quote: Commercial (i.e. silk, tobacco, gold) - Cannot be stored up or used for building - Can form trade routes - When used to trade, brings in proportionally more revenue than industrial resources (commercial res. tend to be more exotic and command higher prices).

I think these resources shouldn't be commercial per se.

I mean, you could use them in your own cities to generate luxuries. And you should be able to store them, so you could have a surplus and sell it to other civs, in exchange for, say, iron...

Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay
Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone
Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood
etc etc...

If your city can produce 5 labour pts every turn, a granary will cost 4 turns to be completed.

spice: +1 happiness empire wide.
elephant: allows war elephant unit
iron: +1 attack for phalanx and legion units
timber: +1 movement, +1 hit points for ships
stone: +1 hit points to city walls

etc...

Shields would still be used to build most everything. But with special ressources, a civ would gain something extra.

This idea would make trade really interesting. For example, a civ with an abundance of "spice" might want to trade with a civ that has "elephants" so that it can get some war elephants, the other civ really wanting some extra happiness from the "spice". Trade could also be central to wars. Would you want a trade partner trading your "iron" to your enemy? We could have real trade embargoes in the game that make sense. This fits well with what Sid said about being able to deny a ressource to a powerful enemy.

Last, I think my idea fits well with what we heard from Firaxis about "unique benefits" for civs. My idea would give something extra to civs making each one unique in a sense. But the benefits are not fixed. They come from the special ressources the civ has found. These ressources can of course change hands during the game. You can trade, pillage, conquer for those ressources!

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-16-2001 01:14 AM With monolith94's labour points, everything becomes so clear! Granary = 20 labour pts + 2 units of clay Stone wall = 60 labour pts + 10 units of stone Trireme = 30 labour pts + 5 units of wood etc etc...

I don't like this very much. If your civ is unfortunate enough to not have any stoone nearby, does this mean it can't build city walls? Resources should be simple and, in the end, nonessential to represent the use of unconventional building materials to replace commodity shortages.

Some baisc resources like "stone" and "clay" should be numerous enough so almost every civ gets easy access to them whereas some key strategic resources like "oil" and "coal" are less accessible thus forcing the players to engage in international trade.

quote: In addition, I disagree with the +/- system of commodities... I think that this is overly simplistic, and the Civ2 system is better.

If there is no need to trade, people will not trade at all. That was exactly what happned in whole civ series. Oil embargo should make industrialised nation in complete standstill if sufficient amount of oil hasn't been stored in reserve. Vast "coal" and "iron" deposit should give good excuses to those warmongers to invade their neibours. Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions. People should be afraid of getting sanctioned or isolated from international trade and this will eventually lead intense diplomatic activities around the globe.

Resource system will definitely encourage:
1.International trade
2.More diplomatic activities
3.Economic war/Colonialism

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions.

I couldn't agree more. Besides, is it good to have two different systems working to get the same result? It would be simpler to have just one system.

quote: Resource system will definitely encourage: 1.International trade 2.More diplomatic activities 3.Economic war/Colonialism

I realize that a economic trade system like your suggesting would be realistic but in this case realism= no fun. I realize that some of you have been playing this game for years but what firaxis needs is newbies and younger kids like me. Im 12 i got the game when i was 10 and when i looked at it i couldnt give a damn about resources or economy i just wanted to conquer the world (and i still play with bloodlust on ). and if i had turned the box around and read what you guys are asking to be in an economy i would still be looking for the purfect game. Now i realize that some when reading this are gonna say that newbies arent important blah blah blah but look at it this way, i know some of you like to start a game and if your not in a good place restart but i dont do that no matter how bad the land i just keep playin but the way you guys are recomending it if i started in a dessert i cant build anything but sand castles (joke). i propose this

a,b,c=empires in game

quote: From now on, I appoint Youngsun as my official spokesman.

Roman

quote: This is one of the major reasons why I support the resource system so much. Personally, I woould like to see a full-blown resource system you describe, but I can understand that Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple. That's why I proposed an efficiency based resource system.

Yes I understand Roman but there are too much at stake if we don't make resources more important than that of previous games. Whenever I played civ I never bother to trade with other civs. why? because I didn't need to trade for my growth and survival. My insular economy was good enough to keep up with my revenue requirement and further I didn't want to give any benefit to my enemies from my vast economy.

The resource system doesn't have to have 50~60 separate items for full simulation. I say 10~12 items will do for reasonable representation. Also those items must be something we are very familar with such as "oil" and "coal".

young newbie forever
You will not stay as newbie forever after you played civ some times. You will be turned out to be a hard core civ fan like me then what? You will begin to explore more game features that had been kept hidden from your eyes for a long time. You will be able to enjoy other game features such as "diplomacy" which allows peaceful co-existance with your AI foes. You will enjoy other ways of achieving final victory. then you will be thankful and excited , when there are a lot more to explore in the game which also promise game logevity. You might be a newbie for a while(less than 1 month? I think)but you will be a hard core fan for the rest of your life. So you really want cut off very important game features, that would make you happy for the rest of your life, to satisfy your 1 month of newbie period?

quote: a trades b buffalo for steel a's city with the new steel can now store the steel,send the steel to another city, trade the steel, or ad it to its production of lets say cannon. each unit of steel ads to production. now since a cannon needs lots of steel to make lets say each unit of steel ads 15 sheilds to production and the cannon already has 30 sheilds you put 1 steel into it now it has 45 say it needs 50 to be finnished and you city makes 5 basic production. next turn you have a connon. but since it was made with steel the canon now has + 3 hitpoints (not much but itle do). back at b his steel mine would automatically produe 5 units of steel but makes 10 becouse it has a mine on it. the buffallo from a ads food and trade to b's city for a short time. suddenly BAM b find a gold mine far away from its home land so it takes a settler,builds a town on the gold (a town would be a minie city and when built only works on the resource below it, it would not use the settler as population instead when its built it would take poeple that are tired of working as the settler and they would settle down and ther offspring would continue on as the settler. a town would have a pop of like 500 to start and grows very slowly, like 50 a year and when it reaches 1000 would beome a city , anyway a town would work of the source directly below it and produce 1 unit of, lets say gold, per every 50 people )and then this gold ads to the treasury and ads trade to a nearby city or whatever city you designate it to be delivered to. but in the end couse c is america it wins and conquers the cannons with tanks

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-17-2001 12:44 AM Resources should be the key element to produce and construct not just supplementary to those shields otherwise I'll laugh at my enemies economic sanctions.

Just a friendly word that I hope will be taken in the right way . I think you guys are going away overboard here... A system like you're talking about might arguably be desirable, but consider what would happen with this system in the AI's hands. As we all know the AI is about as clever as a cantaloupe . It simply wouldn't be able to cope. I think the intermediate system where you can use either a specific commodity, or just general resources is the way to go. Right now we are using something even simpler than that in Clash, where the presence of appropriate amounts of special commodities give overall economic bonuses. This is simpler even than your intermediate system, but it allows for things like oil embargos reducing a civ's production by 30% or so.

An economic penalty of 30% reduced production due to lack of oil is no joke. Youngson, the only reason you never had to bother with trade under such penalties, is because the AI in Civ 2 is completely worthless... Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

If you guys were meaning to have a completely abstract discussion about "how cool it would be if" without considering any possibility of it actually getting into the system, then I apologize for my pedantic comments .

i proposed an idea like the intermediate one on a different topic a while ago.

if you dont understand what i proposed in my last post here, what i meant was that each recource speeds up production and makes the unit a little stronger. simple as that. i guess i went into to much detail with my example.

by the way do you guys like my town idea ? if not how about somthing a little more complicated like oil derricks or refineries.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-18-2001 02:08 AM Fiera What if my opinion is different from yours once in a while? Geez! I bear hugh responsibility from now on...

Nah... fear not, I'll send you my opinion via email and you'll post it here with the right words... (j/k)

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 02-18-2001 08:28 AM Anyway, I think you would be Extremely fortunate if Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

Well, I know a perfect system is imposible to reach, but I strongly believe that Civ3 will be a disappointment if it features the same old trade system (you know, those little arrows that in a farly abstract way come to mean trade)...

According to the list, everyone seems interested in improving trade, and the Message from Sid said it would be done... We know Sid and Firaxis and we know they won't go for an overcomplicated system, and I'm sure they'll try to avoid something that the AI just can't handle...

I found this while re-reading the "Ask the Civ team questions":

quote: We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources. These values and how they relate to each other cause all sorts of effects

A pretty abstract piece of info, but it means indeed that we're gonna have resources with different and important effects for the game... It won't be strange if they use these effects to improve the trade system, don't you think?

Anyone played these before?

HOMM series(simple resource system with national level resource pool)
Imperialism(complex resource system with national level resource pool)
Colonisation(complex resource system with city level resource storage)

None of these games I listed above suffered from "AI incompetence" in terms of resource management and they are all better in general AI than that of civ and sometimes kick the human opponent's arse. Even the most civ-like game like Colonisation handled the system superbly while having the most difficult resource storage mechanism "city level resource storage"
Colonisation is one of Sid Meier's babies too and it showed the possibility to people resource system can work good in civ-style game. Furthermore What I had in mind for the system was that use of national level resource pool which is one step easier/simpler than colonisation's city level storage mechanism while using reduced number of resource items which have/had been crucial to Human history such as oil and coal. Colonisation was released almost 6 years ago and you guys seriously think AI developers of today can't handle something that was handled good 6 years ago?

quote: Firaxis were even to consider adopting the intermediate system, so you might want to focus your efforts there.

young newbie forever

quote: your right im not a newbie,

Fiera

quote: Nah... fear not, I'll send you my opinion via email and you'll post it here with the right words...

cyclotron7

quote: full-blown resource system is excessive and translates into work, not play.

What gives you that idea? Are you saying those tens of thousands of people who played HOMM,Colonisation and Imperialsim were working rather than enjoying the game to ultimate pleasure?

Roman

quote: Personally, I would like to see a full-blown resource system you describe

quote: Firaxis must also appease those that like to keep the game simple.

1."Everything has to be simple" kind of people(a game like civ doesn't suit them at all)
2."Everything has to be complex" kind of people(their brains need some surgery to lower their IQ down)
3. "Some parts of game needs to be more complex while others kept simple" kind of people(These are true civIII builders)
4. "Keep that! Keep those! it worked good! never change it!" kind of people, who are afraid of changes and feel comfortable with old ways(Counter-revolutionaries who want to make civIII nothing more than modified/beautified version of the same old civII. This kind of people are very good at making things tidy and neat but lack creativity)

quote: There are 4 kind of people here. 1."Everything has to be simple" kind of people(a game like civ doesn't suit them at all)

I haven't seen anyone like this. Are you accusing me of being simple? Civ doesn't suit me, huh? So I guess I just have been playing for all these years, and I really shoudn't be, hmmm? This is a joke.

quote: 2."Everything has to be complex" kind of people(their brains need some surgery to lower their IQ down)

I don't see any of these, either. I think your system is too complex, but I wouldn't put you here.

quote: 3. "Some parts of game needs to be more complex while others kept simple" kind of people(These are true civIII builders)

I consider myself here, and I consider everyone else here.

quote: 4. "Keep that! Keep those! it worked good! never change it!" kind of people, who are afraid of changes and feel comfortable with old ways(Counter-revolutionaries who want to make civIII nothing more than modified/beautified version of the same old civII. This kind of people are very good at making things tidy and neat but lack creativity)

I don't see any of these, either!!!

I think that overall, you have put people into four groups, three of which are entirely fictitious and don't exist. Your post looks to me like a silly attempt to denounce those who do not agree with you, by portraying them as extremist. I find this post offensive... why don't you argue for your ideas, instead of putting down others?

quote: Firaxis should listen to those people of category number three.

Actually, Firaxis should listen to everybody, as everybody's input is important. One-sided input makes a one-sided game.

quote: One thing I'd like to say, 60 posts is a fairly large amount. It shows that there's interest, and I hope Sid & Co pick up on it. I hope they kick around some of these ideas...

young newbie forever
There have been many similar ideas around Apolyton and I do like the idea of having distant mine complex,work camp, town or whatever which collect special resources.
I do support the idea young newbie forever.

cyclotron7

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Having read that thing again now I feel that was little bit way off the track.
I shouldn't have said that.

quote: I find this post offensive... why don't you argue for your ideas, instead of putting down others?

As for your arguments, I must actually say that I agree with your point on the AI, and so have no need to form a rebuttal. I have always thought that omitting features because the AI "can't cope" is more of an excuse than a reason. If Firaxis needs more time to have the AI catch up to the features, so be it. I meant that I agreed with Mark that you guys were going way overboard, not the AI issue.

