posted June 22, 1999 10:38            

Hello everyone! I am now the new thread master of Economics and trade. I hope we can continue the excellent work of Pythogras. In order to put things into speed, I posted here the old summary I was asked to create by Yin a few days ago.
I intend to change this model, to a more easier to read and manage thread, with more elborate summaries of the great ideas people suggested.
Expect that in the upcoming 1.3.
In the mean time, take the time to read what we have now. If I missed something, as ever give me a howler.

A. Economical concepts
B. Carvan issue.
C. People quotes.
D. List of thanks.

A. Economical concepts

1. Having a number of key materials per Era ( copper, oil, etc. ). If you lack enough of those materials you gain minuses to production. Only the used materials for the Era are showen up on the map. You may trade resources with other civ's. ( Eggman, Korn469 )

2. Having a budget screen. The usefulness of city improvements are decided by a Tax slide: how much money you put in Eduction dictates the bonus gain per schools, etc. Military is divided between the upkeep of the units, and give minus/bonus to morale. Wealthfare money gives extra happiness. In democracy / Rebpulic, the Sanete may demend minimum budgets to some parts. ( Harel )

3. Having 3 global types of resources: Fuel, building matertials and exotic, instead of shields. Works in other ways like idea number 1. ( Flavor Dave )

4. Economy model should be like Imperlism, you find the resources with a
Geologist unit, then build roads to the patch and build "mining buiding" on
the patch and move the resource to the closest city. ( Colon )

5. Besides resources, a consideration to the processing ( industry ) has to
be notice as it's the main issue in economy.( Colon )

6. You should be able to trade with barbains. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

7. Some nations based soley on trade. It should get much bigger economical
bonus from trade routes. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

8. The more types of luxury goods you have, the happier the people are. Trade goods should be seperated from gold and have four main type of luxury items. Also, combing many food sorts will give a happiness bonus. ( Ecce Homo, Korn469, Stefu )

9. You should be able to be a third-side trader contractor: be able to ship resources for some civ to another civ, gaining a small percentile of the money yourself ( Holland traded for most of eastern europe in the past. ( Harel, Mindlace, Diodoros Sicilus )

10. City should be able to build several things at the same time ( with sliders to refelt percents of labor ). ( Korn469 )

11. Have a new type of civlian: builder. ( Korn469 )

12. Base/City squres don't produce anything, they give a bonus to outlaying squares. ( Korn469 )

13. Each city can build as many Improvements as it has Population, with perhaps a bonus at the start so you aren't stuck with only one or two improvements for umpteen early turns - each city could start with a Base Number of improvements you can build. ( Diodorus Sicilus )

14. The number of tile used should be as the city size, not size+1. ( Isle )

15. City should be depended on one another, like in modern economy. Be able to group cities to a shared pool of resource and support. ( Druid, Hans2 )

16. Having "contracts" to reduce micro-manage. ( Don don )

17. Have commodities, like in Colonization. Have around 10 resources and 10 finished goods and revolve the economy around them. They are replaced with more fitting ones along history and deplet over time. ( Don don, Bulrathi, Diodorus Sicilus, Zorloc )

18. Be able to build docks, airports and the like in other country area by being a sum of money. ( Trachymr )

19. Have "two" level of trade - internal and forgien. Forgien will be automatic, ala MOO and internal economy will be based on commodities. ( Fugi the Great )

20. Trade advisors, like SMAC governors will automaticly control all trade. ( Fugi the great )

21. Trade will also generate shields ( production ), not only trade arrows ( CapTVK )

22. If you have commodites, controling most of the world supply of a certain item allows you to get more money for it, Monopol of the market. ( Pythagoras )

23. The type of Goverment and Market status dictate the control on your trade, and the income gotten from it. ( Pythagoras )

24. Black market: automatic caravans created in cities with a high criminality, or to trade goods which are greatly lack, or trade routes with enemies. You gain no income, and it's a drain on your trade cause it lower the income of your trade. Needs military units to destroy. ( Pythagoras )

25. You can build trading posts, which act as airports and fortress ( maybe give a small bonus to trade in near by cities? ). built by explorers. ( Flavor dave )

26. Spys can destory trade routes. ( Flavor dave )

B. Carvan ( only trade ) issues:

1. Have the trading bonus relate to supply and demand. ( Bubba )

2. Have an more expensive sort of caravan which delivers finished goods, not materials, and give a bigger bonus. ( Bubba )

3. Having pirating and pillaging the trade routes, ala CtP. ( Bubba, DanS )

4. Caravans automaticly move back and forth, not just trade routes. ( Pythagoras )

5. Carvans need to evolve along history, with sea and air types. ( Pythagoras )

6. Trade should be a part of diplomacy, automaticly created a "carvan" building contract. Good trade will increase the level of diplomatic connections. ( Pythagoras, Hans2 )

7. War should cancel all trade bonues. ( Jele2 )

8. Be able to give military protection to carvans by arming them. ( bab5tm )

9. Have air-lift carvan which can help besieged cities ( give them less damage from artilery, you get a trade bonus, civ attitude to you is better ). ( EnochF, Harel )

