Making Trade Essential Part Deux

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun, you don't need to have an extra worker to have a city grow. The reason Civ2 has this extra worker is that in Civ2 usually a worker grows about what he consumes, so an extra resouce bonus is needed to help the city grow. If you make each worker produce more than he consumes, there will be growth without a "phantom worker."

Yep. Must be the water... because it sure as hell ain't the electricity!

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

[TheSocialist]

Gary, I don't understand your position. You say that an open-market thing that you could buy resources from is unrealistic, but that being an isolationist non-trading civilization is. What do you support in civ? Realism or Non-Realism?

[TheSocialist]

Damn Netscape
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited March 26, 2001).]

[TheSocialist]

It posts again!
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited March 26, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I was talking about transportation because, if there was a screen (like others suggest), it would imply widespread third party transportation of goods.

I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

cyclotron,

Hey man, I live in L.A. DWP has kept me going the whole time. Long live socialized utilities!

The Socialist,

I support realism, Socialist. There were civilizations that were isolationist and non trading. In Civ3, they should suffer from some kind of economic penalty, making less money. I don't find this unrealistic. I do not think they should be penalized by not being able to make any units if they don't trade for resources, however. I think it's too harsh a penalty. In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

One main thing that I believe does not apply to all of human history is the "open market" thing. If you want to simulate commodities trading in the late 20th Century, it would be a wonderful addition. However, I don't think you can explain away a world market of resources in ancient times.

Gary

[TheSocialist]

There were no truly successful civilizations in history that did not trade. The Aztec and Incan civilizations of the Americas traded up and down the continent. The Polynesians of the South Pacific traded from northern Australia to Hawaii. And all the western civilizations traded extensively. Trade is how civilizations advance.

[GaryGuanine]

Socialist,

There's a difference between international trade and domestic trade. A large communist empire could sustain itself in the modern day without trade with the west. If we consider everything under the iron curtain as part of the "Soviet" civ, they really didn't trade much at all, it was illegal. Yet they had very good science going on, which is trade in Civ also.

Gary

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: Youngsun, you don't need to have an extra worker to have a city grow. The reason Civ2 has this extra worker is that in Civ2 usually a worker grows about what he consumes, so an extra resouce bonus is needed to help the city grow.

Isn't that the same thing as I said? just slight different interpretation.

quote: If you make each worker produce more than he consumes, there will be growth without a "phantom worker."

Labours don't produce food at all and you need them for production of units/city improvements so there goes one dielemma of quick growth of pop with slow rate of production or slow growth of pop with high rate of production.

Throughout history many great civilisations were engaged in grand projects like building a canal for easy transportation or walls for added protection and peasant population were levied and mobilised for the task. While they were being levied, they could not continue what they have been doing for their living such as farming or fishing. When cities began to flourish, accumulated food allowed change of life style and division of class. Division of task increased work efficiency and skillful craftsmen filled the task of making. Urban population comprised of the core of a civilisation and they never engaged in basic resource gathering activities ranging from farming to mining but rather advanced activites like trading or manufacturing. Any kind of government led activity either grand project or city improvements were done by these leveis and craftsmen working together.

In civII, when you take a field worker out of the field he/she works on, he/she becomes a city specialist automatically. We can use this mechanism to simulate levied part of the population so easily. If you are busy working on wonders and such, your cities will suffer from slow population growth due to the disturbance in their daily life. You can be a merciful leader who never initiate government led project and the end result will be the exact opposite. You know both have the advantages and disadvantages.

Gary

quote: I was talking about transportation because, if there was a screen (like others suggest), it would imply widespread third party transportation of goods.

and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

quote: I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

Scale? since when the game has been faithful to its scale? destroying a city improvement, poisoning water supply of a city, establishing city to city trade route with caravan units, loading/unloading every military unit to/from a ship, builing a road one by one on each tile and they all sound reasonable to civ scale? What's wrong with merchant trade? Marco polo meeting the emperor of Yuan dynasty sounds unfamilar to you? Don'y tou know Kings and warlords interacting with merchants was very common practice througout history? Don't forget that we do not begin the game as one big mighty empire but rather puny one town or city.

quote: In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

I'm tired of stressing out the penalty of economic isolation will be great only for modern age. Historically, isolated civs did pretty good during ancient era and they will be alright in the game too since the penalty is somewhat laughabl during that time period.

