should also benefit from railroad and road connections, and from some technologies: currency, trade, navigation, economics, the corporation, market globalization, etc.
Again, trade would come into play with culture: nations who trade together gradually share their culture and their values.
Custom fees, embargos, free trade agreements would be part of diplomacy. - Oncle Boris
4.1.3 Trade GalCiv style
I think the GalCiv method is perfect and should be shamelessly copied. It would be awesome to have little icons for trade ships/caravans moving across the map during the game. This would lend a real feeling of a vibrant, populated world. - Boris Godunov
4.2.0 Visible, piratable traderoutes
I would like CtP style trade. The trade routes are visible on the map as a line. If a foreign unit steps on this line, there is a "Pirate" option. The line dissapears, and you lose a caravan. The line always follows the quickest route to move (so water, roads, rail etc.) as opposed to the shortest. - Frozzy
4.2.2 Pirating traderoutes takes time
How's this for an idea: Use CtP-style trade routes - that is, visible routes on the map that can be interfered with by other nations. However, to actually pirate or disrupt trade, a unit would need to stay in one place on the route for a fixed number of turns - like, 5 or so.
With a delay like this, it would give players the ability to patrol their routes and stop problems before they happen, but someone that's sneaky enough can still get units in to wreak havoc if they play it right. - ixnay
4.2.3 Pirating or raiding traderoutes
I love this idea. How about having two options: One is destroy the trade route, another is raid. Raid gives you some gold, keeps the trade route in tact and increases anger with the nation.
(One thing about CtP some people forget is that sometimes their were survivors of the piracy who saw your flag. In other cases, there were none, so you got away free without the civ knowing that it was your civ who pirated them),
Destroying, on the other hand, takes more gold, eliminates the route and is an act of war. - Frozzy
4.3.0 Explorers can conduct trade
How about an explorer unit who can also create instant trade - see "The Great Game" for the many instances where explorers also conducted trade - also the history of Portugese expansion, etc. - lord of the mark
4.4.0 Hidden nationality trade
We have hidden nationality unit already, privateers. This is for carrying out covert military ops. Why not bring back caravan/freight unit as a hidden nationality for covert trade. This unit could be used for some or all of the following reasons: to traffic 1)illegal goods; 2) trade with a civ you are at war with; 3)provide a fascist govt a means for trade revenue. If any nation intercepts this unit as it tries to reach its destination, a reputation hit is suffered. - bfg9000
Respectfully Compiled - Skanky Burns
Last edited by Skanky Burns; January 10, 2004 at 03:50.
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
interesting threads
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103836
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103717
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103316
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103218
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103871
sorry I missed this
will post future posts here
Jon Miller
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Ok, I posted this in the thread I have originally started for the purpose, but it probably belongs here:
We can do something similar for luxuries. Again, having more than one luxury square of the same type currently yeilds no benefit beyond the ability to trade. I suppose we could have a single luxury square only be sufficient for a certain limited number of people, but this creates the same complexity problems as having a single resource only be sufficient for a given number of cities. A simpler approach would be to have each extra luxury square plus one, provide the same benefit in happinness as the first square.
e.g.
1) 1 luxury would increase happinness by 1.
2) 2 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
3) 3 additional luxuries (of the same type) would increase happinnes by an additional 1.
4) Etc. (There could but would not have to be a limit.)
This is a simple system that ensures the benefits of additional luxuries of the same type apart from trade yet does provide an incentive to try to gain different types of luxuries and indeed to trade your luxuries for different ones.
Rome rules
thanks Skanky Burns
some more thoughts on trade
when yuo have cities connected to yuor capital by harbors (ala Civ3)
they also get connected by sea caravan units
which can be raided by opponents (this will cut the resources to that city and give the raiders benifits)
you can also have this be the case when roads connect cities but the roads are not always within your territory
on another note, IT hink that trade routes, (this is sort of in Civ3) should not be able to be traced through enemy territory
Jon Miller
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
I think that you should get more benifit from having different luxuries than many of the same luxury
like maybe just ahve addiontal luxuries increase gold
Jon Miller
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
i like the idea of building caravans that can be stored for use for any trade links, then when you make a trade route you use one of your stockpile and define the route. The route can be intercepted and pirated..
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71
Exactly! I completely agree with you. That is why I proposed the above sytem. In the system I suggested it is always advantageous to trade a luxury that you have a surpluss off for a luxury you do not have, or have less off, yet having extra luxuries of the same type still provides some benefit.Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that you should get more benifit from having different luxuries than many of the same luxury
Rome rules
This makes much sense. Cities used within the route would share its benefit. If you want all the benefit in one city, you would need to avoid passing through interim cities. Maybe have # of cities utilize affect bonus payoff, too...4.1.1 Cities on Trade Routes gain extra benefit
Whenever a trade route is started, a path is made through cities and the like the cities that the trade route goes through all get bonuses to trade, as long as the trade route is in place as well as the starting and ending cities.
