I don't want to continue the nasty exchange I had with Youngsun, do I won't.

The problem with a mandatory resource system, IMO, is it:

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

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

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

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!

These things being said, I must say that the idea of a resource system is a good one in general. You say I don't agree just because I don't understand... the reason I don't agree is because I see the above 4 flaws in the system. I am sure if these were corrected I would fully support your ideas.

Speaking of which, looking back on this thread I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys put it is to "make trade more important." I am wondering, wouldn't it be easier AND achieve the same goal to just give trading items more value? Like, make it so when you trade for fish you get food along with trade, and with iron you get additional production along with trade. If you make trade items valuable enough there will be no need to make them mandatory, since a player would be foolish not to trade. This solves all of the above problems: it does not restrict possible units, is not based on luck since just lke in Civ2 everybody will have some commodities, does not make trade the centerpiece of other facets like war and diplomacy, and is as simple as the Civ2 system. This makes trade vitally important and crucial to any war effort. Any country that wishes to wage a war or build a wonder quickly will need to trade for lots of iron and coal and other production-giving resources. It isn't quite as realistic as a mandatory system, but I think that would be excessive. Realism isn't always good for a game.

As for the "game within a game" stuff, I suppose that's for Firaxis to decide.

quote: I did not call you anything

Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Now let's concentrate to the main issues!

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

It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

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

I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable". If you elminate random probability, everything becomes predictable thus making the game boring. Even when the odds are against you, you can still overcome the odds by making the wisest decision every turn. In other word, when your civ's surrounding terrain is not very productive, you have several options First, you can move to more fertile regions and this is very common and likly practice for early stage of the game. Second, you can use some diplomacy and trade, if your way out is blocked. Invasions will be the last option and can be used when the other two options are not viable.
To summarise the point, your action is the most decisive/important factor not the random probability.

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

Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

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!

How do you know, when you don't have the actual experience of playing a game which uses resource system? Many of the supporters of the resource model do have experiences of playing it and they know it's very fun.

CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

quote: I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you guys put it is to "make trade more important."

Not only for improved trade but for fun.

quote: How are the Chinese in this case going to get units to take that territory from the russians, if the russians have a more powerful military from the outset due to their high production?

Rail Baron was a good game and it’s resource scheduling was complex and did not detract from the fun. As a matter of fact I think it was its pupose

The Caravan unit should absolutely go. You never did get it to that foreign port did you? What a waste.

Shields should represent general production (i.e. It takes 20 shields to produce a warrior unit but the 20 shields could be represented by say 1 commodity taking 20 of them, or 2 commodities taking 5 of each(10 total) or 3 commodities taking 1.6 of each (5 total). This is why trade is preferable to war.

Resources should not be consumed unless you use it(improvements and units), sell it, or store it. They should also be able to be pillaged if stored.

I would propose that Trade take place on 3 distinct levels;
1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal.

1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and time to deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals).
2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation.
3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

There only has to be one type of barter screen the only difference being what the level or other side as to offer’.

quote: Didn't you call me, boy? Anyway, Apology accepted. Friend again?

Uh, I don't think I called you anything, I didn't mean to if I did. Sure thing, let's quit this and do what we're here for!

quote: It's up to your ability to acquire resources and available technologies. If you are capable of getting needed resources just in time by trade,diplomacy ,conquest and exploration, there won't be any restriction.

What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

quote: I rather call it random probability and Civ is based on that, believe or not. Dice gamblings are the games based on pure luck. Winning and losing are decided by the result of the dice round(the decisive factor) However, is "random map placement" a decisive factor for winning and losing in civ? There are far more factors have to be considered for gainning a victory compared to dice games. When two units clashes, the results can vary based on the random probability of each round. Not always a phalanx unit can fend off knights' charge, why? Because battle results are modified with random probability. Whenever you save and reload to get the best booty from a goodie hut, the results are different. You can ask "why use random probability?" and the answer will be "To make the game less predictable".

The difference here is that losing an occasional phalanx due to luck or not getting the 100 gold you would have liked due to luck is not likely to cost you the game. If you are unlucky enough to not have access to better units due to unlucky resource placement, you are likely to lose. If resources become mandatory, they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

quote: Do you believe the trade aspect of the game has been treated properly in civ series?

I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

quote: CivI and CivII are, to my eyes, largely military games. How many military units do we have? Militia,phalanx,legion,horsemen,etc,etc, so many! But people don't have to spend too much time learning what is phlanax 1:2:1 and legion 4:2:1. Did you memorise the whole tech tree,building types and wonders before you play the game? You have learned them naturally one by one as you played more, haven't you? Now, don't tell me "we must memorise each resource type" or "It takes too much time to learn how the resource system works". Also, we have a very powerful tool called "civilopedia" and I used to use it quite a lot. I'm not asking 30~40 different resource types here. Only historically significant resources which deserve to be named should be in the game. Like "Iron" and "Oil" which we find very familar and have fair amount of knowledge about it.

