 |
| |
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
I’m glad my old religion-colleague Raingoon has removed the deadlock that had arisen in this topic discussion; now we can again talk in a productive way.
Apparently the most fervent opponents of the ‘mandatory’ system don’t like the fact you can’t build certain units at all without certain related resources, eg impossible to build a Legion without 10 Iron. By the following I want to propose a compromise.
You can always build every unit, whether it be a simple Legion (or whatever pre-gunpowder infantry unit) or a more advanced Tank unit without raw materials. The only difference is, that the strength of the unit would be slightly adapted depending on whether you use raw materials, and, if you use them, which material you use. That way, you still have the choice not to trade, and play isolated (communist economy should be excellent for that style). However, trading for certain resources will give you certain bonuses, while not making it absolutely necessary to survive military or economically.
Let’s give a concrete example:
Building a legion (just a general name, not meant to represent the Roman army type) would cost 40 Barrels/Energy Lightnings/Labour Points/Whatever-You-Want’s and optionally added to that 10 Raw Materials.
If you wouldn’t add any raw material to produce it, it is assumed you’re building the unit with some basic everywhere-available resource, eg Stone. Then you will get an infantry unit with stone clubs. They will get a –25% combat penalty in attack and defense.
If Wood’s used for your clubs, and consequently if you pay 10 Wood, it’s a minus 12% penalty. Copper (swords then, probably) would give the normal stats. When you use 7 Copper and 3 Tin (=Bronze) you get a +12% bonus and finally Iron would give +25%.
I’ll summarize the advantages. This compromise would:
1) create some diversity among the otherwise same-old boring ancient units, just as Morale had that effect in SMAC.
2) accurately represent the arms struggle in the Stone-, Copper-, Bronze-, and Iron Age, thus make the Ancient Age much more exciting, as is wanted by many people. Much better than Civ2 with just a stupid tech called ‘Bronze/Iron Working’.
3) keep trading of commodities.
4) not make these metals mandatory for unit construction. For example, well-trained Aztec wooden clubmen still stand a good chance of winning against Greek bronze swordsmen.
By the way, I think it’s not right to consider Wood as a basic resource and therefore not count it to the commodities. The desert-Egyptians imported wood, at a particular moment the English as well out of Sweden to maintain their large fleet. Not everywhere available, thus no ‘basic resource’. Stone I wóuld assume to be basic, cause even if you wouldn’t have stone available, you can *always* use another material, eg clay to build the same thing (Babylonians built their city wall out of clay cause they lacked stone). This doesn’t count for Wood. For example, have you ever seen a boat built with stone?
I also have another idea about Energy/Raw materials. No chance it would make it into Civ3, but I’ll post it anyway, for the sake of fun and discussion.
If in a city the energy production would rise above the raw material production, the energy would be lost, just as you already proposed. To make it concrete:
Rome, in its upper glory, has 15 citizens ( bit more than 1 million people in the Civ2 population system, which I don’t like btw. I prefer the linear 1 person = 10000 people. More about this later.). Thus creates 15 energy/barrels/lightnings/labour (actually I prefer the term labour, cause you always start with labour-producing citizens; their labour-output is just increased by energy resources and city improvements). Rome is sited near the Tiber, which means there are 3 river squares in the city radius, so because Rome has a Water Wheel, this means 3 extra Labour (under the condition each river tile is worked on), ultimately resulting in 18 Labour. The city is building a Phalanx, costing 20 Labour and 10 raw materials. But Rome only produces 5 Iron (or Copper, Wood,...) per turn, with no ability to get more Iron by trading. Thus the unit will always take at least 2 turns to complete. But then the city has produced 36 Labour! What happens to the other 16? Indeed, it disappears. But that means there are 8 people whose potential Labour is unused, in other words, they’re workless! Therefore I think a Labour abundance should create unhappiness, representing the unemployment problems through history. Dedicating a percentage of your tax income to Social Security (Civ1/2 Luxuries renamed) should mend this problem partially. A side-advantage of this idea would be that more population doesn’t always equal more power in the game. Indeed, having a population boom such as now in Africa would be disastrous if you aren’t prepared on it. It would at the same time increasing the realism of the game and its balance. Cause pop booming is one of the most unbalancing things there are in civ.
