ECONOMICS/TRADE ( vers 1.3 ) HOSTED BY: HAREL

[ember]

I didn't say that you can't build inland cities, just that costal/river ones have benifits so that they tend to be larger and build more often. In your examples how large are theose trade cities compared to Rome/Shanghai/Alexandria during the same era?

The vast majority of large cities are still costal or on a major river. A spot where you have both is the best, bonuses get combined.

Your point on not all costal cities getting the bonus:
Trade routes are created be people. By the very fact that you settled a city there, there will be trade. The existence of the city creates the bonus. Not all ocean cities will be huge, lots of other factors can keep them small.

For a pair of otherwise identical cities the costal/river city will always have more trade. External factors can change this, like trade routes, but costal cities do have an advantage.

Having a trade bonus represents the ease of access and implicit trade to smaller population centers around the nearby coast. Inland cities do not have this until RR, but you can still establsih trade routes.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Theben:
The silver mines at Laureion in Attica were exploited by slave labor starting between 490 and 480 BC, and Themistocles won a famous debate to use the money to build 200 trieres (triremes), the backbone of the fleet that defeated the Persians at Salamis on 23 Sep 480bc. The 'Athenian' League wasn't started until after the Battle of Plataea the next year, when Athens started 'liberating' Greek cities from the Persians and incorporating them (as you said, frequently forcibly) into the League.
Horses and the technology to breed and prepare them for riding was not general in 4000BC. Just using the CivII civilizations, the Aztecs, Souix, Zulus, Egyptians, and Japanese would have no access to them. I agree, however, that historical handicapping makes a lousy game (everybody should read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs & Steel" for a brilliant exposition on just how bad geographical handicapping has been), That's why I proposed that Chariots would be available as an early mobile unit regardless of access to horses - the first chariots were drawn by onagers or wild asses. Also, the horse would spread fairly quickly to all parts of any connected land mass with the right climate. It was general over Eurasia by 1000BC, but not in central/south Africa ever: couldn't spread through tstse fly country.
Let's not introduce the tstse fly, though: that would handicap someone's starting position 'way too much!
I'm not fanatic on it. Leave horses generally available from the start as you will. I did think it would allow for some more variety in graphic options: units with same factors, but one civ has Light Chariots, another Light Horsemen. Later some (with the right starting geography) have Elephants, while others have Heavy (scyth) Chariots, others Armored Lancers or Horse Archers.
I'm always trying to introduce variety to the game, and items that will differentiate civilizations in wyas other than their names and titles. I figure the more I throw out, the more chance at least a few of them will make the cut...

[Maniac]

"I didn't say that you can't build inland cities"

Did I say that you said that you can't build inland cities?

"just that costal/river ones have benifits so that they tend to be larger and build more often. "

Yes, they have benefits, namely that trade routes are more likely to pass there, certainly before the discovery of the Railroad.
So coastal cities get bonuses cause there pass more trade routes, but an intrinsic bonus to every coastal city is wrong.

"In your examples how large are theose trade cities compared to Rome/Shanghai/Alexandria during the same era?"

I don't know how large they were. But you gave bad examples because the cities you gave were the capitals of civilizations (the Roman and Ptolemaes). And capitals always tend to be larger, even if they are sited on infertile places.

"The vast majority of large cities are still costal or on a major river. A spot where you have both is the best, bonuses get combined."

The same with my 'system'. Cities near an ocean AND a river are likely to receive lots of trade routes.

For the rest of your post, all what you say also counts for my system.

[ember]

Given that they include your specific trade route system, no additional bonus needs to be accounted for. If they do not then my way makes sense.

How about Pompeii? Hamburg? Sparta?

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Maniac]

Indeed if my trade route suggestion isn't used, I agree on your idea.
Err... what about Pompeii, Hamburg and Sparta?

