Having said that, God alone knows how to implement it.

Throughout history, trade, introduction of new manufacturing methods, transportation of goods and many other factors have totally overhauled the lives of millions of people and the civilisations they live in. This, I feel, has not been adequately represented in Civ II.

Imagine the cold-hearted joy of providing your 'friend' with enough oil to wage an expensive and costly war, and then slashing his supplies when he needs them the most! Highly comical!

Right, a few ideas about how to tie trade supplies into the game.

I like Civ CTP's trade route model, with all the scope for piracy that this throws up...This should definitely go in.

Rather than the basic resource bonuses that your cities get with each of it's 'special' squares, a worked coal square, for example, would yield a certain number of 'coal' units. These resource units then go to a national stockpile, which can then be used in manufacture in the domestic economy; or they can be traded in the CTP vein. This would eliminate the ambitious, but ultimately unrealistic 'monopolies' concept.

Trade treaties, and even alliances, could be formed around the basis of the continued flow of these trades. Forced war reparations could even be paid for in industrial goods, like the Germans suggested they do after the First World War.

Perhaps someone else might like to come up with ideas concerning what goods should be dealt with in this trade model? i.e: steel, timber etc. Should there be scope for refining/purifying? i.e:
iron ore=useless, steel=very useful
raw uranium=worthless and dangerous, military grade plutonium=highly desirable and VERY VERY dangerous!

Back 2 trading model, civs shouldn't limit their trades, in other words, u should be able 2 trade industized goods, this would help out nations that r similar 2 european nations; no natural resources but heavy industries

while talking about trade & economy, the idea about corporations & companies come up. i know there was a good topic started & explained very well by Youngsun, i think. these ideas on trade models would go nicely w/ Youngsun's ideas on corporation

if anyone has the link to the topic i am talkin', please put it up

So my idea is that you can build anything as long as you've got the right technology. However if I have large deposits of iron that would meen my, say, legions are produced faster and are stronger than a guy with massive amounts of buffalo in his economy. But that guy has extreamly large and fast growing cities.

quote: Originally posted by bagdar on 01-13-2001 12:30 PM If I remember it correctly, either in Sid Meier's letter concerning Civ III, or in the old Firaxis FAQ, there was something about trade issues such as concentrating on oil production etc. If that is so, then what you have proposed is already a reality, and part of civ III, because it would mean that we will have strategies concerning the strife between the producers of valuable goods, and the people who need them. Imagine how that would widen the scope of Civ strategies!

I believe that Sid was talking about special resource spots - not generic resource-shields, although im not sure.

To fractionize those resource-shields into sub-level oil-shields, wood-shields, iron-shields, stone-shields or whatever, and then being forced to have certain resources in order to build certain improvements, would be a very bad decision, i think.
Too much player micro-management and definitely too hard on the AI, given all the other numerous demands and added complexities in the game.

I realize that every new idea adds a little to micro-management - thats unavoidable. That is however perfectly acceptable, provided that the idea simultaneously adds even more to the "just-one-more-turn" of fun- and suspense to the game.

quote: Originally posted by young newbie forever on 01-13-2001 03:37 PM For example what you saying is that if I start in a dessert region and I dont have many useful resources im doomed to run my economy on trading. now that may force you to trade alot and I agree it would ad to the realism but what do I do until I find someone, build sand castles??

You say doomed to run your economy on trading. The Arabs are traders, and they have a long standing culture and economic power. I wouldn't say that they are doomed to anything. The ancient minoans were well noted traders, and were one of the most powerful civs of the ancient world until an unfortunate incident with a volcano and a wave... The venetians were traders, and also some of the richest people during the renaissance. My point is that this could be a blessing, having to trade for survival could increase your trading prowess, and gain you power. As what to do until you meet other civs, well expand. Settlers should only be limited by your food supply, and you can expand until you find those rescources or trading partners. You can still research, so you aren't going to fall behind.

Some people will say that this will force you down a particular path. But hasn't this happened to civs all throughout history: They have been forced down a particular path by circumstance. I hope firaxis implements the idea as is.

------------------
- Biddles