Making Trade Essential...One Energy + One Metal + One Manufacturing Point =...

Lancer · February 6, 2001, 19:42

...One Shield.

The requirements that make up a shield would change over time. Though 'Energy' 'Metal' and 'Manufacturing' are fairly generic, the idea would make the game alot more realistic, as aquiring resources would shape your foriegn policy and your alliance structure. All of a sudden there is a reason for Japan to seek its "co-prosperity sphere", for the Germans to turn south to Stalingrad, for all the motivations of imperialism. This would make the game considerably more realisitic, and add an interesting dynamic, particularly to the modern age. Lets face it, when it comes to manufacturing, we've had it easy while in human history civilizations have had it tough.

Consider this, much as there is a grid of wheat, whales, and fish, there could be an underlying grid of oil and other materials needed to support modern industry. Underlying because we wouldn't know it was there until we enter the industrial age, when they would start to pop up (be discovered). So, you've got it made and are doing great all the game until the industrial age when you find out that much of the worlds oils is over there in the civ of that jerk, what's his name? The solution? WAR! or cut a deal? Or, a rotten game turns around when it is revealed that half the worlds known supply of oil is in your backyard, and everyone wants to be your friend. All of a sudden there is a reason to do these things...

...if Civ 3 has resources.

Thoughts?

[This message has been edited by Lancer (edited February 06, 2001).]

Roman · February 6, 2001, 21:26

Yes, I am a long time advocate of special resource based manufacturing precisely for the reasons you describe. I hope Firaxis elaborates on the resource/economy system in their next site update.

That reminds me, it has been almost three weeks since their last update.

Henrik · February 7, 2001, 02:54

I like the idea too, actually I think there are lots of stuff in Imperialism that civ 3 could make use of.

EnochF · February 8, 2001, 14:41

Look, er, as much as I like the concept behind the idea of resource-based gaming, I'd much rather avoid it.

I played Imperialism for a while. Um. It might have been Imperialism II; I forget which, because I stopped playing it early on. It looked like a really great game on the box, and I spent my spare hours at work flipping through the instruction manual, trying to come up with strategies.

But when I actually played the game, it wasn't fun. It was a pain in the ass, a complete hassle. Yech.

Shadowstrike · February 8, 2001, 19:38

I much as I treasure Imperialism as one of the best games I ever played, I doubt that its model could work for Civ. Simply put, it is too complex. I would prefer simpicity, with trade goods and caravans a la CTP2 with special "manufacturing" city improvements, and items that do things for your cities (give them benifits) when "used up". Even that might be too much when put into practice. That's just my opinion BTW.

Roman · February 8, 2001, 19:49

Maybe full blown system is indeed too complex to be included, but at least they should allow these items to have some truly strategic significance such as improving efficiency of building specific things by a large amount.

Lancer · February 9, 2001, 19:42

Well, we seem to be of two opinions. Some for a "resource based manufacturing" system, and some saying it would be too complx, like Imperialism, a game I have also played.

Imperialism was complex regarding the aquisition of raw materials and production, but that was what that game was all about. The same thing could be achieved on a much simpler level and the advantages would be tremendous. for Civ 3.

In Imp, you had to search for raw materials, in Civ 3 the way I described them, they just pop up at random after the industrial age.

Aquiring raw materials from other countries was complex in Imp, while in Civ 3 it could be a simple mutually advantageous trade or purchase. You want a complex trade system? How about the one in Civ 2? Which city was it that wanted WOOL again? Lets see, did I have to drop off the wine in Carthage, the gems in Munich and the...wait a sec, I was suposed to drop the gems in London, CRAP! So what did Carthage get again? -what a pain in the butt.

Anyway, consider that all such production models need not be the same. Simplicity is in the hands of the designer. I suggest that trade plays no great part in forcing strategy in Civ 2. Even if it were to make Civ 3 more complex, which I doubt, the benefits of a resource based manufacturing system, and it's corelation to trade and trade's implications for strategy, would far outweigh any debatable increase in complexity.

David James · February 9, 2001, 20:26

Hello again Lancer

What is the general concept of a manufacturing point? Energy and metal are fairly obvious... Still how would labour factor in here? I mean labour is essentially energy, especially in the past. In some ways I think the concept of energy is handled fairly well already in Civ2 through the various types of power plants... unless your idea is adding a fourth concept to the existing ones of food, trade and production? It sort of seems like that - rivers and forests would be obvious sources of early power/energy for instance. But this does seem like adding a lot of complexity to the game.

Yep, I agree the trading system, in terms of execution anyway, sucked in Civ2. On the other hand, the execution in CtP is much better, but the concept of creating monopolies is frankly stupid. Civ2's supply/demand model was better that way, though obviously the commodities up for trade (why limit to 3?) leave much to be desired.

------------------
Yes, as a matter of fact, going to Queen's does make me better than you.

GAMEOVER · February 10, 2001, 01:32

No, a resource model is no ttoo complex. It is essential for Civ3. I dont want the same caravan to city and thast it trade system that previous games had, that jsut sucks. Imperialsim is a major part of world history(and the accuisition of raw materials was the motivating factor) and should not be ignored.