10. Have SMAC-type way-points for carvans. ( Trachmyr )

11. Have a MOOII trade, gaining an automatic money&Science bonus, no caravans. ( Prefect )

12. Once a caravan is built, he is automaticly sent to the most profitable
town, and gives and automatic bonus ( no actul movement ). ( Harel )

13. Caravans act like spies and show parts of the other-side maps. ( Utrecht )

14. Caravans are automaticly built by the AI, and sent. The entire trade process is done by the computer for you, a bit like SMAC. ( Lancer, Pythagoras )

15. Be able to hire caravans, and get a percent of the income. ( Trachymr )

16. If you enable free-market SE, some of the caravans will belong to a private company, and you get a percent of the income by tax. ( Ecce home, Harel )

17. A new wonder that will increase the movement rate of caravans. ( Flavor Dave )

18. A new city improvement to increase the output of caravans ( Diodoros Sicilus )

C. People quotes:

"With just two or three materials per era, this could do a good job of simulating the need for vital materials. If you can't get them (see Japan after the US cut off its oil supply in WWII) you are going to fall behind which forces war. It also allows a civ to capture and/or cut off key materials and devastate a civ economically. Run out of oil - production drops by 50% - OUCH!Stockpiling in case of war is a good idea too. Plus, the demand for those key materials would grow as the civilization gets bigger (more cities) so you would need to make sure that you can secure those resources to expand"
( Eggman )

"Actually, from the beginning civilizations had to trade for critical materials: copper and tin are relatively rare as recoverable deposits, but they are both required for Bronze. The bronze age in Europe was marked by long-range trade in tin, all the way from Cornwall in England to the Mediterranean. The trick is that most of this early trade was not with other (rival) civilizations, but with what, in game terms, are 'barbarians'. Give us more flexibile barbarians, who sometimes trade because ( for instance ) they've got the tin you need and you've got civilized goods like wine that they want, and you can put critical resources into the Trade System and realisticaly spread over the map and still not cripple some resource-deprived civ from the start. Also, in most of those early trades, the civ got the better of it, in that they also made money in the trading".
( Diodoros Sicilus )

"Resource Development: In order to develop your resources, you use special units similar to the settler units of Civilization. You start out with a prospector and an engineer. The prospector searches for various minerals that can be found in the hills and mountains, and the engineer builds railroads and ports that are necessary to transfer those goods to the capital. Unlike Civilization, virtually all your production is centralized at the capital. Thus, in order for those resources to be of any use to you, you must have a path, either by sea or by railroad, to your capital. Later in the game, as your technology advances, you gain the ability to build additional units which can further improve on your resource squares."
( Colon )

"For Civ this could work by having 10 raw materials, and 10 manufactured goods. All of these will be shared between all of your cities. Then to trade, you make an agreement with another Civ (similar to CTP) and a caravan creates a trade route from your closest city to their closest city. Then your caravan (or whatever) will travel this path continuously - and can be pirated."
( Zorloc )

"Why not have a real budget in civ III? For example, let's take hospitel. Each one, takes lets say 2 gold per turn? Why not have an advanced budget section, when you have "Health care". Here you allocate a budget that is shared between ALL hospitels in the empire. The more money is per hospitel, the more useful it will be. The more useful is will be, the happier people will be and will live longer. Same thing with schools ( "Education" section ), that will decide how much +% to research it gives, army which decided how useful the units will be ( a minus if support per-unit is below standard, a plus if above, etc ). You can even have the council fight for different increase in sections. In the realigon section, someone said that the popes ( or other big-shots ) of the religon would be like civ's inside your civ, you will need to debate with them. Let's show up how terrible are the democartical struggle for budgeting in civ III. Each party would demand something else... This could be fun...
( Harel )

"I think the trading from both SMAC and Imperialism should be used. The basic average everyday items that get traded if ou are a friend of another nation should be automatic like in SMAC. Then there are certain commodities like wheat - bread, oil -petroleam, iron ore-steel-guns, uranium - plutonium ... that should be traded on the market like in Imperialism ( the important things you need to grow a nation / empire ). You could then do what the US does with Russia now with the selling of wheat to them when they have a surplus. Could also get food if there is a major famine in your country. Trading for oil like the world does with OPEC. If you don't have oil, tanks don't move and planes don't fly; so make sure you have enough to get you through a war - don't be stuck like Germany or Japan in WWII. Iron ore/steel production with different nations trying to corner the market or dumping it on other countries to kill their industries ( Japan was accused of this ). If you don't have steel, then you don't make tanks or factories. If you don't have uranium to make plutonium, then you don't make nukes, try getting it in trade or on the black market. Not every nation on this planet is blessed with an abundance of goods. Countries like Japan have to rely on the exports of other countries to stay alive."
( Fugi the great )

"Please, please, Please no comodities as in Colonization. This system is ok with a very few "centers", but putting a system with detailed commodities in a many-centers (cities here) game like civ produces mind-numbing amounts of micromanagement. I intentionally would stop expanding in Colonization (even though I would have liked to strategically ) because the micromanagement burden became rapidly intolerable after about 10 cities."
( Mark_everson )

