Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[Cyclotron]

:Mutters a few comments about people ganging up on a guy:

Well then, if we have such support for mandatory resources then, let me ask you this one question at the heart of the debate:

Trade is important, that's a given. We all agree that trade should be at least somewhat more important. I don't like restrictions, so I don't like being forced to trade. My idea is to instead just make trading much more profitable, so most players would do quite a lot of it. So here is the question:

What neccessitates trade being strictly mandatory, rather than just very valuable?

I have so far seen no answers to this, and so I can only conclude that any mandatory system is by definition limiting and not helpful in any way.

Trade and war should be balanced. Neither is mandatory in Civ2 (although both are very valuable) and neither should be mandatory in Civ3. If you force people to trade, you are just covering up the inadequacies of your trading system. The way I see it, in a good resource system people trade because they see the value in it and not because it is strictly required. A good resource system simply doesn't need to be enforced with requirements; it will be inherently and obviously beneficial.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

What necessitates it being manditory? What necessitates technology being manditory? Any civilization that has been advanced engages in technology AND trade. This trade can either be interstate or intrastate trade, but any advancing state does it.

[King Richard]

As myself and others have pointed out: Trade has been extremly important in world history. I don't understand why there are so many of you out there that is against it! As long as we don't need to build and move these damn caravans around, an trade flows automatically, I can't see a problem. Sure, you'll have to secure the resources more than before, but this only gives more debth to war.

[SerapisIV]

There should be growth without trade, it shouldn't be that you can't play the game without it, however then internal trade is a mandatory. No civilization as defined in Civ has ever not traded at least amongst itself. As to not trading with other civs, it should be possible, though extremely hard to keep pace with even average AI opponents without trade. Trade should be powerful enough that those who don't use it are strongly handicapping their cultural and technological growth.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 17, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

Richard: I for one am not against trade. I am against strictly enforced trade that leaves little strategic choice.

Still no answers to my question...

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

[supremus]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-18-2001 07:26 PM Richard: I for one am not against trade. I am against strictly enforced trade that leaves little strategic choice. Still no answers to my question...

Clap...clap....clap....clap... Very good statement ! Fredom to chose personal strategies like Julius Ceaser, Napoleon, Mao, JFK, etc. etc. had in the past. That was the way in Civ1 and Civ2 and that will be the way in Civ3. (At least I hope so !)

[GaryGuanine]

But the Crusades really were all about "They are not us." What about the People's Crusade? Those thousands of people were not instructed by their leaders to show up at Constantinople because of some economic gain. They sacrificed their lives because they actually believed the enemy should be killed.

Gary

[SerapisIV]

You are all picking individual leaders and how they acted ideologically, that misses the whole "6000 years of history" thing. No one says that all wars are over trade/economics. You pick individual leaders who were able to act out of ideologies or just conquer. You can still do that, but under Caesar, under JFK, these guys lead nations that depended on trade for their economic strength that allowed their militaries to project outside of their borders. If the Romans didn't take over the Carthaginian trade in the Mediteranean, Caesar never would've been able to attack England because Roman borders wouldn't have been able to expand that far. And no one can question the importance of trade to the American economy. We tried isolationism once, remember the Depression?

Ideologies (communism/democracy) and religions should play an important part in warfare in CivIII. Maybe culture will be able to represent that? Even if an opposing culture is as high as yours, maybe its a different kind of culture? Well, just throwing out random thoughts.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Trade was important during old times : Civilisations meet each other throught trade before war (except for nomadic barbarian civilisation).

Arabian people were good at trade and were far more advanced in science (a litte more in technology) than the western countries during middle age because they were trading

Note : CtP system of trade (with trade route) is a good system, it's trade route doesn't give science bonus...

In CtP I like to todo war, not in order destroy a civ, but just to take the control of an area with a interesting ressources. I remember I battled in a ig desert for 200 years in order to have petrol ressources. Fun.

Trade is good because it offer a way to no necessary destroy your oppenement to win.


---
Science Bonus suggestion :

Is your trading with a civ which now ... Banana Pie Technology and you are researching this tech. Then trade route will give you a little bonus for science.

Of course if you are researching a tech which is no owned by your business partners then no bonus.

---

Note : I'm agree that the most important thing in Civ III it will be : Have Fun !


[This message has been edited by ZoboZeWarrior (edited April 20, 2001).]

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-17-2001 07:51 PM What neccessitates trade being strictly mandatory, rather than just very valuable?

No civ in history has ever been able to totally stop people from trading. And most civs has seen it as an valuable income. If you make trading illegal it will just make you poorer, your people more discontent and crime and corruption increased 1000 %. Stopping trade is an option but never the less trade will automatically show up. The question is not: to trade or not to trade?. Ofcourse you should have the option to not trade with other civs, every civ you encounter has to sign a tradeagreement with you if you want to trade with them. But being able to win the game in diety without the benefits of trade should be impossible.

The question is: How can i make sure to incurage more trade in order to get enough money to keep this empire together? How do i keep ahead in military, science and economy?