Biddles · February 10, 2001, 09:02

A rescource system is a must. So much of the worlds policy today is dominated by oil. It's location, it's availability, it's price etc. WArs are fought over oil, and I think that if this can't be represented in civ3 than it's a giant leap backwards for TBS games.

Roman · February 10, 2001, 09:20

quote:

Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 08:02 AM
So much of the worlds policy today is dominated by oil. It's location, it's availability, it's price etc. WArs are fought over oil, and I think that if this can't be represented in civ3 than it's a giant leap backwards for TBS games.

Indeed, I would be very dissapointed if the resource system did not make it into the game at least in a limited form.

Zeevico · February 10, 2001, 23:34

Its pretty much vital that they put oil and etc in. oil has shaped relations with countries, wars, trade and just about any ol thing in this world (including the piggy banks of Arabian dictators).

Lancer · February 11, 2001, 06:23

Mark Everson PMed me regarding this, his project 'Clash of Civilizations" will have resource based manufacturing, great news! Check out his forum in the Alt Civs section for updates.

David, the question is not so much about power plants, but about what powers them. True, early on the main sourse of energy for manufacturing is human, so no change in the game system needs to be implemented until later.

In the age of sail things which would be needed for manufacturing are coal for foundrys, cotton for sails, oak for masts and hulls, iron for guns of all sorts. Certainly there could be more. The problem with more is added complexity, and making Civ 3 a game about trading isn't my wish at all.

Later in the game coal gives way to oil, hydro becomes much expanded, though it was used to power mills early on, it was a direct, mechanical approach. Towards the end, uranium is needed for nuke plants. David, have you ever sought out uranuim in Civ 2 because you needed it for your nuke plants? Have you ever fought a war to keep the factories running? These are the things we lack, and having them would be a real kick in the pants I think.

Biddles, Roman, Zeevico, thanks for supporting resource based manufacturing.

I hope we get it!
[This message has been edited by Lancer (edited February 11, 2001).]

Biddles · February 11, 2001, 22:04

I agree with the rescource system, but it shouldn't be taken too far. If in the modern age we have 50 goods we have to scramble after, then the game would be ruined. Somewhere between 5-10 an age (closer to 5) should be enough. Especially considering that early rescources (Wood, Copper etc.) would still be used later in the game, although probably not as much (But if your ahead in tech, other civ's will still want those goods).

The Viceroy · February 12, 2001, 05:31

I like the resource based system very much .. Imperialism was a wonderful game..

In the real world, each nation compete's for resources .. not 3 or 4, not 15-20 like in imp .. but hundreds and hundreds of them .. control the resource, and have a nice day

The difference is however, in the real world, there are millions of people, all dealing with them .. Governments can be hundreds of thousands of people .. in civ, your 1 person.. so scaling it down to a managable economy, which gets the feeling across is important .. I actually think imp had it spot on..15-20 economic resources .. that change over time in importance ..

Another similar system was in colonization .. I actually loved the fact that you could ship firs in from Canada, build factories to process them .. and sit on a stock-pile until the price was right...

------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

Bender · February 12, 2001, 18:11

This is a fabulous idea! I really don't see how its omission will be beneficial to the game.

Complex Schmomplex...I wants me resources!

DarkCloud · February 13, 2001, 21:52

Yes, resources would be good for trading and reality in civ 3

Youngsun · February 14, 2001, 01:42

Lancer has brought up something that I will support fanatically. One thing that I was so frustrated from whole civ series was lousy aspect of international trade and no representation of industry. Actually those resources(wheat/oil)were there from the very beginning but the game did not use them up to their full potential. We don't need to have all the resources and commodities which are used in real life. Those things called "strategic resource" will do job especially oil,iron and coal along with some luxury and food items.

Roman · February 14, 2001, 15:37

An example of a resource system:

Cost of a phalanx: 20 shields or 10 shields +1 bronze
Cost of a battleship: 200 shields or 100 shields + 2 iron

Basically, having the right resources vastly increases the efficiency of your production, but you are not prevented from building most things by not having the neccessary resources.

For some strategic items you may be forced to buy the resource to build them though.

Eg.
Cost of a nuclear missile: 50 shields + 1 uranium
[This message has been edited by Roman (edited February 14, 2001).]

Roman · February 14, 2001, 15:38

The above is only to show that a resource system is workable. I am sure Firaxis can devise something better.

Shadowstrike · February 14, 2001, 20:47

I'm not trying to say that an Imperialism type system is bad, but full blown it is way too complex. Maybe a bit more complex then the CTP2 one, but nowhere close to Imeprilism complexity.

Fiera · February 14, 2001, 21:35

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 02-14-2001 02:37 PM
An example of a resource system:

Cost of a phalanx: 20 shields or 10 shields +1 bronze
Cost of a battleship: 200 shields or 100 shields + 2 iron

If there is going to be different resources, such as Bronze and Iron, why keep the old shields?

