Announcement

**The Mad Viking** · February 21, 2000, 16:04

I think tying energy consumption to movement is very important, and can allow modern military units greater (and more realistic) movement range with the penalty of increased energy consumption. An armored division crossing a distant enemy continent on rail twice in a game turn, and one fortified outside a friendly city should have vastly different "support".
I am not sure we need to add the complexity of another category. Production represents an amalgam of energy and resoucres, and the distinction. I think, will not enrich gameplay as much as it encumbers it.
I like the idea of advanced resources being invisible until the technology exists to use them.

**Matthevv** · February 21, 2000, 17:27

I like this energy idea, but I think it could be logically extended to a number of commodities that play a role in the game.

I would see a dual role for these -
1. They are a factor in determining the happiness of your cities, so a city with poor access to commodities would suffer a loss of happiness.
2. They are necessary to do things, so energy for example, would be a key commodity for almost everything in the later game, movement, manufacture of trade goods and armaments, etc.

Commodities could be naturally occurring resources, or things manufactured from them. Examples of commodities would be iron ore, iron, steel, wood, coal, uranium, electricity, food, gold, jewelery. These commodities would be traded as well, instead of the random trading in Civ2.

**raingoon** · February 21, 2000, 21:45

Following, for convenience, is the original Energy model from the Energy thread:

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Proposal for a New Energy Model for Civ 3
It works like this. Energy resources, depicted as BARRELS, would be distinct from production resources, which would remain SHIELDS. Energy could be derived from coal, oil, or uranium, depending on your current level of technology. Production resources would be derived from the same resources as they always were. The difference being that now the player has the choice of saying how much coal or oil is converted to shields and how much is converted to barrels. Uranium would only be used for energy. For example: Coal depoits might produce barrels at a one to one barrel ratio, oil fields three barrels to the same one, and uranium five barrels to one. The lower the ratio, the more frequently occurring the resource will be throughout the world.

Energy barrels would be stored and controlled globally -- that is, not locally in any one city, but rather in a "STOCKPILE" that would represent the energy reserves of your entire civ. On the game map, there would now be COAL DEPOSITS, OIL FIELDS, and URANIUM DEPOSITS, distinct from any of the previous seeded resources. These new tiles would be capable of producing moderate (coal) to heavy (oil) to HUGE (uranium) amounts of barrels. Another idea might be to vary the amount a player is able to extract by the current level of technology they possess, in addition to the type of resource from which it was originally derived. These geological sites would be seeded proportionately around the map, but not so abundantly that the search for them and the ownership of them wouldn't be extremely competitive.

So, assuming a new Production/Energy relationship, leave the production side with its shields, for now. For the purposes of this model production stays the same. On the new energy side, I've already described where the energy barrels would come from. Now I'll try to suggest where they would go.

Barrels would go to, at your discretion, Trade, Unit Supply, and Transportation.

First, Trade. Very simple. You have two options -- either convert barrels to trade arrows that feed your trade stream (on which your science, tax and luxuries still depend), or trade barrels directly through diplomatic negotiations with another civ -- by the barrel. The latter would add a new layer to diplomacy, and the former a greatly simplified trade stream feature. I.e., where before trade arrows were counted and adjusted per individual tile, now you could create huge masses of trade arrows simply by adjusting a slider in your ENERGY STOCKPILE screen. Great, huh?

Secondly, unit supply. Pre-modern units would require what they have always required to build and maintain -- shields. But to build modern units would require not only shields, but barrels as well. Additionally, maintaining these units now would require ONLY barrels. "Maintaining," in the case of modern units, means supplied via a supply line. Thus, the strategic trade-off of a powerful modern army is its dependency on its supply of energy to make it run. I'll leave it for another model to decide which units need supply lines and which don't, and what the rules of supply lines might be. Suffice to say, your ENERGY STOCKPILE were empty, and your last tank across the world was dependent on 1 barrel per turn coming from your last oil field, losing possession of that field would cut off your tank's supply. On the next turn that tank would find itself reduced to the defensive equivalent of a phalanx. The turn after that its attack would be that of a militia. And it wouldn't move. Cool, huh?

Lastly, Transportation -- the building, using, and maintenance of a transportation infrastructure -- also consumes your energy barrels. This excludes pre-modern roads. Movement along these roads is a function of the unit and its own supply of energy, if needed. It DOES mean, however, that barrels would be needed to fund the upgrading of MODERN roads (increased trade and movement benefits), ALL rails, and travel by rail. As in pre-modern roads, unit travel by air and sea would be a function of those units' supply.