"Having industry treated like it is in Imperialism is a VERY BAD IDEA. I like Imperialism but in that game the economics are the main focus. Not so in Civ. Considering that in my experience Imp1 games tend to last a whole lot longer than Civ2 games, having a complex economic model in Civ3 will make the game unplayable. You know that joke that if you want realism in Civ, you should play two turns and then die of old age? Well, that wouldn't be too far from the truth."
( Eggman )

"If you have several Production Improvements ( Barracks, Armories, or Logistics Depots for military units, Mills, Factories, Robotic Plants for equipment, Shipyards for ships, etc ) you can build one New Thing for each such improvement OR you can combine several such to build one thing faster. Each Improvement would add to the cities total Manufacturing Points, which could be divided or applied as wished.This would also allow/cause you to concentrate the production of certain cities: you would tend to have, as countries' did historically, a Steel City that cranked out all the heavy stuff (artillery, tanks, etc), a University Town whose points all went into Schools, Science Parks, Universities - Research, and perhaps an Artistic City ( Athens? ) in which the points went into Happiness / Cultural improvements that affect the entire civilization's Happiness/Contenment ratings."
( Diodorus Sicilus )

"What do you think of putting these materials into a generic form--fuel, metals, maybe two more? Also, in every "age", where each of these generic goods are concentrated would change, to reflect the evolution from wood to coal to oil to nuclear power."
( Flavor Dave )

D. List of thanks:

Special thanks: Pythagoras

Eggman, Ecce Homo, Harel, Bulrathi, Bab5tm, Korn469, Lancer, Matthew, Don don, Mark_everson, Trachymr, Mindlace, CapTVK, Stefu, Fugi the Great, Itokugawa, JamesJKirk, VaderTwo, EnochF, Croxis, Delcuze, Kerris, DanS, Didorus Sicilus, NotLikeTea, Flavor Dave, Hans2, Colon, Bubba, Druid, Prefect, Isle, Utrecht, Jele2

posted July 05, 1999 11:27            

Social engineering affects the amount of total production, money, science you receive. A slider bar would have laisse-faire free market at one end, communal at the other. Communal govts have full control of where to put the above. Free-markets have little control where to put production & science, however they generate much more trade, and may purchase production & research back from private individuals in times of crisis (war). The computer would select where it wishes production, science to go (on % slider bars). You may add to them with what you control. Generally the AI will pick non-military research & production. Excess money (not taxes) may pay for city structures if they are non-governmental structures.

There should be enough slider bars for variation, but not a number based on city size. The total production will dictate how many get used anyway.

Agree with Isle on #14 above.

Resources: If they are within your borders and you have means to transport them (connected road, port), you may use in all your cities. Otherwise you must trade or conquer to get these resources (or just - to production like #1 above). May inhibit certain lines of research. Outposts, forts would extend borders.

RE: #21 above-
As extra money can be used to quick purchase items I don't feel this is necessary.

Quick purchases would be city-size based. You could add x# of production by paying a citizen. Cost & output would be based on SE choices & certain technologies.

Agree with #22 & #23.

No caravan units. Trade routes would be constructed instead. Construction is incremental. Once built you would choose your destination. Trade would arrive based on distance & technology. Bonus is also based on distance, tech.

Bonuses can be added to current trade routes by adding excess food &/or shield production to the route.

Clicking on a hotkey will overlay trade routes on the map, allowing players to see where to intercept/pirate trade routes. Interception blocks the route. Piracy funnels some trade back to you civ. Both are acts of war, piracy would cause diplomatic penalties with other civs. Navies/armies can be assigned to guard routes. This would not guarantee protection.

posted July 07, 1999 13:52            

Pure demand economy--exactly what we have now.

Impure demand economy--like we have now, except you can only change the tiles worked if a new citizen pops up, once you've started building something.

authoritarian socialism--

democratic socialism--

deomcratic capitalism--

pure laissez faire capitalism--

Here I'm out of good ideas. One not-so-good idea is that as you move toward laissez faire, you go from only being able to tell your cities to build a unit, or a wonder, or a city improvement, but the AI chooses which. Better, you lose control of an increasing number of your cities. At modest LF, you only lose control of a couple of cities. You lose more and more as you get more LF (but you also generate more trade).

posted July 09, 1999 17:59            

It strikes me that trade is a two-way thing, and so it doesn't make sense if I trade with a nation who haven't developed trade, and leave them still without the Trade technology! I have 2 solutions.

1) Disallow trade with powers who have not discovered Trade (or equivalent)

Slighlty less strict is:

2) If you trade with a power lacking the Trade technology, they automatically gain that technology as part of the process.

posted July 11, 1999 23:44            

Resources are a funny concept in civ.
A shield can represent either a resource or labour depending on what is in you city.
Maybe this should be split up.
Resources come from the terrain. Wood from forests, metals from hills/mountains, oil and coal from resource squares in desserts/swamps the ocean or wherever. More advanced mines/lumberyards give more per turn. Depending on play balnce issues this could be just one abstract type, or subdivided into the different classes of materials.

Labour comes from your population.
Each pop. point produces a certain amount of labour, modified by government, tech and improvments (like factories). Pop points not devoded to gathering produce double or more labour.

Resources are freely shiped throughout you empire (or within a region), and can be shiped between regions on trade routes of some type. Resources are stored for when they are needed, but reserves decay over time, maybe ~5% a turn. Resources can be sold to other empires or abstractly like capitalization. Resources can also be bought abstractly at a hefty premium, or from other civs.

Labour cannot be moved from it's city/region, and cannot be saved.
All units/structures require a certain amount of each component.
Ancient units tend to require a higher ratio of resorces/labour than modern units.
( a legion and a musketter unit might have the same amount of iron in tehm, but much more workmanship is required to make the muskets)
Infantry are less resource intensive than other unit types. Ships are the most resource intensive.
This, combined with the regional sharing of resouces will allow people to develop production centers seperate from the mining areas.
Food from agricultural cities (all pop devoted to resource gathering) is sent to the bigger cities to support industry (only the best squares are gathered, or could have lots of overlap with the resource gathering centers, most pop is devoted to labour) and mining comunities (all pop devoted to resource gathering, but in forested/hilled areas) Production from the industrail centers is used to build infrastructure for all areas, and military units.

This could lead to different war strategies, such as a civ with only one major mountain and hill chain. Attampt to capture their resource producing area and force them to devote lots of their money to try and aquaire resouces from elsewhere.
Or siexe their oil cities and dissalow them from building tanks and ships cheaply.

In Canada, for example, most mining is in the north, on the shield and norhtern alberta, but the bulk of the industrial production is in southern ontario, which is basically grassland. The bulk food production is in the plains, and some in southern ontario/quebec.

posted July 12, 1999 16:03            

The separation of resources from labor, and the differentiation of resources into types (wood and metal), was present in Colonization. In that game, you needed Lumberjacks to harvest wood, and Carpenters to convert it into an intermediate form (hammers). You needed Miners to harvest ore, and Blacksmiths to convert it into an intermediate form (picks, I believe). The "hammers" and "picks" were used to produce city improvements and guns. If you had a stockpile of wood, but not enough Carpenters, you could tell your Lumberjack to do something else (act like a Carpenter, for example) for a little while. (Since Colonization had differentiated specialists, rather than just "people", the Lumberjack wouldn't be nearly as efficient at carpentry as a Carpenter.)

I do like the concept of differentiating resources (and separating resources from labor). And I add this idea: like CTP's public works, let resources and food be put into a national pool. If the mines of City A produce 9 units of iron per turn, and a cannon requires 3 units of iron and 30 units of labor (just to make up some numbers), then the mines of City A would supply enough raw material to produce 3 cannons per turn in the factories of Cities B, C and D -- if I can supply the labor. Meanwhile, the farms of Cities E and F can produce, say, 25 units of food per turn, which might be enough to feed all of my empire (Cities A through F). Of course, Cities A, E and F might also be building things with their own labor even as they supply food and resources to Cities B-D, depending on how closely we continue to follow the Civ1/Civ2 city model.

This would change how food is handled. Instead of having a local food surplus, the nation's food would be averaged out over all cities. This would generally eliminate starvation in all cities (but in the event of global disaster such as global warming, could mean your whole empire starves). In terms of game-play, this seems desirable, and in later years (after discovering refrigeration, railroads) it makes great sense. In earlier years, it may be slightly unrealistic -- food handling and storage and transportation technologies are inadequate and would mean some food would rot before getting to its destination. But this could be rationalized in game terms by giving a bonus upon the discovery of certain techs (e.g., refrigeration) -- similar to what Civ2 does.

posted July 12, 1999 16:57            

Imperialism was another game that separated resorces and labor, so did Lords of the Realm II. This works for these games because the have a time/technology span that is relatively limited compared to Civ. Civ is a more general game by design and by necessity. Design because that's what Sid envisioned, and necessity because the mechanics of building a tank are much too much micromanagement.

Don't get me wrong, I like micromanaging my civ. What to build, who works where, that sort of thing. But I don't like the idea of having to micromanage down to the raw material of whatever I make. Spears and arrows are easy, tanks and fighters are not. That's why it works for some games and not for others. This will not work for Civ, IMHO.

------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

posted July 12, 1999 17:34            

I think there is a little confusion about regions, the details are in that thread, but basically i think that things should be built on a regional scale, and then placed locally, so you choose where the temple that was just finished goes. This allows you to build temples, and supermarkets in your farming comunity with no resources around.

posted July 12, 1999 18:06            

I'm kidding. I understand what you are saying, but I think the realism people would get all over you for building portable temples, and they may have a point. Let's take your temple in a farming community idea for an example, it's a good one. In "real" life (as if there is such a thing) the temple would be phisically built in that town, not moved there from a production center. The farming communuty would import materials, but not people. While the temple was being built, the food production would decrease. I suppose in modern times a construction company would come in and do it, but for Civ purposes the labor comes from the town receiving the building. So of all you are asking for is a way to transfer raw materials from one city to another, there are simpler ways to do it that to have "production centers" and "resource regions". Off the top of my head, you could have a transportation screen where you could say "City A has X amount of surplus resource M, how much of this surplus would you like to send to city B?" or something to that effect. Of course the amounts you could send would vary greatly with your technology level (roads, railroad, etc.). Kind of like the caravan helping to build wonders idea. If you city is lagging building a bank because of lack of resources, send them some. But eventually, they could have built it on their own.

