Trade dominance ? let civ iii be a civ game.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

From what I've managed to divine from your previous posts about your mandatory resource system, not trading in ancient times would have the penalty of not being able to make anything requiring iron (if one were not blessed with iron deposits near one's starting location). I find this a significant disadvantage.

I agree that after industrialization, trade should become more important. I just believe that giving more benefits to those who do trade is a better system than penalizing those who don't. I've always stood by the idea that making money more useful would make trade more appealing. That guy named "The Diplomat" suggested that once, and I think that's the best idea I've heard.

Gary

[Zanzin]

So, basically, everybody has some very divided opinions on how trade should be implemented...cool down people!!

In my opinion, and I think this is the fairest idea that caters for all party's, trade should be equally important as war, diplomacy and the other 'core' areas that make up the game. To focus on one in particular would detract from the others.

It takes an equal weighting on each core area to achieve the "civilization" experience...others, as others have said, I think we'd end up with a World Trade, or World War game as opposed to a "civ" game

[Stuff2]

Actually, both sides are wrong. It's not about trade and it's not about war. It's about resources. Politics, trade, and war are all three ways to: 1. get resources
2. distribute resources
3. defend resources
During ancient history egypt was a puppetstate to several different empires and they paid tribute to their 'masters' in food. This food supported the population in several different capital cities (not at the same time). It's not hard to imagine what happened in Rome when egypt no longer sent food (beacouse they where invaded by some other people, i don't remember which).
During whole history it all comes down to resources. Getting them, distribute them and defend them from other tribes/nations/races/social classes.

[TheSocialist]

Resources need to be implemented. And the consequences for not trading should be harsh after all, look what happened to China. They isolated themselves from the rest of the world in the 15th century and when the world woke the up what was once the most advanced nation in the world was considered backwards.

[GaryGuanine]

Stuff2,

I seem to remember the fall of the Roman Empire being attributed to slightly more complex factors than "Egypt stopped sending food." Breaking everything down into resources is an awfully simplistic way of looking at history. The dominant western enterprise of the 13th and 14th centuries, the Crusades, were fought over land that had no real resources at all. Lots of wars were fought because "The other guys are not us", rather than "They have stuff we want."

The Socialist,

Look what happened to China. They seem to be doing well now, aren't they? They were isolationist, then they had a Communist revolution (effectively isolating them from the most economically powerful force in the world, the free West), and they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world now. They played the game of Civ3 choosing not to trade, and they've done well. I want that option when I play.

Gary

[raingoon]

Gary

Wouldn't Japan be a better example for your non-trade scenario? Japan through the -- what, the 15th through 18th centuries? I don't think China closed off its trade in the 20th century. I think they got with the program on the double-quick, expanded exponentially through trade with the Free West and have become a world power in the process, holding a "most favored" status with the US for decades. Can anyone name a super power today that does not and never did trade? Seems to me that policy would be less penalized in ancient epochs.

Stuff2

has said it perfectly when he says there are only resources, and trade & war should be just two equal ways to get them. Does that mean war is tied to a resource model? Well, yeah. Does anyone really think it shouldn't be? After all, it ever was thus. Even in the Crusades. If the Vatican hadn't been able to award and sway power the way it did, and thus land and resources, there would never have been six Crusades over hundreds of years. Wars are never fought just because people are different, although propagandists have been very successful at times in convincing people they were.

If you want to make the most advanced kind of war, you should need certain kinds of resources to do it. On the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e., the beginning of the game) the simplest kind of military units would only require resources that are plentiful to everybody early on. Then, one might choose to avoid trade at all times and still fail to get their hands on certain resources through normal expansion and war making. But after playing that way for two millenia of game time, if you don't have the luck of geography on your side, you're going to have some problems, no doubt about it. I don't think the game should reward you for playing that way for that long, I don't think that's how the world works on any level, and I don't think Civ would be Civ 3 if you could simply ignore the basic physics of war. And yes, trade dominance is a fundamental part of that equation.
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited March 24, 2001).]

