Making Trade Essential Part Deux

[Cyclotron]

Seeing as my objections to your system is based on my 4 points, I suppose I should frame my reply in relation to these.

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

Although every Civ may have a card to play, I am in this question centered on the military (unit) aspect of things. You just said that resources would be divided into basically common ones and not so common ones. Assuming common resources (wood, iron, bronze) are available to everyone in certain quantities, this seems to be just like the shield system in that the more you have, the faster/more units you can build. Thank you for pointing out the difference in your system between these two types.

I suppose, if the below 3 reasons were dealt with, I could handle (or even support!) a system with your "strategic" resources, but basic resources as per your system seem to be identical to shields. In your system I would scrap the basic resources and keep the strategic ones, as they are so plentiful there is really no need to distinguish them from shields.

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

With basic resources this is solved, since there are plenty of them, but I still believe that it would take some more map-making algorithms to make sure strategic resources were fairly balanced. I suppose this is just a question of programming, so this problem B is solved as long as a good map generating program is utilized.

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

The Beta testing will probably have the last word on this, so we'll see.

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!

This still remains my biggest reservation about your system. I would be alright if you could trade whole commodities (i.e. if I start a trade route with another civ for steel, I can now build tanks in that city), but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game. I just don't want civ to become work.

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

[airdrik]

I don't know how they did trade routes in CTP, but here is how I would think it should go:

You can establish trade routes between any city you know that exists, and you have a screen that you can bring up which shows all the trade routes from your civ. Each route sends a certain amount of various goods to the other city in exchange for an equally valuable amount of other resources from the other city, ex. a route from London to Madrid trades 5 wood and 2 food for 3 iron and 3 coal each turn. In the trade route view screen you can go in and edit the amounts of each commodity are sent, and propose an amount of goods in return. When you change an amount, a message is sent to the other civ saying they have changed the commodities in trade route a to b and c and would like to recieve d and e in return for it, is this acceptable (yes or no), if they say no than negotiations start where you discuss new amounts.

In the case of a trade embargo or blockade or something that would halt trade than those trade routes affected would be labled Halted and would not produce any trade until the embargo or whatever is stopped.

[Youngsun]

Gary

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

I believe jglidewell suggested that to represent an entity which is not bound by any civ. During Ancient era, merchants were the open market for any nation. A merchant can be used as a medium for exchanging goods between civs or a civ can act as one like the Arabs. Pre-modern merchants can be replaced by corporations and the private sector which are the true form of open market for any nation.

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

We talked about it a while ago, Gary. I thought we reached some form of agreement.

quote: 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?

I agree the importance of money should increase. However, money can be acquired by various ways, mainly by collecting tax so players who don't trade still get money anyway. People might trade more but trade doesn't become essential. The only way to make trade essential by increasing the value of money is that making trade the only way to get money which seems not right. The resource model was suggested not only to boost international trade but to enjoy it as it is.

cyclotron7

quote: the more you have, the faster/more units you can build.

No. Even 1000 units of iron will never make a single legion unless there are some labours to work on it. The speed of production is decided by how much labour points you have. The presence of certain resource act as a condition to allow the unit to be built or not.


if an armour costs (200 lbr pts + 20 iron + 20 oil)

Greek civ resource pool(100 iron, 100 oil)
Athens(50 lbr pts)
Corinth(20 lbr pts)
Sparta(0 lbr pts)

Roman civ resource pool(10 iron, 80 oil)
Rome(100 lbr pts)

Athens will take 4 turns to complete an armour
Corinth will take 10 turns to complete an armour
Sparta will take forever unless there are some change in labour points.

Rome, in this case, is primarily affected by the resource, iron and if Rome manage to get 10 extra more iron, will complete the armour within 2 turns. If not, the production is halted.

quote: but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game.

I think the diplomat's suggestion makes the case a lot simpler/easier. You see the list of resouces in grey colour but badly needed one will turn in red while surplus makes the resource green or even blue. very intuitive indeed.

Good to hear there are some progress in our discussion.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I understand that the idea behind the open market thing was an "economic sphere" that encompasses all the civs. To think of anything pre-modern, much less in ancient times, is ludicrous. It has no basis in history. Is there some massive foreign trade network that is somehow possible with only the technologies of map making and horseback riding? The Arabs spent a lot of time and money getting things from the East to the West, they (the ones who traded) were dominated by trade. Other civilizations were not. And, by the way, trading through an intermediary such as the Arabs was not anything close to open.

Regarding the labour issue, the agreement we reached was that I thought the idea was pointless and anachronistic, and you didn't. But enough of that.

