More insight into trade in Civ3 from the CVG article

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Re: More insight into trade in Civ3 from the CVG article

Originally posted by korn469


if trade routes do generate gold then it would encourage civs to trade...if not i could see most human players ignoring trade, except in a few rare instances

Firaxis has said, repeatedly, that one civ will NEVER get all of the recources it needs on its own...so everyone MUST trade in order to survive and expand, even the human players, so I dont know what you are talking about.

although I do think that bringing in extra gold every turn from trading would be pretty cool.

[Inverse Icarus]

i beleive i read that resources are SCATERED all over, so there are, i believe, 3 different resources in any given area.

so if you have iron, rubber, and bronze (NOT REAL DAMMIT), you have to trade for nukes.

new question: will; resources become obsolete? what could bronze do in modern era?

[marcuspeddle]

Originally posted by UberKruX
new question: will; resources become obsolete? what could bronze do in modern era?

Along with gold and silver it's important for the olympics.

Actually, bronze is important for things like art in the modern world but I don't think that fits into the Civilization game so I guess you are correct in thinking that resources could become obsolete. Unless some civilization is waaay behind in the game.

[Inverse Icarus]

if your the only civ to discover Fusion, are you the ONLY CIV to see uranium?

then you'd have to give that tech away to someone before you go trade for it, if they had it.

[CivPatriot]

With the new emphasis on "culture" in Civ3 maybe the resources to produce ceritan "culture" wonders, buildings etc, will require those some of the older resources(like iron, copper, bronze(I know, I know)) They might play a differnt but still important part in the latter game. That's the only way I can see how they would remain relevant in the later stages.

UberKruk, I think that you are reffering to Fission as what reqiures urainium. Fusion just reqiures a very light element(usually hydrogen).

[korn469]

Civ Pi(3.14)Fan and meriadoc

i completely agree with your assessment of the trade system in civ3, i think special resources will be a key, if you have access to iron, you can build a legion...if you don't have access to iron you can't build a legion, and you still build with shields

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto

i cannot see how firaxis can guarantee that one civ won't have access to all of the vital resources that it needs...if i control 40% of the entire world, i can pretty much guarantee that i will have iron, oil, rubber, and uranium...that sounds like all of the resources you need to build a warmachine (armor units, and nukes at least)

and why in the world would i trade uranium to a civ meaning one day it could become a potential threat when it build nukes of its own? especially for something with way less importance like silk? screw silk, who needs luxeries when you have martial law?

i just hope that they include a little more incentive than simply linking trade grids, that's all...this would encourage way more trade, otherwise even if you do trade it would most likely be with just one or two important civs (those who have resources vital to arming my civ)

more than likely when one civ discovers a new resource all civs will be able to see it (especially a cheating AI)

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by korn469

i completely agree with your assessment of the trade system in civ3, i think special resources will be a key, if you have access to iron, you can build a legion...if you don't have access to iron you can't build a legion, and you still build with shields

I've read plenty interviews/reviews/previews that say that All the Civs need Iron the build Swords men, but the Romans need Iron to build Legions. Legions are unique to the Romans. So forgeting about the romans. All players will need Iron (if they build swordsmen).

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man


I've read plenty interviews/reviews/previews that say that All the Civs need Iron the build Swords men, but the Romans need Iron to build Legions. Legions are unique to the Romans. So forgeting about the romans. All players will need Iron (if they build swordsmen).

I've read that the legion and impi were essentially swordsmen, but with minor upgrades (movement of 2 or whatever). Can anyone refresh my memory?

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by meriadoc
My understanding of the new production/trade/resource model is this:

Production (shields) is the same as it always has been. Whatever buildings or units I want to build require x shields to build them. However, if a unit requires a special resource, say iron, then that city has to have access to iron. It doesn't need x shields and x units of iron, it just needs the presence of iron. Think of it more like a key. I need the key (iron) to start the production. I don't need ten keys, just one. Does that make any sense?

Not to pick on you, Meriadoc, but... You make it sound like all you need is the presence of Iron...i.e. one iron will build all the legions (sake of example) you need. Thus, it matters not how much iron you own.. as long as you have at least one, it is enough to build all the legions you need... that makes special resources lame (excuse the devolution).. I hope that is not the case... So a civ with 1 iron can produce the same amount of Legions as a civ with 8? Scarcity means nothing? Please be a tiny bit more complex than that... one iron per legion, as you build would suit me fine.. but not just to have the presence...

[korn469]

warm beer

as far as i know the information available supports the conclusion that one iron tile can power an entire empire...however firaxis has also said that resources deplete so i think that means if many cities rely on one tile then that tile will rapidly deplete, while if they rely on numerous tiles then resources will deplete much slower

to_serve_man and sabre2th

romans can't build swordmen because legions replaces swordmen, zulus can't build warriors because impis replace warriors, germans can't build armor units, because panzers replace armor units, america can't build fighters because f-15s replace fighters...however special units cost the exact same as their normal breathen and takes the exact same special resources...a panzer will still require iron, oil, and rubber to produce and will cost the exact same amount of shields as an armor unit, it will just have some extra ability etc.

but what i'm saying is that if you must have access to the special resources a unit requires before you can construct that unit...and if you get cut off from that special resource you can no longer work on that unit, and that access (and not how much access) is all that is required

[Warm Beer]

but the question I am begging to ask you then, Korn, is why bother trading? (wow looks like I am asking it now!) If trade it that big of a factor and most civs have at least one resource in thier borders, then why bother to have that as a diplo option? I hope you get what I am saying... more resource=more units/capabilities makes for a really complex and realistic game. Colonization, for example: You find a continent that has a resourse that is scarce:.. If you send in the settlers, you may have a corner on the market, or a decided advantage over a country that has less... this is the reason that colonization happened for the first place: gather rare resources...

[Miatezhnyi]

It seems to me that some kind of resource stockpiling will be used. If you look at one of the same diplomacy screens

http://www.apolyton.net/civ3/images/view.shtml?screenshots/image2.jpg

you can see that various trade goods are listed by quantity. The French for example have an extra diamond resource, while the other civ has extra dye and incense. Connecting by roads/harbours/aiprots means that any connected city in your empire has access to it. Though to trade a resource with another civ, it must be connect to your capital somehow. Given this, I don't think that by having one iron you could build an unlimited number of swordsman/legions at one time. Then again we really don't have enough information to say the resources are completely used.

[Grumbold]

The information Dan Magaha posted on Apolyton regarding colonies supports the idea that one source can supply your national demand and international trade. The more a source gets used, the faster it will deplete. No hard numbers have followed.

I'm more concerned about this idea that worked tiles can spontaneously generate new sources, but that is a topic for a separate post.

[meriadoc]

First of all, from what I've read, yes you only need one location of a resource (eg: 1 iron) for your entire empire to build the units that require that resource. That means that scarcity doesn't really come into play. I haven't really heard anything about resources depleting, but if they do then you would want to find multiple instances of a resource.

Second, in the diplomatic screen. The two nations were listed as having extra units of certain resources. I don't think that refers to stockpiling. In fact, I don't think that I've read anywhere anything about stockpiling. What I think the diplomatic screen was referring to was that if a trade route is established for that resource then you get that amount of extra gold a turn. What do you think?

[Warm Beer]

I just re-read my last post... Yikes, I didn't mean to come off like "El Jerko" Sorry.

meriadoc :
I see what you mean... It sounds like resources will be distributed evenly around the map (from the controvercial "Sid" interview). Looks like resource trade will not be a major part of the game unless you are unlucky, "Man, Every buddy gots at least one Iron but me!"

I see how that can work... like my idea better, but I am not designing the game now am I?