[TheSocialist]

After the revolution they were isolated from the West, however, they still had close ties with the Soviet Union, which was resource rich in Eastern Europe, and China itself was resource rich. China after the revolution was also not completely isolated from the West, merchants from neutral countries traded between both Communist and capitalist countries. When the Chinese Empire isolated itself, it was complete self-imposed isolation. Few, if any traders got in. And if you think that China is succesful, you're deluding yourself. China only began to become successful after the US opened diplomacy with them. Their military is larger than the American one but the American military is so far ahead technologically that a single US regiment could defeat a division of China's finest.

[TheSocialist]

One more thing. The only reason that China has a fast growing economy is because they began trading with the West in the 1970's that's why they have a good economy.

[TheSocialist]

One more thing. The only reason that China has a fast growing economy is because they began trading with the West in the 1970's that's why they have a good economy.

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 03-24-2001 07:07 AM So, basically, everybody has some very divided opinions on how trade should be implemented...cool down people!! In my opinion, and I think this is the fairest idea that caters for all party's, trade should be equally important as war, diplomacy and the other 'core' areas that make up the game. To focus on one in particular would detract from the others. It takes an equal weighting on each core area to achieve the "civilization" experience...others, as others have said, I think we'd end up with a World Trade, or World War game as opposed to a "civ" game

Well put Zanzin!

That is exactly what my thinking on the matter is about

[GaryGuanine]

raingoon,

China wasn't my choice, "The Socialist" mentioned it. I totally agree that Japan would be a much better example.

I also fail to see how the Crusades were anything other than trying to reclaim a holy site from infidels. One could argue that they were the result of the Byzantine Emperor's request for mercenaries, but not that they were a war for specific resources.

I agree, however, that a resource system would be nice for later time periods, like the 20th Century. The problem is that you'd be fighting over uranium deposits and oil fields in ancient times because you know they're going to be useful later on. I suppose you could hide them until the relevant techs come into play, but I don't think that's logical. I'm sure ancient people knew oil was in certain places, they just didn't know what to do with it.

Again, I must stress the point of rewarding those who do trade, rather than punishing those who don't. It allows more choice instead of restrictions. No one ever responds to the idea (originally posted by "The Diplomat") that if we make money more useful, people will trade more. Like cyclotron7 always says, the open-ended-ness of Civ is a great thing, and we have to make sure people can play it however they want.

Socialist,

You're defining "success" differently than I am. If you want a civ that produces a great deal of goods, has a huge army, and keeps tight control over its people, China is a lot more "successful" than the United States. They're going a different direction than we are, but they are going in that direction very, very well. Would I like to be a citizen of China, compared to the United States? Hell no. But I bet it's easier to wage a war as the Chairman of China than it is as the President of the United States.

Gary

[Zanzin]

Hey Gary,

I definately agree that money should be used for a lot more than just rush buying. It seems from the site updates that you'll be able to use it in diplomacy, i.e. peacy treaty but for 5 gold a turn...but this isn't much different than from buying technologies and stuff.

I wonder what else money could be used for in a civ game. Ideas, people?

[raingoon]

Gary,

I see your point about fighting over resources early on, and how that feels like a kind of cheat...

quote: I suppose you could hide them until the relevant techs come into play, but I don't think that's logical.

It's not logical, but it IS fun, and this is where fun wins. For a fun game, it is entirely appropriate that not only are some resources like oil not visible on the map until the appropriate tech is discovered, but that a certain "geologist" unit is required to search for it (a la Imperialism II) before you can exploit the tile.

The reason why cyclotron's open-ended-ness falls short of the mark for me is because Civ 1 and 2 simply weren't designed that way. In fact they're designed with all kinds of restrictions but in a way that made you feel like it was open-ended. Remember there are things in Civ 2 that make the game impossible at times -- but for every one of those there's always a work-around. Triremes can't leave the coast vs. Lighthouse wonder, large amounts of outdated units vs. Leo's Workshop, etc. My belief is what you think is really limiting is actually really challenging, and what makes it Civ is if that limitation also has a work-around. I don't want to conjecture what the Wonder would be to work around a resource shortfall, but there should be something that mitigates it, allowing you the option to not worry about coming up short because you didn't want to participate in a land grab.

As far as not punishing those who don't trade, I'm afraid I'm not with you on that. Not that I think there SHOULD be a punishment if you choose not to trade, I just think it ought to be possible that there COULD be an inevitable punishment. This is a case where I think logic and fun are on the same side. It's not very fun to think that a civ, NO MATTER THEIR SITUATION, can avoid getting involved with other civs. I like the element of chance when you begin the game in a random geographical situation. I would not like it if I knew it didn't matter where I started. I want others to have a head start on me at times, it's called handicapping. I happen to think that's fun. And if I begin the game with a weak hand and further choose not to trade in order to better my hand, than I deserve to be punished by the economics of the game. If I'm not punished, that's not called "open-ended," that's called "not balanced." That means the economy of the game is too loose, and if that happens I'm gonna be really, really disappointed.

[Youngsun]

Gary

quote: From what I've managed to divine from your previous posts about your mandatory resource system, not trading in ancient times would have the penalty of not being able to make anything requiring iron (if one were not blessed with iron deposits near one's starting location). I find this a significant disadvantage.

"Iron" is something in between basic and strategic resources. Iron is used for many things(important) but is pretty evenly distributed and numerous(easy access)compared to real strategic resources such as oil.

quote: I just believe that giving more benefits to those who do trade is a better system than penalizing those who don't.

This is very very subjective interpretation and based on how you see it. You see them as penalties because you don't like the system. But I see the enormous benefits of trade. While I'm enthusiastic about the benefits, you are depressed with the penalties.

quote: I've always stood by the idea that making money more useful would make trade more appealing.

I'm all for making money more important but this way alone can not encourage trade enough because an isolated kindom still can collect tax(money) from it's subjects.

quote: Look what happened to China. They seem to be doing well now, aren't they? They were isolationist, then they had a Communist revolution (effectively isolating them from the most economically powerful force in the world, the free West), and they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world now. They played the game of Civ3 choosing not to trade, and they've done well. I want that option when I play.

Why China could do that? China has secured big chunk of land that holds enough resources which can support China itself without seriously harming its economy. China has earned the resources by force or primarily culture. You can do that too under the resource system. If you can secure enough resources , the reward will be that great, self sustaining.

quote: Again, I must stress the point of rewarding those who do trade, rather than punishing those who don't. It allows more choice instead of restrictions.

When you reward someone very much, the left ones feel penalised. Isn't that a relative thing? By reducing the reward, the left ones feel less penalised and you are asking less benefits for trade.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

[jpww]

quote: Originally posted by TheSocialist on 03-24-2001 04:04 PM ...the American military is so far ahead technologically that a single US regiment could defeat a division of China's finest.

This really shows poor judgement by TheSocialist. But, I've got to admire his patriotism!

At any rate, Let's enjoy this game as it is. It is a game after all!

Let civIII be a civ game! (Let chess be chess too )

[GaryGuanine]

Any of you guys ever play Alpha Centauri? There were tons of ways to win that game. You could play as Yang, and get a huge population up and make tons of crappy military units. You could play as Zakharov and try to go for the technological victory. You could play as Morgan and try to trade with everyone and get a financial victory. You could play as Santiago and make a great army. I want choices!

I see that everyone points to Imperialism and Imperialism II as games to look at for their resource systems. I must admit that I've never played the two games. Reading what I can about them now: 1, I want to purchase them, they sound fun; and 2, in both cases you're talking Early Modern European Colonialism games. Imperialism I seems to be a 19th Century economic simulation, while Imperialism II expands that to include the Age of Exploration. From my meager knowledge of history I would naively assume that not all of human history progressed in a manner comparable to Post-Renaissance Europe.

raingoon,

I hear you about the "No matter their situation" thing. The difference of each individual game is something that makes Civ great. The problem I have is that some of the resource models proposed here end up in situations where "No matter their situation," a civilization has to trade. It's kinda the opposite of what you're saying. Maybe your resource model doesn't, but many here do.

Youngsun,

quote: This is very very subjective interpretation and based on how you see it. You see them as penalties because you don't like the system. But I see the enormous benefits of trade. While I'm enthusiastic about the benefits, you are depressed with the penalties.

Will you admit, however, that your model is different from the current one (Civ2) insofar as a civilization that doesn't trade will have less options than one that doesn't trade in the old system? This I see as a limitation, a penalty. You're introducing limits into one aspect of the game system (production) to encourage a certain type of playing style (trade). I propose making a different aspect of the game more robust (spending money) to encourage the same behavior (trade).

quote: I'm all for making money more important but this way alone can not encourage trade enough because an isolated kindom still can collect tax(money) from it's subjects.

All you have to do is keep adding things to do with money until you encourage trade "enough".

Gary

[Cyclotron]

quote: The reason why cyclotron's open-ended-ness falls short of the mark for me is because Civ 1 and 2 simply weren't designed that way. In fact they're designed with all kinds of restrictions but in a way that made you feel like it was open-ended. Remember there are things in Civ 2 that make the game impossible at times -- but for every one of those there's always a work-around. Triremes can't leave the coast vs. Lighthouse wonder, large amounts of outdated units vs. Leo's Workshop, etc. My belief is what you think is really limiting is actually really challenging, and what makes it Civ is if that limitation also has a work-around.

So, raingoon, where is the work-around for mandatory resources? It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed. In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade (build marketplaces, etc.). There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

It is true that one thing that made Civ2 great was the ability to have work-arounds for different problems, to have choice in your winning strategy and different solutions to the same problem. That is, after all, what makes cultures unique. Civilization 2 had the far-sightedness to build in multiple avenues of problem solving and worlds of choice. Why doesn't your system? Just because you want to make trade all-important doesn't mean everyone should have to play like that.

And raingoon: I didn't take my chess example to the point of having no pieces because at that point, you no longer have a game. Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy, and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

------------------
Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames...
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Will you admit, however, that your model is different from the current one (Civ2) insofar as a civilization that doesn't trade will have less options than one that doesn't trade in the old system? This I see as a limitation, a penalty. You're introducing limits into one aspect of the game system (production) to encourage a certain type of playing style (trade). I propose making a different aspect of the game more robust (spending money) to encourage the same behavior (trade).

You do have options but when you choose the clearly inferior one(not trading)you get penalised(slow growth). People are not stupid to choose the option which will penalise them. obiviously not you too. so why worry about it? Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing? and what should happen when you do a bad thing or good thing? "whip" or "carrot" depends on what you do. This is not anything like a teaching human beings but playing a game.(please, don't be confused about that)A game has clear "penalty" and "bonus" is superior to that has only bonus. I already menetioned the penalty will be harsh for only modern age and it's all up to how the resource distibution mechanism of the game works.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

[carioca]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-25-2001 09:50 PM You do have options but when you choose the clearly inferior one(not trading)you get penalised(slow growth). People are not stupid to choose the option which will penalise them. obiviously not you too. so why worry about it? Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing? and what should happen when you do a bad thing or good thing? "whip" or "carrot" depends on what you do. This is not anything like a teaching human beings but playing a game.(please, don't be confused about that)A game has clear "penalty" and "bonus" is superior to that has only bonus. I already menetioned the penalty will be harsh for only modern age and it's all up to how the resource distibution mechanism of the game works. [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

A way around this problem is to give a penalty to trading, if you have trading it is easier for other cives to spy on you.

So if you trade x amount with civ a, but dont trade with civ b, civ a has a bonus to spy on you.

so you do better economicly if you trade, but open yourself up to spies. (to be fair, your spies have an easier time of it as well.

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed.

Like Iraq, North Korea or Cuba did and it is very logical and legitimate result.

quote: In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade

Because of that unrealistic option, people have greatly neglected diplomacy and trade.

quote: There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

When a civ becomes economically isolated? When a civ run by a person who have inferior skills of diplomacy ,lack of strategic planning or poor military management. When you lose a war, you face consequences. Nothing will save you from the unconditional surrender. Will you still ask options even if you lost your war? Why keep making unreasonable request for a situation that is not worthy of options? A civ which is in economic isolation has its own reasons to be isolated and it deserves the consequences. Do Iraq and North Korea have options? Do poorly run civs deserve options?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 26, 2001).]

[TheSocialist]

quote: Originally posted by jpww on 03-25-2001 02:45 AM This really shows poor judgement by TheSocialist. But, I've got to admire his patriotism! At any rate, Let's enjoy this game as it is. It is a game after all! Let civIII be a civ game! (Let chess be chess too )

Sorry, a little exaggeration for effect there. But we are pretty far ahead.

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

I kinda see where you're going, but I just think it's wrong.

quote: Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing?

