Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[supremus]

I don't understand all this fussiness with Trade. Trade is important but Civilization Games were ,and still are, very historical accurated games. And in the humankind history war was, by far, much more decisive than trade especially in ancient and midle times. What was the importance of trade in the Middle Age ? Guys are trying to develop a very good new game in two threads related to this issue and I have a name suggestion to it: TRADE DOMINANCE. So go ahead with this new game and let us in peace with Civ III.

[Cyclotron]

Although trade did actually play a part in the ancient and middle ages, I agree that some are over-emphasizing trade. This is NOT a trade based game, and things like war and diplomacy should not revolve around it in Civ3. Too much realism and trade-dependence will ruin this game!

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

[wittlich]

I too concur with both of your points ....is the game going to be called Civilization III or World Trade I?

[joseph1944]

I also concur with both statements.

------------------

[colossus]

Rejoice to all civers rather than traders!

We have to confess that civ games are already unrealistically biased towards trade advantages. Basically all strategies evolve around trade and caravans, which should not be the case in real life. If trade is handled differently in civ3, it should be less important rather than more important.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game. If you want historical accuracy (Civ games being historically accurate, what a laugher) play Europa Universalis. There you'll see how utterly ridiculous Civ2's war engine is and how important trade was.

[raingoon]

Trade is too important to dismiss out of hand, it certainly was hugely dominant throughout the history of world civilization and deserves to be central to the focus of Civ 3. And war alone was never the decisive factor in building a civilization, rather it was the attendant increase in resources (or decrease), which anyway had more to do with trade than war. In any case we DO know that the trade element has already been nailed down, as has the combat model, and both sound equally healthy. So I'm not sure what all this fuss-about-the-fuss is about.

[Zealot]

It's hard to believe that something like this is being discussed on Apolyton...
Of course trade is important! Every empire needs resources, but raw materials isn't equal to money! I believe that Civ III will improve a way to victory by an economic way. And trade is fundamental...

And conquering all is soooo boring!

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 03-23-2001 01:19 AM I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game.

Imram,
Well, I posted in the two other threads about Trade issue and I said exactly that: Trade started to be important only from the XI century and it became very important from the 1500s on. So we agree over this point. When you say it STARTED to compete with war from that moment on, you recognize it was less important then war in Midle Age and ancient times, and we agree again. I added that Trade only became the most important factor in XX and XXI centuries. If Civ III can be implemented in this way and with this historical coerence, I think it will be greate. But that's not what we see in the two threads dedicated to this issue. They want Trade as the dominant element of the game from the beguine, and, of course, i it is a very big mistake.

[Henrik]

The first war over trade priviligies (rather than land, which used to be what war was about) was in the mid-17th century (between England and Netherlands) from that point and on Trade became more and more the one factor that was fought over, this only changed during the mid-late-19th century and on when nationalism played its roll too.

[jglidewell]

Who was it and and what time did someone says along the lines
'An army marches on its stomach'??

A spartan universe. i wonder what Aristotle would think about that?

nuff said

[raingoon]

I disagree totally. Trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on. This thread is more of a mistake than early trade would be, and triggering it at some point into the game according to some rough historical timeline would be the biggest mistake of all. That would make Civ 3 essentially a gigantic scenario. Instead, trade should be -- and will be -- a component part of the engine that you can emphasize or de-emphasize to your heart's content. And during the early centuries you mention, religion was a greater factor in the west than trade or war. As a footnote to the discussion, that ought to be available as a component part of the game engine as well.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 03-23-2001 01:36 PM And during the early centuries you mention, religion was a greater factor in the west than trade or war. As a footnote to the discussion, that ought to be available as a component part of the game engine as well.

Raingoon,
Of course, religion had its hole but that's not the point. the discussion is: Should trade be the dominant factor from the beguine or not ? In according to the two threads about this issue they say yes it should, and I say not it shoundn't. What do you say ?
Only to note: World is what it is now thanks to WWI and WWII not thanks to trade. Only when destruction power surpassed the human understanding (Nuclear Power) war became to low its influence. And that was the very moment when trade and dimplomacy took the dominance in the international affairs. Instead of hot and real war, commercial war. But it was only from the last 50 years wich means only one second in the humankind history.

[N35t0r]

IMHO, trade is there to make being a warmonger and being a pacifist balance.

[Cyclotron]

Nobody here is talking about eliminating trade, we are just saying that Civ3 should not be a trade dominated game. Of course trade is important, but it should not be the be-all and end-all as some are proposing. Rather, trade should be just one facet of the game that provides another means to get to your ultimate goal, whether that is AC colonization or world domination.

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