[GaryGuanine]

We all must remember also, that trade between civs is only international trade. There is a great deal of domestic trade going on, too. If one is going to make an argument about getting money, I'm almost positive that taxing domestic trade is a much larger piece of the pie than tariffs are.

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited April 20, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

First off, thank you Stuff2 for giving me an answer. Any other takers?

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-20-2001 09:49 AM No civ in history has ever been able to totally stop people from trading. And most civs has seen it as an valuable income. If you make trading illegal it will just make you poorer, your people more discontent and crime and corruption increased 1000 %. Stopping trade is an option but never the less trade will automatically show up. The question is not: to trade or not to trade?. Of course you should have the option to not trade with other civs, every civ you encounter has to sign a tradeagreement with you if you want to trade with them. But being able to win the game in diety without the benefits of trade should be impossible.

I'm mostly talking gameplay here. Trade is important, but I see no reson to make it mandatory. Therefore, when I hear you say impossible, I think functionally impossible, not theoretically impossible. Why make it totally and utterly against the rules, rather than just entice people to it with good benefits? That is the core of my question.

quote: The question is: How can i make sure to incurage more trade in order to get enough money to keep this empire together? How do i keep ahead in military, science and economy?

I think the question is, "how do I achieve my long term goals?" If this means that you need a lot of money, so be it... but keep in mind that staying ahead monetarily is one specific goal, a goal that other players may not have. The real question does not have words like "trade" or "science" or "military" in it; the real question is the broad question of "what should my goals be" that strikes everybody when they start up a Civ game. If these are trade goals, fine... but if they are not, I see no reason to impose trade goals onto them.

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

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-21-2001 08:55 PM First off, thank you Stuff2 for giving me an answer. Any other takers? I think the question is, "how do I achieve my long term goals?" If this means that you need a lot of money, so be it... but keep in mind that staying ahead monetarily is one specific goal, a goal that other players may not have. The real question does not have words like "trade" or "science" or "military" in it; the real question is the broad question of "what should my goals be" that strikes everybody when they start up a Civ game. If these are trade goals, fine... but if they are not, I see no reason to impose trade goals onto them.

I just wan't to clarify my point of view. I agree with you. I'm not talking about goals here i'm talking about tools. I never ment that monetary supremeness is the goal of the game. Monetary supremeness is a way to stay ahead in science, or to stay ahead in military or to simply afford to win the spacerace (or whatever you are bent on spend youre taxmoney on). Although: In the higher levels of difficulties I think it should be impossible to win if you don't have used all three 'tools' that are given to you. These are Military, Politics and Economic options. All three of them are ways to achieve youre goals, whatever youre goals might be. For example: Sometimes I've captured an enemy city simply so I can rush buy a wonder. Other times i have paid tribute to get an alliance. Sometimes I make alliances just for the protection of my caravans. Etc.
I think it should be very hard to win in Diety unless you atleast somewhat have an idea how to handle it all.

Domestic trade - connected to society and government as in civ and SMAC. (trade arrows)
International trade - it's not mandatory at all, why should it be? Beneficial yes, mandatory no. I fully agree with you on that.
[This message has been edited by Stuff2 (edited April 23, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

I totally agree Stuff2, I shouldn't be able to beat the AI at emperor and above without building any caravans. No civ has ever achieved that kind of size and not collapsed from the inside without having trade. For lower difficulties levels, sure, but at the highest level, the AI should be difficult enough that without putting significant effort into trade, you couldn't compete economically.

That being said, I hope trade is much easier then actually having to move the caravan from city to city, that was just a poor representation. If I want to trade with a city across the continent and I've already have the map of where it is and the AI can plot a route to get there (as in the city isn't surrounded by unexplored territory, then trade should be possible without physically moving a specific trade unit there.

[Cyclotron]

I agree also that caravans should be important for victory on higher difficulty levels, but I don't buy this whole "you can't win unless you build caravans" thing.

Trade, and hence caravans, is a tool, like war and diplomacy or anything else. Certainly that tool should be a critical one, but to say to the player that they absolutely, positivly must use that tool is senseless.

I see it this way: On higher levels like Diety and Emperor, you basically have to use trade unless your opponents just sit there moving units back and forth, and are fundamentally brain dead. Therefore, it should be extremely difficult to win w/out trade... we agree on that. But to put a rule that says "Okay, you don't have to build caravans on Chieftain, Warlord, or Prince, but when you play on King and Emporer you MUST build caravans as an absolute requirement to win." Keep it constant, folks!

An ideal system is one that is marginally important in the earlier levels (Chieftain) because the AI is worse and you don't need to trade to stay ahead... while the higher level you get the more important it gets, because when you fight against a tough AI in Diety (hopefully) you will need all the tools at your disposal to stay on top, including trade.

But no concrete rules. If people want to not build any caravans on Diety, that's fine. They will learn for themselves it is a big mistake, and start trading because they want to and not because Firaxis says they need to.

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