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

[GaryGuanine]

My fear is that we are looking at history through modern eyes. Colonization had a similar individual people doing stuff approach. Of course, one of the main points of Colonization is that you had the problem of getting all the stuff where it needed to be. The idea of a national storehouse for ANYTHING could really only be accomplished with the advancement of the automobile. Maybe railroad and refrigeration together, but that's it.

I also think that we're overlooking the fact that Civ already counts in resources into the game. Like I've said in an earlier post, when you have special resources on the map, they already affect the production/trade in that city. I don't see what's wrong with the existing system.

Gary

[Youngsun]

OK if any of you can tell me there is better way to encourage international trade & more diplomactic activites, spit it out! I will support the idea.

Has anyone of you wondered and felt there is no need to trade with your AI neiboughers?

Well, I have and ,in fact, I don't trade with AI civs at all. Because I don't need to. In civ, "the shield" helped to generalise but made each civ's economy rather insular. It's like every civ has the exact right mix of material for every production/construction. The only difference? quantity.. The only motive for trade is the extra revenue which can also be easily acquired by various other means in other word insignificant. Thus some people may still trade but not very enthusiastic or serious about it. People will truly trade only when they need something that can not be acquired from their land.

cyclotron7
Actually seeing/experiencing a thing is 100 times better than hearing from others. So I recommend you play those games then you will know what they are. You can download "Colonisation" from other abandonwares sites and you can get HOMM series & Imperialism at budget price.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

People trade for a number of reasons, foremost among them, comparative advantage of production. The other guy need not have something you can't get anywhere else, he just has to be producing something cheaper than you can and vice versa.

Gary

[Youngsun]

quote: People trade for a number of reasons, foremost among them, comparative advantage of production. The other guy need not have something you can't get anywhere else, he just has to be producing something cheaper than you can and vice versa.

You're absolutely right but this ain't happening in civ! You can get "Comparative advantage" when you have more resources which are mineral resource,land,capital,tech and skilled labour.

[GaryGuanine]

What I'm saying is that trade of the kind of "I need that, you have that" just doesn't occur on the level of the civilization. I don't think it accurately reflects history. Eventually all you're doing is waging wars to try to get resources. An awfully capitalist interpretation of history of the world, no? The world (and Civs I and II) had enough wars that did not involve hunting down natural resources to remain interesting.

Gary

[me_irate]

Trade i hope becomes more of a factor in civ3. In all the previous other civs caravans were nothing less than something for my cities to build when i didn't need anything else. At least until i reached capitalism. At least call 2 power 2 added a little dynamic of trading. But me personally, i believe that tradeing should be a far more important aspect of civ. Look to the civs such as phoenecians, dutch(holland) and the carthagans. Neither of these were started with territory, or resources, but they grew to be powerful within there own time. This is the most missing dynamic in civ. I just thought that while a national storehouse would be unfeasable, it would in turn add trade as a more important aspect.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 02-21-2001 02:05 PMIn all the previous other civs caravans were nothing less than something for my cities to build when i didn't need anything else.

Really? What difficulty level do you play at? Trade becomes almost mandatory at harder levels.

OK. Here's a scenario:

I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources), and decide to venture out to sea to find somebody to trade with. I find them... but they are very expantionist and declare war on me before I can trade. They sink my ship, and since I now have no immediate way to reach other nations I only have warriors with stone spears when the enemy legions arrive.

So Henrik... I HAVE to trade iron? In your scenario, I think that I would find that the first few hundred years I would have almost no choice at all on what to do, having to quickly find all the commodities I need before people killed me. This is what I don't like about commodities: They are MANDATORY according to your model. I don't want my Civ games completely dictated by what I NEED. Civ is about choices and strategy, and mandatory stuff defeats that purpose. That's why trading in Civ2 was quite good: It was a tool of want, not need. All aspects of Civilization should be so.

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

[Bender]

Cyclotron 7:
I guess if you are playing a game with limited resources, are stranded on a large island, have no iron and no goods with which to bribe or influence a hostile neighbor, and find yourself attacked -- you would probably lose the game very early and have to start over.

What's so bad about that? The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful.

The amount of resources available on a map could even be a factor in difficulty level. Then, only the finest and luckiest players would be able to conquer the Diety level. That doesn't sound so bad to me.

[The diplomat]

What about my original idea that each ressource would grant a unique bonus to your civ? It addresses many of the concerns expressed in this thread.
1) it makes trade more important which is what this thread is all about.
Trade would be really cool. The seller would get more gold which would enhance his/her science and economy. And the buyer would get ressources that would give his/her civ a unique bonus that would enhance a certain aspect of their civ. Whereas civ games have up to now mostly focused on the seller, this model would also focus on the buyer. Having an important civ bonus would make trade much more worthwile. Trade would play a bigger role in diplomacy and war. Would you want a civ trading your "iron" to your enemy, thus helping your enemy have better legions? Would you declare war on a civ that is selling "spice" to you, and improving your happiness levels? We could have real embargoes. Deny a civ a certain ressource and you deny that civ perhaps a useful bonus. This would be a neat way to hurt a civ without actually declaring war.