And as for your resource argument, my last comment (work, not play) has gone unanswered... you gave me examples of three games where this was not true, but I have never so much as laid eyes on these games so this is a mute point to me. Besides, Civ3 will be a game of itself so we should discuss it in its own terms.

The reason I spoke against your "silly statement" is because I am not easily offended, but when I am I tend to get a little overheated... sorry if I was too "vigorous"

now back to the topic that does NOT involve cycltron and youngson argueing. ( im not dissing just want to get back to what this topic was started for )

my final arguement (in my eyes)

bad= units requiring different resources or they cant be made. economic sanctions from your biggest oil producer crippling you. thirty years to hoard the resources to build one battle ship whip is sunk by a real cheap bomber while still in port. not being able to go to war becouse of economic worries. EX. well if i attack this guy who no one cares about hell sanction me wich wont hurt me to much but he gives me occaisional lumber which is rare on my continent and becouse it is needed to make the tiremes i need to get troops to himn, lets leave him alone and starve to death in my dessert.However if firaxis does go this way please make sanctions hurt the a1 as much as me and make the a1 smart so they dont sanction me at random.

GOOD= anything i said and making resources help you alot but not kill you if taken away.

final arguement= its not realistic for certain units to cost exact things becouse in history civs have used different resources to make the same things ( i bet the pyramids would have been a little different if built in europe. actualy i think they were built by aliens but thats just me )

p.s. calm down cycletron

p.p.s. if firaxis is watching UPDATE THE SITE!!!! *breaks down in tears*

Civ2 already does that by increasing the number of shields given to the city. Until the cities get very large, that one square can really make a difference, as it should, but it already does. As for commercial things, gold adds a lot of trade to a city. Trade is then directly translated into lightbulbs and coins, as it should be.

Trade has really little to do with the physical act of manufacturing something, unless you're talking about technological innovation, which trade in Civ2 already helps. I agree that trading with other civs isn't important enough, but we shouldn't make it the point of the game. That would be taking a remarkably capitalist track in the history of the world.

As for wars being fought for particular resources, it's really a modern concept. Up until the modern era, wars were fought because the other guys were different. Again, we have to look at the history of the world without our capitalist goggles on.

Consider, as has been just noted, that comps usually just sit on resources. In the case of SMAC, even, the comp could NEVER match a skilled player who mastered the resource model (as in one or two maxed out cities could match resource production with the computer's ENTIRE production!).

So as with the negotiations model, this increased complexity could work well in games against another human being, but most of us will be playing against the computer (hotseat and PBEM being the rare but horribly drawn-out exception).

However, simple supply and demand issues could be made to work with profound implications in such a way that the computer can manage a great economic fight. Consider Railroad Tycoon. The computer ran the stock market quite well since it was a relatively simple mathmetical process. Of course, human players eventually figured out fool-proof methods to beat the computer anyway, but at least the casual player hardly stood a chance.

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 02-20-2001 03:39 AM In imperialsim the computer handles all rescourses very good, all 20 of them. Why wouldnt Firaxis be able to do as good as SSI?

Because it never has been able to, and I don't have any faith in that changing...

Also not being able to get certain materials would be realistic. The reason the egyptians were conquered was that they only had bronze weapons and the Assirians had iron weapons which egyptians had no access to. Resources such as stone, wood, and such would be easy to come by and thus not a problem to find the required resources to build walls, and certain buildings.

Heres an example how i think it should work

I also think that we're overlooking the fact that Civ already counts in resources into the game. Like I've said in an earlier post, when you have special resources on the map, they already affect the production/trade in that city. I don't see what's wrong with the existing system.

Has anyone of you wondered and felt there is no need to trade with your AI neiboughers?

Well, I have and ,in fact, I don't trade with AI civs at all. Because I don't need to. In civ, "the shield" helped to generalise but made each civ's economy rather insular. It's like every civ has the exact right mix of material for every production/construction. The only difference? quantity.. The only motive for trade is the extra revenue which can also be easily acquired by various other means in other word insignificant. Thus some people may still trade but not very enthusiastic or serious about it. People will truly trade only when they need something that can not be acquired from their land.

People trade for a number of reasons, foremost among them, comparative advantage of production. The other guy need not have something you can't get anywhere else, he just has to be producing something cheaper than you can and vice versa.