obsolete ivory

[nbarclay]

The reason why fur, ivory, and whales have become obsolete in the Civ IV sense of the term is not political correctness, but rather is that modern technology provides alternatives that can serve the same purpose at a lower cost. Those alternatives make access to fur, ivory, and whales essentially irrelevant to most people's happiness for reasons completely independent of whether or not people accept the ideas of animal rights activists. The main impact of animal rights activists is on wealthy people who might otherwise buy things like fur coats or ivory chess sets mostly for the snob value of being able to afford them.

From a gameplay perspective, the main problem I see with resources becoming obsolete is that it can have a vastly greater impact on some civs than on others. A civ that's been relying on fur or ivory as a major trade good can have several trade deals collapse at once when the resource becomes obsolete. So instead of just losing access to one resource, the civ might lose access to several resources.

[joncnunn]

However, right after Katrina, the new SUV sales in America plumeted; this especally impacted the big 3.

At the same time, any car that was labeled as a hybid saw their sells increase for several months until people starting realizing not all hybrids are equal.

Originally posted by Petrus2

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.

[Kuciwalker]

From a gameplay perspective, the main problem I see with resources becoming obsolete is that it can have a vastly greater impact on some civs than on others. A civ that's been relying on fur or ivory as a major trade good can have several trade deals collapse at once when the resource becomes obsolete. So instead of just losing access to one resource, the civ might lose access to several resources.

That strikes me as a good mechanic.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

From a gameplay perspective, the main problem I see with resources becoming obsolete is that it can have a vastly greater impact on some civs than on others. A civ that's been relying on fur or ivory as a major trade good can have several trade deals collapse at once when the resource becomes obsolete. So instead of just losing access to one resource, the civ might lose access to several resources.

That strikes me as a good mechanic.

Why? My general feeling is that mechanics that give one particular civ a large advantage or disadvantage have a negative impact on a game's balance.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The reason why fur, ivory, and whales have become obsolete in the Civ IV sense of the term is not political correctness, but rather is that modern technology provides alternatives that can serve the same purpose at a lower cost. Those alternatives make access to fur, ivory, and whales essentially irrelevant to most people's happiness for reasons completely independent of whether or not people accept the ideas of animal rights activists. The main impact of animal rights activists is on wealthy people who might otherwise buy things like fur coats or ivory chess sets mostly for the snob value of being able to afford them.

That doesn't really fit with how the game handles them, however. They still provide a benefit to your Civ if you get them from someone else, you just can't benefit from having them directly. And you can't trade yours to someone else. That's the reverse of what should happen if what you wrote were true.

Bh

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Why? My general feeling is that mechanics that give one particular civ a large advantage or disadvantage have a negative impact on a game's balance.

It creates a sudden (but not unpredictable!) change in the balance of power, requiring the affected civs to plan ahead.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Bhruic


That doesn't really fit with how the game handles them, however. They still provide a benefit to your Civ if you get them from someone else, you just can't benefit from having them directly. And you can't trade yours to someone else. That's the reverse of what should happen if what you wrote were true.

Bh

Agreed. I've never thought it made sense to have situations where civs can't benefit from their domestic supplies of a resource, yet are able to benefit from importing it.

[Kuciwalker]

That, I agree, is silly.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It creates a sudden (but not unpredictable!) change in the balance of power, requiring the affected civs to plan ahead.

As long as proper planning can prevent at least most of the damage, the need to plan to deal with a change can be an interesting challenge. The problem comes when a civ isn't in a position to grab at least one of the late-game wonder-generating resources, and the game mechanics do not provide any other good options for dealing with a loss of important trade goods. In order for me to view the need to plan ahead as an interesting challenge, I need to have good options available, not just a choice of which poison to drink.