quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-21-2001 01:54 AM OK if any of you can tell me there is better way to encourage international trade & more diplomactic activites, spit it out! I will support the idea.

Yes... see my above post (end of 1st page) on supplementary resources and industrial/commercial commodities.

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

In easier games, yes; but in harder games you are sunk if you aren't trading. Civ II makes trading desirable, but not mandatory. That's the way it should be. And in Civ2, trading was not just for revenue... also the science bonus, and the increased trade giving you more luxuries and science.

Me_irate: It is true that Civs without iron did not last long against those with it. But if your civ is unfortunate enough to start without it, do you want to face an almost certain doom? As said, resources should be supplementary at most for industrial purposes.

quote: Actually seeing/experiencing a thing is 100 times better than hearing from others. So I recommend you play those games then you will know what they are. You can download "Colonisation" from other abandonwares sites and you can get HOMM series & Imperialism at budget price.

Heh, easier said than done... my computer has 21 MB left on the primary drive, so if I squeeze anything else in I won't be able to play it

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 02-21-2001 02:05 PMIn all the previous other civs caravans were nothing less than something for my cities to build when i didn't need anything else.

Really? What difficulty level do you play at? Trade becomes almost mandatory at harder levels.

OK. Here's a scenario:

I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources), and decide to venture out to sea to find somebody to trade with. I find them... but they are very expantionist and declare war on me before I can trade. They sink my ship, and since I now have no immediate way to reach other nations I only have warriors with stone spears when the enemy legions arrive.

So Henrik... I HAVE to trade iron? In your scenario, I think that I would find that the first few hundred years I would have almost no choice at all on what to do, having to quickly find all the commodities I need before people killed me. This is what I don't like about commodities: They are MANDATORY according to your model. I don't want my Civ games completely dictated by what I NEED. Civ is about choices and strategy, and mandatory stuff defeats that purpose. That's why trading in Civ2 was quite good: It was a tool of want, not need. All aspects of Civilization should be so.

What's so bad about that? The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful.

2)The idea does not burden the AI.
I heard the concern about how a complex ressource model could hurt the AI. Since this idea does not involve actually collecting special ressources in order to build certain things, the AI would not suffer. The idea simply gives a bonus based on the special ressource that the civ has. This the AI could handle, I think.

3) The idea does not kill a civ that happens to start in a bad spot.
Cyclotron7 mentionned the concern that a civ with a bad starting position would be doomed. They can't trade for the needed ressources because the civs that have it can simply attack them intead of trading. With my suggestion, the civ would still be able to build the unit. Furthermore, the civ would get other bonuses since the civ would undoublty have other special ressources.
In your example cyclotron7, since you do not have any iron, your legions would be weaker than the other civ's legions, but you could still build them. But more importantly, your civ would get a strong naval bonus for being on islands. So, the other civ would have stronger legions but you would have stronger ships. You would probably be able to sink his transport ships before he even unloads his legions since you would have better ships!

I think the idea of attributing civ bonuses for each special ressources is a really good idea. It is simple too: for example, it does not require you to transform ressources into manufactured goods which would be to much for a civ game.

quote: Originally posted by Bender on 02-21-2001 03:55 PM The randomness that resources bring to the game is what makes this idea so wonderful... only the finest and luckiest players would be able to conquer the Diety level

Randomness? I don't want randomness to be any part of Civ3. Winning at any level should decide on how you play the game, and not on where you were lucky enough to start or what resources you are lucky enough to have. An idea that makes playing or winning "lucky" and "random" doesn't sound wonderful to me.

The Diplomat: I completely agree! Non-essential bonuses and such are the way to go. In addition, the idea of "island civs having better ships" is very realistic and fun. This idea is similar to the "unique benefits" for Civs idea, that where you start determines special abilities... but that's a different topic.

The point is, you are right on all your points. A supplementary resource system increases the importance of trade (and trade based actions like embargos), makes trade easier for the AI, and makes sure that random resource locations will never doom a Civ from the start.

