Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: i agree with him/her 100%. even though trade was not important in the middle ages, it was important later on, and is still important now. the u.s alone makes billions, if not trillions of dollars a year from trade.

I'm a him .

Oh, and I support a trade-based Civ3. If you are saying that trade should be 'an option' then I want war to be an option. It is no hyperbole to say trade and war are equally important in world history. Especially after, say, 1492. Spain was the most powerful nation in the world in the 1500s, NOT because of its conquered territories, but because of the gold that was in those territories, allowing Spain to take the lead in trade.

Pick up Europa Universalis to see the effect of trade. You can decide not to participate, but then you have much less cash per annum.

[Cyclotron]

If I may slide in a comment:

quote: Oh, and I support a trade-based Civ3. If you are saying that trade should be 'an option' then I want war to be an option. It is no hyperbole to say trade and war are equally important in world history.

Exactly! War is already an option in Civ2, and it will be in Civ3... I agree they are equally important, which means that trade should be as optional as war. Beneficial, but optional.

Trade based? Civ3 should be civilization-based. By making the game center on trade, you are limiting Civilization. I agree that trade should be as optional as war... keep trade optional, like war already is!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Exactly! War is already an option in Civ2, and it will be in Civ3... I agree they are equally important, which means that trade should be as optional as war. Beneficial, but optional. Trade based? Civ3 should be civilization-based. By making the game center on trade, you are limiting Civilization. I agree that trade should be as optional as war... keep trade optional, like war already is!

War is REEEEAL optional . War ISN'T optional. You must build troops to solidify your cities, and in 99% of games you WILL be involved in trade. So, by that logic, trade should be a major factor in 99% of games. I like that... why I said trade-based, like to a somewhat lesser extent as Imperialism.

[Maccabee2]

Raingoon and Stuff2 stated it well. Trade, aka resources, are the life's blood of relations (peaceful and hostile) between nations and cultures. Without trade, there would be no relations. Territory has value only because of its resources or its strategic location to other territories that have valuable resources. I will not burden you with the examples too numerous to mention, -- unless of course, you cannot think of any yourself and care to challenge this basic priniciple of international studies and history.

[Cyclotron]

Imran, war is optional. I have gone through games even on EMperor and Diety without starting a war, and with only one unit per each of my cities. Maybe you are just really good at pissing people off!

Civilization should be a balance of elements such as war, diplomacy, and trade. That's what history is made of, and so Civ3 should be too. Once you upset this balance, you now have a different game, and one that many will not want to play. Trade is important, but it should be no more so than war or diplomacy.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one ever said it should. But the fact remains Trade isn't equal. It is much less. I've won games before without sending a SINGLE caravan. This isn't right. Trade should be important as it is in the real world.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-09-2001 08:53 PM No one ever said it should. But the fact remains Trade isn't equal. It is much less. I've won games before without sending a SINGLE caravan. This isn't right. Trade should be important as it is in the real world.

Now I think we put the finger exactly over the point: Trade Isnt't equal to war in Civ2. But should it be ? I think it shouldn't ! I think it should be less inequal but not exactly equal.

[Cyclotron]

I believe trade and war should be balanced, too. It is true that they are unbalanced in Civ2.

Why are they unbalanced? Because you can get more by a war than by trading.

Okay, given that, the obvious solution is to give greater benefit for trading, to the point that it is on par with war, and people use it more frequently.

The answer is NOT to either stifle war or make trade mandatory; rather it is, like I have been saying, to increase the value of trade. Imran, you seem set on making people trade and making people build structures for war... why not make trade so beneficial, it will be something no serious player would resist? That is what I like, and I hope you will think about that point. More rules in Civ3 is not what we need... a better game is. Making things mandatory, when you could just make them better, is counterproductive.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-10-2001 01:08 PM Why are they unbalanced? Because you can get more by a war than by trading. Okay, given that, the obvious solution is to give greater benefit for trading, to the point that it is on par with war, and people use it more frequently.

Agreed if borders are affected by cultural points than you could conceivably have so much cultural value that your borders would evelope an adjoining city? Cool...

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by jglidewell on 04-10-2001 01:42 PM Agreed if borders are affected by cultural points than you could conceivably have so much cultural value that your borders would evelope an adjoining city? Cool...

I'm not sure about an entire city, but results such as siphoning off lots of production and gold, etc, could be also very beneficial... we'll see what Firaxis has planned for culture.

A city could do that, though... think of the Albanians in Macedonia now.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Maccabee2]

The "Hawks" seem to be missing the point. Trade is important not because its better than war. Its important because it is what causes most wars, if not all wars, in every age. Men fight for territory because of its resources and the resulting trade it brings. Even the most war-loving civilizations settled down to trade or perished without a trace. Please indulge me with three examples:
(1) The Celts of Northern Europe lived for battle, but also traded in bronze, salt, hides, and other goods, at least partly to get the great wines of southern Europe's Rome and Greece. (See, booze is a great resource to start wars over!) This reminds me of Tim Allen's philosophy of why ancient barbarians invaded civilized empires: "Sniff. Sniff. Owrah? What smells so good over that mountain? Let's go find out and take some!"
(2) Even the Mongols, the most violent scourge of recorded history, rode to loot and rape, but settled down to trade and use the resources to increase their wealth. Remember the Khanate of the Golden Horde? Kublai Khan in China? Both were part of the vast Mongol Empire. Their missed opportunities to maximize use of their resources by building improvements and engaging in *trade* was their eventual downfall.
(3) The dreaded Norsemen (Vikings in Civ2) raided for plunder, but they also explored to find new markets for trade. As salesmen, they were quite, um, persuasive. One such exploration up the Volga River led to the founding of the kingdom of Rus, later the Russian Empire. Trade was what transformed them.

