Governments ...and....Nuclear Strikes ??

[isaac brock]

well, i think the idea is that because resources are that much more important you'll trade in resources. plus, when you are negotiating, you can offer resources and demand x amount of money each turn.

civ 3 will probably be like SMAC and have a hurry button and partial payment.

i think that if, for some reason, nuclear strikes took two turns, you wouldn't launch them for fear of reprisals, like in real life. if not, then you still wouldn't know which cities have missiles to launch back, and you wouldn't have enough for all their cities to be bombed. that seems enough of a defense against nuclear war. but i don't mind having MAD in the game. that's why the nuclear era is something you pass through.

[korn469]

posted by isaac brock
well, i think the idea is that because resources are that much more important you'll trade in resources. plus, when you are negotiating, you can offer resources and demand x amount of money each turn.

did u look at the screen shot? the player was offering ivory and 2 gold a turn for horses...i know the player had horseback riding so that might have figured into the equation especially if the egyptians didn't have horseback riding but, the trade advisor said that "i doubt this will be accepted"

as you know the luxery slider is gone in civ3, so that means you can only make people happy through entertainers and luxeries...the ivory would have made a person happy in each of the egyptian cities (it looked like there were two) so that means that ivory is probably as valuable as horses...so unless the egyptians were technologically backwards, or just agressive i don't really see why they wouldn't like that trade

but what i am wondering is, if the egyptians and the player did agree to the horses for ivory and 2 gold a turn trade in the screen shot, then would both the egyptians and bluto get gold added to their treasury each turn from the act of trading? or does trade just link two resource grids together?