What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

If I want to know which military unit to use, I just look on one screen (my unit build list).

If I want to see what resources I need, and secure them, I must:

1) Look at the unit list and see what I want to build, and how many resources I need.
2) Look at some resource screen and see what I have.
3) Calculate exactly how much of each resource I need.
4) Go to a diplomacy screen if I want to trade for it, etc.

Shields eliminate this calculation, as shield surplus (or lack thereof) is simply put in a small bar. With the above expanded Civ2 system I would just trade for some shield-bearing commodities, and I wouldn't have to worry about excess shields because I can use all of them.

Two questions:

What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

i.e. Blockades. In the civ games naval units mostly battled each other, while subs and carriers provided the only really powerful land attack system. In SMAC/X the value of sea power was somewhat increased with sea bases but, IMO, not enough.

Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

You can establish trade routes between any city you know that exists, and you have a screen that you can bring up which shows all the trade routes from your civ. Each route sends a certain amount of various goods to the other city in exchange for an equally valuable amount of other resources from the other city, ex. a route from London to Madrid trades 5 wood and 2 food for 3 iron and 3 coal each turn. In the trade route view screen you can go in and edit the amounts of each commodity are sent, and propose an amount of goods in return. When you change an amount, a message is sent to the other civ saying they have changed the commodities in trade route a to b and c and would like to recieve d and e in return for it, is this acceptable (yes or no), if they say no than negotiations start where you discuss new amounts.

In CTP, you make a request to another nation for commodity x in exchange for commodity y between two cities of different civs, and next turn they tell you whether it is accepted or not. The main differrence is that you are proposing a quantity system (3 iron for 2 oil) and CTP uses an entire route system (one source of oil for one source of iron).

quote: 1. Open market. 2. Contract (Nation to Nation) and 3. Internal. 1. The open market would be a screen accessible to every nation where the commodities are open to any nation that would buy or sell a set amount. The open market should also represent goods as type, cost(Gold or barter), and timeto deliver(Time being the distance and ruggedness between the trading cities/capitals). 2. Contract should be rolled into diplomacy and be a screen where you can barter all your resources with the other resources of an individual Nation. 3. Internal would be the same as the open market but only between your own cites.

good definition jglidewell, I like it.

cyclotron7

quote: What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

Every tile gives you resources. You may lack "Iron" but will be able to get great surplus of other resources. On the other hand, the Iron rich civ may lack food or wood which even things up very much. Everyone ,in that sense, is holding a card to play.

quote: they will be much too important in winning the game to place randomly.

There are two types of resources, basic and strategic. Basic resources like wood will be numerous and readily accessible thus making the value of them less significant. Strategic resources like oil can be used only later stage of the game and they are relatively less accessible and vital for industry and unit building. Strategic resources must be important otherwise they wouldn't be strategic.

quote: I do not, but I'm not comparing this to Civ2. I believe my above expanded Civ2 trade system would treat trade properly, but since this is a completely subjective question let's leave it alone.

Subjective maybe, but important one since it indicates everyone's satisfaction level of trade aspect of the game and the game development should be guided by the indication.

quote: What I don't like is the transfer between screens, and the calculation involved:

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-22-2001 12:16 AMThe resource system works just like automated inventory system of any business. You have resource pool which holds stock of resources like inventory warehouse of factory. Every action you take to produce or construct will cause certain type and amount of resources get deducted from the pool. When the stock runs low, a message will be sent to you to purchase certain type of resource whereas overstocked resources will make you do the opposite, the selling. You don't have to know what type of resources are required to produce certain things. You do only two things Buying and Selling.

and this buying and selling could be instant one turn transaction or medium~long term trade agreement. No calculation involved.

quote: What do you think about my expanded Civ2 resource system? Is this unsatisfactory?

I think it's good idea but the primary resource system is better and more fun I reckon.

quote: With mandatory resources, since there is no guage of industrial power, wouldn't all units be built at the same speed, no matter the unit or city?

I said

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-16-2001 01:14 AM 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. (5 X 4 = 20 lbr pts)

Labours are city specialists and they will provide labour points. Labour points can be modified by mill,factroy or powerplant. The higher the labour point, the faster the unit construction will be.

diplomat

quote: What if the computer told you what ressources you needed automatically. For example, the screen would show all possible units. But, if a unit required a ressource that you lacked, it would show that resource in bold red. This way the player would immediately see if a unit lacked a particualr ressource since it would show up in red!

