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

[me_irate]

Since you don't like the idea of necessary resources early on, how would you like if they became necessary later. Like in ceasure pharoh and other games you could make luxuries necessary or at least increase the growth population levels. For instance every city above size 10 would need one luxury a turn be it, spice, potery, or skins.

Also in later ages, you would need a certain quatity of oil for every so many people. And in the event of a lack of oil you would have a oil crises(as in the 70's) that would lower hapiness and production. Also the powerplants that creat resources would require a resource a turn, 1 coal for every coal power plant, 1 oil for every oil plant, and the nuclear plant wouldn't require any but has a chance of meltdown.

[Cyclotron]

Fiera's ingenious idea is... well, ingenious.

The reason I have always been against such strict resource codes is because different cultures find different ways to cope with the same problem. Example:

Culture 1 has a large supply of iron early on (having descovered iron working) and so has strong legions, and quickly becomes the leading power in its area. Iron working never really becomes high-tech (i.e. mideval european swords, when compared with katanas and the like) in their culture, because basic iron is enough to beat most of the neighboring peoples (who have bronze or stone weapons).

Culture 2 has a good supply of bronze, but no iron. Their units have bronze weapons, but they quickly realize that bronze is simply not powerful enough to defend themselves form Culture 1 forever. They now have a few options:

ONE: They decide to send out explorers and find iron, then settle there and use domestic caravans to supply their whole empire with iron.

TWO: They decide to find other nations that are threatened by Culture 1, and attempt to trade for iron. Once a few routes are set up, they begin pumping out legions and phalanxes to deal with the threat.

THREE: They pump out bronze-using units as fast as possible and make alliances with other enemies of Culture 1, in order to overwhelm them.

FOUR: With no other options, Culture 2 wise men develop bronze working into a high art, and over time their bronze is so well worked and their weapons so well designed that they are on par with the more primitive iron weapons of culture 1. This would be done by spending ADDITIONAL research points on bronze working. For many advances you could research an invention, and then spend more time to refine and improve that invention. Necessity is the source of invention.

Other ways are possible. I hope with this model to show how non-essential resources can still become important and add to game depth and strategy.

Lancer: Very true. Why does a caveman need oil? You are entirely right, of course.

The Diplomat: Good start, although it needs some work. No time now...

About regional vs. national resources: Stuff like silk only benefits the one city. Why should other stuff be nation? Only a city recieving or mining iron should be able to get iron bonuses. This means, in turn, two other things must be established:

- There must be a limit higher than three caravans, so iron can be distributed to more places. Perhaps 5?
- A city that trades another city iron must still get the iron bonus. Trading doesn't mean you give them all of your goods, just a small regular sum every now and then.

Alright? I kinda just put out my final thesis on resources here, so if you are interested please read it entirely! What do you think?

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited February 21, 2001).]

[tmarcl]

One of the concerns that I would have with this whole idea is that it might make Civ too complex. While I favor realism, and indeed feel the game needs more realism in it, I also think that one of the greatest features of Civ is that it's so easy to figure out.

I like the current method of resources-but maybe with a twist. Metals would add shields when producing a fighting unit. (You need iron for weapons, armor, etc, even today). Fuel (coal, oil, etc), would increase overall production (if you have a fuel source readily available, you can produce more factories, thereby increasing production). Trade (gold, furs, etc) increase just that-trade for the city. Also, I'd like to see the trade resource actually show up in the trade commodities. I've had a few cities where there was fur nearby, but it didn't show up on the list of goods I had available to trade.

This way, you have the realistic affect of various goods on the city, as well as the simplicity that makes Civ a fun game (at least in my opinion).]

Marc

[young newbie forever]

gee diplomat thats so much like what i was saying and what i was going to write. I support dips idea considering mine is the same thing (hmm i guess great minds do think alike

[Youngsun]

This thread is getting so hot!

cyclotron7
"Colonisation" is not bigger than 10MB I reckon.

In WWII, The German army invaded Norway to secure supply of iron ore and coal then took Ukraine for vast wheat production then Caucassus for desparately needed oil. Those decisions were made largely based on pursuit for more resources.

Now What if resources becomes supplementary to the shield? The Germany don't need to attack Norway while the action is still desirable and it is totally not NECESSARY. The Germany still can produce armours and air planes in fairly large quantity without securing Caucassus region. The strategic importance of Ploesti,Caucassus,Norway and Ukraine drops significantly.

The Player who control the German civ will attack any nearby land target which can get easily. Since the shield can produce everything, more land ensures growth not more resources so invading Spain,Portugal and Turkey might be good option for the Germany.

A Nation which holds largest land will be the victor not a nation which holds balanced mix of vital resources. THIS IS NO FUN AT ALL!. Why not give some small nation which hold much key resources some advantages? While themselves become subject of intrigue and diplomatic manipulation of bigger civs which are interested in those resources.

USA wouldn't send its fleet to the Middle East unless the region holds vast deposit of crude oil. When Nuke can be made without Uranium, Uranium's significance will drop and why even bother to control the flow of Uranium?