To everyone :

Harel has said on the SE thread, he won't have time to make a new Economy summary. We will have to do it ourselfs. Ideas?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 25, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Surely there is someone here who can condense & summarize a mere 35 posts (someone not working on another thread!).

[don Don]

The Tiber would not be large enough to include on a civ tile at almost any map scale generated or designed. I made a 105x95 Eurasia map, but still had to exaggerate the width of the Italian peninsula to make it 3 wide. Including the Po was a stretch at that scale.

Rivers are so scarce on civ maps they must be considered only the truly huge ones like the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, Indus, Ganges, Danube, Rhine, etc.

I rationalize the civ irrigation system by thinking that there are nearly always rivers flowing into seas, so starting irrigation at the shore isn't completely wacky.

As for trade, civ definitely is short on trade generation: roads in flat terrain, rivers in any terrain, intersections of the two, sea tiles, and special terrains. Trade is generate by all human activity above the subsistence level. Rivers barely considered navigable are more important for trade than the best roads, until the auto.

[Maniac]

In all CivX games, trade was not necessary to survive. It was just nice for some trade bonuses. However in reality trade IS necessary to survive. So I think if you haven't got a certain item in stock, you should have serious penalties.
This would make trade more common since you would HAVE to trade.
Of course the larger your empire, the more of a certain item you need.

Beginning a list of things...
If you haven't got X item in stock, you get Y penalty...

Hides, Wool, Clothes, Dye, Silk : Growth penalty if people have nothing to wear
Salt, Spice : Irrigation and Farms produce 2 less food (using x10 system)
Silver, Gold : Taxes penalty because you have no metals to make coins.
Copper, Iron : Military penalty because you can't make weapons.
Coal, Oil, Uranium : Labor penalty because you have not enough energy sources.
Timber : you can't make boats before the discovery of Steel
Gems, Wine, Beads : Relations penalty?

Those items should be able to be acquired by special resources eg
Hides by Buffalo, Furs, Musk Ox...
Wool by Sheeps (new special resource on Plains or Hills)
Cloth and Silk by a Cotton special resource
etc... Just giving some examples. Special resources like Gold, Iron, Copper, Oil, Uranium should be able to exist on every terrain type.

[don Don]

Harel didn't tell me, and I'm working with him on this! But my part is just Resources and Support aspects (which ties in with the supply aspect of the Movement thread). At least that's how Harel said he wanted to do it.

I'm only about 1/3 done, and it's now… uh… Thursday? Yup, that's it. (I'm studying for certification exams, so I'm goofy right now.)

BTW, it isn't just sumarizing these 35 posts, some reformatting work needs done to lessen the burden on Yin/Shining.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited August 27, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

don Don, are you making the summary of this thread?

[Maniac]

Some points in the summary I would like to see edited...

A.2. says that every citizen = 1 labor.
In my large post here I suggested that the first citizen should produce 10 labor (certainly don't forget to mention the x10 system!), the second 20, the thirth 30..., so that a size 3 city would produce 60 labor. This to reflect that the second citizen is 20000 people, so should generate a double amount of labor than the first citizen (= only 10000 people). Note this also solves the ICS problem since a few large cities are much more profitable than some small ones.

A.8. Not only should some increase happiness or economy, but lack of resources would seriously hurt some aspects of your production. Examples in my post of 'August 26, 09:15'.

A.13. Units should besides resources also need a (very) small amount of gold and food as support.

B.2. I think mercenaries should only need gold as support, not food or resources. However the gold support should be 5 to 10 times as big as a normal unit.

B.4. I think Harel is the only that wants that, I have learned from my discussions with him on the SE thread (I can't help but notice that the ideas he agrees with are well represented and others not). I simulate the burden of war with two Values : Survival and Power. Survival has -2 Economy and Power -2 Production. I think this is enough to simulate the burden. BTW, how determines the AI that you are in a full war? In Civ2 I was constantly at war. But I was rarely in real combat because my enemies were too far away or I just didn't feel like mobilizing my army. So I strongly oppose to this idea.

