Production, Consumption and Exchange of Resources

[Jon Shafer]

Oh well, I give up, maybe Firaxis was right in making the game so simple a 5-year old could play it (no I'm not kidding, meet my neighbor) .

[Catt]

Originally posted by Trip
Oh well, I give up, maybe Firaxis was right in making the game so simple a 5-year old could play it (no I'm not kidding, meet my neighbor) .

Don't give up; the free exchange of ideas is what produces progress!

On the other hand, no need to insult those who didn't think this specific proposal merited inclusion in the game (unless your intended sarcasm is not coming through in the post -- the can be interpreted in different ways ).

Complexity without the need for complexity is worse than worthless; it is damaging. "KISS" is a deceptively simple command, one that if followed regularly and with skill by all would greatly improve man's lot. Unfortunately, KISS is terribly difficult for most of us to actively implement in all that we do, day in and day out.

Catt

[candidgamera]

The goal should be "elegance": Doing several complicated things in a way that's intuitive, accessible and not too hard to follow, the hard part being in dealing with implications of rules and not in the rules themselves.

In a community as big as this its always going to be a tug-of-war between "wargamers" (myself included)/detail folks and those who aren't. As Cracker's posts have proposed the best path would be in "universalizing" things more as to options in the editor.

[Panag]

Originally posted by candidgamera
The goal should be "elegance": Doing several complicated things in a way that's intuitive, accessible and not too hard to follow, the hard part being in dealing with implications of rules and not in the rules themselves.

In a community as big as this its always going to be a tug-of-war between "wargamers" (myself included)/detail folks and those who aren't. As Cracker's posts have proposed the best path would be in "universalizing" things more as to options in the editor.

hi ,

that is why we should have a large amount of on/off stuff , .....

have a nice day

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Catt
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.
Catt

Catt is right.

In the simplest case, two civs each with one iron: If one civ can wrest control of the other civ's iron, then it would gain a significant strategic advantage. Simple, direct and effective.

[dunk]

I could see the world running out of resources in just about every game with your system.

I like it the way it is. It's more of a challenge when a source of something just vanishes. I've had that spark a war with very friendly neighbors before. I had South America and the Iriquois had North America. BOTH of my oil reserves in South America dried within 3 turns of each other. The Iriquois wouldn't trade me their oil which was in Texas. So, I invaded with my marines and infantry (I was playing a peaceful game, so I didn't mass tanks as soon as they were available. I won in the end, but made myself an enemy where I once had a friend. It was an interesting game.

I also like that resources can disappear even if YOU don't build things requiring it. Just because I don't build tanks, doesn't mean my citizens aren't using oil for things like cars and heating and making plastic things.