 |
| |
|
|
GaryGuanine
|
|
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
Youngsun,
quote:
and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.
|
Do I? Of course not. What I said and what you said probably have nothing to do with each other.
Roman,
quote:
There is in fact absolutely no difference in principle between international and domestic trade.
|
Yeah, but there is absolutely no similarity between international and domestic trade as Civ2 treats them. That's the point I was trying to make.
quote:
Anyway Gary, if you support realism than you support the resource system, which I would also like to see.
|
Of course I support some kind of resource system, I just don't want to see it dominate the game, and consist of some kind of "global market"
Youngsun (and applies to cyclotron),
Youngsun: quote:
quote:
It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields.
Gary said exactly the same thing and I already explained the difference between two systems.
|
I didn't understand it at all the first time, so it might be a good idea to state it again.
Youngsun (only  ),
quote:
CivIII should belong to someone who have great interest in history and how the civilisation of the past and present rised and fell.
|
This is the basis behind all of my arguments so far.
Regardless (not a person who posts, but a conjunction),
The game is going to be great. Look at all the new information that was just given out. It sounds like it's going to be an incredible game, doesn't it? Like I said on the other thread, I'm sure I'm going to play the game and say, "Wow, fantastic idea, better than mine." It's fun to debate things, but it's going to be wonderful no matter what. These guys always come through.
Gary
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
cyclotron7
I had one strong principle when I suggested the primary resource model. A resource becomes a condition whether to allow to build certain things or not. Other following details are just details and I wouldn't dream of that Firaxis use the exactly same thing as mine in detailed fashion. I was actually pessimistic about the concept making into the game because it was new and untried in civ series. Anyhow, I maintained my view all along though it was under heavy attack. That's why I'm so happy about what Firaxis has done for resource(primary or as you say "mandatory") and trade(commodity-based) because it was so unexpected.
I and cyclotron7 have had radically different views and both of us were unable to pursuade one another. we had few times of nasty exchange of colourful words but somewhat managed to maintain the debate as it is not as a fight. cyclotron7 also demonstrated very mature attitude by asking me to participate his model for constuctive criticism though we knew we had very different views(I really give you a credit for that!) also by mediating me and Gary in the words "I think they used stuff from both of our plans... compromise is the best way of doing it, anyway!".
Anyway, we are both happy and that's the most important thing.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 30, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
Youngsun,
Thank you very much. Truly, the highest praise comes from one's opponent (in resources, at least). We may not have convinced eachother, but I do believe we may have convinced a few others along the way! An incident once or twice, but for the most part it was a good, clean fight. 
And to commemorate that exchange, note my new signature...
Well, I'll put my thoughts on the Firaxis resource method (as much as I can tell) in this familiar format:
quote:
a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units
|
This is still something that worries me... note that the review said:
quote:
Resources such as iron and uranium allow a civilization to produce certain goods.
|
Youngsun, perhaps you were a bit quick to decide that goods meant units? Although that is possible, it is also probable that goods could mean a variety of other things, including maybe a host of manufactured commodities in addition to basic raw materials. Wouldn't that be interesting!
I am glad that it doesn't look like we'll be dealing with the basic resources (wood, stone) that I railed against.
Verdict: marginal defeat for supplementary system
quote:
b) is based on luck, due to random map placement
|
Firaxis seems to be using the same seeding as Civ2, so how important this point is depends on how important they make goods in the game.
Verdict: stalemate
quote:
c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade
|
From what I've seen; not likely. Although they are giving more importance to trade (talk about monopolies, power brokers) and this could turn sour, the lack of anything mentioning needed resources for that aircraft carrier Firaxis is making on the city screen, and any indication of any other building material besides shields, seems to point to a goods system that is more important but not all important.
Verdict: marginal victory
quote:
d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!
|
Rejoyce! My biggest concern here was stockpiling and quantities (battleship needs 200 labor, 125 steel, 20 copper, 50 oil, 25 titanium, 5 uranium...), and it looks like these are history. Note that simple icons of the resources themselves are producing luxuries in the city screen, indicating that the route itself is being used rather than quantities of the good. The absence of anything but shields to build with also indicates the lack of stockpiling.
Verdict: decisive victory
Average: MARGINAL VICTORY for the supplementary system
... which, Youngsun, is why I am happy 
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 30, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
eric789
|
|
cyclotron7,
I've been lurking and observed you guys' discussion with some interest. cyclotron7, I'm very sorry to say this but it's your model's total defeat though I'm not so sure whether youngson's model got a victory or not. Correct me, if i'm wrong but I think the supplementary resource model's principle was that resources are not the decisive factor for unit building but just bonus for faster production or increased unit strength. In other word, someone can build a unit with or without resources. In Youngson's model's principle, resources are the decisive factor and you need a certain resource to build certain unit. Judging from what's in the screenshots, I believe that Civ3 will be using a model that shares the same principle as Youngson's one. Part of the article says that "Possible drawback: Also, linking resources to unit building could prove frustrating". A principle is what the model stands for and if the principle changes, the model is gone. However, details can be changed at any time which means compromisable. You lost something un-compromisable for your model and it's your total defeat.
eric
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
Eric,
It incorrect that the supplementary system lost, because there really isn't one.
Generally, like the term "mandatory resource system," I have used this term to define a resource system in which trade is more important than in Civ2, but not as critical as in the MRS (tired of writing "mandatory" ).
Given these broadly defined terms, it is impossible to say that the system "lost." If you look back on the 1st resource thread, you will see that I proposed and supported a variety of different such supplementary sytems, one of which was extremely similar to Firaxis' decision.
Overall, my satisfaction with Firaxis' system depends on whether I like it or not, despite the fate of any one of my proposed systems. I gave Youngsun a list of 4 problems with the MRS that I intended as guidelines for myself in creating a better SRS. As long as these 4 problems are solved, I don't care what they call it or whether units are truly "mandatory" or not. I don't oppose the MRS on its basic idea, but rather how it is interpreted here by its proponents.
So in fact, there was no "great defeat" for the SRS. Defeat shouldn't really matter at this point anyway, as we have a picture from Firaxis and we should concentrate our efforts withing those parameters Firaxis has already chosen. Defeat of past issues isn't really important, we have to work with what we are given... and I believe we have been given the makings of a great game.
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, I kinda like how civ3 seems to be going in its implementation of resources... however I have one suggestion:
Each resource allows ONE city to build a unit/structure that requires that resource... All available resources would be shown in the city screen, but they would have a number on top of them... as more cities use that resource the number is reduced until you finally have ZERO available. These resources are not used up, when a city using a resource stops building something that needs it, it becomes available again. (Kinda like dilitum in BotF) I also like that cities need to be connected by roads/ports for them to use/share resources.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
I kind of like the idea that resources are used up, as long as new finds constantly occur during the game. Perhaps this would lead to a power shift, but it's been the contention of several people in this thread that being a 'have not' would ruin their game. Have and have not status might change as old fields and mines run dry and new ones are discovered. Certainly, some might be so great as to last the whole game, such as the Persian Gulf oil or the US midwest coal. Anyway, a persons fortunes might change several times this way, and so it would 'ruin' everyones game the same. If it does that, well, you've modeled the real world a bit better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
cyclotron, there should be a warning, perhaps in reduction of output. Stockpiling, well why not? You would have to make the 'storage facility' improvement... Anyway, when you run out in one place you might find whatever it is in another, or it might pop up in an allied civ,or you could buy it on the open market I described earlier. Just like it's done in reality.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2001 11:10
|