M@ni@c
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited March 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
Maninac:
Indeed, the very essence of a supplementary system is what you described: a way to make trading advantageous but not strictly required.
You abviously understand our energy system well, and I think your idea of unemployment unhappiness is very interesting. But the thing is, people not working on your project would have other work, too...
I propose two additions to the energy model:
1) Specialists produce no labor points, as they are already occupied with their job and work no tiles.
2) Specialists, since they do not cause and are not affected by unhappiness, can be an alternative to unemployment troubles. Converting unemployed citizens into specialists may lower your shield/food bonuses temporarily, but will boost trade and stop unhappiness until you find a permanent solution.
To all:
I am encouraged by Firaxis' decision... It is obvious to me that they have not used stockpiing resources, and I believe this will be best for the game. They are using resources more than Civ2, another good step. Although our energy model will not be used, I am intrigued by it and I hope it will be of some future utility. I am satisfied that Firaxis knows what it is doing.
Thank you Youngsun, Gary, and Raingoon for putting up with me  and hopefully altering the course of this great game for the better, I think Firaxis did use at least a few of our elements. I know Firaxis will not disappoint us, since it is true that Civers gave the game input!
Good luck, godspeed guys! 
------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
garciamed
|
|
Buenos Aires
Aug 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by supremus on 03-22-2001 01:40 PM
Don't be stupid. If you get a history book, you will understand that TRADE started it all. The primitive men built the CIVILIZATIONS because of trade; when they started to produce more food than what they needed, they started to trade it, and this started all the history. The BIG civilizations of the history were big traders (Egypt, Greece, England) while the only-military CIVILIZATIONS dissapeared. Even Rome lasted so much time because of the trade. So, trade is really important in a civ game, and I hope they improve it in civ 3 because in civ 1 and 2 it wasn't as good as it had to be. GET A HISTORY BOOK AND DISCOVER WHY TRADE IS SO IMPORTANT, Spain became powerful because of the trade with América, England destroyed the French because they were the big traders, Alexandria in Egypt became the most important city in the world because of trade. Do you understand now? Germán García, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jer8m8
|
 |
Long Island, NY, America
Nov 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 03-23-2001 01:19 AM
I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game. If you want historical accuracy (Civ games being historically accurate, what a laugher) play Europa Universalis. There you'll see how utterly ridiculous Civ2's war engine is and how important trade was.
|
i agree with him/her 100%. even though trade was not important in the middle ages, it was important later on, and is still important now. the u.s alone makes billions, if not trillions of dollars a year from trade.
i do not like the way trade is used in civ 2. it's private buiusness that does the trading, not the government. for there to be accurate, and important trade in civ 3, private buisness must be included.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
supremus
|
|
Well, well, well... I spent one week fishing and what I see here after come back ?
Trade fanatics introducing in this thread all those complexes trade models suggestions. They try to pollute Civ 3, biasing it for supremacy by use of trade. I think it was very clear that real civers don't want a trade oriented civ 3.
Can you imagine one winning the game by gold accumulation in the midle ages ? What example we've got in the history like this ? First Trade Super Power in the world was Nederland in XVII c. and they were easely beated by France in a war runned by Louis XIV. Second was England in XIX c. and they remained strong by the wars they won not by trade.
I hope Firaxis can remain in good sense (to avoid Civ series destruction) by not giving listenig to those people. Amen !
P.S. I think and repeat: Trade is important but not the most important factor. A good trade model is adviseable for Civ 3, but it can not be mandatory and it should be of less importance in the first phases of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheSocialist
|
|
Well it seems from the preview that the trade model will be upgraded placing an increased emphasis on trade. It also appears that they will include resources. They look like they are doing a good job. But, I can't stand when I see historical inaccuracy. The Netherlands was not the first trading super power. Far from it, the first trading super power i can think of is either the Phoenecians or the Minoans. Trade was also extremely important during the middle ages. It is what led to beginning of the Renaissance, and the rise of the Italian city-states. Trade led to the Age of Exploration and the discovery of the New World. England was strong and rich because of trade. The reason they built they're fleet was to protect they're merchant ships. Trade has been the driving force behind a lot of major events and doesn't deserve to be trivialized.
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited April 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheSocialist
|
|
Double Post
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited April 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheSocialist
|
|
Triple Post
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited April 05, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
supremus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheSocialist on 04-05-2001 08:13 PM
Well it seems from the preview that the trade model will be upgraded placing an increased emphasis on trade. It also appears that they will include resources. They look like they are doing a good job.
But, I can't stand when I see historical inaccuracy. The Netherlands was not the first trading super power. Far from it, the first trading super power i can think of is either the Phoenecians or the Minoans.
Trade has been the driving force behind a lot of major events and doesn't deserve to be trivialized.
[This message has been edited by TheSocialist (edited April 05, 2001).]
|
The socialist,
I think we agree almost 100%. Trade in Civ2 is very simple and, of course, the model can be and must be upgraded.
When I say The Nederlands was the first Trade SUPERPOWER what I mean is that they were the first State to use Trade as its dominant estrategy as they were weak in military terms. At that time, and for some decades, French and English supremacy were under threath because of the amount of the income flow the Dutch stablished for its safe. But at the end guns spoke louder.
I definitively don't want to see Civ 3 with a poor trade model. If this model is historically accurated, (this historical sense is, in my opinion, one of the most important factor for Civ series sucess, if not the most important.)it can be greate ! But I fear Firaxis can be lured by those trade fanatic models and launch a trade biased Civ III wich would be a disaster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
i agree with him/her 100%. even though trade was not important in the middle ages, it was important later on, and is still important now. the u.s alone makes billions, if not trillions of dollars a year from trade.
|
I'm a him .
Oh, and I support a trade-based Civ3. If you are saying that trade should be 'an option' then I want war to be an option. It is no hyperbole to say trade and war are equally important in world history. Especially after, say, 1492. Spain was the most powerful nation in the world in the 1500s, NOT because of its conquered territories, but because of the gold that was in those territories, allowing Spain to take the lead in trade.
Pick up Europa Universalis to see the effect of trade. You can decide not to participate, but then you have much less cash per annum.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
Raingoon and Stuff2 stated it well. Trade, aka resources, are the life's blood of relations (peaceful and hostile) between nations and cultures. Without trade, there would be no relations. Territory has value only because of its resources or its strategic location to other territories that have valuable resources. I will not burden you with the examples too numerous to mention, -- unless of course, you cannot think of any yourself and care to challenge this basic priniciple of international studies and history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
I believe trade and war should be balanced, too. It is true that they are unbalanced in Civ2.
Why are they unbalanced? Because you can get more by a war than by trading.
Okay, given that, the obvious solution is to give greater benefit for trading, to the point that it is on par with war, and people use it more frequently.
The answer is NOT to either stifle war or make trade mandatory; rather it is, like I have been saying, to increase the value of trade. Imran, you seem set on making people trade and making people build structures for war... why not make trade so beneficial, it will be something no serious player would resist? That is what I like, and I hope you will think about that point. More rules in Civ3 is not what we need... a better game is. Making things mandatory, when you could just make them better, is counterproductive.
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
The "Hawks" seem to be missing the point. Trade is important not because its better than war. Its important because it is what causes most wars, if not all wars, in every age. Men fight for territory because of its resources and the resulting trade it brings. Even the most war-loving civilizations settled down to trade or perished without a trace. Please indulge me with three examples:
(1) The Celts of Northern Europe lived for battle, but also traded in bronze, salt, hides, and other goods, at least partly to get the great wines of southern Europe's Rome and Greece. (See, booze is a great resource to start wars over!) This reminds me of Tim Allen's philosophy of why ancient barbarians invaded civilized empires: "Sniff. Sniff. Owrah? What smells so good over that mountain? Let's go find out and take some!"
(2) Even the Mongols, the most violent scourge of recorded history, rode to loot and rape, but settled down to trade and use the resources to increase their wealth. Remember the Khanate of the Golden Horde? Kublai Khan in China? Both were part of the vast Mongol Empire. Their missed opportunities to maximize use of their resources by building improvements and engaging in *trade* was their eventual downfall.