Right on Diplomat... all we need now is to write up what some of these bonuses might be, specifically...

based on the special ressources in civ2:

stone: +10% production (city improvements only)
buffalo: ?
elephant: +10% attack for elephant units
timber: +10% hitpoints for ships
coal: +10% production (units only)
fish: +10 % growth
fruit: +5% growth
furs: +10 %happiness
musk: ?
gems: +15% economy
gold: +20 % economy
iron: +10% attack phalanx and legion
ivory: +15% economy
oasis: +15% growth
oil: +10% production (units only)
peat: +5% production (city improvement only)
silk: +20% happiness
spice: +10% happiness
whales: +15% growth
wheat: +20% growth
wine: +5% happiness

There should several ressources for each type of bonus, as you can see, so that every civ civ has a better chance to have a certain bonus. For example, the oasis would allow a civ starting in a desert to still have some decent growth and not be completely at a disadvantage compared to a civ starting on grasslands. Some ressources give the same bonus but a different amount. I did that to try to reflect the differences (for example, both wheat and fish are foods but do they feed someone the same amount?)between ressources and to make some ressources a little bit more valuable than a similar one.
Also, I think that the bonuses should be cumulative up to a certain point. So, for example, if a city was lucky enough to have 2 special ressources of a same bonus, the bonuses would add together.
Last, I can't decide: should the bonuses go to the whole empire (inter-empire trade spreads ressource around) or should the bonus just go to the city that has them? We need to make sure that the bonuses are not too powerful!

The bonuses that I listed are tentative and are just meant to get the discussion going.

I contend that a good resource system will challenge the best players to constantly adapt to the conditions of the game. Players will have to ride the highs and survive the lows many times if they are to come out victorious.

Look at it this way, if you were to win at the Diety level after starting out in an extremely challenging situation, what could be more satisfying?

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 03:11 PM I start on an island with no sources of iron or bronze. I recognize that I need some (which is kind of wierd by itself- a real culture like mine would not even know these things existed, and would instead become very good at making things with the available resources)

OK, I know some of you will reply that I am overcomplicating things, but what if we link, in some way, tech researching with available resources?

I mean, the civ you describe wont be able to reach "Iron Working", since it has never had any contact with iron. But instead, it could develop some "alternative" techs, like of course "Bronze working", but also "Obsidian working" (like the Incas in real history)...

Also in later ages, you would need a certain quatity of oil for every so many people. And in the event of a lack of oil you would have a oil crises(as in the 70's) that would lower hapiness and production. Also the powerplants that creat resources would require a resource a turn, 1 coal for every coal power plant, 1 oil for every oil plant, and the nuclear plant wouldn't require any but has a chance of meltdown.

The reason I have always been against such strict resource codes is because different cultures find different ways to cope with the same problem. Example:

Culture 1 has a large supply of iron early on (having descovered iron working) and so has strong legions, and quickly becomes the leading power in its area. Iron working never really becomes high-tech (i.e. mideval european swords, when compared with katanas and the like) in their culture, because basic iron is enough to beat most of the neighboring peoples (who have bronze or stone weapons).

Culture 2 has a good supply of bronze, but no iron. Their units have bronze weapons, but they quickly realize that bronze is simply not powerful enough to defend themselves form Culture 1 forever. They now have a few options:

ONE: They decide to send out explorers and find iron, then settle there and use domestic caravans to supply their whole empire with iron.

TWO: They decide to find other nations that are threatened by Culture 1, and attempt to trade for iron. Once a few routes are set up, they begin pumping out legions and phalanxes to deal with the threat.

THREE: They pump out bronze-using units as fast as possible and make alliances with other enemies of Culture 1, in order to overwhelm them.

FOUR: With no other options, Culture 2 wise men develop bronze working into a high art, and over time their bronze is so well worked and their weapons so well designed that they are on par with the more primitive iron weapons of culture 1. This would be done by spending ADDITIONAL research points on bronze working. For many advances you could research an invention, and then spend more time to refine and improve that invention. Necessity is the source of invention.

Other ways are possible. I hope with this model to show how non-essential resources can still become important and add to game depth and strategy.

Lancer: Very true. Why does a caveman need oil? You are entirely right, of course.

The Diplomat: Good start, although it needs some work. No time now...

About regional vs. national resources: Stuff like silk only benefits the one city. Why should other stuff be nation? Only a city recieving or mining iron should be able to get iron bonuses. This means, in turn, two other things must be established:

- There must be a limit higher than three caravans, so iron can be distributed to more places. Perhaps 5?
- A city that trades another city iron must still get the iron bonus. Trading doesn't mean you give them all of your goods, just a small regular sum every now and then.

Alright? I kinda just put out my final thesis on resources here, so if you are interested please read it entirely! What do you think?

I like the current method of resources-but maybe with a twist. Metals would add shields when producing a fighting unit. (You need iron for weapons, armor, etc, even today). Fuel (coal, oil, etc), would increase overall production (if you have a fuel source readily available, you can produce more factories, thereby increasing production). Trade (gold, furs, etc) increase just that-trade for the city. Also, I'd like to see the trade resource actually show up in the trade commodities. I've had a few cities where there was fur nearby, but it didn't show up on the list of goods I had available to trade.

This way, you have the realistic affect of various goods on the city, as well as the simplicity that makes Civ a fun game (at least in my opinion).]

cyclotron7
"Colonisation" is not bigger than 10MB I reckon.

In WWII, The German army invaded Norway to secure supply of iron ore and coal then took Ukraine for vast wheat production then Caucassus for desparately needed oil. Those decisions were made largely based on pursuit for more resources.

Now What if resources becomes supplementary to the shield? The Germany don't need to attack Norway while the action is still desirable and it is totally not NECESSARY. The Germany still can produce armours and air planes in fairly large quantity without securing Caucassus region. The strategic importance of Ploesti,Caucassus,Norway and Ukraine drops significantly.

The Player who control the German civ will attack any nearby land target which can get easily. Since the shield can produce everything, more land ensures growth not more resources so invading Spain,Portugal and Turkey might be good option for the Germany.

A Nation which holds largest land will be the victor not a nation which holds balanced mix of vital resources. THIS IS NO FUN AT ALL!. Why not give some small nation which hold much key resources some advantages? While themselves become subject of intrigue and diplomatic manipulation of bigger civs which are interested in those resources.

USA wouldn't send its fleet to the Middle East unless the region holds vast deposit of crude oil. When Nuke can be made without Uranium, Uranium's significance will drop and why even bother to control the flow of Uranium?

As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

Under the resource system(Supplementary), civA,C gets more production bonus. Civs don't need to trade while it gives slight benefit of production , the trade is not essential to them.

Under the resource system(Primary), civB gets more production bonus and civA and CivC need to trade otherwise they are doomed. If they trade each other they can out-produce civB. Trade becomes essential to them. Diplomacy will flourish!

People should know the beginning of trade, "Bartering" came from the motives for exchange of different goods. People don't trade reduntant goods, never! You need hold different cards to be a worthy trade partner.

I agree that helping the trade system would be nice, I just don't think that this resource plan does it right.

And people don't have to "need" something in order to trade, they just have to value the other thing ever-so-slightly more than that which they are giving up. Then it's worth it to them. Trade occurs because no two places are identical.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM But the current situation means that special resources add more shields (increasing production). They add more trade arrows (more money). They add more food (increasing growth). It seems to me that most of the things you guys are suggesting are already in the game. They're not explicit, but they have the same effect.

No they don't. What currently exists is bigger is better, not the way it should be - strategic is better. If special rescources add more shields or more food, then how is this different than having more mines or farms? It isn't. If special rescources exist though, there is a difference. You may have the greatest production capabilities of all time, but if you don't have iron, you can't make that tank - no matter how many shields you throw that way. You simply MUST get iron (through trade or conquest) to build the tank.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 12:31 AM As for wars over natural resources, that's a very modern thing. It wouldn't apply for many time periods at all.

You're kidding right. Almost every war in human history has been fought over rescources. The only reason it is more evident is because you live NOW, you didn't live then.

Sure, I've played games with resources. Colonization is one that comes to mind right now. I thought that was done very well. I also think that it was a game played on a very small scale, and a significant portion of that game was economic. Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Biddles,

I don't understand your "bigger is better" thing. I assume that everyone's going to mine and farm, but if you spend a couple turns mining a coal square, and the Zulus spend those turns mining a normal hills square, you have a significantly higher production in that city.

You ask how it is different from having lots of mines or farms. I think it's clear. If you have a city of size 4, with four squares with no coal and mines, it has the same production as a city of 1 with one square of mines and coal. (Or whatever the multiple is). It takes significantly less time, and significantly less people to make the same things.

As for the wars over natural resources thing, I was referring to wars over specific natural resources. Not just "more land". The Gulf War is the only war I can think of that was solely caused by a need for specific natural resources. Most wars I can think of started because: A, the other guys are different from us, let's kill 'em; or B, expansionism. General expansionism is very different from waging a war because the other guy has iron mines that you need.

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-21-2001 10:27 PM Fiera's ingenious idea is... well, ingenious.

Hmmm... thanks, then!

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-22-2001 08:32 PM Civ should not be driven almost solely by economics. It should be driven by wanting to win.

Yes, but why not making trade both fun and, in some degree, necessary in order to win the game?

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 12:37 AMUnder the resource system(Supplementary), civA,C gets more production bonus. Civs don't need to trade while it gives slight benefit of production , the trade is not essential to them.

The idea of a supplementary resource system is not to give a slight bonus. Keep in mind one thing we both agree on is that trade should be more important, but we disagree on A) How important it should be and B) How to attain greater importance for trade. A supplementary resource system would give a very sizable bonus! A slight bonus is worthless. Yes, it is true Civs do not need to trade. But, with a supplementary resource system, you would be at a sizable disadvantage if you did not, which is how the world works. By making trade absolutely necessary to the game, you actually decrease the amount of strategy involved: Everyone knows what they need and goes about doing it. A tactical decision should be made (is it worth invading my neighbor to sieze iron that would greatly enhance my armies?), and a supplementary system creates the opportunity for that tactical decision.

You gave a previous example about Hitler: You said that if he worked under a supplementary resource system he could still produce "a good supply" of tanks and planes without seizing the resources of Norway and Russia. Tell me, do you think Hitler would have gotten anywhere with a "sizable amount" of tanks? Hitler had cutting edge technology and a whole lot of powerful armies, and that made him sucessful.

I think overall you are assuming that a supplementary resource system by definition means one with small benefits. This is not true; a supplementary system refers to the fact that having the required goods is optional; but that option will cost you quite a bit. You misconception is somewhat our fault, as we do not have any benefits hammered out yet, but in time we will establish a more concrete model.

Why? Let me quote Sid Meier. This is from the old new item "Message from Sid":

quote: We think it will be fun to be able to corner the market by specializing in the production of oil, or wheeling and dealing with other civilizations to achieve mutual economic benefits or to cut off resources to a powerful enemy.

Yopu never will cut off resources to an enemy if those resources are only supplementary. I think a resource based trade system will be in Civ3, and that resopurces will play a more important role in the game mechanics than some people here thinks...

However, that's just my interpretation of Sid's words...

I knew you would bring "scale issue" here but that can be solved easily by weeding out some of unnecessary resources ,which represent only The Colonial period, such as sugar cane,tabbaco and tea.

We can select some resources which have been crucial to Human history. Some resources like "coal" and "iron" deserve to be in the game as they have done so in history.
Trade in civ series has been always treated like sh*t whereas military aspect of the game has been under the full spot light with colourful unit variance ranging from a warrior to an aircraft carrier. It is time for some wake up call to balance things up. Don't you think so Gary?

cyclotron7

quote: but we disagree on A) How important it should be

Yes I can certainly see that. As the title of this thread says, I want to see the trade aspect of the game becomes essential not merely desirable and that was Lancer's point after all. In fact, Trade has been desirable, ever since civ was released, by giving you extra revenue.

Strategy can be developed from thinking "what kind of balanced diet of resource should my civ have?" Eating up whatever resources available out there makes people hardly a thinker.

Under the supplementary resource system, WWII Japan will never declare war on USA. Despite the imposed Oil emargo, the Japanese army will siege more Chinese coal fields to compensate the loss of production caused by the embargo and getting stronger by days. Dutch oil wells in Indonesia doesn't attract the Japanese. They will just attack China to get more coal fields. The Japanese have no agenda ,no national interest, nothing but simple greed on land which contains any resource.

