Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[GaryGuanine]

Any of you guys ever play Alpha Centauri? There were tons of ways to win that game. You could play as Yang, and get a huge population up and make tons of crappy military units. You could play as Zakharov and try to go for the technological victory. You could play as Morgan and try to trade with everyone and get a financial victory. You could play as Santiago and make a great army. I want choices!

I see that everyone points to Imperialism and Imperialism II as games to look at for their resource systems. I must admit that I've never played the two games. Reading what I can about them now: 1, I want to purchase them, they sound fun; and 2, in both cases you're talking Early Modern European Colonialism games. Imperialism I seems to be a 19th Century economic simulation, while Imperialism II expands that to include the Age of Exploration. From my meager knowledge of history I would naively assume that not all of human history progressed in a manner comparable to Post-Renaissance Europe.

raingoon,

I hear you about the "No matter their situation" thing. The difference of each individual game is something that makes Civ great. The problem I have is that some of the resource models proposed here end up in situations where "No matter their situation," a civilization has to trade. It's kinda the opposite of what you're saying. Maybe your resource model doesn't, but many here do.

Youngsun,

quote: This is very very subjective interpretation and based on how you see it. You see them as penalties because you don't like the system. But I see the enormous benefits of trade. While I'm enthusiastic about the benefits, you are depressed with the penalties.

Will you admit, however, that your model is different from the current one (Civ2) insofar as a civilization that doesn't trade will have less options than one that doesn't trade in the old system? This I see as a limitation, a penalty. You're introducing limits into one aspect of the game system (production) to encourage a certain type of playing style (trade). I propose making a different aspect of the game more robust (spending money) to encourage the same behavior (trade).

quote: I'm all for making money more important but this way alone can not encourage trade enough because an isolated kindom still can collect tax(money) from it's subjects.

All you have to do is keep adding things to do with money until you encourage trade "enough".

Gary

[Cyclotron]

quote: The reason why cyclotron's open-ended-ness falls short of the mark for me is because Civ 1 and 2 simply weren't designed that way. In fact they're designed with all kinds of restrictions but in a way that made you feel like it was open-ended. Remember there are things in Civ 2 that make the game impossible at times -- but for every one of those there's always a work-around. Triremes can't leave the coast vs. Lighthouse wonder, large amounts of outdated units vs. Leo's Workshop, etc. My belief is what you think is really limiting is actually really challenging, and what makes it Civ is if that limitation also has a work-around.

So, raingoon, where is the work-around for mandatory resources? It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed. In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade (build marketplaces, etc.). There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

It is true that one thing that made Civ2 great was the ability to have work-arounds for different problems, to have choice in your winning strategy and different solutions to the same problem. That is, after all, what makes cultures unique. Civilization 2 had the far-sightedness to build in multiple avenues of problem solving and worlds of choice. Why doesn't your system? Just because you want to make trade all-important doesn't mean everyone should have to play like that.

And raingoon: I didn't take my chess example to the point of having no pieces because at that point, you no longer have a game. Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy, and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Will you admit, however, that your model is different from the current one (Civ2) insofar as a civilization that doesn't trade will have less options than one that doesn't trade in the old system? This I see as a limitation, a penalty. You're introducing limits into one aspect of the game system (production) to encourage a certain type of playing style (trade). I propose making a different aspect of the game more robust (spending money) to encourage the same behavior (trade).

You do have options but when you choose the clearly inferior one(not trading)you get penalised(slow growth). People are not stupid to choose the option which will penalise them. obiviously not you too. so why worry about it? Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing? and what should happen when you do a bad thing or good thing? "whip" or "carrot" depends on what you do. This is not anything like a teaching human beings but playing a game.(please, don't be confused about that)A game has clear "penalty" and "bonus" is superior to that has only bonus. I already menetioned the penalty will be harsh for only modern age and it's all up to how the resource distibution mechanism of the game works.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

[carioca]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-25-2001 09:50 PM You do have options but when you choose the clearly inferior one(not trading)you get penalised(slow growth). People are not stupid to choose the option which will penalise them. obiviously not you too. so why worry about it? Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing? and what should happen when you do a bad thing or good thing? "whip" or "carrot" depends on what you do. This is not anything like a teaching human beings but playing a game.(please, don't be confused about that)A game has clear "penalty" and "bonus" is superior to that has only bonus. I already menetioned the penalty will be harsh for only modern age and it's all up to how the resource distibution mechanism of the game works. [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

A way around this problem is to give a penalty to trading, if you have trading it is easier for other cives to spy on you.

So if you trade x amount with civ a, but dont trade with civ b, civ a has a bonus to spy on you.

so you do better economicly if you trade, but open yourself up to spies. (to be fair, your spies have an easier time of it as well.

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed.