I don't think I understand your paragraph about my statement regarding money. You don't think money should only be available through trade only (which makes pretty good sense to me, if you're going to be spending that money outside your own civ [buying techs, buying cities, etc...]), but you seem to have no problem with allowing the production of military units almost exclusively through trade. I think the money makes a lot more sense. I see how your resource model boosts international trade while allowing one to enjoy it as it is, but it completely changes the production of units. I would like a system that might boost international trade while allowing the player to enjoy producing military units "as it is", as well as trading "as it is".

Gary

[me_irate]

I like the labor points idea. Here is how i think they should work. In any given city near the begining of the game half the pop in farming (working grass or plains squares would be plenty for food and growth) maybe 1/4 would be mining for resources and the other 1/4 would be labor. Assuming that it was a size 10 city 3 units would be for labour. The laborer starting out would produce about 10 labor. Thus 3 workers =30 labor a turn. Later in the game you could have better laborers assuming they are suplied with certain commodities as in imperialism. trained workers produce 20 labor but require certain luxuries. But they also cost a good deal more money thus making gold more important. It would be difficult to support a well trained workforce unless you have allot of income. Also later you could build factories and mills like you do farms that would increase labor points. Thus i worker working in a square with a factory would produce 50 labor but nothing else in that square. Also i believe later the gov. should have a greater bearing on support. Instead of just shield like in other games you must pay your soldiors also making gold more important and making trade more important.

[jglidewell]

One of the things I think is confusing is that in the first two civs money/Gold as only another a form of shields. The only purpose for the money was to rush buy, and that is what it was used for.

If the money could equal other things

But what if I could use the money/gold to say buy a technology. Buy population. Buy population happiness. Buy foreign units (Traitors without changing countries ownership) and controlling them. Money/Gold should be the most fungible of all commodities.

[Cyclotron]

Youngsun:

What do labor points do? They determine how fast you can build units.

What do "basic" resources do? They determine how fast you build units, too. A nation with only a limited supply of a common resource will only get so many resources per turn, so this will limit how many units they can build as well. If a city has very few labor points they will not be able to build units quickly, and if a city has few common resources they will also not be able to build units as quickly, as they must wait to accumulate the required resources before building, like if an armor costs 20 iron and you only get 5 per turn, you could have a million labor points and you would still only be able to build one every 4 turns.

What I am saying is that they both accomplish the same thing: Your ability to build units over time, so it is better and less confusing to combine common resources with labor points (i.e. shields) in your model.

This makes no changes to your strategic resource system.

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

[Bender]

Perhaps another way to improve the importance of trade without overcomplicating things would be to require both shields and gold for unit upkeep. If all units required at least one gold and one shield per turn to maintain, wealthier commerce-rich nations would have an advantage.

Too simple?

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by Bender on 03-22-2001 05:50 PM Perhaps another way to improve the importance of trade without overcomplicating things would be to require both shields and gold for unit upkeep. If all units required at least one gold and one shield per turn to maintain, wealthier commerce-rich nations would have an advantage. Too simple?

Not at all. I also feel that city improvements and units should require gold upkeep!



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

[Cyclotron]

Upkeep is a bit of a different issue... but you have valid points. I personally think gold and shields should be used. In the "unit support" thread I posted this idea for how units could have gold/shields/both support at the national/citywide level depending on governments.

quote: Okay, Gov't support revised: Despotism: Units supported nationally with both shields AND gold. Autocratic Governments like these were more centralized around a single ruler, hence the national cost. The shields are for maintainance, and the money is to pay the troops do they simply won't leave your oppresive regime. On the other hand, maybe gold should be not much, and the troops stay in line simply out of fear of your great person... Monarchy: Units supported by city with gold. The Feudalistic system of the time put more authority and responsibility on feudal lords, or vassals. Typically, military during this time were hired mercenaries (i.e. knights, samurai) who provided their own supplies but needed monetary compensation. Republic: Units supported by city with shields. Republics stress the autonomy of the city-state. Military service is usually required in event of a war, so although monetary compensation is not needed soldiers still must be supported with food and supplies from the government. Communism: Units supported nationally with shields. Communist governments are strongly centralized, and military service is often compulsory so only weapons and supplies are needed. Fundamentalism: Units supported nationally with a minimum of shields. Fundamentalist governments revolve around a central church or authority, hence the nationalization. The zealots that compose their armies, however, fight for your countries' sake and need no direct monetary compensation and little government support. Democracy: Units supported nationally with gold AND shields. Funny how this is like despotism, huh? A democracy like the US and most modern European nations has a centralized military, which it needs both to pay and to support with supplies. Given the freedom in a democracy, many will not part with it readily to fight with little compensation. Other goverments (CTP comes to mind, theocracy, fascism, and other "future" governments) can fit this model too.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

I want a system a bit like (but much less complex that) Imperialism II. That worked fairly well, I thought.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 03-22-2001 04:59 AM Youngsun, I understand that the idea behind the open market thing was an "economic sphere" that encompasses all the civs. To think of anything pre-modern, much less in ancient times, is ludicrous. It has no basis in history.