With supplementary resource system, you don't have to think and you just eat!eat!eat! You don't need oil, iron nor Uranium. 100 coal fields will take care of you good by giving you hugh bonus of production.
Because it's the quantity that matters, under the Supplementary resource system, not balanced mix of resources. Everything becomes plain and boring. Why even bother to have "coal" and "oil" when you use them as just supplementary to shield? why not just name them as "resource no.1 or resource no.2"?

Here's another idea (which can be found in the Resources section of the Trade & Econ summary in the List). Use generic shields, but they come from two distinct sources: materials (tile resources) and labor. Factories and powerplants would augment material shields while other improvements (barracks, shipyards, etc) would augment labor shields. If civ3 has specialists (a la SMAC) some could augment tiles/factories, others could augment labor.

Also, there has been considerable discussion on the number of resources worth including. This is a very large scale game (tiles are on the order of 100 miles across) and the "specials" represent unusually large resources assumed present in normal tiles. Some possibilities:

• Generic shields plus Fuel, Metal, Exotic.
• Generic plus Timber, Stone, Iron, Gold, Coal, and Oil.
• Generic plus Coal, Oil, and Uranium.

No, this is entirely wrong! You are't listening to me. Civ II made each resource give just a production bonus; supplementary systems don't do this. Certain resources do certain things... you obviously haven't read my above post. Iron gives you better legions, or perhaps it makes them cheaper, etc.

In addition, your historical model is flawed. The Japanese decision to attack hinged on far more than resources alone. You are oversimplifying.

quote: With supplementary resource system, you don't have to think and you just eat!eat!eat! You don't need oil, iron nor Uranium. 100 coal fields will take care of you good by giving you hugh bonus of production. Because it's the quantity that matters, under the Supplementary resource system, not balanced mix of resources. Everything becomes plain and boring. Why even bother to have "coal" and "oil" when you use them as just supplementary to shield? why not just name them as "resource no.1 or resource no.2"?

Once again, this is entirely wrong. I have no idea what you are talking about, a supplementary resource system as I have propsed does not rely on quanaty. You are describing Civ2, not a supplementary resource system. As I envision it, a supplementary resource system would give NO general bonuses for production. Since you seem to have a gross misconseption of my idea, here it is, spelled out:

Cyclotron7 Proposition of Supplementary Resources

I. COMMERCIAL VS. INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES.
A. COMMERCIAL RESOURCES. Some resources that are never used for construction or building (i.e. gold, spice, silk) will use a model similar to Civ2; that is, commercial resources will be found on certain tiles and can be used locally for trade or traded via caravans.
B. INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES. Other resources (iron, wood, bronze, oil) are industrial resources. These are also found on certain tiles, but provide certain BENEFITS (see below) rather than boosting trade like commercial resources. Industrial resources collected locally have their benefits applied to that city. Industrial Resources can also be traded, where they bestow their benefits to the city rescieving them, and the provider of the resource gains the benefits or trade bonus from the incoming commodity (depending on whether it is industrial or commercial).

I don't have enough time to finish this now. Next installment:

II. BENEFITS OF INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES

Please, your comments are welcome, but only on the topics I have covered here so far.

The main purpose of the Franco-Prussian war was that Prussia needed control of Alsace-Lorraine with its iron and coal deposits. During WWI & II the area proved strategic again because of these resources.

Middle Africa has mostly been neglected by the world's superpowers because it lacks natural resources. An exception is the copper fields in southern Congo (Zaïre), which played role in giving the Congo crisis impact on global politics.

I don't think you're looking at the scale of the game. If you have a map of the world, the resource squares do not represent individual mines, they represent major deposits. A coal square isn't a coal mine, it's the Pennsylvania/West Virginia/Virginia area, that happens to have tons of coal in it. It does not mean that there is no coal in other places. The Greeks had bronze weapons, the Eqyptians had bronze weapons, the Persians had bronze weapons. Do we have to have copper sqaures near all of them? You're going too far with this resource management thing. The history of the world was not based on hunting down specific mines and natural resources, it was based on be fruitful and multiply.

I agree with trade needing to be a more important factor in the game. Someone else's suggestion a couple above mine (apologies, I didn't do Post Reply in New Window, so I can't read the name) that was to make money more important is a great idea. My beef is with the idea that production should be based on this trading scheme. You should be able to build whatever you want, but if resources are nearby, you can build things quicker (the present Civ2 system).