2)The idea does not burden the AI.
I heard the concern about how a complex ressource model could hurt the AI. Since this idea does not involve actually collecting special ressources in order to build certain things, the AI would not suffer. The idea simply gives a bonus based on the special ressource that the civ has. This the AI could handle, I think.

3) The idea does not kill a civ that happens to start in a bad spot.
Cyclotron7 mentionned the concern that a civ with a bad starting position would be doomed. They can't trade for the needed ressources because the civs that have it can simply attack them intead of trading. With my suggestion, the civ would still be able to build the unit. Furthermore, the civ would get other bonuses since the civ would undoublty have other special ressources.
In your example cyclotron7, since you do not have any iron, your legions would be weaker than the other civ's legions, but you could still build them. But more importantly, your civ would get a strong naval bonus for being on islands. So, the other civ would have stronger legions but you would have stronger ships. You would probably be able to sink his transport ships before he even unloads his legions since you would have better ships!

I think the idea of attributing civ bonuses for each special ressources is a really good idea. It is simple too: for example, it does not require you to transform ressources into manufactured goods which would be to much for a civ game.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Bender on 02-21-2001 03:55 PM The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful... only the finest and luckiest players would be able to conquer the Diety level

Randomness? I don't want randomness to be any part of Civ3. Winning at any level should decide on how you play the game, and not on where you were lucky enough to start or what resources you are lucky enough to have. An idea that makes playing or winning "lucky" and "random" doesn't sound wonderful to me.

The Diplomat: I completely agree! Non-essential bonuses and such are the way to go. In addition, the idea of "island civs having better ships" is very realistic and fun. This idea is similar to the "unique benefits" for Civs idea, that where you start determines special abilities... but that's a different topic.

The point is, you are right on all your points. A supplementary resource system increases the importance of trade (and trade based actions like embargos), makes trade easier for the AI, and makes sure that random resource locations will never doom a Civ from the start.

Right on Diplomat... all we need now is to write up what some of these bonuses might be, specifically...

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

[The diplomat]

Thanks cyclotron7 for your support.
About starting a list of specific bonuses for each special ressources, allow me to get the ball rolling if that is ok.

based on the special ressources in civ2:

stone: +10% production (city improvements only)
buffalo: ?
elephant: +10% attack for elephant units
timber: +10% hitpoints for ships
coal: +10% production (units only)
fish: +10 % growth
fruit: +5% growth
furs: +10 %happiness
musk: ?
gems: +15% economy
gold: +20 % economy
iron: +10% attack phalanx and legion
ivory: +15% economy
oasis: +15% growth
oil: +10% production (units only)
peat: +5% production (city improvement only)
silk: +20% happiness
spice: +10% happiness
whales: +15% growth
wheat: +20% growth
wine: +5% happiness

There should several ressources for each type of bonus, as you can see, so that every civ civ has a better chance to have a certain bonus. For example, the oasis would allow a civ starting in a desert to still have some decent growth and not be completely at a disadvantage compared to a civ starting on grasslands. Some ressources give the same bonus but a different amount. I did that to try to reflect the differences (for example, both wheat and fish are foods but do they feed someone the same amount?)between ressources and to make some ressources a little bit more valuable than a similar one.
Also, I think that the bonuses should be cumulative up to a certain point. So, for example, if a city was lucky enough to have 2 special ressources of a same bonus, the bonuses would add together.
Last, I can't decide: should the bonuses go to the whole empire (inter-empire trade spreads ressource around) or should the bonus just go to the city that has them? We need to make sure that the bonuses are not too powerful!

The bonuses that I listed are tentative and are just meant to get the discussion going.



------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Roman]

Even though I favour a more complete resource system, I think diplomat's idea is actually also very good. The bonuses should be infinitely cumulative if they are of different types and also cumulative (but only up to a point) if they are of the same type. They also ought to be completely tradable, through caravans or whatever economic system Firaxis devises. One resource unit should only benefit one city, though, not the whole civ.

[Bender]

cyclotron7:
All of the best and most exciting games are determined by a combination of luck and skill. One of Civ II's pitfalls was the fact that a player could use one of a couple formulas - even on the Diety level - game after game to achieve victory.

I contend that a good resource system will challenge the best players to constantly adapt to the conditions of the game. Players will have to ride the highs and survive the lows many times if they are to come out victorious.

Look at it this way, if you were to win at the Diety level after starting out in an extremely challenging situation, what could be more satisfying?

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 03:11 PM I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources)

OK, I know some of you will reply that I am overcomplicating things, but what if we link, in some way, tech researching with available resources?

I mean, the civ you describe wont be able to reach "Iron Working", since it has never had any contact with iron. But instead, it could develop some "alternative" techs, like of course "Bronze working", but also "Obsidian working" (like the Incas in real history)...

And second, randomness and luck is only important when you haven't explored the world, but that's what exploration is for... once you've discovered a large amount of the globe, the most part of resources will be visible to you, so that's when real strategy begins...

[Lancer]

Because a guy in 4000 BC wouldn't know iron ore from any other rock it shouldn't become visible on the map until people discover the advance to know it's uses. Same with everything else. That way the whole world isn't fighting for a desert full of oil like the one in Saudi thousands of years before the first refinery. The oil would be there, nobody would know where however...if I was making Civ 3. Why don't they just call it Sid 3?