We'll call it resource sharing, or something equally cheezy.

------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

posted July 13, 1999 02:00            

Resource shields are as civ2 standard; Labor shields are a multiple of the # of citizens in the city/region, which would be modified by technology & city improvements.

I don't see why labor "shields" can't be imported/exported from city to city, as the fruits of their labor=finished goods. Also resource storing is a good idea, but no reserve decay, or only at higher difficulty levels.

The shipping of resources from city to city would be treated as "trade" routes, but they don't need to be built, and don't count against any maximum the city can have. Time it takes to arrive is automatically calculated by the computer based on distance, tech. See my 7/5 post.

Also I suggested before to change the quick-buy to something similar to MOO1: you drop down x# of $$ and you get extra production for a number of turns until the money is used up. This could be solved with the labor production: you pay your laborers $$ and their standard production rate is increased by (??). You can pay more to allow the extra production to roll over to later turns. This makes larger cities more important, and doesn't allow players to quick-buy tanks from scratch in size 1 cities (also since larger cities will likely have more labor-inhancing buildings, the bonus will be even higher yet! ).

3 options for production:

1) The civ2 method. Specific resources are not considered in unit/building construction.

2) Specific resources are on the map; if they are in your borders you may use them in all your cities & can allow other civs access for a fee. Must be connected to your cities by some means (roads or port city). Units, structures will have the name of the specific resources needed to build them; if you don't have then either cannot build or face a penalty to build (as A.1. economical concepts at top). Shields are still treated as shields, so as long as you have 1 of a resource in 1 city you are considered to have access to it in all cities. Trade &/or conquest has some priority.

3) Shields are broken down into specific resources, and units/buildings have # of each resource needed to build next to it. Shields in City Menu are replaced with specific-resource icons. Otherwise as #2 above. Trade/conquest even more important, but micromanaging could be frustrating.

posted July 13, 1999 11:23            

I do think that having some AI corporations (later in the game) as proposed in the General Suggestions should exist, so when you sell improvements (or trade routes) a private owner will own them as opposed to city improvement just disappearing. (or make it like CTP's franchises but for barbarians if its easier)

Also it was seen in some scenarios and somewhat in CTP but if you raid a trade route or a caravan you should be able to take the resources this would be a good model for piracy and for Barbarians and their nomadic/raid based economy.

posted July 13, 1999 14:41            

1. It's realistic
2. It opens up the game. You know how when you're in an area filled with grasslands, and no hills? Well, you are stuck then--you're going to be a science/gold powerhouse, not a military powerhouse. With this idea, your geography would be less important. As you add techs, your ability to use your labor will increase.

posted July 13, 1999 15:06            

Ditto to everything Diodorus Sicilus has said. He has been an excellent advocate for everything that I support.

One note to add. For resources and manufactured good: there should be at least two levels of manufactured goods. For Example:

Copper + Tin (L0 goods)--> Bronze (L1 good)
Bronze --> Bronze weapons/armor (L2 good)

And the higher the level the more the item is worth. As long as there is not a glut, the L2 good should sell for more than the cost of the L0 resources.

posted July 15, 1999 18:54            

Growth should depend on happiness, government, tech, infrastructure and location.

Food has a strong influence on happiness.
All food is pooled and distributed to a nuetral happiness level automatically. (losses to to bad transport can happen)

The happiness neutral level of food corresponds to current slow groth, maybe 2.2 food / person.
Having more than this much food slightly increases happines and hence growth.
having less decreases happines. At a certain level (~1.5 food/ person) starvation begins. Happiness penalties are SEVERE and pop losses are inevitable.

Inventions like contraception will slow growth rate slightly, but they will also allow you to slow it dramatically where popultion has started to outstrip food supply.

This idea allows the modern phenomina of overcrowding. The population will grow well past the point of sustinablility and then begin to collapse, but with riots and probably revolts in long term starving cities.

Aquatducts/ hospitals increase growth
Cities near oceans and on rivers have bosted growth.
cities by mountains and desserts are reduced.

Other ideas:

Surplus food (over 2 / person) is stored in the grannary. The number of turns of spare food gives the happines bonus (and the minimum time for a full siege) Food decays at a rate of 10-20% a turn, to prevent near infanite stores. Modern refrigiration techs/ canning might slow this.

posted July 22, 1999 17:33            

Social Engineering Industry wouldn't increase shield output, but labor output (they work harder).
Also instead of just having a bunch of gold pieces that are your treasury you have a list of resources that your country has in stock.

The feudalist economy system would decrease Industry(=Labor), because in that system there wasn't a lot of internal trade. Every village had to rely on itself, seriously decreasing labor.

Every terrain tile shouldn't just produce 1 Shield, but 1 Tin, 1Copper, 1 Oil,...
Some terrain types would have to be mined before you can reach the resources. eg:Hills and Mountains.

Trade wouldn't just be pretending "I give you 5 Salt and you give me 3 Copper. It would be " I give you every turn 5 Salt units to add to your Salt 'treasury' and you give me 3 Copper units to add to my Copper treasury.
your civ would get a +3Trade bonus and the other civ a +5trade bonus.
The city producing most of your civ's salt would get the trade bonus.
If my civ is in desparate need for Salt, the trade route would be more profitable for the other.
if you would get out of Salt(your treasury is empty), you would get serious happiness or health problems.

Every trade commodity should have another effect if you run out of it.

posted July 23, 1999 16:08            

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 28, 1999 13:20            

Has anyone here said anything about using roads/railroads as methods to transport goods? I'd suggested it at the Firaxis Forum, but no one has posted there for 2 weeks or so, so I'm assuming no one is reading them. Here's a limited repost:

Now, trade routes. I like the idea of regions, but except for micromanagement alleviation, what good would they do? I am the kind of person who woulds put all my cities in one region if I thought it would make me one resource richer each turn. I suppose each region could have a capital. The strength of the capital would depend upon the number of people in the region, and the combined proximity and strength of the capital would affect the corruption/waste in the cities of that region, as well as their loyalty to your nation. Thus, a small, tightly packed nation would want to be in one region, whereas the first city you build on a neighboring continent would likely start a new region, just to avoid corruption. Of course, regions could split off, but this probably belongs in a different thread.

In terms of resource trade, make it require a road. Any resource can be traded, but the maximum amount on a given trade route is inversely proportionate to the length of the route, with consideration of the terrain involved. Say that a trade route 5 squares long on a road (2 cities whose radii touch) would have a maximum trade of 20 resources each way. So city 1, which has a per turn wood surplus of 27, can send only 20 wood to city 2. City 2 has an per turn iron surplus of 14, so it can all be sent to city 1. With railroad, double the amount (so with railroads, city 1 can get rid of its entire surplus). For each amount of distance greater than this, deduct 2 trade from the maximum for roads and 1 for railroads. So with a road, you can't trade ANYthing at all between cities more than 15 squares away... With railroads, you can trade up to 45 squares, with diminishing returns all the way. The total amount could also depend upon technology (supertrains destroys the distance dependance, for instance) or city improvements (marketplace increases maximum incoming trade to 25).

Trade by sea would be possible only between cities with harbors, and would be dependant on the size of port (harbor, port, shipping center) and the distance. Say a base of 10 for a harbor, minus 1 for every two squares distant. The port might have a base trade of 25, and the shipping center 50. Navigation technologies could change the amount routes diminish over distance.

The trade could be managed automatically by the computer within given regions, sending surplusses from one city to the nearest city in the region that needed that resource. Cities could also build resource reserves to hold surplusses. For instance, a city with a Lumber reserve could stockpile up to 100 lumber. Alternatively, the regional capital could automatically stockpile whatever surplusses were sent to it... This is another good reason for dividing up your civilization into many regions.

The player could, of course, turn on and off the AI trade manager for each region. Trade between regions, however, would be managed entirely by the player. It would follow the same rules as routes within a region, but all trade would be between regional capitals. This is a good reason to have only a few regions.

Trade blockades on land would be easy. Position a unit on a road and use the block trade command. This could cripple a civilization, especially a colonial one with resources and industry in different places... Cut the supply, and there's no more production. If food is one of the resources being traded, you can do even more damage, by causing famine and food riots in the industialized interior. You could make pirate units that not only stopped the trade, but diverted it to you (with much loss, of course). There could be two kinds, brigands, who are visible and can fight, and "inside operatives" or whatever you call them, who, along with their effects, are invisible. They would be like leeches.

posted July 28, 1999 14:37            

But that explains the Supply... Where does Demand come from? Is it still randomly assigned, as in Civ2? Is it inherent in building Units/Wonders/CIs? (a micromanagement nightmare) Is it necessary for growth? All 3? None? As for micromanagement, an AI could probably handle it, although you might end up with an efficiency loss... (Anything handled by the AI should be optionally human controlled, for all of us nitpickers who have no problem spending 2 months on a game of Civ.) I suppose here's my question, with a scenario: In a game of Civ, I'm the English, and I've discovered Industrialization and built a Factory in London, which was a size 7 city. We'll say that the base industry/person is 2, so a size 7 city is 14 Industry. Discovering Industrialization gives a 25% bonus, so that's 17, and the Factory gives +50%, so that's 24. Now, I'm spending most of that on cannons, which require Wood and Iron. However, London only brings in 5 Wood and 12 Iron per turn, so I have an excess of 7 Industry. So I set up a trade route with the Americans (was that who it was?) in which they send me 7 Cotton and 7 Gold per turn, and I send back 7 Clothes. (Since Cotton can be converted to clothes at a cost of 1 Industry.) That is a great system, but why did the Americans agree to this deal? What are they getting out of it? Clothes? If I was the Americans, and I'd converted my fields to cotton fields, reducing my food production, wouldn't I feel jipped? (How the heck do you spell that word?) So the problem is, why do the Americans need clothes? Will it make their people happy? Are clothes necessary for growth? ESPECIALLY if there's going to be multiplayer support, trades like that have to happen both ways, and be profitable to both sides.