Wouldn't it be nice to build a phalanx with 15 bronze + 10 iron, instead?
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited February 14, 2001).]

Roman · February 14, 2001, 21:46

Fiera, that's what I would prefer your fullblown system too. I was merely trying to show how a resource system could work by increasing efficiency of production to counter the suggestions that such a system must neccessarily be overcomplicated.

monolith94 · February 14, 2001, 22:34

You guys are talking about how you only need metal and energy I'm assuming the stuff generated by roads, right? Like, the two arrows, or basically the trade stuff right?

Because I was thinking, why not assign labor points. . . You can have all the metal you want, but if you don't have the man power it aint gonna get made. Maybe you could even make a special citizen unit that instead of generating luxuries (like an elvis), it would generate labor points. Basically taking your workers off the fields and putting them into the city, doing construction work! You could do that to build stuff faster. . . What do you guys think?

Cyclotron · February 15, 2001, 01:16

No resources, guys. Shields represent literally the raw production power of your city, meaning the effect of your factories, power plants, mills, etc. The reason resources don't work is because that isn't what shields represent. I really don't understand in gameplay terms how resources would do anything but mire up the game. Besides, what resources would you use? From age to age there are hundreds of commodities you would have to have, unless you used some fallacious umbrella commodity like "fuel" or "metal" or something.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

Youngsun · February 15, 2001, 02:29

cyclotron7

quote:

commodity like "fuel" or "metal" or something.

My original thought was like that but wouldn't that be fun? I would feel excited to have "crude oil" and "iron ore" than "fuel resource" and "heavy metal". That's CivIII trends as well(F-15 rather than jet-fighter or panzer-tank rather than WWII era tank)If we sort out very basic and crucial resources for industrial production things don't have to be so messy.

Production Resources
Wood-Basic~
Stone-Basic~
Clay-Baisc~
Copper-Primary Ancient~Supplmentary Modern
Iron-Supplementary/Primary Ancient ~ Primary Modern

Energy resources
Wood-basic~
Coal-Primary Industrial
Oil-Primary Modern
Uranium-Primary Modern

Precious metals
Gold/Silver
Gem

Food items
Wheat
Dairy

That's all I can think of so-called crucial resources and that's enough to simulate reasonable international trade based on good market system.

monolith94

quote:

Because I was thinking, why not assign labor points. . . You can have all the metal you want, but if you don't have the man power it aint gonna get made. Maybe you could even make a special citizen unit that instead of generating luxuries (like an elvis), it would generate labor points. Basically taking your workers off the fields and putting them into the city, doing construction work! You could do that to build stuff faster. . . What do you guys think?

What a great idea!
monolith94 put more of your ideas on that matter I'm very positive about this! Is this beginning of new "labour class" from plain conventional city classes?

entertainers: up hapiness
scientists: up research points
Taxmen: up city revenue
labours: providing labour points?(maybe after the discovery of Industrialization-by replacing obsolte craftsmen from Ancient era)
any more?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 15, 2001).]

Lancer · February 15, 2001, 06:45

I'm liking these ideas, great stuff here guys! I feel like this thread is hitting critical mass, so I'm just going to watch you guys turn it all into something real.

I'm reading every word of every post, thriving on it!

Roman · February 15, 2001, 06:56

If the resource system is to be included in Civ3 I feel that the random seed function from Civ2 must dissapear and instead when producing maps in the map editor, we ought to be able to place the resources ourselves.

Fiera · February 15, 2001, 12:36

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 02-15-2001 05:56 AM
If the resource system is to be included in Civ3 I feel that the random seed function from Civ2 must dissapear and instead when producing maps in the map editor, we ought to be able to place the resources ourselves.

Yes, Roman, that's a must. The random seed function was weird and useless for scenario building...

Besides, I like the labour workers idea very much. It would be very realistic and it wouldn't really overcomplicate the game, since it would work pretty much like scientists/tax collectors/elvis...

Brilliant!

Cyclotron · February 15, 2001, 17:23

I would like to announce that although I have for some time been an opponent of individual resources, I have decided that some as a supplement of shields is a GOOD IDEA and should be in Civ3.

Roman's idea struc me as the best, because you could still build everything with standard shields. You would still be using shields but would not be tied down by needing certain resources.

I would propose that all trade goods also be resources; as to not overcomplicate the matter. If a city was being traded/ was currently using a commodity necessary for building (industrial commodity) they would be able to build up this commodity and thus recive discounts on buildings and units.

For example: CycloCity has a shield production of 15, is currently mining coal (1 per turn) and is trading with another city for iron and silk.

Let's say a heavy cruiser costs 250 shields. Normally, it would take me 14 turns to build it. But, what if its price was:

HEAVY CRUISER: 250 shields
3 iron: -75 shields
2 coal: -25 shields

If I had previously saved up the coal and iron I was getting for a few turns, I could get a heavy cruiser for only 150 shields in 10 turns.

Other comodities, like silk, would be non-industrial. These would not be used for building but instead just trading.

I like this idea. How about you guys?

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender