Making Trade Essential Part Deux

[Lancer]

One thing I've learned, a new trade model is needed. I'm becoming convinced that it can be done and not be the end of the world. If we look at how Sid handled it before, in Colonization, if you don't have one component needed for manufacture you can pay extra to get it, without fail. That's one way of doing it. The other is to make trade truly essential, if you can't deal your way to what you need, or fight your way to it, your screwed. I think there are ways to make the commodities readily available on an open market, for a price. I'm for making trade essential.

Your views for 'part deux'?

[Lancer]

Straybow, got ya pal! It seems to make more sense when a tactical battle map is refered to as a 'game within a game'. Conquest of the World had this, and it truly was a little tactical wargame within a strategy game.

Retirement? huh?

[Cyclotron]

Umm... I guess I missed this 2nd part, so excuse me if I post a second time here

I don't want to continue the nasty exchange I had with Youngsun, do I won't.


The problem with a mandatory resource system, IMO, is it:

a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

These things being said, I must say that the idea of a resource system is a good one in general. You say I don't agree just because I don't understand... the reason I don't agree is because I see the above 4 flaws in the system. I am sure if these were corrected I would fully support your ideas.

Speaking of which, looking back on this thread I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys put it is to "make trade more important." I am wondering, wouldn't it be easier AND achieve the same goal to just give trading items more value? Like, make it so when you trade for fish you get food along with trade, and with iron you get additional production along with trade. If you make trade items valuable enough there will be no need to make them mandatory, since a player would be foolish not to trade. This solves all of the above problems: it does not restrict possible units, is not based on luck since just lke in Civ2 everybody will have some commodities, does not make trade the centerpiece of other facets like war and diplomacy, and is as simple as the Civ2 system. This makes trade vitally important and crucial to any war effort. Any country that wishes to wage a war or build a wonder quickly will need to trade for lots of iron and coal and other production-giving resources. It isn't quite as realistic as a mandatory system, but I think that would be excessive. Realism isn't always good for a game.

As for the "game within a game" stuff, I suppose that's for Firaxis to decide.

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

[Youngsun]

quote: I did not call you anything

Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Now let's concentrate to the main issues!

quote: a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

quote: b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable". If you elminate random probability, everything becomes predictable thus making the game boring. Even when the odds are against you, you can still overcome the odds by making the wisest decision every turn. In other word, when your civ's surrounding terrain is not very productive, you have several options First, you can move to more fertile regions and this is very common and likly practice for early stage of the game. Second, you can use some diplomacy and trade, if your way out is blocked. Invasions will be the last option and can be used when the other two options are not viable.
To summarise the point, your action is the most decisive/important factor not the random probability.

quote: c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

quote: d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

How do you know, when you don't have the actual experience of playing a game which uses resource system? Many of the supporters of the resource model do have experiences of playing it and they know it's very fun.

CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

quote: I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys put it is to "make trade more important."

Not only for improved trade but for fun.

quote: How are the Chinese in this case going to get units to take that territory from the russians, if the russians have a more powerful military from the outset due to their high production?

You do have enough time to expand before you face the Russians face to face. The situation that the Chinese civ faces here, is the direct consequence of how the civ has behaved. The Chinese AI is not very expansionistic compared to that of the Russian.

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 20, 2001).]

[jglidewell]

I hope that Trade takes a larger role than it has in the past two Civs but I am not sure that a specific resource types should become absolutely essential for a specific unit type or improvement. You should also have an option in the game setup so that you can have it as complex and many types as you want. The option being for all the Caesar’s and Alexander’s out there.

Rail Baron was a good game and it’s resource scheduling was complex and did not detract from the fun. As a matter of fact I think it was its pupose

The Caravan unit should absolutely go. You never did get it to that foreign port did you? What a waste.

Shields should represent general production (i.e. It takes 20 shields to produce a warrior unit but the 20 shields could be represented by say 1 commodity taking 20 of them, or 2 commodities taking 5 of each(10 total) or 3 commodities taking 1.6 of each (5 total). This is why trade is preferable to war.

Resources should not be consumed unless you use it(improvements and units), sell it, or store it. They should also be able to be pillaged if stored.

I would propose that Trade take place on 3 distinct levels;
1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal.

1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and time to deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals).
2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation.
3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

There only has to be one type of barter screen the only difference being what the level or other side as to offer’.

I have 2 cloth and 50 and four cards. Ha ha, that’s piracy.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Uh, I don't think I called you anything, I didn't mean to if I did. Sure thing, let's quit this and do what we're here for!

quote: It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

quote: I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable".

The difference here is that losing an occasional phalanx due to luck or not getting the 100 gold you would have liked due to luck is not likely to cost you the game. If you are unlucky enough to not have access to better units due to unlucky resource placement, you are likely to lose. If resources become mandatory, they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

quote: Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

quote: CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

If I want to know which military unit to use, I just look on one screen (my unit build list).

If I want to see what resources I need, and secure them, I must:

1) Look at the unit list and see what I want to build, and how many resources I need.
2) Look at some resource screen and see what I have.
3) Calculate exactly how much of each resource I need.
4) Go to a diplomacy screen if I want to trade for it, etc.