Incidentally, I think micromanagement could be reduced by, instead of having to go work out a deal with the Americans, I'd been able to push a button in London which said "Manufacture Trade Goods," Which would have prompted the AI to compare my stockpiled raw materials with the demanded Trade Goods around the world, and then compare the supplied raw materials around the world with demanded Trade Goods if I didn't have any useful raw materials, then set up a trade route with the necessary civilizations. There could be general flags that could be set, like "Don't buy from the " or "Don't sell to the ." It could be done quite easily, powerfully, and with a minimum of necessary micromanagement, if there were a good rationale for why the Americans wanted the clothes.

Manufactured goods could also be needed for Units and CI's. For instance, a Phalanx requires, rather than Bronze and Wood, just Spears and Shields. The Spears take 1 Bronze and 1 Wood each, and the Shields take 2 Bronze each. Bronze, as we all know, takes 1 Tin and 1 Copper. So if the actual cost of the Phalanx is 2 Shields and 2 Spears, I have to spend 2 Wood, 6 Tin, and 6 Copper to make it. So why bother with making the cost 2 Spears and 2 Shields, when it could just be 2 Wood, 6 Tin, and 6 Copper? Industry. The industrial cost of 2 Spears and 2 Shields is 4... Plus 2 per spear (4 more) plus 2 per shield (4 more). Oh, and then there's that bronze... 2 Industry each, that's 12 more. So the Industry cost is 24, whereas the total resources consumed is only 14. It's effectively a way to make units take more Industry when they're harder to make. Also, say there's an improvement called a Bronze Smelter that makes Bronze cost half as much Industry to make... That reduces the industry to make a Phalanx by 8, that's 25%. Well worth it. But the upkeep is 3 Gold... Ack! I can't afford one of those in every city. So I build one in one Trondheim (I'm the Vikings, now), and all the other cities send Copper and Tin to Trondheim, which sends back Bronze. Or, I can smelt Bronze for other civilizations and sell it. Or I can set the AI to "Build Necessary Resources" and it will automatically send Copper and Tin to foundries, etc. I'll still have to build the foundry, though, unless my Build Queue is also on Auto. Assuming that you can turn on the AI and make all of it go behind the scenes, I think that would be a fine way to run production. There could be a way to toggle the display of unit costs between a list of the raw materials required and a tree showing each actual requirement and it's subcomponents.

Would anyone turn off the AI and do it themselves? Good question. But even if they don't, there are still a couple of good points:

1)Lots of natural resources that are needed for expansion.

2)Industrial centers become useful to outlying cities by making parts. (If somewhere else is sending the Spears and Shields, a Phalanx is only 4 industry... that means a size 2 city can make one every turn.)

3)Likewise, trade routes can be cut, with drastic military repercussions... No more 1 phalanx per turn out there on the frontier once they can't get supplies from Rome.

posted July 28, 1999 15:21            

A separate issue: Paths, Roads, Railroads, Maglevs (no, I'm not bringing up the whole movement mess from Terrain Improvements ). I have posted the following idea on the TI thread, but it appears that it probably belongs here instead.

Roads give you trade in Civ I & II, fine, and Railroads increase resource production in a square. Why this is as I see it: Roads increase trade because invisible caravans can move along them, and Railroads increase production because you can bring muck back to your cities faster. I don't like this because it forces you to go building railroads and roads everywhere, and if the TI threads consensus that railroads should be "owned" goes through this would mean that an advancing army would NEVER get to your city. Not to mention the fact that Railroad networks look, IMO, ugly.

The solution is that a Path/Road/Railroad/Maglev will provide a trade bonus to a city SO LONG AS IT IS CONNECTED TO A FRIENDLY CITY! Friendly cities could be your own cities, other Civ's cities with whom you have trade agreements (I agree that there should be different levels of trade pacts ranging from Embargo to Favored Trade, which would likewise help diplomacy between the trading nations) or Barbarian cities/villages/wilderness with which you have not yet made war. One suggestion which has been made in another thread is that "villages" or other population centers will occasionally crop up in your city radius--these are people living in your city, still paying city taxes and using the city's resources etc., but who have their own living space. This living space could then be pillaged by an invading army, significantly reducing your population. Roads and railroads could connect these villages to the main city, but otherwise there would be no need to build a road/railroad in every city square.

