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