Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[Cyclotron]

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.

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"

[King Richard]

I don't mean that civilization should be totally realistic (That is impossible). But we should make it as realistic and historically accurate as humanly possible, without destroying gameplay. On the issue of winning with trade, this will probably be optional (like the concept in alpha centauri). When it comes to the need to possess certain commodities I think this is a great idea! This will give a new element to war, trade and economy! In civ1 & civ2 it usually didn't matter which city or civilization you attacked first. Now it does... If this isn't strategy, I don't know what is...

[Maccabee2]

I would like to yield the floor to Socrates, as translated in "Great Dialogues of Plato" by W. H. D. Rouse, p. 170, 1956. In Book II of the Republic, Socrates discusses with Adeimantos the building of the ideal city (not unlike our quest in Civ games). He mentioned war and trade. It's a bit hard to pick up and follow, but I'll try to include the relevant parts. Socrates keeps asking Adeimantos, "Won't we need (this) and (that)" and of course, Adeimantos agrees as the straight man. Now they're talking about what follows a jump in the city's growth.
Socrates: " Take the land also; what was enough to feed them then will not be enough now, it will be too small, don't you think so?"
Adeimantos: "Yes."
Soc: "Then we must take a slice of our neighbours' land, if we are to have enough for grazing and plowing, and they also must take a slice of ours, if they, too, pass the bounds of the necessary, and give themselves to the boundless getting of wealth."
Ade: "That must be so, Socrates."
S: " The next thing is, we shall go to war, Glaucon, or what will happen?"
Glaucon: "That is what will happen," he said.
S: " Don't let us say yet, whether war produces either anything bad or anything good, but only that we have discovered the origin of war now, from that whence cities get most of their troubles both for each citizen and for the whole public."

I find it interesting that our little debate was begun in ancient Greece by the philosophers and founders of western Civilization.
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 13, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 13, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 13, 2001).]

[Maccabee2]

Oops! Sorry! Accidentally hit the key twice. Mea culpa!
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 13, 2001).]

[Gramphos]

I think that stockpiling the resources that you must obtain by trade and are required for a lot of the military units.
I.E. if you don't have any oil within your borders, and buy oil form another civ. What happens if that civ puts a trade stop on you, or worse declare war on you. It will certainly not continue to sell oil to you, so that you will be able to get fuel to your tanks. If you have no stockpiles you will be without a chance when you run out of fuel. Either you will need alternate fuels or a large stockpile

[Cyclotron]

Richard: That's exactly it. I think too much realism does destroy gameplay. Besides, why does history have to be the defining factor? Remember that Civ is about remaking history, not repeating it. Just because something has not happened in current world history (i.e. somebody winning by conquest without trading) doesn't mean it can't happen. Our "history" is extremely limited, as we only know one reality. Civilization is about what could have been, and should not be modeled strictly after what was.

vgriph: I believe that Firaxis killed stockpiling; looking into the screenshots will reveal only icons of the routes themselves like in Civ2, and not quanities of the routes. Note that Firaxis is also using shields here (and only shields) rather than quantified resources. Now, these shots are from the development stage of the game, so I could be wrong (it's been known to happen ) but it looks like stockpiling won't be in Civ3. Personally, I'm glad.


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

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Imran, you seem set on making people trade and making people build structures for war...

Seeing that Civ2 MAKES people build structures and units for war, it should only be fair that Civ3 makes people trade. There has never been a great civilization that didn't trade.

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-13-2001 12:59 PM Richard: That's exactly it. I think too much realism does destroy gameplay. Besides, why does history have to be the defining factor? Remember that Civ is about remaking history, not repeating it. Just because something has not happened in current world history (i.e. somebody winning by conquest without trading) doesn't mean it can't happen. Our "history" is extremely limited, as we only know one reality. Civilization is about what could have been, and should not be modeled strictly after what was.

Actually, Cyclotron, the proposals I've read thus far haven't suggested basing the games code strictly on history, but on the basic laws of nature that have set the stage, or "rules", for history and its character. If the game were based purely on history, you could play only on a world map (no random maps or self-made maps) and the Romans would always start on the Italian peninsula.
Instead, what's being proposed by some is more game depth by more closely emulating the basic laws of nature (by proposing natural disasters), laws of warfare (by proposing stacked units or leaders or the need for certain resources to build and run certain units), laws of economics (like supply and demand, embargos, maybe naval blockades), and human nature (likelihood of a conquered city to rebel, a beleagured city to mutiny and declare itself a new civilization). Greater game depth allows greater flexibility, not less.
Either way, the good news is that Sid (aka St. Nick) promised that as much as possible in the game will be customizable. I have little doubt that the ability to modify the rules of trade and resources will be included.
From your posts, I've learned a lot about the limitations of coding (such as the number of civs feasible) . I'm sure you can modify the trade rules to make resources non-critical or to ensure that the ones you need are plentiful enough so that it's never a worry for you or your AI opponents.

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-14-2001 10:10 PM Seeing that Civ2 MAKES people build structures and units for war, it should only be fair that Civ3 makes people trade. There has never been a great civilization that didn't trade.

No, It is not correct ! Several great civilizations closed its door to the rest of world, didn't trade and remained great. China only opened again very recently. Japan remained closed by centuries. Soviet Union was an example of no trade out of the group, and they almost conquered the entire world by war and revolution. We could give a lot of examples (Vikings, Mongols, Spartans etc. etc.) but I think is enough to say that all dominant civilization in a age (Sumerians, Egiptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabians, Spanish, French, British, USA) used war instead of trade as the key element of theyr domination. They traded ? Yes they did it, but trade was not the key element till WWII. I would like to have the opportunity in Civ3 to win without trading at all. It means no mandatory trade models. Otherwise I like to trade and use it in the game, and I respect and agree with all the people here who defends a improvement over trade Civ model.
Anyway, I think this discution was very useful. We could see how Civ series is important for Civers in general and how much time we can dedicate to try to improve the game. That's cool !

[TheSocialist]

Historical inaccuracy yet again, The USA is able to support a large miliatry because we traded extensively and became economically dominant. Japan was closed off for centuries and devloped into a feudal shogunate, they only became really advanced after they began trading with the West. China was once the most advanced civilization in the world, but they became arrogant, declared all un-Chinese ideas inferior and stopped trading. When they met with the West they were considered primitive and easily defeated in war. The Islamic caliphates conquered a lot through war but Islam spread mainly through trade. Indonesia, Sub-Saharan Africa and Western China became Muslim because of the traders. The West eventually dominated because they traded extensively and the times when they stopped trading were dark ages. Even the Romans, who were famed for the armies, often went to war to protect their traders, this is how the punic wars began.

[SerapisIV]

I'm in total agreement, any civilization that has not traded or opened itself to the outside world has stagnated. Trade is essential to growth. Has always been in the past, is even truer today.

[Admiral PJ]

It could be interesting if once you cannot get Oil/Petrol from an embargo,
you could research other technologies like Hydrogen Fuel cells to power your vehicles instead, or Uranium nuclear power..
Perhaps running out of petrol could give some impetuous to alternative research.. In the future petrol and resources may run out anyhow, perhaps this could be simulated.
I think trade wars etc could be interesting , but shouldn't cripple a
countries miillitary. Maybe a lack of Timber resources could increase the cost of building things or petrol shortage could cause economic problems for car transport, this might be a better result of shortages.

Water would be a good resource too, though maybe it couldn't be handled as a trade commodity.. MIddle eastern countries etc have disputes over Water damming causing water shortages and flooding etc.

Peter

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 07:25 PM I'm in total agreement, any civilization that has not traded or opened itself to the outside world has stagnated. Trade is essential to growth. Has always been in the past, is even truer today.

Right again, Serapis!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd like to add my voice to that chorus as well...

[Stuff2]

I want to clarify myself. When i say it's all about resources I also count in the population as a resource. A happy and healthy population will not revolt against you. It's not only about which civ will have these resources, it's about distribution of wealth aswell. There are many ideologies on how economy should be distributed, we have on the most right politic arena a 'jungle law'-capitalism, if you are smart and successful and have already rich parents i suggest you vote for this one (if it's possible) on the most left side there is the totally statecontrolled communism wich in theory provides equal resources for every human being, and between those poles there is a whole world of different ideas on how wealth should be distributed and why they should be distributed that way. No matter what type of society you have, some will benefit from it and others won't.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 03-24-2001 02:53 PM Stuff2, I seem to remember the fall of the Roman Empire being attributed to slightly more complex factors than "Egypt stopped sending food." Breaking everything down into resources is an awfully simplistic way of looking at history. The dominant western enterprise of the 13th and 14th centuries, the Crusades, were fought over land that had no real resources at all. Lots of wars were fought because "The other guys are not us", rather than "They have stuff we want. Gary

I never meant that the Roman empire did fall beacouse egypt sent food, it's the opposite. Egypt stopped sending food when the Roman empire did fall apart. And the consequeses is that the Roman empire collapsed even more. And about the crusades. "The other guys are not us" is a political tactic, the crusades where very benficial for europe. Maybe not much from plundering, but the crusade was a way to keep people content. An early form of nationalism. The european leaders could in a way justify their high taxes and cruel governing bye showing how they made sure to keep out nasty enemies.(And ofcourse they did since they didn't want to loose their income). Sure "the other guys are not us" is a valid pretext to declare war but the underline is, "that's way they don't deserve to be as rich and successful as us". It still comes down to resources, we don't want enemies to get resources for building weapons against us, we don't wan't foreigners came and grab our jobs (our possibility to get food and resources for our survival), even between different social classes this is seen. Look at world today, the states have fought many different wars under different pretext. During the civil war it was about slavery, the north states could no longer tolerate the slavery (and to keep people content the politicians had to express this). The southern states saw their whole economy getting ruined since it was built on slavery so they declared independence. The north saw there economy getting threatened since most of their factories usually got their resources from the southern states and the war was a fact.
War is also about showing strenght. A nation can show there muscles and say "don't try robbing us beacouse we will crush you if you do". Maybe i was a little bit wrong when i said that it all came down to resources but not totally. Even when it seems that the reason for war don't have anything to do with resources it still has, just think a few steps further. In the end you won't survive without it.
I'll modify my point. It all comes down to control of resources . (And i certianly count labour force as a resource).
Politics, war and trade are just different ways to get that control.
Trade - exchange of resources
War - Robbing, stealing, defend, show your strenght, gain control
Politics - lie, sheet, compromise, distribute, treaties, pacts, embargos, blockades

Basically what I want to say is that as a leader for a civilisation your job is simply to keep your population happy and provide them with food and goods. (And defend all of this from other civs).
I wan't a well balanced game where you in order to win won't be able to win without
1. Having fought in atleast one major war
2. Built up some trade
3. Used some diplomatic tactics
There is no difference in what i consider most important. They are all three connected.
If you can win the spacerace without loosing a single unit or a trade route or having to use a single diplomatic options then i won't buy this game.