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: Youngsun, you don't need to have an extra worker to have a city grow. The reason Civ2 has this extra worker is that in Civ2 usually a worker grows about what he consumes, so an extra resouce bonus is needed to help the city grow.

Isn't that the same thing as I said? just slight different interpretation.

quote: If you make each worker produce more than he consumes, there will be growth without a "phantom worker."

Labours don't produce food at all and you need them for production of units/city improvements so there goes one dielemma of quick growth of pop with slow rate of production or slow growth of pop with high rate of production.

Throughout history many great civilisations were engaged in grand projects like building a canal for easy transportation or walls for added protection and peasant population were levied and mobilised for the task. While they were being levied, they could not continue what they have been doing for their living such as farming or fishing. When cities began to flourish, accumulated food allowed change of life style and division of class. Division of task increased work efficiency and skillful craftsmen filled the task of making. Urban population comprised of the core of a civilisation and they never engaged in basic resource gathering activities ranging from farming to mining but rather advanced activites like trading or manufacturing. Any kind of government led activity either grand project or city improvements were done by these leveis and craftsmen working together.

In civII, when you take a field worker out of the field he/she works on, he/she becomes a city specialist automatically. We can use this mechanism to simulate levied part of the population so easily. If you are busy working on wonders and such, your cities will suffer from slow population growth due to the disturbance in their daily life. You can be a merciful leader who never initiate government led project and the end result will be the exact opposite. You know both have the advantages and disadvantages.

Gary

quote: I was talking about transportation because, if there was a screen (like others suggest), it would imply widespread third party transportation of goods.

and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

quote: I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

Scale? since when the game has been faithful to its scale? destroying a city improvement, poisoning water supply of a city, establishing city to city trade route with caravan units, loading/unloading every military unit to/from a ship, builing a road one by one on each tile and they all sound reasonable to civ scale? What's wrong with merchant trade? Marco polo meeting the emperor of Yuan dynasty sounds unfamilar to you? Don'y tou know Kings and warlords interacting with merchants was very common practice througout history? Don't forget that we do not begin the game as one big mighty empire but rather puny one town or city.

quote: In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

I'm tired of stressing out the penalty of economic isolation will be great only for modern age. Historically, isolated civs did pretty good during ancient era and they will be alright in the game too since the penalty is somewhat laughable during that time period.

[TheSocialist]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-27-2001 02:13 AM Throughout history many great civilisations were engaged in grand projects like building a canal for easy transportation or walls for added protection and peasant population were levied and mobilised for the task. While they were being levied, they could not continue what they have been doing for their living such as farming or fishing.

Youngsun, perhaps this could be done in the Egyptian way. Because the Nile would flood for 3-4 months out of every year, and farmers often farmed in the floodbanks, whenever it flooded the farmers would go to work on the pyramids.

[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited March 27, 2001).]

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 03-27-2001 01:20 AM There's a difference between international trade and domestic trade.

There is in fact absolutely no difference in principle between international and domestic trade.

Anyway Gary, if you support realism than you support the resource system, which I would also like to see.

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun, my proposal for getting rid of ICS was for Civ2, not your system. I don't understand why just increasing the amount of food generated by each worked tile that already produces food is inferior to or worse than your system. It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields. There is no need for specialized classes.

Roman, I don't support fanatical realism that takes away from the game. I view this system as such. I think technophile's signature says it best: "if you want realism, play 2 turns and die of old age."

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

[Youngsun]

TheSocialist

quote: Youngsun, perhaps this could be done in the Egyptian way. Because the Nile would flood for 3-4 months out of every year, and farmers often farmed in the floodbanks, whenever it flooded the farmers would go to work on the pyramids.

Is this "Game implemetation" or "reference"?


Roman

Welcome back!


cyclotron7

quote: It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields.

Gary said exactly the same thing and I already explained the difference between two systems.

quote: There is no need for specialized classes.

Then why have entertainers,taxmen and researchers? Did they make things complicated for you? Entertainers give extra happiness, taxmen provide extra revenue and researchers pump out extra beakers. What wrong with labours producing extra labour points?

quote: I don't support fanatical realism that takes away from the game. I view this system as such. I think technophile's signature says it best: "if you want realism, play 2 turns and die of old age."

