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

[GaryGuanine]

the diplomat, that's the name of the person who suggested making money more important.

Gary

[Biddles]

1. Maybe wars haven't been started simply for rescource acquisition, but the tactics within those wars would have always involved the acquisition of important rescouces.

2. Just because a square produces copper, doesn't mean that the whole square is full of copper, it means that the square contains area/s of important copper deposits.

3. Ancient crete became a powerful civilization because it was home to a number of copper preoducing areas. If no-one else had copper they would buy it off crete. Under a CTP like system, if no-one else had copper, then there is no reason for them to buy it, because they wouldn't get that monopoly bonus. Therefore under a CTP system, crete would never really be of importance.

[Youngsun]

Why "research" is so important in civ?
"Iron working" tech allows you to build legion. You can not make legions unless you've got the tech, simple as that. There is no compromise. The rule is strict and clear and it forces you to research a lot.

When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

Basic sustainability issue

Plain +5 food
Plain(shield)+1 wood or +5 food
Plain(wheat) +1 wood or +8 food
Forest +4 wood or +2 food
Forest(tigar)+10 wood or +2 food
Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal
Note: other metals could be iron,copper,etc.

While the special resource square gives you hugh bonus for the specific resource, other normal terrain also have limited deposit of resources. To maximise your resource gathering efficiency, you will be encouraged to collect the right resource from each squares.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 25, 2001).]

[Kuciwalker]

in ancient era, labor specialists would be craftsmen, but work inefficiently because they're disorganized. there would be a "guilds" technology that would increase their efficiency

[Biddles]

That sounds like a good compromise. Specialty squares where copper or iron etc. were present would produce say, 10 of that metal. This way everyone will still be able to build legions but those who have acess to the specialty squares would have the advantage of being able to produce many more legions, unless people start trading. The ratio should be high (non-specialty squares produce VERY little metal) so that the trade system is promoted, but isloated civs aren't totally disadvantaged.

[Youngsun]

Is everyone happy now?

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-25-2001 02:26 AM Basic sustainability issue Plain +5 food Plain(shield)+1 wood or +5 food Plain(wheat) +1 wood or +8 food Forest +4 wood or +2 food Forest(tigar)+10 wood or +2 food Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal Note: other metals could be iron,copper,etc. While the special resource square gives you hugh bonus for the specific resource, other normal terrain also have limited deposit of resources. To maximise your resource gathering efficiency, you will be encouraged to collect the right resource from each squares. [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 25, 2001).]

Hmm, this works well. Why haven't I ever thought of that before?!? Some resources should only be found in special resource squares. As the main example I offer Uranium. Otherwise the whole point of resource system encouraging trade and strategic thinking would dissapear.

[Lancer]

Happy? I'll be happy when Sid drops by this thread and says, great ideas! I'll get the boys right on it!

[Roman]

*bump*

[optimus2861]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-25-2001 02:26 AM When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

This counter-argument just popped into my head the other night, and I don't recall seeing it in this thread: without a much more robust and human-like diplomacy system, I think a need-based resource system could be disastrous. Consider the following scenario:

I'm playing as the Germans, and I've managed to get into the modern age as the #1 world power, generally on a peaceful footing. However, as oil exploration has begun I discover I'm chronically short on the resource. I enter into an agreement with my neighbours the British to trade his oil for my, say, coal. The game progresses a few more turns and suddenly the British come a knockin' on my door making demands. "What the -- ?!" I think, as he's generally been cordial to me throughout the game. I refuse to turn over a new weapons technology. "Then we declare WAR!" scream the British, and cut off my oil. Since my reserves are low I can't outproduce the British in tanks, and over the next dozen turns he progresses to smash my armies to pieces under his guns.

You know what that looks like? An AI that decided to turn the tables on me arbitrarily because I was #1 at the time. And that's the big fear, that a resource system could end up deciding the game all by itself. The only counter is to have much more stable diplomatic relations, particularly in the modern age where turns take less calendar time and there should be a growing aversion to full-scale war on the part of the world's civilizations. But then if you've already got the lead and are racing for Alpha Centauri (or equivalent peace-victory), there's little threat to your victory! Catch-22, anyone?

(Obviously I speak of SP here, MP's a whole different ballgame and I don't play it anyway)

- Ian Merrithew

[Youngsun]

optimus2861

Why should "the resource model" be responsible for unreasonable AI behaviours in diplomacy? barking at the wrong tree fella.

[Roman]

Check the "Has anyone mentioned..." thread and rejoice!!!

[Cyclotron]

I'm not happy. This cumpulsory resource system is too much for what this game needs. We need more emphasis on trade, but in the end Civ is not a game focusing entirely around trade and you are trying to make it that. Think about it. Under your system:

WAR is dependent on trade, since you need resources just to build basic units.

DIPLOMACY is entirely centered on trade, and how to procure trade goods.

Any concept of a mandatory system is onerous, unrealistic, and MOST importantly would mak Civ an entirely trade-based game. Now, don't come rushing to me saying "but history is a trade based!" History is different from Civ, and If I want to play a trade based game Civ won't be it, and shouldn't be. You are putting too much importance and eemphasis on only one of this games' many facets.

I'll be happy when Sid drops this thread saying "no game within a game, boys."

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

[Lancer]

Cyclotron, there are many 'games within games' in Sid Meyer games, Civ 2 included. If he was against such stuff he would get rid of Wonders, or the space race, or diplomacy. The type of trade that we've been talking about here will simply add another ball in the air to interest Civ 2 jugglers. Give me another game within my game!

Also, If you're playing Germany and the Brits cut off your oil, there's always the synthetic improvement, , also Ploesti in Rumania... I see there being multiple sources for different commodites, and cornering the market as a viable strategy. Some of you are worried by what others can do to your Civ with this sort of system, well, just think what you can do to others! As in everything worth anything, you will have to fight for it!

If Sid comes in here and says he's no longer making games within games, he'll be announcing his retirement to his favorite fishing hole...

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7 don't be so allegic to the word "mandatory".
In fact, many of the game features are mandatory in nature. Take the examples from research and unit application. You don't have "Bronze Working"? No phanlanx allowed, period. Once you are allowed to build nuclear missiles with only "Steam engine" or "Iron Working", you know what kind of chaos will happen throughout the whole game. Right tech gives you right unit. What's so wrong with that "right resource gives you right unit"? By making the resource system mandatory in nature, we will treat resources more seriously.