Shields eliminate this calculation, as shield surplus (or lack thereof) is simply put in a small bar. With the above expanded Civ2 system I would just trade for some shield-bearing commodities, and I wouldn't have to worry about excess shields because I can use all of them.

Two questions:

What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

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

[The diplomat]

What if the computer told you what ressources you needed automatically.
For example, the screen would show all possible units. But, if a unit required a ressource that you lacked, it would show that resource in bold red. This way the player would immediately see if a unit lacked a particualr ressource since it would show up in red!

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

[airdrik]

Or take it one step further and after the amount of resources it takes to build the unit, also have how many of that unit you can build. A list of how many of each resource would be easily accessable from the unit selection screen (beside it or have a button which toggles it on and off). But as I was going to bring up on the other topic, with this new system, how do you determine how long it will take to build a unit?

[Lonestar]

Trade needs to play a bigger role. Otherwise, alot of the historic importance of seapower is neglected.

i.e. Blockades. In the civ games naval units mostly battled each other, while subs and carriers provided the only really powerful land attack system. In SMAC/X the value of sea power was somewhat increased with sea bases but, IMO, not enough.

Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Cyclotron]

Lonestar, if you use a CTP style trade route system sea blockades become much more important... the real question is, how is Firaxis representing caravans? CTP routes or Civ2 units?

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

[Cyclotron]

oops, double post!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 20, 2001).]

[me_irate]

To me the seeding of resources would not have to be completely random. not counting the amount of resources in the game which should be selectable just like the amount of water. But if one was playing on easy you would have greater suplies of resources near your starting location. And on higher difficulties you are limited to all but the rarest resources around you thus increasing difficulty. In this way the computer would have a resource bonus instead of the huge tech, growth, and prod bonuses like in civ 2. There was nothing worse then a size 4 computer city beating your size 8 city just because of there unfair prod bonus. This way the bonuses for the computer could be lessened but the challenge would remain. Forcing you to trade or fight your way to them. Thus raising the difficulty without the computer cheating.

[Cyclotron]

airdrik, what you describe is very similar to the CTP system.

In CTP, you make a request to another nation for commodity x in exchange for commodity y between two cities of different civs, and next turn they tell you whether it is accepted or not. The main differrence is that you are proposing a quantity system (3 iron for 2 oil) and CTP uses an entire route system (one source of oil for one source of iron).

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...

[Youngsun]

quote: 1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal. 1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and timeto deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals). 2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation. 3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

good definition jglidewell, I like it.


cyclotron7

quote: What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

Every tile gives you resources. You may lack "Iron" but will be able to get great surplus of other resources. On the other hand, the Iron rich civ may lack food or wood which even things up very much. Everyone ,in that sense, is holding a card to play.

quote: they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

There are two types of resources, basic and strategic. Basic resources like wood will be numerous and readily accessible thus making the value of them less significant. Strategic resources like oil can be used only later stage of the game and they are relatively less accessible and vital for industry and unit building. Strategic resources must be important otherwise they wouldn't be strategic.

quote: I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

Subjective maybe, but important one since it indicates everyone's satisfaction level of trade aspect of the game and the game development should be guided by the indication.

quote: What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 12:16 AMThe 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 this buying and selling could be instant one turn transaction or medium~long term trade agreement. No calculation involved.

quote: What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

I think it's good idea but the primary resource system is better and more fun I reckon.

quote: With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-16-2001 01:14 AM 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. (5 X 4 = 20 lbr pts)

Labours are city specialists and they will provide labour points. Labour points can be modified by mill,factroy or powerplant. The higher the labour point, the faster the unit construction will be.

diplomat

quote: What if the computer told you what ressources you needed automatically. For example, the screen would show all possible units. But, if a unit required a ressource that you lacked, it would show that resource in bold red. This way the player would immediately see if a unit lacked a particualr ressource since it would show up in red!

What a great idea! this is even better than sending a message.

airdrick

quote: Or take it one step further and after the amount of resources it takes to build the unit, also have how many of that unit you can build.

another great idea! if New York has 500 labour points and a F-15 squadron costs 250 labour points, New York can churn out 2 F-15 squadrons per turn!

quote: But as I was going to bring up on the other topic, with this new system, how do you determine how long it will take to build a unit?

The "Labour point", mate!

Lonestar

quote: Trade needs to play a bigger role. Otherwise, alot of the historic importance of seapower is neglected.

Yes, to do that we need new concept "transportation capacity" and vessels have outperformed their land-counterparts in this category throughout history. Transportation through sea lane should be easier than through land route until railway becomes dominant way of tranporation.


me_irate

quote: But if one was playing on easy you would haven greater suplies of resources near your starting location. And on higher difficulties you are limited to all but the rarest resources around you thus increasing difficulty. In this way the computer would have a resource bonus instead of the huge tech, growth, and prod bonuses like in civ 2.

Yes that can be another good way of using the resource system.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 21, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

The whole open market thing is absurd. It should only be available when all civs have refrigeration and automobile.

This labour point thing is weird too, aren't shields like labour points?

Someone a long time ago, on the other thread, suggested that making money more important throughout the game could force people to trade. I like this idea. How come no one has mentioned it?

Gary