(3) The dreaded Norsemen (Vikings in Civ2) raided for plunder, but they also explored to find new markets for trade. As salesmen, they were quite, um, persuasive. One such exploration up the Volga River led to the founding of the kingdom of Rus, later the Russian Empire. Trade was what transformed them.
Trade is the critical element that transforms any short-lived, isolationist military conquest-binge into a real *civilization* that stands the test of time. Without it, a culture becomes a flash in the pan of history. The game should reflect this, because it is called Civilization, not Burn-Pillage-and-Rape.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
quote:
Trade is the critical element that transforms any short-lived, isolationist military conquest-binge into a real *civilization* that stands the test of time. Without it, a culture becomes a flash in the pan of history. The game should reflect this, because it is called Civilization, not Burn-Pillage-and-Rape.
|
True, but it is also not called Buy-Sell-and-talk-to-my-Broker!
YOU seem to be missing the point... I'm not arguing that trade is unimportant, I just think that some of the models proposed here are outrageous and excessive because they make the game into a trade-based game. Like I said, war and trade should be balanced. Yes, the Vikings did eventually trade... but they were also sucessful in taking these resources by force. Neither option should be shortchanged in Civ3.
It is true that cultures who only fought and never traded were wiped out quickly. But the reverse is true: Civilizations that always traded and never made a serious effort at armed defense died too! The Phonecians were conquered... The Dutch were overpowered militarily, and lost their economic edge... I think that war and trade are both important, and should be added to and considered equally.
Trade does transform a culture into a Civilization. I see that. However, war and conflict also makes a Civilization stand the "test of time." Why don't you see that? The game should reflect ALL ELEMENTS of history, and to center just on trade and scoff at the rest is a huge mistake on your part.
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-11-2001 07:08 PM
The "Hawks" seem to be missing the point. Trade is important not because its better than war. Its important because it is what causes most wars, if not all wars, in every age. Men fight for territory because of its resources and the resulting trade it brings. Even the most war-loving civilizations settled down to trade or perished without a trace.
|
Maccabee2 nailed it. Trade should be modeled (as it seems it might be, CGW) on resources. Trade is the source of most money in this world, always has been (whats the point of large industries if you can't sell your wares to other people). I like the idea that Firaxis is using of certain resources being limited to cities connected by trade. Wars over oil can now occur. War and trade are intertwined, the importance of trade in CivIII cannot be strengthed enough as long as micromanagement doesn't take away the fun. But it should be strategic trade. Resources in general, not individual goods, to equal the strategic war in Civ, tactics are left out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maccabee2
|
|
[quote]Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-11-2001 08:13 PM
Cyclotron7, thank you so much for quoting me, even in disagreement. Your criticism helps me see where I failed to make myself clear. Besides, I love a good debate, and I think we agree on more than we disagree.
Civility and logic will always yield to the truth, even if that truth is stated with less than perfect manners. You stated many truths, and I will yield to them as I come to them.
(1) "True, but it is also not called Buy-Sell-and-talk-to-my-Broker!"
You are absolutely correct sir. It is not, nor would I enjoy it if it were. If I wanted a strictly financial game, I could play Railroad Tycoon, or, er, Monopoly.
(2) "YOU seem to be missing the point... "
Tsk, tsk, sir. You shout with all-caps, even for one word? As a Warlord, I'm sure you know electronic etiquette better than that. Why raise your virtual voice, when you can reinforce your argument? Also, instead of assuming you know my point thoroughly enough to immediately refute me, perhaps you could have given me the benefit of the doubt by asking me to clarify the concepts you didn't warm to. I never disagreed with you specifically, only with a generalized group I call "hawks." If you took the name as an offense, then I apologize.
(3) "I'm not arguing that trade is unimportant, I just think that some of the models proposed here are outrageous and excessive because they make the game into a trade-based game. Like I said, war and trade should be balanced."
Yes, some of the models are a bit excessive. This forum can tolerate a few flights of fancy, I hope. Otherwise, where else will civers share their fondest ideas of the game of their dreams?