So, there is now a direct link between your railroad infrastructure and your available energy. How would railroads work? When traveling by rail, the unit(s) are assumed to be traveling by train. Their normal supply cost, if any, doesn't count while that unit is moving on a train (along a railroad). Instead, there is an energy cost for operating that train. And whether there are one, two or ten units on the train, the cost is the same. No longer can a player willy-nilly build railroads to their heart's content and cross their continent 10 times in a turn without an opportunity cost somewhere else. Of course they can if they want, IF they got the gas, and IF they choose to spend it that way. But the availabity of resources found on the game map, and the cost of processing them into barrels, SHOULD require a great deal of strategic skill to maneuver oneself into such a position that he could afford to waste valuable energy going sightseeing on his railroad. Too, railroads will have to be planned carefully and economically. Your ability to begin construction projects would be dependent completely on your energy stockpile. So, to be clear: when a tank is moving across grassy plains from Kansas City to Los Angeles, it is expending 1 barrel per its maximum movement, 3 squares, over that terrain. But when that tank moves onto a railroad, the train it is on consumes, say, 10 barrels per tile, but there remains no limit to its maximum movement, save the player's energy reserves (btw, numbers herein don't represent anything more than my own crude guesses at ratios). Needless to say, railroads would not function if there were not enough fuel in the stockpile.

To offset this choice, MODERN ROADS, or HIGHWAYS, could be introduced to the game. This would offer a medium alternative between pre-modern roads and rail, wherein there would be a "highway maintenence" cost added to a unit's normal movement supply cost. It would be FAR less than rail travel, but the distance traveled per turn, though greater than normal, would be limited. Certain technology upgrades would be linked to an increased ability to move, or a decreased barrel cost to move the same distance -- i.e., future train travel might cost much less after the discovery of Atomic Power (allowing for URANIUM MINES), and subsequently Fusion might allow for a sharp decreases in the cost of rail travel. A player presumably would have to have at least one Uranium mine feeding his energy stockpile to get this effect.

I believe this model will enhance other areas of the game as well. Already I can see how it would effectively eliminate the problem known as "I.C.S.", or "Infinite City Sleaze," that strategy of overwhelming opponents with innumerable small cities. Players who have over-expanded their empire in earlier centuries will find the energy demands of modern military units and transportation to be cost prohibitive over such great distances. Unless they have the barrels they will find, as the cost of infrastructure and defense rises, their borders will shrink rapidly as more balanced nations take them over. The wise player will thus never build beyond their projected ability to support the energy demands of their infrastructure. This solution has the virtue of imposing the new economics of the game world as a cure for I.C.S., rather than creating false penalties. I believe the ONLY reason players were able to get away with I.C.S. in the past is because ENERGY was not modeled in the game.

In summary, energy is in fact, as we know, the currency of not only war, but peace. All infrastructure depends on it. It is distinct from, though married to, production. I hope this leads to some useful discussions here, and with the Civ 3 design team.

An ammendment to the model could be that resources would be separated by PRIMARY (Coal, Oil and Uranium) and SECONDARY (Solar, Hydro, etc.) resources. The latter would all be the low-yield/plentiful variety, capable of powering ONLY a very small Civ, or a large civ's infrastructure. As such, Coal might well become a defacto secondary resource by the end of a game.
Some suggestions for SECONDARY resources have included Wood (found in forests) Solar Power (found in deserts), Hydroelectric (rivers?), and Geothermal(?)... Again, Coal might be the first PRIMARY resource, but with the discovery of Oil become the first of what will become SECONDARY resources in the modern world. Again, by "primary" I only mean capable of sustaining a modern superpower. And by "secondary," I only mean "NOT capable of sustaining a superpower."
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

**RyanR** · February 21, 2000, 23:03

I agree that there should be some way in which small empires should be able to have a chance against larger ones. As it is, the bigger get bigger and the smaller get smaller.

**raingoon** · February 22, 2000, 23:04

Another reason Energy is essential -- many have been talking about how Civs should not be able to rise and rise without a greater risk of falling. Having to fund the growth of your civ with energy resources finally will equate civ size with player skill.

Nobody should be able to expand and maintain a huge group of cities without the nation's ability to support them as a unified country.

**MidKnight Lament** · February 22, 2000, 23:13

yeah, i'm still loving this idea. it's simple, it solves old problems, and creates new facets to the game. bring it on!

**ChrisShaffer** · February 22, 2000, 23:28

Seems rather biased to assume that solar or hydro power are incapable of supporting a modern superpower. Given the level of research and effort put into implementing nuclear power, it's quite possible that these so-called 'secondary' power sources could be converted into 'primary' power sources by your definition.

**raingoon** · February 23, 2000, 03:17

You're absolutely correct. I always thought the game designers would ultimately know what to include and hot to balance it, but I suppose I could ammend the suggestion to show some of us actually THINK about this stuff...

**S. Kroeze** · February 23, 2000, 09:31

I'm not against this idea, yet I'll make one critical remark.

This idea will influence the game only after the Industrial Revolution has occurred, which on our planet was around 1800AD. So it will influence only the last 200 years of a total time span of 6000 years or more. (Some posters have asked for an earlier starting date; this is no illogical request: the oldest technologies of the tree, like Pottery and Masonry, were discovered a long time before 4000BC)

In my opinion the ancient and medieval period of CivII passed much too fast. I hope the designers will give a lot more attention to the first 5600 years of human history. As the game is now, some things are absolutely ridiculous: like the building time of a simple band of warriors, which can take two hundred years.

So much more work has still to be done to solve ICS and Eternal China!

**Matthevv** · February 23, 2000, 12:32

I also would like more emphasis on the earlier times in the game. (In fact if I were King I would make the game stop at 1900)

So I think a more general resources/commodities system, that includes a number of different resources/commodities would be preferable to a system that only considers energy.

**raingoon** · February 23, 2000, 16:28

Korn469, to answer what other areas this idea would impact:

Trade
Diplomacy (trading energy, commoditites, land negotiation, etc.)
Transportation
Expansion (ability fund, see ICS)
Exploration (new feature: locating resource deposits)
Technology Tree (discovery needed before able to locate/use resource)
ICS (makes it cost more to have more)
Combat (vis a vis Unit Supply)
Unit Supply (energy is the coin of the realm here, how it is disbursed via supply model is up to the supply model)
Land Control (necessitates the need to control resources)
City Management (possibly, depending on city resource model and how energy is disbursed)
Game Interface (energy "barrels," or other icon, now tracked alongside production shields)
Map Tiles (new tiles for Special Resources)

In a 4X strategy game, this idea is nothing less than fundamental to the game balance. Many good suggestions and criticisms have been made that I'll try to incorporate into the model before I post if for final nomination.

I'm not sure that an earlier form of energy needs to be modeled -- i.e., wood or other fire fuel? Because we have to consider exactly what Work the Energy was doing prior to the early Industrial age? I tend to think this is a feature that begins with certain discoveries in mid-game and grows to end-game.

Drawing that distinction would be more fun than not, as you might want to try, for instance, to be such a "green" society that you avoid the use of energy-using units etc., to seek a peaceful victory without ever developing that type of industrial society. Not having to worry about energy supply and demand would be one reason to do this.

**korn469** · February 24, 2000, 01:49

raingoon

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

so basically what you are saying, is that units like a tank (10-5-3) can move up to three squares, but only if you have the energy barrels to pay for them to move?so if you had three hundred units and only two energy barrels you wouldn't have the ability to move very far...where as a civ with two units and three hundred energy barrels could move great distances if they had rail roads? is that what the general idea is? are there other ares the idea effects?

**Glostakarov** · February 24, 2000, 12:26

I might be misunderstanding somewhat, but I just don't see how the energy model can solve anything, and here's why. Energy being dependant on resources found on the map is the main problem. If I'm building up a pile of cities, by the law of averages I'm going to collect those resources from several cities. Thus ICS solves the energy problem, rather than the other way around.
If the energy resources are made so rare that you can't find enough to run a large empire, then someone is going to get shafted. A random map will place its extremely limited amount of energy resources out there, and somebody is not going to be able to grab one and will collapse as soon as they get to the point where energy becomes a factor.
A midpoint doesn't exist. If you place enough energy producing tiles out there for every civ to be sure of having access, then every civ will be able to cover all available ground and find more energy tiles.

**raingoon** · February 24, 2000, 16:25

You may be misunderstanding if you think I'm trying to eliminate ICS altogether. I'm opposed to any artificial penalties designed to stop ICS. What I want to see is a new economics and resource model that does what it would do in the real world, makes ICS a prohibitively expensive proposition. It's a very simple concept -- If you build that many cities, you've got to somehow support the infrastructure and military required to defend them. By changing the resource model of the game, this can be accomplished.

But to answer your question, Yes. Somebody's going to get the shaft, more or less than somebody else. You seem to say that's a bad thing. But I say that makes the game more dramatic, and makes for more compelling gameplay. I absolutely am NOT suggesting that cities are the main gatherer of resources. Neither should there be some kind of happy "mid-point," even if such a thing were possible. But I also don't believe a civ must necessarily "collapse" when they discover energy driven technology and find they have failed to get the energy they need -- perhaps they want a peaceful, "green" society. Or perhaps they have diplomatic and trade networks set up to make up for their foreseen shortfall. Or perhaps the worst has occurred and they've tried the ICS strategy, in which case they will certainly collapse without the energy needed to fund their vast transport network and supply a sufficient defense, or fund what in Civ 2 would have been an unbeatable and proliferate military. Hey -- you can have as many cities as you want, but if you can't fund the military, they're no threat to me. I think that's a key point to remember. ICS in and of itself isn't the bane of a balanced game. The units that ICS spawns is the problem.

Also, the game shouldn't be so simplistic that there aren't other paths to victory if you don't have the resources, or other means by which an energy poor civ might change their fortune in the resource race. You pose some good questions. I can't vouch for the play balance of my hypothetical numbers, and don't mean to. Neither can anyone else. I think the simple concept here is solid -- and variations abound in other strategy games to support this. Indeed, those other games may have the "cheese rush" problem instead of ICS, but it's a related problem nonetheless. Civ 3 is in a unique position to break new ground because it allows for more checks and balance through varied models than most other games.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited February 24, 2000).]</font>

Announcement

EC3 New Idea #23 - Energy

EC3 New Idea #23 - Energy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment