King Richard:
I'm sorry, you may be right (you probably know more about history than I do) but that doesn't make you right about Civilization. Civ is, after, all a game... not a history lesson. I think we should avoid this "total realism" if it means making the game into a straitjacket.
Ah, subtle hint... I apologize if my argument was a bit rude. I also love a good debate, as my good ol' sparring partner Youngsun will testify to.
I believe my reason for this was a bit of offense of being called such a "hawk", since I have no idea what this is and I really don't like generalizations. I would prefer that you in the future do not put me in such groups unless you would kindly tell me what they are, first. It is difficult to dispel such an inside joke when you have no idea what it means.
I actually don't see a difference here between a game where resources are needed to build certain things and a game that requires trade to accomplish any goal. They seem like one and the same to me.
What I mean is that whenever trading is strictly required (for units, say) trade becomes dominant over what it is required for. With mandatory resources for units, war will be completely dependent on the resources you can get and how many you can get. War becomes entirely based on resources. Diplomacy, at this point, also becomes entirely about resources: You need them to so much as survive militarily, so you are constantly ensuring you have a supply of them from other nations. Peace treaties, wars, and alliances are now entirely about trade.
What you have done at this point is make all other facets of Civ subservient to trade, in that now all your options in the entire game have the objective of procuring trade goods. There is no longer a military victory, or a victory through alliances... there is only a victory by resources, and war and diplomacy simply become tools to get resources. This is what I fear and this is what I mean by a trade based game.
Ecch... let's hope Civ isn't that realistic! (Referring to grisly Viking tidbit you just gave me)
What I was trying to say with the Vikings is that war and trade both served them well as ways to create a culture and a civilization. Certainly, if they decided not to trade they would have been as dead as if they decided not to fight! I was using this as an example that the two elements should be balanced.
Well, anything is possible. This would be highly unlikely (since trade would give a big edge, and not trading would be a big handicap), however. Of course, to me this is what Civ is all about: anthing is possible. It should be permissible to win militarily without trade, but it would be very difficult and would necessitate that your enemies be divided and weak. The Mandatory resource system entierely abolishes this way of winning, which I think is narrow minded. Of course ideally, both trade and war will be practiced by a sucessful civilization.
That's good that we both have the same aim... a debate is no good if nobody is at all interested in the same goal. We just differ about how to achieve the same goal, which in the end will refine both our ideas and is healthy for the development of new ideas.
I agree; so long as neither overpowers or necessitates another I will be happy with whatever Firaxis does with trade.
The feeling is mutual, I invite these debates (and somehow, seem to be always in the center of the storm) since they help us make progress and deliver a finished idea that Firaxis can use. It's good to have a debate with someone who knows the purpose of a debate, i.e. not just to argue.
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
I'm sorry, you may be right (you probably know more about history than I do) but that doesn't make you right about Civilization. Civ is, after, all a game... not a history lesson. I think we should avoid this "total realism" if it means making the game into a straitjacket.
quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-12-2001 12:03 AM Cyclotron7, thank you so much for quoting me, even in disagreement. Your criticism helps me see where I failed to make myself clear. Besides, I love a good debate, and I think we agree on more than we disagree. Civility and logic will always yield to the truth, even if that truth is stated with less than perfect manners. You stated many truths, and I will yield to them as I come to them. |
Ah, subtle hint... I apologize if my argument was a bit rude. I also love a good debate, as my good ol' sparring partner Youngsun will testify to.
quote: Tsk, tsk, sir. You shout with all-caps, even for one word? As a Warlord, I'm sure you know electronic etiquette better than that. Why raise your virtual voice, when you can reinforce your argument? Also, instead of assuming you know my point thoroughly enough to immediately refute me, perhaps you could have given me the benefit of the doubt by asking me to clarify the concepts you didn't warm to. I never disagreed with you specifically, only with a generalized group I call "hawks." If you took the name as an offense, then I apologize. |
I believe my reason for this was a bit of offense of being called such a "hawk", since I have no idea what this is and I really don't like generalizations. I would prefer that you in the future do not put me in such groups unless you would kindly tell me what they are, first. It is difficult to dispel such an inside joke when you have no idea what it means.