You yourself are putting others as extremists/fanatics to justify your view. Well, I see the resource system very reasonable, simulatable, legitimate and interesting. I'm beginning to suspect your intention of this
accusation as an act of sabotage for the resource system.

I tell you that I played ctp only twice then ctp never had a chance to be re-played. It was an enhanced or modified form of civ series and I was quite bored with playing civII at that time so ctp should have kicked the butt out of civII but that didn't happen. Why? There was no exploration. I did not have to learn or explore the game and I just played without any feeling of sensation which can only come out from meeting something NEW, untried or original. ctpII? even worse, after I saw the preview, I did not buy the game. It isn't worth to buy a game that is fairly identical from the original. you probably will tell me various reasons for ctp's unsuccessful performance but ,to my eyes, this is the primary reason. What if ctp was radically different from civ series? I reckon the series had better chance if that was the case.

I enjoyed civII but civII never ever had the sensation of playing of civI. Why? The answer is simple. CivI is original and civII is not. CivII had better graphics,more units,etc but all of them are based on civI. CivII's trade was the absolute copy of civI. CivII's economy was the replica of civI. The list goes on and on.

I enjoyed both MOO and MOOII a lot. Is MOOII totally based on MOO? Not at all. Different battle system, different star system concept and many new revolutionary concepts. Almost every idea was something new,untried and original.(except the unit workshop though it was also greatly changed) Of course, the base is still MOO but you hardly feel MOO things from MOOII. I couldn't just play MOOII and I had to learn and explorethe game first and the exploration of unknown gave me the sensation.

Is a new thing a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? There is no absolute answer. But at least, it bestows the game some values and originality thus ensuring longevity. I play both MOO and MOOII and I see them as two separate games so the two have the worthiness to be kept.

CivIII should inherit good/successful features of civII and enhance and modify them to be better whereas bad/unsuccessful features should be cut off without a second of hesitation. People have cried for better trade/economy for so long. CivIII shouldn't belong to warmongering kids who don't care realism and history because they already own the realm of other games that are not based on history but pure entertainment. CivIII should belong to someone who have great interest in history and how the civilisation of the past and present rised and fell. As the game makes one more step close to faithful representation of history, it will have the priceless value for entertaining people as well as educating by encourage them to read more history books with FUN as it has done so to me.

There can't be 100% realism but the game can be made realtively close to realism for simulatable-ness sake.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 27, 2001).]

[Zanzin]

Well, this thread just keeps going and going doesn't it?

[Cyclotron]

quote: Then why have entertainers,taxmen and researchers? Did they make things complicated for you? Entertainers give extra happiness, taxmen provide extra revenue and researchers pump out extra beakers. What wrong with labours producing extra labour points?

Apples and oranges again, Youngsun. Luxuries, science, and taxes cannot be produced directly by workers. Workers produce trade, and you channel trade into where you want it to go. Specialists allow you to make a particular city specialize in something that is otherwise globally controlled.

Shields are already city based; meaning that each city already has its own levels of shields. It is therefore needless to make a specialist to turn a city function into a city function, where specialists turn a national function into a city function.

quote: You yourself are putting others as extremists/fanatics to justify your view.

Indeed, are you not an extremist compared to me? In any debate, there are the people who want radical change, moderate change, and no change. I believe change is necessary, but I truly do believe your system is not something I want to play with. Actually, I can do anything I want to to justify my view, since after all it is my view.

quote: Well, I see the resource system very reasonable, simulatable, legitimate and interesting. I'm beginning to suspect your intention of this accusation as an act of sabotage for the resource system.

As much as I think it would be an interesting job to be a professional saboteur, I am actually for the resource system... just not yours in its present form. I understand and respect what you think, and have not accused you of sabotaging the supplementary system or the Civ2 system, have I? I am pointing out what I consider to be serious flaws. Your system does have some merit, but I am trying to streamline it and perhaps make it less dominating in the overall game, in the event Firaxis decides to use it.

Youngsun, I would encourage you to visit and comment on the other resource thread, as raingoon and I are developing a reasonable and IMHO well-designed supplementary resource system that we think would benefit trade. I comment on your system, and consider constructive criticism to be a good thing, so I would like to know what you think about it.

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