A simple, elegant way of making extra resources domestically useful

[Roman]

In Civilization III, having more than one resource square of the same type is useless unless you are willing to trade the resource with another civilization. I do not like that fact at all, but the current resource system is simple and effective, so discarding the system would be unwise. A simple solution to the problem is to have 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. A game is all about tradeoffs and this would add another tradeoff to the player's decision making.

[chequita guevara]

Interesting.

[DarkCloud]

A simple solution to the problem is to have 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. A game is all about tradeoffs and this would add another tradeoff to the player's decision making.

I like that... a lot!

Good idea Roman!

[Fosse]

Nice thought, Roman. I agree with tradeoffs being important. And your solution is a nice one. But... (as always )

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.

[Kuciwalker]

That would complicate it a LOT.

As Roman stated, simplicity is the strong point of the current model, which IMO is quite good. However, his addition is very innovative. I like it.

[Jon Miller]

I like it also

better than some of the other suggestions I have seen

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Jon and skywalker, you'd both rather stick to the ON/OFF resource model of Civ 3, where one source of incense can make your 1000 people in 1000 cities happy, but not two people in one city?

[Jon Miller]

I like it better than some things I hvae seen

I like this idea, which is different than that found in Civ3, a little better, I believe

even though I reserve the right to change my mind

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

It would be appreciated if you could continue this discussion in the {The List-} Economics/Trade thread.

[Jon Miller]

hmm

I missed that one, sorry

Jon Miller

[Roman]

Thanks for the voice of confidence.

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.

[Roman]

Hmm, I suppose I should post this in the other thread.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Fosse
Jon and skywalker, you'd both rather stick to the ON/OFF resource model of Civ 3, where one source of incense can make your 1000 people in 1000 cities happy, but not two people in one city?

Fosse, forget a system that adds a lot of new compexity - it is simply not going to happen.* Firaxis want the game to have mass appeal and simplicity is the key to that. Even if everyone on these boards agreed that a very complex system is desirable, I doubt Firaxis would implement it, as the people on these boards by definition tend to be the hard core gamers of Civ and Firaxis must also think of the casual gamers. In any case, the present system is not bad and a little tweaking at the margins can perfect it even more.

*I speak from experience - I remember when Civ III was being designed and suggestions were being given by fans.

[Fosse]

I don't think that having one resource = x number of benefits is copllicated.

I'd like to draw a difference between complication and depth, as the term "complexity" is often used to refer to either of these things, and they are very different beasts.

A feature that is complicated is trying to hard. It's confusing the player and leading to insane levels of micromangement while providing little increase in fun for the player.

A feature that adds depth is relativly straightforward in its implementation and can add both fun and options to the player.

Comlicated is bad, deep is good.

I believe wholeheartedly that it is not asking too much of a player to make him understand that more of a good thing (resources) is a good thing.

All or nothing, as the current model is, is an abstraction that I think eliminates a potentially cool level of depth without removing any complication from the game. To me, this is an unacceptable trade off.

I won't forget a system that really strikes me as being a good one. We're here to compile a list of suggestions, and my suggestion is to do away with ON/OFF resources. I am open to listen to opinions from others and possibly changing my mind, but if and when I do change my mind it isn't because I am afraid of supporting an idea that Firaxis will leave out because they think it adds market appeal to dumb down the game.

Roman, your proposal on luxuries increasing happiness in diminishing returns is a very good middle ground between what I want, and what is currently there. I'd be very happy with that for luxuries, in fact. It's the similar treatment to strategic resources which I feel is leaving out lot of potential in the resource system.

If we don't suggest or support ideas that we would like because we think that they already won't get in, then that's a defeatist attitude and a bit silly, in my opinion, seeing as we're talking about a game that probably doesn't even have a design document yet, and won't hit shelves until 2006 at least.

[MrBaggins]

However, "deep" is bad when the AI is at a strategic disadvantage...

AI's have never gotten "deep"... and they never will in this decade.