- Jon Miller
Good one, Jon.
Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms
Yay! Bring back the camel.Originally posted by -Jrabbit
This makes much sense. Cities used within the route would share its benefit. If you want all the benefit in one city, you would need to avoid passing through interim cities. Maybe have # of cities utilize affect bonus payoff, too...
Good one, Jon.
Though this doesnt allow for use of caravans for exploration - important in civ2. How about an explorer unit who can also create instant trade - see "The Great Game" for the many instances where explorers also conducted trade - also the history of Portugese expansion, etc.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
we dont want to have to move the trade units, already got toom any units to worry bout without hundreds of camels... but just auto setup thetrade route.....
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71
Its very important for me to play with trade units. I like the caravan idea very much and i dont like the civ3 trade system, its too easy all you need to do is build roads, the city placement isnt soo imporant for trade in civ3 as in civ1/2 ctp1/2. Futhermore its part of the whole civ strategy WHEN you built caravans and how the city is placed between the goods. The fun is away if you just built some roads and the rest is done automaticly. Futhermore the citymanger should be important for trade again, if you do not use a good you cant trade it. I like the "old" CIV trade systemOriginally posted by Rasputin
we dont want to have to move the trade units, already got toom any units to worry bout without hundreds of camels... but just auto setup thetrade route.....
I hate the Civ2 model. Just slowed the game down incredibly for me.
Prefer the Civ3 resources model, but....
I would rather each resource deposit build up a surplus which you could use or trade, so that if it magically disappeared, you wouldn't be screwed. Say an iron deposit created 100 iron units a turn. A swordsman would require 10 iron units to be created. The left over iron accumulates and can be used or traded in the future.
I like the idea that each luxury deposit can only help so many people, or perhaps cities at a certain radius. Additionally, you could tie this into certain techs or buildings perhaps that would extend the range. So at the beginning, only the city next to the lux would get the boost. when you research somehting like trade or alphabet or pottery (you get the point), the radius would extend. And you could have the city near the lux build, say, a diamond mining camp, or spice factory or something (sorta mix in a little colonization magic)
And what about new luxuries as time goes by. Furs are sooo out these days. The tulip craze came and went. The diamond fad was manufactured. Etc Etc. You could randomize this as "events" (I know certain people that would hate that, as you couldn't micro your citizens as effectively due to the, eek randomness
I just found moving hundreds of caravans around each game to be so tedious. I would much rather have this abstracted. I understand the desire to want to control everything, but I just pretend that when a road is built, there are little merchants walking along it selling their wares. I've just pushed too many of those things around. OTOH, with Civ3's vastly improved pathfinding it would probably make caravans much more palatable.Originally posted by filix
Its very important for me to play with trade units. I like the caravan idea very much and i dont like the civ3 trade system, its too easy all you need to do is build roads, the city placement isnt soo imporant for trade in civ3 as in civ1/2 ctp1/2. Futhermore its part of the whole civ strategy WHEN you built caravans and how the city is placed between the goods. The fun is away if you just built some roads and the rest is done automaticly. Futhermore the citymanger should be important for trade again, if you do not use a good you cant trade it. I like the "old" CIV trade system
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I just found moving hundreds of caravans around each game to be so tedious. I would much rather have this abstracted. I understand the desire to want to control everything, but I just pretend that when a road is built, there are little merchants walking along it selling their wares. I've just pushed too many of those things around. OTOH, with Civ3's vastly improved pathfinding it would probably make caravans much more palatable.
hundreds of caravans in late games clearly bad.
A few caravans in early game, exploring, suddenly coming upon a previously unknown city and selling goods there - good.
Dont know how they might do this, though.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
You dont need to move hundreds of caravansOriginally posted by asleepathewheel
I just found moving hundreds of caravans around each game to be so tedious. I would much rather have this abstracted. I understand the desire to want to control everything, but I just pretend that when a road is built, there are little merchants walking along it selling their wares. I've just pushed too many of those things around. OTOH, with Civ3's vastly improved pathfinding it would probably make caravans much more palatable.
The desire to control everything is part of the strategy game its part of the gameplay. How you built your citys to get the best trade is the key to be a good civ player.
Just imagine its a fleet of trade ships or a group of covered wagons you send them you finace them. A little bit like at the planned economy but i think a lot of rulers had trade fleets.
I hope my mate paul will come and explain it better my english isnt perfect,...
Last edited by filix; December 12, 2003 at 16:46.
I think hundreds of caravans are good, where is the problem? The abstract caravan is just something that carrys goods not an animalOriginally posted by lord of the mark
hundreds of caravans in late games clearly bad.
