No problem, man. There must be something in the water in California, the two of us clearly have the most insight into how Civ3 should be.

Youngsun,

quote: Please, explain why.

Because there is no infrastructure in place. In terms of world history (in other words, Civ3), we would have to be talking about thousands of tons of product to move. There was simply no way that the Chinese, over in East Asia could sell tons and tons of, say, iron to the Zulus in Southern Africa. It just couldn't happen. Like I said before, I would have no beef with a feature like this once there were railroads everywhere. Of course, if railroads work like they do in Civ2, once railroads were everywhere, you could just use caravans to travel everywhere instantaneously. Therefore invalidating the need for a market system. That's why.

quote: There were many ways and "how easy it is" is not important because of the fact that it gets easier whenever a superior technology comes out.

Of course I realize that it gets easier as more advanced technologies come out, that's what my entire argument is based on. It's not even feasible to think of a world economy until you can get whatever you want from one place to another quickly. Your discussion about sea based transportation is very true, as is your statement, "resource poor cities still have chances to become the ones if your civ has got mighty transportation capability." My argument is based on the idea that "mighty transportation capability" does not exist until modern times.

quote: Just think about how many resource carrying cargo ships Japan has right now.

Exactly. "Right now". Right now is not 100 years ago, much less 2000. The idea does not apply in all time periods, only very modern ones.

quote: So we need to give more bonus to network of highly developed cities over small size cities with no infra.

Do we, though? Why? Lots of successful civilizations didn't have networks of highly developed cities. With their aggressive colonization, the Greeks played ICS. Their primary cities weren't that big, after all. We tend to think of civilizations without strongly developed urban life as "backward", because those ideas apply to the times in which we live. The Dutch Republic was a leader in Early Modern Europe, and they had no really big cities. They were just a collection of "towns". ICS should be just as valid a strategy as any other; no more, no less.

quote: we would have to be talking about thousands of tons of product to move

There you go! why does it have to be thousands of tons of product? As merchants of old days did, small amount will do the job. It's the accessibility that matters not the amount.

quote: that "mighty transportation capability" does not exist until modern times.

There you go again! The "mighty transportation capability" was there all the time. Athenian,Egyptian and Roman merchant fleets are the ones. Don't even tell me another "thousands of tons" thing here too. Everything is relative and at the Ancient Greeks' point of view, their fleets were capable of carrying what they want carry and that's important.

quote: Lots of successful civilizations didn't have networks of highly developed cities. With their aggressive colonization, the Greeks played ICS. Their primary cities weren't that big, after all. We tend to think of civilizations without strongly developed urban life as "backward", because those ideas apply to the times in which we live. The Dutch Republic was a leader in Early Modern Europe, and they had no really big cities. They were just a collection of "towns". ICS should be just as valid a strategy as any other; no more, no less.

I don't think a small amount will do the job. When you're talking about building "legion" military units, that's a great deal of iron.

quote: There you go again! The "mighty transportation capability" was there all the time. Athenian,Egyptian and Roman merchant fleets are the ones. Don't even tell me another "thousands of tons" thing here too. Everything is relative and at the Ancient Greeks' point of view, their fleets were capable of carrying what they want carry and that's important.

I know it's relative. There were great trading fleets in the past. My concern is, and always has been, that a "world market" system where you can just buy stuff from anybody is unrealistic. The Athenians, Egyptians and Romans did have merchant fleets, but they had to build them. They had to invest considerable amounts of resources in creating and maintaining them. It's just like having to build lots of ships, and making lots of caravan units, not just buying your resources from some screen, a third party open market.

quote: I don't think a small amount will do the job. When you're talking about building "legion" military units, that's a great deal of iron.

Merchant trade gives some breathing spaces for a civ which is either politically or geographically isolated but it's not designed to fully satisfy any civ's need which has to be satisfied through nation to nation trade.

quote: that a "world market" system where you can just buy stuff from anybody is unrealistic.

Hmm?! Why include "the market" idea here while we're talking about transportation?

quote: The Athenians, Egyptians and Romans did have merchant fleets, but they had to build them. They had to invest considerable amounts of resources in creating and maintaining them.

What makes ships of those days? wood. Is it hard to get wood? no.

quote: It's just like having to build lots of ships, and making lots of caravan units, not just buying your resources from some screen, a third party open market.

Yep. Must be the water... because it sure as hell ain't the electricity!

I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

cyclotron,

Hey man, I live in L.A. DWP has kept me going the whole time. Long live socialized utilities!

The Socialist,

I support realism, Socialist. There were civilizations that were isolationist and non trading. In Civ3, they should suffer from some kind of economic penalty, making less money. I don't find this unrealistic. I do not think they should be penalized by not being able to make any units if they don't trade for resources, however. I think it's too harsh a penalty. In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

One main thing that I believe does not apply to all of human history is the "open market" thing. If you want to simulate commodities trading in the late 20th Century, it would be a wonderful addition. However, I don't think you can explain away a world market of resources in ancient times.

There's a difference between international trade and domestic trade. A large communist empire could sustain itself in the modern day without trade with the west. If we consider everything under the iron curtain as part of the "Soviet" civ, they really didn't trade much at all, it was illegal. Yet they had very good science going on, which is trade in Civ also.

quote: Youngsun, you don't need to have an extra worker to have a city grow. The reason Civ2 has this extra worker is that in Civ2 usually a worker grows about what he consumes, so an extra resouce bonus is needed to help the city grow.

Isn't that the same thing as I said? just slight different interpretation.

quote: If you make each worker produce more than he consumes, there will be growth without a "phantom worker."

Labours don't produce food at all and you need them for production of units/city improvements so there goes one dielemma of quick growth of pop with slow rate of production or slow growth of pop with high rate of production.

Throughout history many great civilisations were engaged in grand projects like building a canal for easy transportation or walls for added protection and peasant population were levied and mobilised for the task. While they were being levied, they could not continue what they have been doing for their living such as farming or fishing. When cities began to flourish, accumulated food allowed change of life style and division of class. Division of task increased work efficiency and skillful craftsmen filled the task of making. Urban population comprised of the core of a civilisation and they never engaged in basic resource gathering activities ranging from farming to mining but rather advanced activites like trading or manufacturing. Any kind of government led activity either grand project or city improvements were done by these leveis and craftsmen working together.

In civII, when you take a field worker out of the field he/she works on, he/she becomes a city specialist automatically. We can use this mechanism to simulate levied part of the population so easily. If you are busy working on wonders and such, your cities will suffer from slow population growth due to the disturbance in their daily life. You can be a merciful leader who never initiate government led project and the end result will be the exact opposite. You know both have the advantages and disadvantages.

Gary

quote: I was talking about transportation because, if there was a screen (like others suggest), it would imply widespread third party transportation of goods.

and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

quote: I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

Scale? since when the game has been faithful to its scale? destroying a city improvement, poisoning water supply of a city, establishing city to city trade route with caravan units, loading/unloading every military unit to/from a ship, builing a road one by one on each tile and they all sound reasonable to civ scale? What's wrong with merchant trade? Marco polo meeting the emperor of Yuan dynasty sounds unfamilar to you? Don'y tou know Kings and warlords interacting with merchants was very common practice througout history? Don't forget that we do not begin the game as one big mighty empire but rather puny one town or city.

quote: In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

quote: Youngsun, you don't need to have an extra worker to have a city grow. The reason Civ2 has this extra worker is that in Civ2 usually a worker grows about what he consumes, so an extra resouce bonus is needed to help the city grow.

Isn't that the same thing as I said? just slight different interpretation.

quote: If you make each worker produce more than he consumes, there will be growth without a "phantom worker."

Labours don't produce food at all and you need them for production of units/city improvements so there goes one dielemma of quick growth of pop with slow rate of production or slow growth of pop with high rate of production.

Throughout history many great civilisations were engaged in grand projects like building a canal for easy transportation or walls for added protection and peasant population were levied and mobilised for the task. While they were being levied, they could not continue what they have been doing for their living such as farming or fishing. When cities began to flourish, accumulated food allowed change of life style and division of class. Division of task increased work efficiency and skillful craftsmen filled the task of making. Urban population comprised of the core of a civilisation and they never engaged in basic resource gathering activities ranging from farming to mining but rather advanced activites like trading or manufacturing. Any kind of government led activity either grand project or city improvements were done by these leveis and craftsmen working together.

In civII, when you take a field worker out of the field he/she works on, he/she becomes a city specialist automatically. We can use this mechanism to simulate levied part of the population so easily. If you are busy working on wonders and such, your cities will suffer from slow population growth due to the disturbance in their daily life. You can be a merciful leader who never initiate government led project and the end result will be the exact opposite. You know both have the advantages and disadvantages.

Gary

quote: I was talking about transportation because, if there was a screen (like others suggest), it would imply widespread third party transportation of goods.

and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

quote: I see your point more now. I did not know what your system was for this, I was disputing the "free market" thing. The traveling merchant thing is a better idea, but I just think it's too small scale for Civ3. I love Genghis Khan and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, but I just think they're small scale, and things that apply therein don't necessarily apply to Civ.

Scale? since when the game has been faithful to its scale? destroying a city improvement, poisoning water supply of a city, establishing city to city trade route with caravan units, loading/unloading every military unit to/from a ship, builing a road one by one on each tile and they all sound reasonable to civ scale? What's wrong with merchant trade? Marco polo meeting the emperor of Yuan dynasty sounds unfamilar to you? Don'y tou know Kings and warlords interacting with merchants was very common practice througout history? Don't forget that we do not begin the game as one big mighty empire but rather puny one town or city.

quote: In modern times, we look at isolationist countries as incredibly backward and impoverished. North Korea, Cuba, these are all true. But the ideas in Civ3 have to apply to all of human history.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 03-27-2001 01:20 AM There's a difference between international trade and domestic trade.

There is in fact absolutely no difference in principle between international and domestic trade.

Roman, I don't support fanatical realism that takes away from the game. I view this system as such. I think technophile's signature says it best: "if you want realism, play 2 turns and die of old age."

quote: Youngsun, perhaps this could be done in the Egyptian way. Because the Nile would flood for 3-4 months out of every year, and farmers often farmed in the floodbanks, whenever it flooded the farmers would go to work on the pyramids.

Is this "Game implemetation" or "reference"?

Roman

Welcome back!

cyclotron7

quote: It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields.

Gary said exactly the same thing and I already explained the difference between two systems.

quote: There is no need for specialized classes.

Then why have entertainers,taxmen and researchers? Did they make things complicated for you? Entertainers give extra happiness, taxmen provide extra revenue and researchers pump out extra beakers. What wrong with labours producing extra labour points?

quote: I don't support fanatical realism that takes away from the game. I view this system as such. I think technophile's signature says it best: "if you want realism, play 2 turns and die of old age."

You yourself are putting others as extremists/fanatics to justify your view. Well, I see the resource system very reasonable, simulatable, legitimate and interesting. I'm beginning to suspect your intention of this
accusation as an act of sabotage for the resource system.

I tell you that I played ctp only twice then ctp never had a chance to be re-played. It was an enhanced or modified form of civ series and I was quite bored with playing civII at that time so ctp should have kicked the butt out of civII but that didn't happen. Why? There was no exploration. I did not have to learn or explore the game and I just played without any feeling of sensation which can only come out from meeting something NEW, untried or original. ctpII? even worse, after I saw the preview, I did not buy the game. It isn't worth to buy a game that is fairly identical from the original. you probably will tell me various reasons for ctp's unsuccessful performance but ,to my eyes, this is the primary reason. What if ctp was radically different from civ series? I reckon the series had better chance if that was the case.

I enjoyed civII but civII never ever had the sensation of playing of civI. Why? The answer is simple. CivI is original and civII is not. CivII had better graphics,more units,etc but all of them are based on civI. CivII's trade was the absolute copy of civI. CivII's economy was the replica of civI. The list goes on and on.

I enjoyed both MOO and MOOII a lot. Is MOOII totally based on MOO? Not at all. Different battle system, different star system concept and many new revolutionary concepts. Almost every idea was something new,untried and original.(except the unit workshop though it was also greatly changed) Of course, the base is still MOO but you hardly feel MOO things from MOOII. I couldn't just play MOOII and I had to learn and explorethe game first and the exploration of unknown gave me the sensation.

Is a new thing a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? There is no absolute answer. But at least, it bestows the game some values and originality thus ensuring longevity. I play both MOO and MOOII and I see them as two separate games so the two have the worthiness to be kept.

CivIII should inherit good/successful features of civII and enhance and modify them to be better whereas bad/unsuccessful features should be cut off without a second of hesitation. People have cried for better trade/economy for so long. CivIII shouldn't belong to warmongering kids who don't care realism and history because they already own the realm of other games that are not based on history but pure entertainment. CivIII should belong to someone who have great interest in history and how the civilisation of the past and present rised and fell. As the game makes one more step close to faithful representation of history, it will have the priceless value for entertaining people as well as educating by encourage them to read more history books with FUN as it has done so to me.

quote: Then why have entertainers,taxmen and researchers? Did they make things complicated for you? Entertainers give extra happiness, taxmen provide extra revenue and researchers pump out extra beakers. What wrong with labours producing extra labour points?

Apples and oranges again, Youngsun. Luxuries, science, and taxes cannot be produced directly by workers. Workers produce trade, and you channel trade into where you want it to go. Specialists allow you to make a particular city specialize in something that is otherwise globally controlled.

Shields are already city based; meaning that each city already has its own levels of shields. It is therefore needless to make a specialist to turn a city function into a city function, where specialists turn a national function into a city function.

quote: You yourself are putting others as extremists/fanatics to justify your view.

Indeed, are you not an extremist compared to me? In any debate, there are the people who want radical change, moderate change, and no change. I believe change is necessary, but I truly do believe your system is not something I want to play with. Actually, I can do anything I want to to justify my view, since after all it is my view.

quote: Well, I see the resource system very reasonable, simulatable, legitimate and interesting. I'm beginning to suspect your intention of this accusation as an act of sabotage for the resource system.

As much as I think it would be an interesting job to be a professional saboteur, I am actually for the resource system... just not yours in its present form. I understand and respect what you think, and have not accused you of sabotaging the supplementary system or the Civ2 system, have I? I am pointing out what I consider to be serious flaws. Your system does have some merit, but I am trying to streamline it and perhaps make it less dominating in the overall game, in the event Firaxis decides to use it.

Youngsun, I would encourage you to visit and comment on the other resource thread, as raingoon and I are developing a reasonable and IMHO well-designed supplementary resource system that we think would benefit trade. I comment on your system, and consider constructive criticism to be a good thing, so I would like to know what you think about it.

quote: and you know this becomes irrelevant after I specifically described about the merchant trade.

Do I? Of course not. What I said and what you said probably have nothing to do with each other.

Roman,

quote: There is in fact absolutely no difference in principle between international and domestic trade.

Yeah, but there is absolutely no similarity between international and domestic trade as Civ2 treats them. That's the point I was trying to make.

quote: Anyway Gary, if you support realism than you support the resource system, which I would also like to see.

Of course I support some kind of resource system, I just don't want to see it dominate the game, and consist of some kind of "global market"

Youngsun (and applies to cyclotron),

Youngsun:

quote: quote: It seems to me that two Civ2 workers each getting one food and one shield is identical, but less complicated, than one of your farmers getting 2 food and a "laborer" getting 2 shields. Gary said exactly the same thing and I already explained the difference between two systems.

I didn't understand it at all the first time, so it might be a good idea to state it again.

Youngsun (only ),

quote: CivIII should belong to someone who have great interest in history and how the civilisation of the past and present rised and fell.

This is the basis behind all of my arguments so far.

Regardless (not a person who posts, but a conjunction),

The game is going to be great. Look at all the new information that was just given out. It sounds like it's going to be an incredible game, doesn't it? Like I said on the other thread, I'm sure I'm going to play the game and say, "Wow, fantastic idea, better than mine." It's fun to debate things, but it's going to be wonderful no matter what. These guys always come through.

Gary

Nor did it need to happen - iron having been fairly ubiquitous - found not only on every continent but close to every major center of civilization (remember that the quanitities required, even to equip a legion, were small compared to modern requirements) How about tin, OTOH. Essential to bronze. Phoenicians became wealthy in part from shipping tin from Cornwall to the Med, no? Phoenie infrastructure was adequate because the quantities involved were not vast.

Word up. Isn't it odd how we're both happy with what came out from Firaxis?

Don't worry, Youngsun, I have faith in the Firaxis team that they will not use anything remotely like your plan.

Stop fighting, you two... I think they used stuff from both of our plans... compromise is the best way of doing it, anyway!

I had one strong principle when I suggested the primary resource model. A resource becomes a condition whether to allow to build certain things or not. Other following details are just details and I wouldn't dream of that Firaxis use the exactly same thing as mine in detailed fashion. I was actually pessimistic about the concept making into the game because it was new and untried in civ series. Anyhow, I maintained my view all along though it was under heavy attack. That's why I'm so happy about what Firaxis has done for resource(primary or as you say "mandatory") and trade(commodity-based) because it was so unexpected.

I and cyclotron7 have had radically different views and both of us were unable to pursuade one another. we had few times of nasty exchange of colourful words but somewhat managed to maintain the debate as it is not as a fight. cyclotron7 also demonstrated very mature attitude by asking me to participate his model for constuctive criticism though we knew we had very different views(I really give you a credit for that!) also by mediating me and Gary in the words "I think they used stuff from both of our plans... compromise is the best way of doing it, anyway!".

Thank you very much. Truly, the highest praise comes from one's opponent (in resources, at least). We may not have convinced eachother, but I do believe we may have convinced a few others along the way! An incident once or twice, but for the most part it was a good, clean fight.
And to commemorate that exchange, note my new signature...

Well, I'll put my thoughts on the Firaxis resource method (as much as I can tell) in this familiar format:

quote: a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

This is still something that worries me... note that the review said:

quote: Resources such as iron and uranium allow a civilization to produce certain goods.

Youngsun, perhaps you were a bit quick to decide that goods meant units? Although that is possible, it is also probable that goods could mean a variety of other things, including maybe a host of manufactured commodities in addition to basic raw materials. Wouldn't that be interesting!

I am glad that it doesn't look like we'll be dealing with the basic resources (wood, stone) that I railed against.

Verdict: marginal defeat for supplementary system

quote: b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

Firaxis seems to be using the same seeding as Civ2, so how important this point is depends on how important they make goods in the game.

Verdict: stalemate

quote: c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

From what I've seen; not likely. Although they are giving more importance to trade (talk about monopolies, power brokers) and this could turn sour, the lack of anything mentioning needed resources for that aircraft carrier Firaxis is making on the city screen, and any indication of any other building material besides shields, seems to point to a goods system that is more important but not all important.

Verdict: marginal victory

quote: d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

Rejoyce! My biggest concern here was stockpiling and quantities (battleship needs 200 labor, 125 steel, 20 copper, 50 oil, 25 titanium, 5 uranium...), and it looks like these are history. Note that simple icons of the resources themselves are producing luxuries in the city screen, indicating that the route itself is being used rather than quantities of the good. The absence of anything but shields to build with also indicates the lack of stockpiling.

Verdict: decisive victory

Average: MARGINAL VICTORY for the supplementary system

... which, Youngsun, is why I am happy

I've been lurking and observed you guys' discussion with some interest. cyclotron7, I'm very sorry to say this but it's your model's total defeat though I'm not so sure whether youngson's model got a victory or not. Correct me, if i'm wrong but I think the supplementary resource model's principle was that resources are not the decisive factor for unit building but just bonus for faster production or increased unit strength. In other word, someone can build a unit with or without resources. In Youngson's model's principle, resources are the decisive factor and you need a certain resource to build certain unit. Judging from what's in the screenshots, I believe that Civ3 will be using a model that shares the same principle as Youngson's one. Part of the article says that "Possible drawback: Also, linking resources to unit building could prove frustrating". A principle is what the model stands for and if the principle changes, the model is gone. However, details can be changed at any time which means compromisable. You lost something un-compromisable for your model and it's your total defeat.

It incorrect that the supplementary system lost, because there really isn't one.

Generally, like the term "mandatory resource system," I have used this term to define a resource system in which trade is more important than in Civ2, but not as critical as in the MRS (tired of writing "mandatory" ).

Given these broadly defined terms, it is impossible to say that the system "lost." If you look back on the 1st resource thread, you will see that I proposed and supported a variety of different such supplementary sytems, one of which was extremely similar to Firaxis' decision.

Overall, my satisfaction with Firaxis' system depends on whether I like it or not, despite the fate of any one of my proposed systems. I gave Youngsun a list of 4 problems with the MRS that I intended as guidelines for myself in creating a better SRS. As long as these 4 problems are solved, I don't care what they call it or whether units are truly "mandatory" or not. I don't oppose the MRS on its basic idea, but rather how it is interpreted here by its proponents.

So in fact, there was no "great defeat" for the SRS. Defeat shouldn't really matter at this point anyway, as we have a picture from Firaxis and we should concentrate our efforts withing those parameters Firaxis has already chosen. Defeat of past issues isn't really important, we have to work with what we are given... and I believe we have been given the makings of a great game.

That would be interesting, but I don't see any way to implement it since Civ3 does not have stockpiling. The only way would be to give a few warnings beforehand, and then suddenly the resource is gone. That's kind of sudden, but maybe its good that way... It would certainly add an interesting twist if you had to be careful not to overhunt (supply too many cities with) those ivory-giving rhinos.