As for the Railroad production bonus: if M@ni@c's idea is used and everything in Civ is multiplied by 10 (plains will make 10 food instead of 1, but each citizen will eat 20 food instead of 2), then the incrememtal tech advances could increase food/shields(or commodities)/trade in each city square by a few points each time, i.e. Railroad would increase everything by +10%, Bessemer Steel would increase by another +10%, Mass Transit would incrase by ANOTHER +10%, etc.

posted July 28, 1999 22:18            

I personnaly feel that requiring you to produce sepratly shileds and swords and trade goods and ship them around is a BAD idea. The micro load would double because of that. At least if you have to do it on a city scale. If you do it on a regional level it could be manageable...

With regions Goods getting shipped around is implicit. The idea is that in a region with 5 cities, 3000 troops get trained in rome, 1500 in Naples and 500 in each of the other three cities. THey then assemble in syracuse to form a standard 6000 man legion (aprox historical size) OR Shields form viconium and spear heads from rome are made from bronze smelted in naples and matched with troops in pompeii. Even for structures lots of the work is done other places, or workers are sent temporarilly to these cities.

Regions would allow cities to speciallize more. Have a major trade/industrial centre (chicago) with mining communities feeding resources and agricultural cities feeding the whole thing. Ag cities would tend to have farming improvments (like silos, and railyards) and all citizens work the land. Mining cities are similiar, except they have smelters and Hydro dams. Manufacturing / trade centers would have very few or no citizens work the land.

A feel that only food / resources should be produced from the terrain (trade only on special resources). Trade and industry are produced by citizens. Specialists would produce much more trade and industry than citizenbs working the fields. This would give a much stronger insentive to build a few major centres instead of the currently mostly cookie-cutter cities.

For this to work each pop point might consume 1 (or 10) food, but they represent less people...

"supply" TI's could represent villages linked to cities / regions, but outside of the city radius.
Each would have a pop point in it (to create it), and would ship it's food and resources back. If they were pillaged the citizens would die (the disadvantage), but they don't count towards pop size for aquaduct or unhappiness purposes.

posted July 29, 1999 17:14            

Villages, all size 1, farm and mine. (size 2 might give a 50-75% increase, for late game). These goods are all automatically sent to a nearby host city. The city only gathers resources from it's square, but all the extra population is in the form of labourers, traders, and scientists.

Cities are hadled mostly as now except theat they do not directly gather goods. The terrain the city is on would effect grwoth and trade (rivers are a big bonus)
Villages are TI's. Vilage improvments are also TI's. adding advanced farms, or silos, or a bettermines are all TI's.
By this model, a farmer would have to support ~twice as many pop as in CIV2.
All Food and natural resouces are 'made' in terrain squares.
All industry and trade are 'made' in cities, by citizens.

posted July 29, 1999 18:12            

As for several kinds of village... Farming, Mining,and Logging are the obvious first choices. The farming village could still produce resources, and the mining village could still produce food, but the amount would be limited... For instance, the basic, size 1 farming village can produce up to 50 food (enough to support 5 standard civ people people) and 20 resources. The Mining village could produce the opposite, 50 resources and 20 food. Then the Logging village (possibly just what happens when you put a farming village on a forest) can get 30 food and 40 resources, or whatever. You can direct growth onto a square that already has a village to increase its size, which adds a little more to it's maximum production, but doesn't double it. eg The size 2 farming village can handle 80 Food and 30 Resources. That might also allow hybrid villages... Put a mining village on top of a farming village and get something that can make 60 food and 60 resources, for those Wet Grassy Plains with Oil deposits... When it reaches size 4, make it into a city of it's own, with the 4th person being an attendant village. Doesn't need to be that complex, though, it could just be village is village, village = production from square.

posted July 29, 1999 19:11            

I like the trade/road suggestion. Villages should also produce trade, though. Not a lot, but some. Sheer number of people makes a difference in how much money a civilization has, after all. Likewise, the number of people in the city square should increase it's trade production. In a x10 world, say a village produces 3 trade and each person in the city square produces 5.

This doesn't get you an amount of trade comparable to what you'd get in Civ2, so to compensate, make the trade between cities/barbarian villages higher. Calculate it by adding up the total population trade of cities on the road network, making adjustments for distance, type of road (road, railroad, monorail) level of trade treaty for trade with other civ's cities, social engineering settings, etc. (is this too much work for the processor? maybe, and it needs a good pathfinder. figure several hundred cities on the road network by late game.) Do the same thing for ocean cities with a harbor, using the ocean as the road network.

posted July 29, 1999 19:48            

I feel that establishing villages should be free, it would just take a couple turns to set up or move if you didn't want it there...

Villages would pull in the basic (civ2 x 10) levels of resorces. To increase this you send over a terraform unit of whatever method is used, and build the TI's, like farms and mines. Not different village types, but tile improvments.

Remeber that under this model, all citizens of cities are some sort of specialist (or generalist) Laboures are +20 industry, merchents +20 trade and scientists are +20 science. Later new types become available.
Middle class +10 labour +10 trade +10 science.

Adjasent is good. make the max distance depend on tech. RR might be 4 squares...
Only costal squares unit modern ships...

This would work well with regions, then you don't have to worry which city each village belongs to, just which region it is physically in...

Harel, We can make a good case for it at least starting here... it does deal with how to move and gather resources... It doesn't affect the basic economy of the city a whole lot anyways.