The resource system works just like automated inventory system of any business. You have resource pool which holds stock of resources like inventory warehouse of factory. Every action you take to produce or construct will cause certain type and amount of resources get deducted from the pool. When the stock runs low, a message will be sent to you to purchase certain type of resource whereas overstocked resources will make you do the opposite, the selling. You don't have to know what type of resources are required to produce certain things. You do only two things Buying and Selling and based on what your partners buy and sell your civ will form its own national interest and create,maintain and drop the relationship. You will be interested to know what other nations out there and what they have then this leads you more diplomatic activities. You want have more friends not just because of more military ties but economic prosperity.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 22, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-21-2001 01:54 AM 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.

Yes... see my above post (end of 1st page) on supplementary resources and industrial/commercial commodities.

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

In easier games, yes; but in harder games you are sunk if you aren't trading. Civ II makes trading desirable, but not mandatory. That's the way it should be. And in Civ2, trading was not just for revenue... also the science bonus, and the increased trade giving you more luxuries and science.

Me_irate: It is true that Civs without iron did not last long against those with it. But if your civ is unfortunate enough to start without it, do you want to face an almost certain doom? As said, resources should be supplementary at most for industrial purposes.

quote: 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.

Heh, easier said than done... my computer has 21 MB left on the primary drive, so if I squeeze anything else in I won't be able to play it

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Henrik]

Thats the whole point!
You have to trade for the iron if you dont have it from the beginning!

[GaryGuanine]

But the current situation means that special resources add more shields (increasing production). They add more trade arrows (more money). They add more food (increasing growth). It seems to me that most of the things you guys are suggesting are already in the game. They're not explicit, but they have the same effect.

As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

Gary

[Youngsun]

CivA holds 20 coal fields no iron fields.
CivB holds 5 coal fields and 5 iron fields.
CivC holds no coal fields and 20 iron firlds.

Under the resource system(Supplementary), civA,C gets more production bonus. Civs don't need to trade while it gives slight benefit of production , the trade is not essential to them.

Under the resource system(Primary), civB gets more production bonus and civA and CivC need to trade otherwise they are doomed. If they trade each other they can out-produce civB. Trade becomes essential to them. Diplomacy will flourish!


People should know the beginning of trade, "Bartering" came from the motives for exchange of different goods. People don't trade reduntant goods, never! You need hold different cards to be a worthy trade partner.

People also should know the difference between the need and want. Trade won't be encouraged significatly unless there is a need to trade. The supplementary resource system may increase People's want but doesn't get close to the need.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 22, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I agree that helping the trade system would be nice, I just don't think that this resource plan does it right.

And people don't have to "need" something in order to trade, they just have to value the other thing ever-so-slightly more than that which they are giving up. Then it's worth it to them. Trade occurs because no two places are identical.

Gary

[Youngsun]

Gary I'm not saying resource system should be in because it only encourage trade. The system, according to my experience,is also fun. It brings such strategic depth and ultimate pleasure.

Have you played any game that uses resource system?

[Biddles]

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM But the current situation means that special resources add more shields (increasing production). They add more trade arrows (more money). They add more food (increasing growth). It seems to me that most of the things you guys are suggesting are already in the game. They're not explicit, but they have the same effect.

No they don't. What currently exists is bigger is better, not the way it should be - strategic is better. If special rescources add more shields or more food, then how is this different than having more mines or farms? It isn't. If special rescources exist though, there is a difference. You may have the greatest production capabilities of all time, but if you don't have iron, you can't make that tank - no matter how many shields you throw that way. You simply MUST get iron (through trade or conquest) to build the tank.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

You're kidding right. Almost every war in human history has been fought over rescources. The only reason it is more evident is because you live NOW, you didn't live then.


[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited February 22, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

Sure, I've played games with resources. Colonization is one that comes to mind right now. I thought that was done very well. I also think that it was a game played on a very small scale, and a significant portion of that game was economic. Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Biddles,

I don't understand your "bigger is better" thing. I assume that everyone's going to mine and farm, but if you spend a couple turns mining a coal square, and the Zulus spend those turns mining a normal hills square, you have a significantly higher production in that city.

You ask how it is different from having lots of mines or farms. I think it's clear. If you have a city of size 4, with four squares with no coal and mines, it has the same production as a city of 1 with one square of mines and coal. (Or whatever the multiple is). It takes significantly less time, and significantly less people to make the same things.

As for the wars over natural resources thing, I was referring to wars over specific natural resources. Not just "more land". The Gulf War is the only war I can think of that was solely caused by a need for specific natural resources. Most wars I can think of started because: A, the other guys are different from us, let's kill 'em; or B, expansionism. General expansionism is very different from waging a war because the other guy has iron mines that you need.

Gary

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 10:27 PM Fiera's ingenious idea is... well, ingenious.

Hmmm... thanks, then!

Have I possibly converted anyone else to my thesis?

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 08:32 PM Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Yes, but why not making trade both fun and, in some degree, necessary in order to win the game?

Civ2 trade was oversimplistic and, as Youngsun has pointed out, you didn't really need it... you could get nuclear tech without trading much at all with your neighbours, and then... well, you know, nuke'em mercilessly...