quote: Yes, some of the models are a bit excessive. This forum can tolerate a few flights of fancy, I hope. Otherwise, where else will civers share their fondest ideas of the game of their dreams? Now I must give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarify something for me. When you say "trade", are you referring to only caravans/freight trucks, or are you including the domestic trade that occurs within a city's own market? When you say "a trade-based game", are you thinking of a game in which certain resources must be gained (either from your own cities or from others' cities by trade) in order to build certain things (units and/or improvements) as has been described by Firaxis, or are you thinking of a game in which one absolutely must engage in trade in order to accomplish any goal, military or peaceful? |
I actually don't see a difference here between a game where resources are needed to build certain things and a game that requires trade to accomplish any goal. They seem like one and the same to me.
What I mean is that whenever trading is strictly required (for units, say) trade becomes dominant over what it is required for. With mandatory resources for units, war will be completely dependent on the resources you can get and how many you can get. War becomes entirely based on resources. Diplomacy, at this point, also becomes entirely about resources: You need them to so much as survive militarily, so you are constantly ensuring you have a supply of them from other nations. Peace treaties, wars, and alliances are now entirely about trade.
What you have done at this point is make all other facets of Civ subservient to trade, in that now all your options in the entire game have the objective of procuring trade goods. There is no longer a military victory, or a victory through alliances... there is only a victory by resources, and war and diplomacy simply become tools to get resources. This is what I fear and this is what I mean by a trade based game.
quote: I think I failed to make my point clearly. Actually, modern scholars are opining that the Vikings traded from almost the very beginning. Some think the raids were sometimes carried out because the town in question refused to trade with them. Sort of an early form of gunboat diplomacy without the guns. (Longship diplomacy?) Of course, you're right, also. They also sometimes attacked and plundered just because it was more fun. (Hence the infamous "eagle" they would sometimes make with a victim's lungs.) |
Ecch... let's hope Civ isn't that realistic! (Referring to grisly Viking tidbit you just gave me)
What I was trying to say with the Vikings is that war and trade both served them well as ways to create a culture and a civilization. Certainly, if they decided not to trade they would have been as dead as if they decided not to fight! I was using this as an example that the two elements should be balanced.
quote: If by the war option you mean conquering the world without engaging in any trade, then, well, I disagree. Realistically speaking, it can't be done. If however, you mean conquering the world and engaging in a minimum of trade along the way, that's theoretically possible, even for a game called Civilization. In the end, we just have to trust Sid and Firaxis as to the correct minimum of trade and the resulting balance. |
Well, anything is possible. This would be highly unlikely (since trade would give a big edge, and not trading would be a big handicap), however. Of course, to me this is what Civ is all about: anthing is possible. It should be permissible to win militarily without trade, but it would be very difficult and would necessitate that your enemies be divided and weak. The Mandatory resource system entierely abolishes this way of winning, which I think is narrow minded. Of course ideally, both trade and war will be practiced by a sucessful civilization.
quote: You are absolutely right. This is the balance we both seek. |
That's good that we both have the same aim... a debate is no good if nobody is at all interested in the same goal. We just differ about how to achieve the same goal, which in the end will refine both our ideas and is healthy for the development of new ideas.
quote: From this last line, I know I must have stated my point poorly. I do not intend to scoff at the rest of the elements of history, and I hope I am not doing so. Rather than a game centering on trade, I desire a game that sees trade as the yin to the yang of warfare. They cannot be completely seperated for long. |
I agree; so long as neither overpowers or necessitates another I will be happy with whatever Firaxis does with trade.
quote: Again, thank you for your disagreement. You helped me sharpen my communication skills, and let me know that I'm not alone in my passion for this game. No one at my workplace would understand my obsession with this. I find in you and the rest here, kindred spirits. |
The feeling is mutual, I invite these debates (and somehow, seem to be always in the center of the storm) since they help us make progress and deliver a finished idea that Firaxis can use. It's good to have a debate with someone who knows the purpose of a debate, i.e. not just to argue.
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
Comment