Production, Consumption and Exchange of Resources

[Jon Shafer]

Ahhh, but it takes a passion to do such things. Most people lack the drive and will to make an entire game by themselves. And the problem begins with that most people don't understand the effort required to make a game. I've worked on a few things, that were good games. A pity that I have very little artistic ability (well, I'm quite a bit better than most people, but that doesn't help you much with games looking like what they do these days ). Oh well, I suppose my two 50-page design documents should be a bit helpful.

Maybe eventually I'll start working on a full fledged design, and maybe get around to working on it one day too! I have to admit getting around to working on it day after day after day is hard to do. 5 months or so is all I can admit to working on one game ever (I can't believe how I managed to do that!). Luckily though, when you're being paid to do something you're a bit more motivated.

[Sava]

What's cool about the game I'm designing is that the gameplay is going to stay the same, but the graphics and sound, etc can be upgraded according to hardware as it improves over the next few years. I'm only concentrating on the core of the code, not on any of the graphics. I'll probably make a working version with very crude graphics just to test the code, then I might dabble with putting better graphics in. Some of the keys to making a great game:

1. Fun
2. Replay Value (multiplayer, ease of editing, updatable)
3. Graphics and sound
4. Portability

I'd like to create a core engine that could be licensed to make other games. That's where the real money is . Then, I can work on the actual guts of the story, etc. Currently, my game is like a cross between RTS and TBS, there are aspects of both. The game sometimes moves in real time, but the player(s) issue orders to units and such at turn intervals based on what's going on in the game.

It's going to be an Empire building game with a main focus on Expansion, Military, Production, and Sociology. The models and algorithms are inspired by Civ games, Nectaris: Military Madness, EU2, and Empire Earth. The sociological aspect is what I'm most proud of. I'm attempting to not only create a "tree" so to speak of civilizations and culture, but I'm creating an AI that can create random Civilizations and cultures. So far, there are two modes you can play in: Historical and Custom. In the historical, if you want to play as the Americans, you start the game at a point in history where you have just declared independence from England. What's really cool is that you can choose which Era you want to start in. How about a Revolutionary War in the Stone age, or the Nuclear age?

[nato]

It certainly would be nice if resources were not an all-or-nothing thing.

Another example of this comes up when planning an invasion of a large enemy continent. Say the enemy has 8 sources of Oil. By landing Marines on the coast I can deny them 7 of those sources, but not the 8th one which is buried inland. Instead of hurting their Oil production by 7/8s, I will have not touched it one little bit.

It would definitely be cooler if resources weren't an on/off switch.

This way, each individual tile of the resource would actually matter. As it is, every single game I rack up TONS of Horses and Iron to the point that they have no meaning whatsoever.

This is especially true as I kill off civs ... the number of resource users declines, but the number of resource sources does not.

Currently, resources are a bit like a game of musical chairs, but with more chairs than there are people. Pointless.

BTW Trip, what about Luxuries? Stay the same, or changed somehow?

[Jon Shafer]

Hmmmmm. I suppose Luxuries don't have that much impact upon the game as resources do, so they could stay the same. Besides, luxuries work nicely as it is (until you get about 5 of each ). But I definitely feel that the resource system needs to be fixed.

Okay, out of the ~8 or so people I've talked to, they more-or-less agree with what I'm saying... so who's voting against me and why... [IMG]http://www.colute.net/cwm/cwm/3dlil/****.gif[/IMG]
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Trip
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

Personally I think that micromanagement detracts from the fun more than realism adds to it.

That said, if you could find an easy way to deal with reserves and trading of resources etc., then I'd be for it.

My suggestion would be to keep the diplomatic trade agreements the way they are, but instead of actually trading in the diplomacy screen, you are agreeing to the "Right to Trade" RTT.

Then in a separate area, maybe the World Market (WM) screen, you can trade with whoever you have a "Right to Trade with". How does this make it easy you ask. If you have the right to trade, and need a resource, the trade would simply automatically happen on the market, without you needing to do anything.

example: You as Germany want to build some panzers, but you don't have enough oil. You've signed an "RTT" with Rome, Greece, and America. On turn one Rome has no extra oil, Greece has one extra oil, and America has 5. You buy 6 oil off the market. Turn two Rome has 3 extra oil, Greece 4, and America 0. You buy 7 oil off the market. You don't really care which civ it comes from, and you don't have to do individual trades with each civ each turn which would be a huge drag.
Furthermore, you don't even have to micromanage the trade. You just build the panzers and, as long as you have the RTT agreement, the trades happen transparently in the background and the gold is automatically deducted from your treasury.

And if you want to micromange, say stockpiling oil before a war, you can do that through the WM screen as well, maybe setting your preferences for each resource like "Make all units of oil over 50 available on the market" or "sell all Iron".

The other key to making this idea work would be making the trade and military advisors more intelligent so you could count on them to warn you when you need to do resource trades to stay ahead like: Your military advisor pops up "Sir, we are running dangerously low on oil. If you plan on continuing this war, I suggest we find a supply of oil for our tanks." at which point the trade advisor pops up, "Sir, we know that the Ottomans have a substantial supply of oil, We should sign a Right to Trade agreement with them, and then I will buy oil off the World Market". I would want my advisors to be very intelligent so that I don't have to even think about resource trading if I don't absolutely have to. Think of it this way, when was the last time the president personally managed the trade of iron?

[planetfall]

Trip,

I voted no, not because your idea of resource management is not a good idea, but rather because it complicates the game too much for beginners. One of the biggest problems with civ game is too large of a learning curve. Resource management belongs as a expansion pack idea, rather than a key part of the game.

I would agree with previous post, the biggest problem is creating an enjoyable computer game. On way to get started might be to accept private messages and get a group of game players to review game play concept and options with you. The coding is not the hardest part, nor is the graphics. It takes a lot of work to make a good game, or it would be done more often. One of the suggestions I read in a game programming book was to first create a game in 6-8 months and release it. The point of the first game is not to be a great game but to become familar with the process and use this as an aid in future development. The keys at first are finding people who can give good feedback and getting something out. Especially if it is not perfect. More important than an ideal game is getting experience in the entire process from first idea to first paying customer. The difference between game life cycle and normal life cycle seems to be the short life span of a game. civ series is the exception rather than the rule.

[Jon Shafer]

Wrylachlan, that's a good idea, but unless you used a quantity system it wouldn't matter anyways. You only need 1 source anyways, so trade is you're getting it or you're trading it. Having a kind of 'market system' would be useless.

What I was aiming for was to change the system to use quantity values instead. Maybe I should have made the poll say "Do you support the idea for using quantity values for resources" instead, because that's the only thing I really care about. Unfortunately, with the poll being what it is, it's doubtful that even if Jeff came by, he would be convinced that was what people wanted. Oh well I guess.

[Sava]

I kind of agree with planetfall. I'd like a quantity system, but I don't want the game to become a micromanagement of resources. I am already mad that most of the game is moving workers around and building mines/irrigation. You'd think Firaxis would take an objective look at the game and say, "Hey, what's the dullest part of the game?" And then get rid of it... but in retrospect, I guess that so many of the conservative Civ'ers would have complained.

[Spiffor]

Sava :
You bet As a builder, moving workers is almost the only thing I do (and I like it ).

About simplicity, I find Wrychalan's idea very good, it's much simpler than going to trade by himself... But I wonder if it's possible to trade preferably with someone (to reinforce bounds with this particular Civ).

I still think the best way to make a quantitative resource system simple is to make it turn based only : no resources, no stockpiling. That's why I think resources shouldn't be used to move units even if it's realistic (w/o the ability to stockpile oil, a trade embargo would basically shut down a whole modern army, very frustrating).

Anyways, the more I think of it, the more I think Civ3's road system is good : after all, once you created the roads and harbours, why would you bother to make a new infrastructure again... I think it would add nothing in terms of strategic depht and fun.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Trip
Okay, out of the ~8 or so people I've talked to, they more-or-less agree with what I'm saying... so who's voting against me and why... [IMG]http://www.colute.net/cwm/cwm/3dlil/****.gif[/IMG]
If you're going to vote against the idea, at least explain why...

Trip, although you've clearly put a lot of thought into your proposal (and articulated it well!) I voted no for the following reasons: 1) it would add tremendous additional complexity to the game; 2) it would not, IMHO, add any significant strategic / tactical depth commensurate with the added complexity.

As the resource and trade system works in Civ3 today, if and when I run out of saltpeter / rubber / oil / etc., I'm either going to be able to trade for it, or I'm going to war to get it. I think this is common among many players. Under the system you propose, I don't see behavior changing all that much, if at all.

Catt

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Trip
Wrylachlan, that's a good idea, but unless you used a quantity system it wouldn't matter anyways. You only need 1 source anyways, so trade is you're getting it or you're trading it. Having a kind of 'market system' would be useless.

What I was aiming for was to change the system to use quantity values instead. Maybe I should have made the poll say "Do you support the idea for using quantity values for resources" instead, because that's the only thing I really care about. Unfortunately, with the poll being what it is, it's doubtful that even if Jeff came by, he would be convinced that was what people wanted. Oh well I guess.

I think you missed what I was saying. I understand that you were proposing quantity values for resources. What I was trying to say was that I opposed the idea UNLESS there was a mechanism in place to tone down the micromanagement that goes with it. The World Market was a suggestion for just such a mechanism. I'm sure there are a thousand other ways you could deal with the micromanagement, but if you want your idea of quantity resources to gain acceptance, you should probably put a solution to the micromanagement problem with it.

[candidgamera]

Trip says:
That's still another cop out. If you asked the team at Firaxis what happens to the rest of the iron, you'd probably get another answer. Besides, if it was really meant for the rest of that iron to be consumed by your economy, then they'd tell you that. Can you really say that if you have 1 source of iron, and 100 coastal cities and build 100 Battleships with them, your economy would work the same way as if you hadn't been building the ships (on 1 source, no less)?
I don't know if that would work as well though. Needless to say, a Battleship uses more than a Tank does (even if a unit doesn't represent only one tank, we can assume nothing that they haven't told us ).

Agree with you on battleship vs. Tank relative cost. What I mean on economy is maybe beyond intent of Firaxis. Am thinking of a consumption per city (including size) or per unit of population, linked in of course to your trade net. It goes along with consumption for moving units or building them - guns vs butter, ect. Could work in a more realistic treatment, per capita, of luxuries this way too.

Trip said:
Eh? I'm not sure if I catch you here. Do you mean that each source can extract a certain amount per turn, i.e. Kuwait can extract 4 oil per turn, while Louisiana can extract 1 per turn?

Well not all resource locations are the same. If that were the case we could tell Suadi Arabia to go to hell.
Am interpreting here some, subject to map size, but each resource square covers as much area as the whole area of the main oilfields of Suadi Arabia and Kuwait. That's what I was trying to get at.

[Adagio]

Now let's start saying, I haven't read every post in this thread yet...Actually I have only read Trip and Spiffors ideas, and I have to say, Trips idea is good, better than the one that is in Civ3 at the moment, but I prefer Spiffors idea, it's more simple, and fits better into civ3...Though I do like the idea about Battleships, Tanks, etc. needs oil to move

But sorry for not having read everything yet, I might have missed some interesting parts, but I hope I get some time later today, when I'm not

[Panag]

hi ,

they are both good , however , we should find a way to improve even them , ..

and there should be more resources , ........

have a nice day

[jpww]

I voted no because of the unwarranted complexity that your ideas would bring to the game - I have simple needs!-