Trade is the critical element that transforms any short-lived, isolationist military conquest-binge into a real *civilization* that stands the test of time. Without it, a culture becomes a flash in the pan of history. The game should reflect this, because it is called Civilization, not Burn-Pillage-and-Rape.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Trade is the critical element that transforms any short-lived, isolationist military conquest-binge into a real *civilization* that stands the test of time. Without it, a culture becomes a flash in the pan of history. The game should reflect this, because it is called Civilization, not Burn-Pillage-and-Rape.

True, but it is also not called Buy-Sell-and-talk-to-my-Broker!

YOU seem to be missing the point... I'm not arguing that trade is unimportant, I just think that some of the models proposed here are outrageous and excessive because they make the game into a trade-based game. Like I said, war and trade should be balanced. Yes, the Vikings did eventually trade... but they were also sucessful in taking these resources by force. Neither option should be shortchanged in Civ3.

It is true that cultures who only fought and never traded were wiped out quickly. But the reverse is true: Civilizations that always traded and never made a serious effort at armed defense died too! The Phonecians were conquered... The Dutch were overpowered militarily, and lost their economic edge... I think that war and trade are both important, and should be added to and considered equally.

Trade does transform a culture into a Civilization. I see that. However, war and conflict also makes a Civilization stand the "test of time." Why don't you see that? The game should reflect ALL ELEMENTS of history, and to center just on trade and scoff at the rest is a huge mistake on your part.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-11-2001 07:08 PM The "Hawks" seem to be missing the point. Trade is important not because its better than war. Its important because it is what causes most wars, if not all wars, in every age. Men fight for territory because of its resources and the resulting trade it brings. Even the most war-loving civilizations settled down to trade or perished without a trace.

Maccabee2 nailed it. Trade should be modeled (as it seems it might be, CGW) on resources. Trade is the source of most money in this world, always has been (whats the point of large industries if you can't sell your wares to other people). I like the idea that Firaxis is using of certain resources being limited to cities connected by trade. Wars over oil can now occur. War and trade are intertwined, the importance of trade in CivIII cannot be strengthed enough as long as micromanagement doesn't take away the fun. But it should be strategic trade. Resources in general, not individual goods, to equal the strategic war in Civ, tactics are left out.

[Maccabee2]

[quote]Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-11-2001 08:13 PM

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.

(1) "True, but it is also not called Buy-Sell-and-talk-to-my-Broker!"
You are absolutely correct sir. It is not, nor would I enjoy it if it were. If I wanted a strictly financial game, I could play Railroad Tycoon, or, er, Monopoly.

(2) "YOU seem to be missing the point... "
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.

(3) "I'm not arguing that trade is unimportant, I just think that some of the models proposed here are outrageous and excessive because they make the game into a trade-based game. Like I said, war and trade should be balanced."
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?
If you mean the former, (need trade for certain tasks) I'm afraid that is a rather balanced view of civilization and warfare. If you mean the latter (trade required for all or almost all tasks, military or peaceful), then I agree with you, it would be unbalanced. Worse, it would be boring.

(4) "Yes, the Vikings did eventually trade... but they were also sucessful in taking these resources by force."
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.)

(5) "Neither option should be shortchanged in Civ3."
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.

(6) "It is true that cultures who only fought and never traded were wiped out quickly. But the reverse is true: Civilizations that always traded and never made a serious effort at armed defense died too! The Phonecians were conquered... The Dutch were overpowered militarily, and lost their economic edge... I think that war and trade are both important, and should be added to and considered equally."
Again, you're right. If I seemed to imply that trade can succeed without the occasional war, then I made my point poorly. Every nation that trades must occasionally fight to protect their trade routes. Without a strong military, a nation cannot protect its trade. Piracy thrives in the abscence of at least one powerful navy willing to protect the sea lanes for everyone. The world's current trade-flow primarily depends on the continued success of the American Navy. We are peaceful, but threaten our access to certain resources, and we get violent. (E.g., oil and the Gulf War.) It's the one thing that will drag us into war faster than anything else. Trade and war, portrayed realistically in a game, will find a natural balance because they are inseperable, interdependent. They are both cause and effect for each other.

(7) "Trade does transform a culture into a Civilization. I see that. However, war and conflict also makes a Civilization stand the "test of time." Why don't you see that?"
Actually, I do see that. Hence, my name Maccabee2, to honor the patriots who threw off the yoke of Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid tyrant who tried to stamp out the Jewish faith in the last few centuries B.C. Also, even God acknowledged the necessity of war, when the Bible states that He did not allow the Israelites to drive out all the Canaanite peoples at once, specifically so that each generation could learn the art of warfare.

(8) "The game should reflect ALL ELEMENTS of history,"
You are absolutely right. This is the balance we both seek.

(9) "and to center just on trade and scoff at the rest is a huge mistake on your part."
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 hope that Civilization III will accomodate as many different cultures as possible, both those that trade and those that are isolationist. What would history be like without the short-sighted Mongols? I'm only saying that while you can build a short-lived empire on isolationism, you can't build a true civilization on it.
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.

[King Richard]

Trade has always been a dominant factor in world history! From the beginning of civilizations in the world, there has been a lack of certain resources in areas. Even the greatest empires had to trade with others to get their hand on some wares that they didn't have, or needed more of. War has been a different way to obtain these things. Even the early colonisation by the european nations had one purpose: To trade, or to make trade easier! It doesn't sound like you know your history very well! By the way; I do!