Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =...

[monolith94]

Gee, people like my idea. . . What a great feeling! Anyways, I think that my biggest concern in these ideas is that it wouldd be made possible to build things to quickly, unbalancing the game. Maybe by making things more expensive later on in the game. . .

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-15-2001 04:23 PM I would propose that all trade goods also be resources; as to not overcomplicate the matter. If a city was being traded/ was currently using a commodity necessary for building (industrial commodity) they would be able to build up this commodity and thus recive discounts on buildings and units. For example: CycloCity has a shield production of 15, is currently mining coal (1 per turn) and is trading with another city for iron and silk. Let's say a heavy cruiser costs 250 shields. Normally, it would take me 14 turns to build it. But, what if its price was: HEAVY CRUISER: 250 shields 3 iron: -75 shields 2 coal: -25 shields If I had previously saved up the coal and iron I was getting for a few turns, I could get a heavy cruiser for only 150 shields in 10 turns.

This is just as I have imagined it.

Of course, I completely agree that all trade should than be done exclusivelly in resources/commodities or whatever one cares to call it. This is both realistic and avoids having an extra trading system burdening the game.
[This message has been edited by Roman (edited February 15, 2001).]

[Roman]

Excelent, Cyclotron 7, we now have another convert!

[Lancer]

In Civ 2 we could give away military units, but not trade them. I think that military units should be able to be traded for raw materials, or flat out sold. Certainly arms merchants exist and are supported by their nations...

In Republic and Democracy you should not be allowed by the senate to trade military units with certain other types of governments. (Unless you are allied w/ them)

What do you guys think?

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 02-15-2001 05:41 PM In Civ 2 we could give away military units, but not trade them. I think that military units should be able to be traded for raw materials, or flat out sold. Certainly arms merchants exist and are supported by their nations...

This will definitely be included in the game. See the Firaxis website for details.

[Trachmir]

I have no problem with resources being used... just don't go to far (check out the game DESTINY to see what I mean).

As a side thought Hides and Bauxite are also very important resources.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 02-15-2001 05:47 PM This will definitely be included in the game. See the Firaxis website for details.

Sorry, Roman, but I don't seem to find that piece of info at the Firaxis Website. Where is it?

[Cyclotron]

Yes, I agree that resources should not go too far, and that is what my above post tries to demonstrate. Everything (except possibly nukes) should be readily available for shields... the role of industrial resources would be a supplementary one.

By the way, I was talking about that these industrial resources should be commodities, too. There are only slight differences:

Industrial (i.e. iron, coal, bronze)
- Can be used (as stated) as supplements to building.
- Can be stored up, at a fixed rate.
- Fixed amounts of stored industrial resources can be traded, as can the resource routes themselves (trade routes).

Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold)
- Cannot be stored up or used for building
- Can form trade routes
- When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).

Okay?

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Cyclotron]

Oops, in addition to above:

Some commodities should be dynamic; that is, they change status between industrial and commercial and vice versa.

For example, bronze was very important industrially in the bronze age, but is now purely ornamental. (industrial to commercial)

Likewise, sulfer(sp?) was valued by alchemists and as an oddity, until it was discovered as a vital component of gunpowder. (commercial to industrial)

These changes of commodity status should be based on civ advances, not just on ages.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Fiera]

quote: Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold) - Cannot be stored up or used for building - Can form trade routes - When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).

I think these resources shouldn't be commercial per se.

I mean, you could use them in your own cities to generate luxuries. And you should be able to store them, so you could have a surplus and sell it to other civs, in exchange for, say, iron...

That way you have real trade. Every resource included in the game should have its own use. It's then up to you use it or trade with it.

[wittlich]

I agree 100%, the laborer should be added to the city's scientist, tax collector, and entertainer. This way you can have better control of the city's output concerning tax, reasearch, entertainment and now production.

[Youngsun]

With monolith94's labour points, everything becomes so clear!

Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay
Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone
Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood
etc etc...

If your city can produce 5 labour pts every turn, a granary will cost 4 turns to be completed.

[Windborne]

I am totally against a complex system of manufacture. I would deffinitely support more types of resource, say shields, food, energy, and population, each of which is needed for something, but don't make it too complex.

Oil fields could provide extra "energy" which could be traded, just like buffolo provide extra shields in the current game.

[The diplomat]

It is a really intriguing model, but I think it does not have to be as complicated as that! Why not just let special ressources give special bonuses. It could work something like this:

spice: +1 happiness empire wide.
elephant: allows war elephant unit
iron: +1 attack for phalanx and legion units
timber: +1 movement, +1 hit points for ships
stone: +1 hit points to city walls

etc...

Shields would still be used to build most everything. But with special ressources, a civ would gain something extra.

This idea would make trade really interesting. For example, a civ with an abundance of "spice" might want to trade with a civ that has "elephants" so that it can get some war elephants, the other civ really wanting some extra happiness from the "spice". Trade could also be central to wars. Would you want a trade partner trading your "iron" to your enemy? We could have real trade embargoes in the game that make sense. This fits well with what Sid said about being able to deny a ressource to a powerful enemy.

Last, I think my idea fits well with what we heard from Firaxis about "unique benefits" for civs. My idea would give something extra to civs making each one unique in a sense. But the benefits are not fixed. They come from the special ressources the civ has found. These ressources can of course change hands during the game. You can trade, pillage, conquer for those ressources!


[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Roman]

I hope Firaxis doesn't keep us waiting and provides some information on this in their next site update ... and I hope this update will come today!