Like Iraq, North Korea or Cuba did and it is very logical and legitimate result.

quote: In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade

Because of that unrealistic option, people have greatly neglected diplomacy and trade.

quote: There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

When a civ becomes economically isolated? When a civ run by a person who have inferior skills of diplomacy ,lack of strategic planning or poor military management. When you lose a war, you face consequences. Nothing will save you from the unconditional surrender. Will you still ask options even if you lost your war? Why keep making unreasonable request for a situation that is not worthy of options? A civ which is in economic isolation has its own reasons to be isolated and it deserves the consequences. Do Iraq and North Korea have options? Do poorly run civs deserve options?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 26, 2001).]

[TheSocialist]

quote: Originally posted by jpww on 03-25-2001 02:45 AM This really shows poor judgement by TheSocialist. But, I've got to admire his patriotism! At any rate, Let's enjoy this game as it is. It is a game after all! Let civIII be a civ game! (Let chess be chess too )

Sorry, a little exaggeration for effect there. But we are pretty far ahead.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I kinda see where you're going, but I just think it's wrong.

quote: Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing?

No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing. Forcing civilizations to engage in international trade is wrong. Again, this brings up the point that you're taking away choices, and making choices, as cyclotron always says, is what makes Civ games great.

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 26, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing.

You are free to think whether trade is good for some or not but historically the consequences of not trading have been all the same, the ultimate downfall. Look what happened to USSR and its communist bloc. Fundamentalist? Taliban regime in Afghanistan you talking about?

I will ask you the question more specifically.

Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing economically regardless of government form?

Economically good or bad? please tell me!

[Zanzin]

Yes, Youngsun, but isn't the whole Civilization experience about being abe to mould your empire anyway you want? If you want to steer away from the way things have played out in real human history, you should be able to, right?

[Youngsun]

Zanzin

I narrowed down my question for only economic aspect of the game.
Fundametalist regime may have other advantages which comes from other areas such as politics or military. Actually, fundamentalist government does have advantages to have large military in the game. Do you think Fundamentalist government should have economic advantages as well?

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

If you just mean economically, then that's true. You will suffer economically from being an isolationist, fundamentalist civ. You should make less money, and, in Civ2, you get less tech. With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

One may say that it's the same as not getting tech, the end result is not being able to produce high-quality military units. Well, the difference lies here: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way. The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about. Trade was just about money and tech, with the mandatory resource system it's linked to production. I don't think that's right. I find the mandatory resource system anachronistic (for other reasons) and unbalancing.

To answer your question, No, I do not think it should have economic advantages, but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 26, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

Do not overly simplify the matter. In real game situation, that's not supposed to happen very often and even if that's the case, that is the consequence of how you have managed your civ so far.

quote: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way.

Where is the military conquest option?

quote: The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about.

You will seriously worry about trade at later stage of the game only. Do I have to remind you all the time that the reward and penalty things become greater only after industrial age? and Stop calling the Primary resource system, mandatory one. It is a respected rule for calling a thing that was suggested first time. Remember I'm still calling the supplementary one as it is. If you insist to call the system as you are calling right now, I'll call the supplementary one, a variant of the shield system which in fact really suits for the name I think.

quote: but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

Economy and industry should be dealt in separate way? Aren't they related each other very much? Industry suffers? bad economy. Bad economy? Industry suffers.


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 26, 2001).]

[raingoon]

Cyclotron7

quote: Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

First of all, this is not my statement, but rather your simplification of things I said earlier in this thread. And did I say "interesting?" I should have said "playable." I mean, c'mon. So, therefore NO restrictions would make this an interesting game? You do realize in this context "restrictions" can only mean "game rules", I certainly can think of no other way of restricting Civ 3 than with rules, so obviously some restrictions not only would make Civ 3 an interesting game, but a playable one. Therefore it is not a fallacy that restrictions = an interesting game and BZZZT, thank you for playing.

But what are we really talking about? Again, rules, restrictions, limitations, whatever you want to call them, are not only conducive to making choices interesting, they are absolutely necessary. And what's on the table here would only make the game more interesting if it doesn't make it less. That's not a trick statement, it's a nod to the fact that we are all talking completely in the abstract. All I know is that Firaxis has intigrated resources into the game. I'm sure we both can't wait to see how.

Gary

The problem is this entire argument is out of context -- notice the way words like "mandatory" become assumed and whole new meanings are given that aren't necessarily accurate to anything except what is in the head of the person using them. The hypothetical system Youngsun advocates is hardly as tangible as Civ 2, which, btw, is almost the definition of an anachronistic game. Not trying to prove you wrong, just making the point. I also realize you probably meant that resources appearing SO early is simply TOO anachronistic for the suspension of your disbelief. Maybe so, maybe so... There are of course plenty of examples of events in Civ 2 that make the timeline there look equally like a double helix.

[Tjoepie]

I think that CIV III should be a game where you can decide yourself how you want to face history.
One should have a choice to be warlike/peacefull, trader/isolationist, lots of units/fewer hi-tech units , etc ...
This is what makes the game great!
You can play in so many differenty ways and still survive history...
I hope the different AI players also play different so you can ally with the one that suites you best and vice-versa...
Sorry if my english is not perfect... :-)

[Cyclotron]

double post, DAMN this imac is slow!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 26, 2001).]