 |
| |
|
|
Matthevv
|
|
Crawley, W.Sussex, England
Mar 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
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
|
 |
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
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=/forums/"/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=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RyanR
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matthevv
|
|
Crawley, W.Sussex, England
Mar 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
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
|
|
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glostakarov
|
|
York, Yorkshire, England
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
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
|
|
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
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>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I really like this idea, and I definately think it should be included.
I do, however, have some suggestions and critic remarks:
1: I am very much for the 10x idea that we discussed in connection with our SE models this fall. It means that when a warrior used to cost 10 shields it will now cost 100. But the same time a forest square will now generate 20 shields in stead of 2. This way it will not change the fundamental aspects of the game. It will, however, make more things possible. You can now have units requiring food for support, have an advance that increases the food output with 10%, make it possible for different units to have different support (a stealth fighter needs more and other things than a legion) etc. It would make the game much, much better, and I think it is a must-have.
2: I disagree on having a central pool of energy. I think you should have to build trade routes (made instantly with a small fee) from your oil producing colony to your porduction mainland. This is because it should be possible to make a blockade against an enemy. This is one of the most important features I see in energy barrels, and so it should be possible. This would finally give you a reason to have a navy - to protect your energy trade routes and in wartime to disrupt your enemy's.
3: The modern production requires energy to work. To portray this I think that in order for a factory to convert 1 production into 2 production it should need 1 energy barrel. Manufacturing plants etc should work the same way. This would make energy even more crucial, and would make new war strategies like cutting off the enemy's energy supply even more efficient, as his entire production capability would be destroyed. I really like this idea as it is realistic and makes gameplay better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
raingoon
|
|
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
Rough draft of my final proposal.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>A New Energy Model for Civ 3
Put energy resources into the game, as distinct from production resources. Few things would have as much benefit to other features as a simple Energy model. Energy resources could be depicted as BARRELS, where production resources would remain SHIELDS.
Energy could be derived from coal, oil, uranium, wind, solar and water, depending on your current level of technology. The map would seed these Special Energy Resources according to their energy yield potential. E.g., the more profitable a single resource is, the less frequently it appears on the map. Perhaps Uranium, which might yield the most barrels per site, would be the hardest to find.
The use of Energy in the game would be in combination with production shields to create modern units. Some units, like battleships, could not be built without HUGE volumes of energy barrels, and low-yield resources like coal would not be enough. The balance of the game should dictate that building a unit like a battleship, and supporting it, perhaps via a supply line, probably requires that the player locate, secure and exploit oil. Uranium better yet.
Various areas of the game that would be effected:
Trade - for players who missed the exploration and resource grab;
Diplomacy - trading energy, commoditites, land negotiation, etc;
Transportation - require each road tile and highway tile to consume energy, rail tiles as well -- should no longer be free, but much cheaper;
Exploration - new feature: locating resource deposits;
Technology Tree - discovery needed before able to locate/use resource;
ICS - makes it cost more to have more, thereby helping to restrict unbridled expansion;
Combat - vis a vis unit supply;
Unit Supply - energy is the coin of the realm here, how it is disbursed via supply 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. In Civ, this feature would likely kick in at mid-game; therefore a player should not be able to locate a resource on the game map until they have such technology as would be required to exploit it.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
raingoon
about your energy idea
Trade - for players who missed the exploration and resource grab
i agree
Diplomacy - trading energy, commoditites, land negotiation, etc
i agree
Transportation - require each road tile and highway tile to consume energy, rail tiles as well -- should no longer be free, but much cheaper
needs work...in my opion each movement point spent by all modern units should require a barrel of energy for that to happen, so a tank moving three space across a field would require 3 energy barrles while a tank moving 11 spaces on a highway (see zanzibar's post) and then stopping at a fort would require 3 energy barrels...using railroads would require a fixed amount of energy barrels (see zanzibars post) while a stealth fighter flying 11 spaces would require 11 energy barrels
Exploration - new feature: locating resource deposits
i agree
Technology Tree - discovery needed before able to locate/use resource
i agree
ICS - makes it cost more to have more, thereby helping to restrict unbridled expansion
i feel that it has little impact on ICS but will be extreamly helpful in small states versus large states
Combat - vis a vis unit supply
i feel that it should just be needed for movement
Unit Supply - energy is the coin of the realm here, how it is disbursed via supply is up to the supply model
shields should still be needed...i feel that energy is just needed for movement
Land Control - necessitates the need to control resources
i agree
City Management - possibly, depending on city resource model and how energy is disbursed
i dunno yet, please explain it better
Game Interface - energy "barrels," or other icon, now tracked alongside production shields
i agree
Map Tiles - new tiles for Special Resources
i agree
also you left out a few things
energy barrels equals pollution: energy barrels used should be the sole determinant of how much pollution is caused, early on energy barrels will produce large amounts of pollution per barrel used, but increased technology will lower this amount
energy barrels needed for production:
you can't process shields without using energy barrels...so no matter how many shields per turn your base collects if it doesn't have energy barrels it cannot apply those shields to production...before factories are built it would take one energy barrel to use one shield, as factories are built the amount of shields utilized per energy barrel would go up
shields can be turned into energy barrels:
think of this as things like synthetic fuels produced by nazi germany during the end of WWII and other alternative fuel sources...i propose that it would take two shields to make one energy barrel
korn469
p.s. in SMAC in the alpha text which i was looking at last night it hase the ability to set values for food minerals money and then there is an unused value...so if it already exists to an extent in the alpha text hopefully it can be added to civ3...i haven't played around with it but maybe somebody could see what you can do with that unused value
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited March 02, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MadWoodster
|
|
A wierd and mad place called Southampton
Jan 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Sounds great to me though I think we would have to specify that mills can be placed in rivers and beaches but not further out. Lumber jacks obviously only in forests, and wind mills could be more powerful on hills, not sure whether building them on mountains is plausible but certainly not in forests. SOme sort of animal power would be great though where you would place it is another matter as you could have various animals for different terrains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glostakarov
|
|
York, Yorkshire, England
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
While we're discussing the improvements part, how about a wonder (not sure what) that would provide a flat 20% (or some number) of the civ's energy needs. Thus a country that got unlucky placement (lack of energy producing tiles) could push their tech to be first to the wonder to make up for the lack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glostakarov
|
|
York, Yorkshire, England
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
OPEC sounds good for the wonder, but instead have it leech a bit of the oil produced by everyone else. After all, twice nothing is still nothing if you got shafted on the energy tiles. But if your country was the first to recognize the value of these foreign assets and bought them all up...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-02-2000 01:53
|
|