No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing. Forcing civilizations to engage in international trade is wrong. Again, this brings up the point that you're taking away choices, and making choices, as cyclotron always says, is what makes Civ games great.

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 26, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing.

You are free to think whether trade is good for some or not but historically the consequences of not trading have been all the same, the ultimate downfall. Look what happened to USSR and its communist bloc. Fundamentalist? Taliban regime in Afghanistan you talking about?

I will ask you the question more specifically.

Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing economically regardless of government form?

Economically good or bad? please tell me!

[Zanzin]

Yes, Youngsun, but isn't the whole Civilization experience about being abe to mould your empire anyway you want? If you want to steer away from the way things have played out in real human history, you should be able to, right?

[Youngsun]

Zanzin

I narrowed down my question for only economic aspect of the game.
Fundametalist regime may have other advantages which comes from other areas such as politics or military. Actually, fundamentalist government does have advantages to have large military in the game. Do you think Fundamentalist government should have economic advantages as well?

[GaryGuanine]

Youngsun,

If you just mean economically, then that's true. You will suffer economically from being an isolationist, fundamentalist civ. You should make less money, and, in Civ2, you get less tech. With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

One may say that it's the same as not getting tech, the end result is not being able to produce high-quality military units. Well, the difference lies here: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way. The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about. Trade was just about money and tech, with the mandatory resource system it's linked to production. I don't think that's right. I find the mandatory resource system anachronistic (for other reasons) and unbalancing.

To answer your question, No, I do not think it should have economic advantages, but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

Gary

[This message has been edited by GaryGuanine (edited March 26, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

Do not overly simplify the matter. In real game situation, that's not supposed to happen very often and even if that's the case, that is the consequence of how you have managed your civ so far.

quote: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way.

Where is the military conquest option?

quote: The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about.

You will seriously worry about trade at later stage of the game only. Do I have to remind you all the time that the reward and penalty things become greater only after industrial age? and Stop calling the Primary resource system, mandatory one. It is a respected rule for calling a thing that was suggested first time. Remember I'm still calling the supplementary one as it is. If you insist to call the system as you are calling right now, I'll call the supplementary one, a variant of the shield system which in fact really suits for the name I think.

quote: but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

Economy and industry should be dealt in separate way? Aren't they related each other very much? Industry suffers? bad economy. Bad economy? Industry suffers.


[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 26, 2001).]

[raingoon]

Cyclotron7

quote: Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

First of all, this is not my statement, but rather your simplification of things I said earlier in this thread. And did I say "interesting?" I should have said "playable." I mean, c'mon. So, therefore NO restrictions would make this an interesting game? You do realize in this context "restrictions" can only mean "game rules", I certainly can think of no other way of restricting Civ 3 than with rules, so obviously some restrictions not only would make Civ 3 an interesting game, but a playable one. Therefore it is not a fallacy that restrictions = an interesting game and BZZZT, thank you for playing.

But what are we really talking about? Again, rules, restrictions, limitations, whatever you want to call them, are not only conducive to making choices interesting, they are absolutely necessary. And what's on the table here would only make the game more interesting if it doesn't make it less. That's not a trick statement, it's a nod to the fact that we are all talking completely in the abstract. All I know is that Firaxis has intigrated resources into the game. I'm sure we both can't wait to see how.

Gary

The problem is this entire argument is out of context -- notice the way words like "mandatory" become assumed and whole new meanings are given that aren't necessarily accurate to anything except what is in the head of the person using them. The hypothetical system Youngsun advocates is hardly as tangible as Civ 2, which, btw, is almost the definition of an anachronistic game. Not trying to prove you wrong, just making the point. I also realize you probably meant that resources appearing SO early is simply TOO anachronistic for the suspension of your disbelief. Maybe so, maybe so... There are of course plenty of examples of events in Civ 2 that make the timeline there look equally like a double helix.

[Tjoepie]

I think that CIV III should be a game where you can decide yourself how you want to face history.
One should have a choice to be warlike/peacefull, trader/isolationist, lots of units/fewer hi-tech units , etc ...
This is what makes the game great!
You can play in so many differenty ways and still survive history...
I hope the different AI players also play different so you can ally with the one that suites you best and vice-versa...
Sorry if my english is not perfect... :-)

[Cyclotron]

double post, DAMN this imac is slow!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 26, 2001).]