Ever heard of the Hanseatic League? or the Italian trade companies, or how Ukraine used to be one of the richest regions in europe during the middle ages since they sold their wheat internationally? Or maybe the west/est-indian companies?
There have allways been lots of trade going on internationally.
Merchants have allways traded around the world, often with persons from nations unknown in the country the merchants themseleves came from.
The only part of the world that was not involved in international trade untill the 1500's was America, becouse there wasn't any way of getting there (well almost annyway, the vikings did arive a lot earlier but their collonies got burnt down by the indians) and Australia, both these continents where helplessly behind in advancement, but in civ 2 when you are the only civ in America you was lucky and evolving in isolation could be good (granted you would have an easier time if you traded, but you could still beat everyone by just filling america whit cities).
I'm not really sure which side of this argument I'm supporting whit this, but atleast I show that there was indeed international trade before refrigeration and the automobile.

[jglidewell]

Question,

Is it more important/valuable in the game to have a diverse set of commodities or strive for a monopoly in one? I was curious? Games have taken both ways.

The real value of Trade is in efficeicies(more of 'it'). To get this reflected in the game I guess you would have to have essential resources for a unit or improvement. Thats assuming your willing to Trade(Monopoly, I have all I need, go away sucker). If thats the case than a unit should have more than one essential resource to encourage trade 'diversity'


'Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades. ' I agree and would only restrict the rate of trade depending on how many ships you brought near the city. So trade must have a time rate attached to it.

A list of things I want to buy;

1. A traitor - Once bought by spy, the unit stays with and retains the original civs colors. Follows the original civs commands until such time as I give it my orders and then it changes to my civs color and thus counted as one of my normal units. In the meantime I get intelligence reports, normal unit map visisbility, city posture(if it is ordered into a city.)

2. I want to buy population out right (1000 gold per person) or even from other foreign civs.

3. I want to buy the other civs barracks while he is changing over to musketeers. That would be a fire sale. Forget about a game bank. Things are used, stored, sold, or lost. No trade in's.

4. I want to buy Manhattan isle. Or even have a Louisianna purchase, or even trade me for that cool Brooklyn Bridge you got there.(Be able to buy land in some ones borders or even rent it.)

5. I wnat to buy money (debit spending)

and the beat goes on.
I have 3 Iron and 60.

[GaryGuanine]

hendrik,

I didn't claim that trade didn't occur before modern times. My argument was that a global "free market" for things would be impossible before modern technologies. If the Zulus, in the bottom of the African continent, had thousands of tons of Tin to sell (and that is the scope we have to talk about here), they could not easily just sell it to the Aztecs in Central America. I was (and remain so) afraid that the idea I read about sounded like a modern day Wall Street commodities market. The Zulus would have to make huge caravans of Tin, and have to travel the incredible distances involved basically on their own.

The reason great groups developed to trade in the late middle ages (and mostly with each other and the Arabs, by the way) was because it was incredibly expensive. I don't want my international trade represented by some arbitrary transaction cost on a global free market. IF I want to trade, I want to have to build the English fleet, establish the Italian trade routes, set up the VOC (Dutch East India company) bases in Indonesia. There was lots of trade, but you had to work for it, not just pay for it on some "market".

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 23, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

What is so cool about limited strategic possibilities and predictable strategies?

quote: I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

Trade is not seriously missing from Civ. Trade was an essential part of Civ2, and although some steps should be taken to improve it I want to play the balanced game that is Civ3, not a purely trade based game.

I honestly will never understand why anybody should need trade for anything. Want? Of course. Almost necessary to so much as survive? Yes. But making Civ a game where you MUST HAVE something to do something else destroys the freeform nature of Civ, instead resricting you to certain strategies, tactics, and ways to win. Adding more rules does more to hinder the game than help it. If you guys want to increase the importance of trade, why not siomply increase the value one gets from trading, like I have suggested? If you want to get the realism argument too, here it is: Throughout human civilization, people have had a choice, in both trading and other matters. To take away choice in favor of enforced trading is not only unrealistic but destructive to the gameplay of Civilization. Go ahead and make trade more important, but no mandatory stuff! Keep Civ3 a game of choice, not of excessive rules!



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