B.7. I suggested that again with increasing city size, the trade generated in the city square increased also.
Eg size one produces 5 trade (x10!), size 2 15, size 3 30, size 4 50...
Again a solution for ICS.

B.8. I think it should be mentioned that many people like Public Works. Harel has stressed it too less. (he doesn't like CtP)

B.14. The factors Taxes, Research and Happiness of my SE model determine how high you can set your taxes, science and luxuries rate.

C. My trade system I said in 'August 24, 20:26'. Perhaps you could also mention the reasons why this system is the most realistic.
BTW to make trade over ocean ever faster than over land (as in reality in history) in the game, I think moving over ocean should go faster. Movement tripled or something like that.

C.3. You should be able to trade with barbarian and nomad cities/tribes.

C.17. It's not because the people didn't have currency that they didn't know that iron is more worth than wood.

D. In general I think it should be stressed that many people hate walking around with caravans. A more automatic system is wished.

[Harel]

Maniac, I was under the imperssion of Yin that this sunday, the 29, was the absloute deadline.
I got a suprise drop from my commander that I had to stay the weekend at the base: I didn't have time to notifiy Don don, just wanted to finish the darn model: it took my hours over hours.
Now that Yin says the 1 sept is the dead-line, all buisness is okly dokly.
Me AND don don are working on this thread: we divided the work between us.

I was deeply offended by your implamention that I only put ideas that I support: I absloutly add EVERY idea suggested over this thread, no acceptions. I chalange you to find a single idea I ommited.

[Foobar]

M@ni@c: I think you left out a very importend point with respect to trade, rivers and oceans.

Before railroads rivers and oceans were the only way for bulk trade. Goods like timber, food and stone was never traded on land.

Land trade was mostly of goods that had a high value compared to their weight. E.g. silk, clothes, gold, metals etc.

E.g. there was not very much good farmland around Athens so they had to import lots of grain. If Athens had not been close to the sea it would never have been such a large city.

So I think you could say that in ancient times large inland cities were a rarity.

Erik Engheim

[Maniac]

Sigh... Foobar, Bokhara certainly, Palmyra probably and Petra, I don't know WERE on the silk route.

And I know trade over water is preferred. That's why I would decrease the movement points needed to cross water. So until Railroad most trade routes will go over sea.

But silk was much wanted. And a sea route to China wasn't known. So in high need people would even trade over land. And then there can exist big inland cities.
Of course, in game terms, the player should have a reason to trade over land when sea is easier. That's why certain trade items should actually be necessary to have a good functioning empire. Examples in my post of August 26, 9:15.

I totally agree that in ancient times large inland cities were a rarity. But they existed. So they should be possible in Civ3. We all want to make Civ3 as realistic as possible, don't we? And my trade system allows that while Ember's automatic bonus for coastal cities doesn't.
(Note for Ember. That's just why Oceans have 2 trade. To represent the extra trade. So if you give another bonus, coastal cities would have a double bonus.)

And Harel. I don't mean you have omitted an idea. You have done a very good job in representing every idea more or less.

BTW, has your commander got something against you? First your room is searched by 'surprise pick' and now he orders you to stay in the weekend.

[Harel]

My room? Why should anyone care about my room? I don't even have a fixed room at my base... never mind.

About the summary. I am starting now, and I am working on making anything more "complete". This means, uniting similar ideas and making each suggestion bigger and fuller. If it looks like I boost ideas I support: I am sorry. I try to add a touch to each idea, what ever I support it or not. For example, in the summary I list all the trade treaties from my diplomacy post. It's not because I only post my own ideas, but because I covered all the suggested treaties myself.
As you know, I have an orginized mind: I love posting big, elborate posts that detail many ideas then just posting a lot of small posts.
Never the less, I hope you will like the new summary.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 29, 1999).]</font>