A few caravans in early game, exploring, suddenly coming upon a previously unknown city and selling goods there - good.
Dont know how they might do this, though.
And i think there is no need to have the option to explore with a caravan, you have other units for that work. Like i said i like the old trading system
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I would rather each resource deposit build up a surplus which you could use or trade, so that if it magically disappeared, you wouldn't be screwed. Say an iron deposit created 100 iron units a turn. A swordsman would require 10 iron units to be created. The left over iron accumulates and can be used or traded in the future.
This is a huge deal to me. Would add so much, and cost so little to implement.
On one level I agree with you, but when I think that 1 turn in Civilization represents at least 1 year, the possibility of stockpiling enough of a resource even for one turn seems somewhat ridiculous at the realism level. On the other hand, stockpiling could be good for gameplay even though it is hugely unrealistic, but even so it should not be automatic. Perhaps you could build city improvement(s) "Storage" to stockpile resources in a given city.Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I would rather each resource deposit build up a surplus which you could use or trade, so that if it magically disappeared, you wouldn't be screwed. Say an iron deposit created 100 iron units a turn. A swordsman would require 10 iron units to be created. The left over iron accumulates and can be used or traded in the future.
Rome rules
like Colonization.
I seldom like this argument because we accept so much in this game as happening on a weird time scale. Warriors take 1000 years to walk a few hundred miles in the early game, trade deals last for no less than 20 years, and possibly thousands if made early enough.Originally posted by Roman
On one level I agree with you, but when I think that 1 turn in Civilization represents at least 1 year, the possibility of stockpiling enough of a resource even for one turn seems somewhat ridiculous at the realism level.
The city management, military, and diplomatic models all seem to function at their own pace... so a month of time in one is close to a day in another and a year in another. What we need to look for is fun and good features for the game, and not worry overly much about if they make sense according to 1 year = 1 turn.
I too, think that stockpiling could be good for gameplay, and that is enough to get it a thumbs up from me.
I would like CtP style trade. The trade routes are visible on the map as a line. If a foreign unit steps on this line, there is a "Pirate" option. The line dissapears, and you lose a caravan. The line always follows the quickest route to move (so water, roads, rail etc.) as opposed to the shortest.
Yes! I like this a lot. Basically, I think there should be ways to blocade, raid or simply interfere with your opponent's trade. Any mechanic allows that is desirable.Originally posted by Frozzy
I would like CtP style trade. The trade routes are visible on the map as a line. If a foreign unit steps on this line, there is a "Pirate" option. The line dissapears, and you lose a caravan. The line always follows the quickest route to move (so water, roads, rail etc.) as opposed to the shortest.
Rome rules
How about this for an idea: all towns that have factories get another 50% addition in production with the advent of mass production.
Oh, yes, and additional citizens after all the tiles were used, MUST be more productive than what we have now!
I like the idea of asleepathewheel.Simple and good.
But I've never played CTP, is this system seen as better or worse generally?
Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. -Isaiah 41:10
The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing. - Zephaniah 3:17
yahOriginally posted by Frozzy
I would like CtP style trade. The trade routes are visible on the map as a line. If a foreign unit steps on this line, there is a "Pirate" option. The line dissapears, and you lose a caravan. The line always follows the quickest route to move (so water, roads, rail etc.) as opposed to the shortest.
I likes omething like this to show (and than you can trade luxury resources and the like with teh foreign empire)
but I think that you sohuld be able to click (Foreign) cities for it to go through
and those cities, get trade bonus
Jon Miller
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
The unbalancing part of the trade setup in CTP Is the fact that it is almost impossible to guard a route from piracy. (You can pirate anywhere on the trade route line, and many times the routes pass through hostile territory.) So you probably need to have an actual unit sprite that is merely an indicator for trade. Either that, or have a percentage change of success if you attempt to pirate a route.Originally posted by Frozzy
I would like CtP style trade. The trade routes are visible on the map as a line. If a foreign unit steps on this line, there is a "Pirate" option. The line dissapears, and you lose a caravan. The line always follows the quickest route to move (so water, roads, rail etc.) as opposed to the shortest.
And they really need to keep strategic resources in the game, rather than the simple cash cow that trade is in CTP.
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
Not really. The trade route follows the shortest route, so if you have roads between your cities they follow those roads. So, I often have a couple of warriors or legions in the early game going along the trade route making sue it isn't pirated. Same for the seas (with longboats & fire triremes)
I actually rarely have my trade routes pirated
You could trade commodities (such as pearls on the seas and beavers on land, for example), for money. However, you can also buy resourses from allies in the game so you can set up a trade route (albeit expensive) and merely trade the resources
I think it would be cool if we used C3's resource system (with a few bonuses for multiples of the same resource) but had Galciv-esque trade routes (with the little freighter carrying oil, etc).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks