 |
|
|
I agree 100%, the laborer should be added to the city's scientist, tax collector, and entertainer. This way you can have better control of the city's output concerning tax, reasearch, entertainment and now production. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
In Civ 2 we could give away military units, but not trade them. I think that military units should be able to be traded for raw materials, or flat out sold. Certainly arms merchants exist and are supported by their nations...
In Republic and Democracy you should not be allowed by the senate to trade military units with certain other types of governments. (Unless you are allied w/ them)
What do you guys think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I have no problem with resources being used... just don't go to far (check out the game DESTINY to see what I mean).
As a side thought Hides and Bauxite are also very important resources.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
Yes, I agree that resources should not go too far, and that is what my above post tries to demonstrate. Everything (except possibly nukes) should be readily available for shields... the role of industrial resources would be a supplementary one.
By the way, I was talking about that these industrial resources should be commodities, too. There are only slight differences:
Industrial (i.e. iron, coal, bronze)
- Can be used (as stated) as supplements to building.
- Can be stored up, at a fixed rate.
- Fixed amounts of stored industrial resources can be traded, as can the resource routes themselves (trade routes).
Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold)
- Cannot be stored up or used for building
- Can form trade routes
- When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).
Okay?
------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
With monolith94's labour points, everything becomes so clear!
Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay
Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone
Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood
etc etc...
If your city can produce 5 labour pts every turn, a granary will cost 4 turns to be completed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Windborne
|
|
lansing, michigan, usa
Jan 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
I am totally against a complex system of manufacture. I would deffinitely support more types of resource, say shields, food, energy, and population, each of which is needed for something, but don't make it too complex.
Oil fields could provide extra "energy" which could be traded, just like buffolo provide extra shields in the current game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:12
|
|
It is a really intriguing model, but I think it does not have to be as complicated as that! Why not just let special ressources give special bonuses. It could work something like this:
spice: +1 happiness empire wide.
elephant: allows war elephant unit
iron: +1 attack for phalanx and legion units
timber: +1 movement, +1 hit points for ships
stone: +1 hit points to city walls
etc...
Shields would still be used to build most everything. But with special ressources, a civ would gain something extra.
This idea would make trade really interesting. For example, a civ with an abundance of "spice" might want to trade with a civ that has "elephants" so that it can get some war elephants, the other civ really wanting some extra happiness from the "spice". Trade could also be central to wars. Would you want a trade partner trading your "iron" to your enemy? We could have real trade embargoes in the game that make sense. This fits well with what Sid said about being able to deny a ressource to a powerful enemy.
Last, I think my idea fits well with what we heard from Firaxis about "unique benefits" for civs. My idea would give something extra to civs making each one unique in a sense. But the benefits are not fixed. They come from the special ressources the civ has found. These ressources can of course change hands during the game. You can trade, pillage, conquer for those ressources!
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 16, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
young newbie forever
|
|
hopatcong,NJ,USA
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
i havent read this entire topic but i have somthing to say
I realize that a economic trade system like your suggesting would be realistic but in this case realism= no fun. I realize that some of you have been playing this game for years but what firaxis needs is newbies and younger kids like me. Im 12 i got the game when i was 10 and when i looked at it i couldnt give a damn about resources or economy i just wanted to conquer the world (and i still play with bloodlust on  ). and if i had turned the box around and read what you guys are asking to be in an economy i would still be looking for the purfect game. Now i realize that some when reading this are gonna say that newbies arent important blah blah blah but look at it this way, i know some of you like to start a game and if your not in a good place restart but i dont do that no matter how bad the land i just keep playin but the way you guys are recomending it if i started in a dessert i cant build anything but sand castles (joke). i propose this
a,b,c=empires in game
a trades b buffalo for steel a's city with the new steel can now store the steel,send the steel to another city, trade the steel, or ad it to its production of lets say cannon. each unit of steel ads to production. now since a cannon needs lots of steel to make lets say each unit of steel ads 15 sheilds to production and the cannon already has 30 sheilds you put 1 steel into it now it has 45 say it needs 50 to be finnished and you city makes 5 basic production. next turn you have a connon. but since it was made with steel the canon now has + 3 hitpoints (not much but itle do). back at b his steel mine would automatically produe 5 units of steel but makes 10 becouse it has a mine on it. the buffallo from a ads food and trade to b's city for a short time. suddenly BAM b find a gold mine far away from its home land so it takes a settler,builds a town on the gold (a town would be a minie city and when built only works on the resource below it, it would not use the settler as population instead when its built it would take poeple that are tired of working as the settler and they would settle down and ther offspring would continue on as the settler. a town would have a pop of like 500 to start and grows very slowly, like 50 a year and when it reaches 1000 would beome a city , anyway a town would work of the source directly below it and produce 1 unit of, lets say gold, per every 50 people )and then this gold ads to the treasury and ads trade to a nearby city or whatever city you designate it to be delivered to. but in the end couse c is america it wins and conquers the cannons with tanks (america always wins in my games so can you geuss who i play as )
[This message has been edited by young newbie forever (edited February 17, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Fiera
quote:
From now on, I appoint Youngsun as my official spokesman.
|
What if my opinion is different from yours once in a while? Geez! I bear hugh responsibility from now on...
Roman
quote:
This is one of the major reasons why I support the resource system so much. Personally, I woould like to see a full-blown resource system you describe, but I can understand that Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple. That's why I proposed an efficiency based resource system.
|
Yes I understand Roman but there are too much at stake if we don't make resources more important than that of previous games. Whenever I played civ I never bother to trade with other civs. why? because I didn't need to trade for my growth and survival. My insular economy was good enough to keep up with my revenue requirement and further I didn't want to give any benefit to my enemies from my vast economy.
The resource system doesn't have to have 50~60 separate items for full simulation. I say 10~12 items will do for reasonable representation. Also those items must be something we are very familar with such as "oil" and "coal".
young newbie forever 
You will not stay as newbie forever after you played civ some times. You will be turned out to be a hard core civ fan like me then what? You will begin to explore more game features that had been kept hidden from your eyes for a long time. You will be able to enjoy other game features such as "diplomacy" which allows peaceful co-existance with your AI foes. You will enjoy other ways of achieving final victory. then you will be thankful and excited , when there are a lot more to explore in the game which also promise game logevity. You might be a newbie for a while(less than 1 month? I think)but you will be a hard core fan for the rest of your life. So you really want cut off very important game features, that would make you happy for the rest of your life, to satisfy your 1 month of newbie period?
quote:
a trades b buffalo for steel a's city with the new steel can now store the steel,send the steel to another city, trade the steel, or ad it to its production of lets say cannon. each unit of steel ads to production. now since a cannon needs lots of steel to make lets say each unit of steel ads 15 sheilds to production and the cannon already has 30 sheilds you put 1 steel into it now it has 45 say it needs 50 to be finnished and you city makes 5 basic production. next turn you have a connon. but since it was made with steel the canon now has + 3 hitpoints (not much but itle do). back at b his steel mine would automatically produe 5 units of steel but makes 10 becouse it has a mine on it. the buffallo from a ads food and trade to b's city for a short time. suddenly BAM b find a gold mine far away from its home land so it takes a settler,builds a town on the gold (a town would be a minie city and when built only works on the resource below it, it would not use the settler as population instead when its built it would take poeple that are tired of working as the settler and they would settle down and ther offspring would continue on as the settler. a town would have a pop of like 500 to start and grows very slowly, like 50 a year and when it reaches 1000 would beome a city , anyway a town would work of the source directly below it and produce 1 unit of, lets say gold, per every 50 people )and then this gold ads to the treasury and ads trade to a nearby city or whatever city you designate it to be delivered to. but in the end couse c is america it wins and conquers the cannons with tanks
|
This is even more complicated than What I proposed!
You weren't a newbie after all....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM
Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions.
|
Just a friendly word that I hope will be taken in the right way . I think you guys are going away overboard here... A system like you're talking about might arguably be desirable, but consider what would happen with this system in the AI's hands. As we all know the AI is about as clever as a cantaloupe . It simply wouldn't be able to cope. I think the intermediate system where you can use either a specific commodity, or just general resources is the way to go. Right now we are using something even simpler than that in Clash, where the presence of appropriate amounts of special commodities give overall economic bonuses. This is simpler even than your intermediate system, but it allows for things like oil embargos reducing a civ's production by 30% or so.
An economic penalty of 30% reduced production due to lack of oil is no joke. Youngson, the only reason you never had to bother with trade under such penalties, is because the AI in Civ 2 is completely worthless... Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.
If you guys were meaning to have a completely abstract discussion about "how cool it would be if" without considering any possibility of it actually getting into the system, then I apologize for my pedantic comments .
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 18, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roman
|
 |
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
"The diplomacy model is being completely overhauled to allow trading of many, many types of resources, commodities, Agreements, Technologies, units, gold, and cities in practically any combination that you can trick your opponent into accepting"
Actually, looking at this quote from the Firaxis website, we might get some resource system in Civ3. I admit, though, that it may also mean trading of resources/commmodities like in Civ 2. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
 |
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 02-18-2001 08:28 AM
Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.
|
Well, I know a perfect system is imposible to reach, but I strongly believe that Civ3 will be a disappointment if it features the same old trade system (you know, those little arrows that in a farly abstract way come to mean trade)...
According to the list, everyone seems interested in improving trade, and the Message from Sid said it would be done... We know Sid and Firaxis and we know they won't go for an overcomplicated system, and I'm sure they'll try to avoid something that the AI just can't handle...
But still, they have to give us something new... Different resources that have separated and maybe unique uses seem a good thing, and not that difficult to implement (I'm not a programmer, however). I still think they would give the AI a reason to trade... wouldn't they try to get coal if they needed it for their factories?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-02-2001 10:33
|