obsolete ivory

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Quillan
The wonders of Broadway, Rock 'n Roll, and Hollywood provide the controlling player with 7 Hit Musicals, Hit Singles, and Hit Movies respectively. That player can then trade as many of those to others as he wishes. The game mechanic is that the three obsolete happiness resources are replaced by 3 new happiness resources that are tied to wonders rather than geographic locations.

Right. So, happiness resources that were previously available to multiple players and even if you were one of the few who didn't have it, you could almost assuredly conquer it since it appeared in multiple locations and you could go get the easiest / most convenient one to conquer... are now available to one player only. That player can ration them out (or not!) as he/she feels like at the moment. That player also will have built the wonder in a core city with high production, a difficult proposition (at best) to conquer.

I'm not complaining, and I think the dynamic works fine. I do not, however, think that the one somehow"makes up" for the disappearance of the other. They're two entirely different game mechanics. It's probably easier to simply look elsewhere for your "make up" happiness source. Such as to build colosseums that you didn't have a need for previously.

Wodan

[Targonis]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
How about making them obselete with the adoption of environmentalism ?

Not adoption, but discovery of environmentalism. Or to make environmentalism be a mini-religion, where it gets discovered, and then automatically spreads. Cities with environmentalism lose the happiness from certain things.

Or to have certain things like environmentalism spread within a population, and you only get a national(civ-wide) effect once it hits 75 percent of the population. Even in the USA, there are many people who don't care about things like people wearing furs.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Targonis


Not adoption, but discovery of environmentalism. Or to make environmentalism be a mini-religion, where it gets discovered, and then automatically spreads. Cities with environmentalism lose the happiness from certain things.

Or to have certain things like environmentalism spread within a population, and you only get a national(civ-wide) effect once it hits 75 percent of the population. Even in the USA, there are many people who don't care about things like people wearing furs.

Tho i do not object to your suggestions per se, i think mine is more close to the game mechanics at hand and thus preferable. And what do you mean by EVEN in the USA ? :P I mean you guys start bit**ing when the gas price hits 2.50$ per gallon - we pay 6 (4.50 are taxes) and are content (some more some less of course) with it... but thats another topic...

[wodan11]

Entirely different societal parameters. For example, driving from London to Edinburgh is a "day trip" to someone from the States, whereas it's a week vacation to the Brits.

Things in the States are simply more spread out. Mass transit such as you find in Europe, Japan, etc, simply isn't an option for most people, except in a few of the major cities. You could compare New York to your average European city. But, pick most anywhere else, and you simply HAVE to drive 45 minutes to an hour (or more!) to get to and from your place of employment.

Wodan

[Unimatrix11]

Agreed !

[joncnunn]

That is highly dependent on lots of factors (distance, quality of the roads, traffic conjestion, etc.) , but if your refering to one way, that is actually way on the high side compared to average. Every year there is a study on this on the US that calculates the reported nation wide average for one way transportation between home and work and also reported by MSA. The last I saw the nationwide average for one way was about 25 minutes, with some MSAs being considerly longer than others.

Out in Jefferson City, Missouri, it literaly takes me longer to walk to/from the garage parking lot to the office & take the elevator to the 11th floor than drive from my apartment there to the garage. (But on the way home, it usally takes slightly longer to walk down the stairs and drive home than it did to walk to the garage.)

Originally posted by wodan11
could compare New York to your average European city. But, pick most anywhere else, and you simply HAVE to drive 45 minutes to an hour (or more!) to get to and from your place of employment.

Wodan

[wodan11]

Total time is irrelevant to the point. The question is time in the car, as a means of indication of how much price of fuel affects the average person.

Wodan

[Quillan]

My father used to have a 2.5 hour drive into work every morning. He worked at a shipyard and we lived more than 50 miles from it, but he pooled with about 10 other men who lived in the area and also worked there, which added to the commute time. Dad drove the van, so he had to pick them all up in the morning and drop them all off in the evening.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by wodan11
Total time is irrelevant to the point. The question is time in the car, as a means of indication of how much price of fuel affects the average person.

Wodan

Not really as simple as that. Yeah that's a big factor but not all. Cost of gas will affect a person's method of commuting, if the person has a choice. It will affect some people's choice of where to live, too.

For example, I live about 50 miles south of Washington DC and work inside the beltway. I have the choice of driving, carpooling/vanpooling/slugging, or taking the train (not metro, but a real train). I choose the train because, even though the total commute is longer, it is less stressful and cheaper overall. When we were house-hunting a few years ago, the first question I asked the realtor each place was "how far to the train station".

When roads are going to be extra clogged (fridays in the summer), the train is more crowded as people escape the friday afternoon exodus to the beach. And idling there on the road burning their $2.50/gal gas.

[Targonis]

When it comes to environmental stuff, there are a LOT of differences based on culture. For example, things like smoking are really going down quickly in many parts of the USA(New York and California have laws where there is no smoking at all in many public places).

The cost of gas is why people do not drive as much in Europe, I REALLY doubt it is because people are thinking of the environment when it comes to that. Economics and environmentalism are really very different areas that need to be looked at as individual entities.

The USA also has different areas that are very different culturally. The "deep south" for example is VERY VERY different from the midwest, Northeast, and west coast. The attitudes toward environmentalism, smoking(or not smoking), pollution, and so on really don't line up across the board. It is why I feel that just because a civilization has discovered a certain tech does not mean that suddenly the whole population will go along with the effects it opens up.

[joncnunn]

Actualy time spent in the car is pretty much irrelevenant to the how much gas do I consume each way on the way to work question. Drive too fast and you'll increase gas consumption from increased wind resistance. But if you drive too slow you also increase gas consumption by the throttle being choked.

Originally posted by wodan11
Total time is irrelevant to the point. The question is time in the car, as a means of indication of how much price of fuel affects the average person.

Wodan

[joncnunn]

Actually it appeared to me that in the UK, they are LESS sensitive to gas prices that us Americans, or as they call it petrol. Basically the petrol tax there is so high that when market forces drive the cost of Petrol up (e.g. post Katrina) it is a much smaller percentage and so it doesn't induce the (usually tempory) changes to increase MPG by better driving behaviors.

Originally posted by Targonis

The cost of gas is why people do not drive as much in Europe, I REALLY doubt it is because people are thinking of the environment when it comes to that. Economics and environmentalism are really very different areas that need to be looked at as individual entities.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Actually it appeared to me that in the UK, they are LESS sensitive to gas prices that us Americans, or as they call it petrol. Basically the petrol tax there is so high that when market forces drive the cost of Petrol up (e.g. post Katrina) it is a much smaller percentage and so it doesn't induce the (usually tempory) changes to increase MPG by better driving behaviors.

Makes sense. Also driving distance (short in the UK) will matter a lot. I mean, you increase the cost of gas/petrol say by 20% when you drive 5 miles a day, or by that same 20% when you drive 50 miles each way. The first is fairly negligible to your weekly budget.

[Targonis]

Originally posted by Petrus2


Makes sense. Also driving distance (short in the UK) will matter a lot. I mean, you increase the cost of gas/petrol say by 20% when you drive 5 miles a day, or by that same 20% when you drive 50 miles each way. The first is fairly negligible to your weekly budget.

But picture if the cost of gas went up by 50 percent in under a year. It doesn't matter what the cost is, people will complain. That is why people in the USA get upset when the price goes up suddenly, because when gas was $2/gallon, if the price goes up by 10 cents/gallon in a week, that percentage increase will be a lot more obvious than if it jumped by 10 cents per gallon but the price was $5/gallon.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Targonis


But picture if the cost of gas went up by 50 percent in under a year. It doesn't matter what the cost is, people will complain. That is why people in the USA get upset when the price goes up suddenly, because when gas was $2/gallon, if the price goes up by 10 cents/gallon in a week, that percentage increase will be a lot more obvious than if it jumped by 10 cents per gallon but the price was $5/gallon.

I love Americans. Heck, I -AM- an American. But they'll complain about everything That said, you are right. So am I (and I'm modest too, IMHO...). Both factors apply. Even with the price increases, Americans are still loath to give up their cars, and the flexibility that comes with them.