Now I must give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to clarify something for me. When you say "trade", are you referring to only caravans/freight trucks, or are you including the domestic trade that occurs within a city's own market? When you say "a trade-based game", are you thinking of a game in which certain resources must be gained (either from your own cities or from others' cities by trade) in order to build certain things (units and/or improvements) as has been described by Firaxis, or are you thinking of a game in which one absolutely must engage in trade in order to accomplish any goal, military or peaceful?
If you mean the former, (need trade for certain tasks) I'm afraid that is a rather balanced view of civilization and warfare. If you mean the latter (trade required for all or almost all tasks, military or peaceful), then I agree with you, it would be unbalanced. Worse, it would be boring.
(4) "Yes, the Vikings did eventually trade... but they were also sucessful in taking these resources by force."
I think I failed to make my point clearly. Actually, modern scholars are opining that the Vikings traded from almost the very beginning. Some think the raids were sometimes carried out because the town in question refused to trade with them. Sort of an early form of gunboat diplomacy without the guns. (Longship diplomacy?) Of course, you're right, also. They also sometimes attacked and plundered just because it was more fun. (Hence the infamous "eagle" they would sometimes make with a victim's lungs.)
(5) "Neither option should be shortchanged in Civ3."
If by the war option you mean conquering the world without engaging in any trade, then, well, I disagree. Realistically speaking, it can't be done. If however, you mean conquering the world and engaging in a minimum of trade along the way, that's theoretically possible, even for a game called Civilization. In the end, we just have to trust Sid and Firaxis as to the correct minimum of trade and the resulting balance.
(6) "It is true that cultures who only fought and never traded were wiped out quickly. But the reverse is true: Civilizations that always traded and never made a serious effort at armed defense died too! The Phonecians were conquered... The Dutch were overpowered militarily, and lost their economic edge... I think that war and trade are both important, and should be added to and considered equally."
Again, you're right. If I seemed to imply that trade can succeed without the occasional war, then I made my point poorly. Every nation that trades must occasionally fight to protect their trade routes. Without a strong military, a nation cannot protect its trade. Piracy thrives in the abscence of at least one powerful navy willing to protect the sea lanes for everyone. The world's current trade-flow primarily depends on the continued success of the American Navy. We are peaceful, but threaten our access to certain resources, and we get violent. (E.g., oil and the Gulf War.) It's the one thing that will drag us into war faster than anything else. Trade and war, portrayed realistically in a game, will find a natural balance because they are inseperable, interdependent. They are both cause and effect for each other.
(7) "Trade does transform a culture into a Civilization. I see that. However, war and conflict also makes a Civilization stand the "test of time." Why don't you see that?"
Actually, I do see that. Hence, my name Maccabee2, to honor the patriots who threw off the yoke of Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid tyrant who tried to stamp out the Jewish faith in the last few centuries B.C. Also, even God acknowledged the necessity of war, when the Bible states that He did not allow the Israelites to drive out all the Canaanite peoples at once, specifically so that each generation could learn the art of warfare.
(8) "The game should reflect ALL ELEMENTS of history,"
You are absolutely right. This is the balance we both seek.
(9) "and to center just on trade and scoff at the rest is a huge mistake on your part."
From this last line, I know I must have stated my point poorly. I do not intend to scoff at the rest of the elements of history, and I hope I am not doing so. Rather than a game centering on trade, I desire a game that sees trade as the yin to the yang of warfare. They cannot be completely seperated for long.
I hope that Civilization III will accomodate as many different cultures as possible, both those that trade and those that are isolationist. What would history be like without the short-sighted Mongols? I'm only saying that while you can build a short-lived empire on isolationism, you can't build a true civilization on it.
Again, thank you for your disagreement. You helped me sharpen my communication skills, and let me know that I'm not alone in my passion for this game. No one at my workplace would understand my obsession with this. I find in you and the rest here, kindred spirits.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2001 10:49
. War ISN'T optional. You must build troops to solidify your cities, and in 99% of games you WILL be involved in trade. So, by that logic, trade should be a major factor in 99% of games. I like that... why I said trade-based, like to a somewhat lesser extent as Imperialism.
|