What a great idea! this is even better than sending a message.

airdrick

quote: Or take it one step further and after the amount of resources it takes to build the unit, also have how many of that unit you can build.

another great idea! if New York has 500 labour points and a F-15 squadron costs 250 labour points, New York can churn out 2 F-15 squadrons per turn!

quote: But as I was going to bring up on the other topic, with this new system, how do you determine how long it will take to build a unit?

The "Labour point", mate!

Lonestar

quote: Trade needs to play a bigger role. Otherwise, alot of the historic importance of seapower is neglected.

Yes, to do that we need new concept "transportation capacity" and vessels have outperformed their land-counterparts in this category throughout history. Transportation through sea lane should be easier than through land route until railway becomes dominant way of tranporation.

me_irate

quote: But if one was playing on easy you would haven greater suplies of resources near your starting location. And on higher difficulties you are limited to all but the rarest resources around you thus increasing difficulty. In this way the computer would have a resource bonus instead of the huge tech, growth, and prod bonuses like in civ 2.

This labour point thing is weird too, aren't shields like labour points?

Someone a long time ago, on the other thread, suggested that making money more important throughout the game could force people to trade. I like this idea. How come no one has mentioned it?

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

Although every Civ may have a card to play, I am in this question centered on the military (unit) aspect of things. You just said that resources would be divided into basically common ones and not so common ones. Assuming common resources (wood, iron, bronze) are available to everyone in certain quantities, this seems to be just like the shield system in that the more you have, the faster/more units you can build. Thank you for pointing out the difference in your system between these two types.

I suppose, if the below 3 reasons were dealt with, I could handle (or even support!) a system with your "strategic" resources, but basic resources as per your system seem to be identical to shields. In your system I would scrap the basic resources and keep the strategic ones, as they are so plentiful there is really no need to distinguish them from shields.

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

With basic resources this is solved, since there are plenty of them, but I still believe that it would take some more map-making algorithms to make sure strategic resources were fairly balanced. I suppose this is just a question of programming, so this problem B is solved as long as a good map generating program is utilized.

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

The Beta testing will probably have the last word on this, so we'll see.

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!

This still remains my biggest reservation about your system. I would be alright if you could trade whole commodities (i.e. if I start a trade route with another civ for steel, I can now build tanks in that city), but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game. I just don't want civ to become work.

quote: The whole open market thing is absurd. It should only be available when all civs have refrigeration and automobile.

I believe jglidewell suggested that to represent an entity which is not bound by any civ. During Ancient era, merchants were the open market for any nation. A merchant can be used as a medium for exchanging goods between civs or a civ can act as one like the Arabs. Pre-modern merchants can be replaced by corporations and the private sector which are the true form of open market for any nation.

quote: This labour point thing is weird too, aren't shields like labour points?

We talked about it a while ago, Gary. I thought we reached some form of agreement.

quote: Someone a long time ago, on the other thread, suggested that making money more important throughout the game could force people to trade. I like this idea. How come no one has mentioned it?

I agree the importance of money should increase. However, money can be acquired by various ways, mainly by collecting tax so players who don't trade still get money anyway. People might trade more but trade doesn't become essential. The only way to make trade essential by increasing the value of money is that making trade the only way to get money which seems not right. The resource model was suggested not only to boost international trade but to enjoy it as it is.

cyclotron7

quote: the more you have, the faster/more units you can build.

if an armour costs (200 lbr pts + 20 iron + 20 oil)

Greek civ resource pool(100 iron, 100 oil)
Athens(50 lbr pts)
Corinth(20 lbr pts)
Sparta(0 lbr pts)

Roman civ resource pool(10 iron, 80 oil)
Rome(100 lbr pts)

Athens will take 4 turns to complete an armour
Corinth will take 10 turns to complete an armour
Sparta will take forever unless there are some change in labour points.

Rome, in this case, is primarily affected by the resource, iron and if Rome manage to get 10 extra more iron, will complete the armour within 2 turns. If not, the production is halted.

quote: but the idea of stocking up on various quantities like you do with gold sounds too complicated for my tastes in a game.

I think the diplomat's suggestion makes the case a lot simpler/easier. You see the list of resouces in grey colour but badly needed one will turn in red while surplus makes the resource green or even blue. very intuitive indeed.

I understand that the idea behind the open market thing was an "economic sphere" that encompasses all the civs. To think of anything pre-modern, much less in ancient times, is ludicrous. It has no basis in history. Is there some massive foreign trade network that is somehow possible with only the technologies of map making and horseback riding? The Arabs spent a lot of time and money getting things from the East to the West, they (the ones who traded) were dominated by trade. Other civilizations were not. And, by the way, trading through an intermediary such as the Arabs was not anything close to open.

Regarding the labour issue, the agreement we reached was that I thought the idea was pointless and anachronistic, and you didn't. But enough of that.

I don't think I understand your paragraph about my statement regarding money. You don't think money should only be available through trade only (which makes pretty good sense to me, if you're going to be spending that money outside your own civ [buying techs, buying cities, etc...]), but you seem to have no problem with allowing the production of military units almost exclusively through trade. I think the money makes a lot more sense. I see how your resource model boosts international trade while allowing one to enjoy it as it is, but it completely changes the production of units. I would like a system that might boost international trade while allowing the player to enjoy producing military units "as it is", as well as trading "as it is".

If the money could equal other things

But what if I could use the money/gold to say buy a technology. Buy population. Buy population happiness. Buy foreign units (Traitors without changing countries ownership) and controlling them. Money/Gold should be the most fungible of all commodities.

What do labor points do? They determine how fast you can build units.

What do "basic" resources do? They determine how fast you build units, too. A nation with only a limited supply of a common resource will only get so many resources per turn, so this will limit how many units they can build as well. If a city has very few labor points they will not be able to build units quickly, and if a city has few common resources they will also not be able to build units as quickly, as they must wait to accumulate the required resources before building, like if an armor costs 20 iron and you only get 5 per turn, you could have a million labor points and you would still only be able to build one every 4 turns.

What I am saying is that they both accomplish the same thing: Your ability to build units over time, so it is better and less confusing to combine common resources with labor points (i.e. shields) in your model.

This makes no changes to your strategic resource system.

quote: Originally posted by Bender on 03-22-2001 05:50 PM Perhaps another way to improve the importance of trade without overcomplicating things would be to require both shields and gold for unit upkeep. If all units required at least one gold and one shield per turn to maintain, wealthier commerce-rich nations would have an advantage. Too simple?

Not at all. I also feel that city improvements and units should require gold upkeep!

quote: What I am trying to say is that certain civs (especially in the early game) would have a limited realm of units to use. A civ short on iron would have to attack with archers and catapults in the ancient age, making his strategy that much more predictable. You ust see that, especially if there are more than 8 or 16 civs, it will be much more difficult for everyone to secure every resource, thus decreasing the amount of possible units each civ can build.

You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

Is it more important/valuable in the game to have a diverse set of commodities or strive for a monopoly in one? I was curious? Games have taken both ways.

The real value of Trade is in efficeicies(more of 'it'). To get this reflected in the game I guess you would have to have essential resources for a unit or improvement. Thats assuming your willing to Trade(Monopoly, I have all I need, go away sucker). If thats the case than a unit should have more than one essential resource to encourage trade 'diversity'

'Bringing trade back into the equation should allow us to have effectvie blockades. ' I agree and would only restrict the rate of trade depending on how many ships you brought near the city. So trade must have a time rate attached to it.

A list of things I want to buy;

1. A traitor - Once bought by spy, the unit stays with and retains the original civs colors. Follows the original civs commands until such time as I give it my orders and then it changes to my civs color and thus counted as one of my normal units. In the meantime I get intelligence reports, normal unit map visisbility, city posture(if it is ordered into a city.)

2. I want to buy population out right (1000 gold per person) or even from other foreign civs.

3. I want to buy the other civs barracks while he is changing over to musketeers. That would be a fire sale. Forget about a game bank. Things are used, stored, sold, or lost. No trade in's.

4. I want to buy Manhattan isle. Or even have a Louisianna purchase, or even trade me for that cool Brooklyn Bridge you got there.(Be able to buy land in some ones borders or even rent it.)

5. I wnat to buy money (debit spending)

and the beat goes on.
I have 3 Iron and 60.

I didn't claim that trade didn't occur before modern times. My argument was that a global "free market" for things would be impossible before modern technologies. If the Zulus, in the bottom of the African continent, had thousands of tons of Tin to sell (and that is the scope we have to talk about here), they could not easily just sell it to the Aztecs in Central America. I was (and remain so) afraid that the idea I read about sounded like a modern day Wall Street commodities market. The Zulus would have to make huge caravans of Tin, and have to travel the incredible distances involved basically on their own.

The reason great groups developed to trade in the late middle ages (and mostly with each other and the Arabs, by the way) was because it was incredibly expensive. I don't want my international trade represented by some arbitrary transaction cost on a global free market. IF I want to trade, I want to have to build the English fleet, establish the Italian trade routes, set up the VOC (Dutch East India company) bases in Indonesia. There was lots of trade, but you had to work for it, not just pay for it on some "market".

quote: You may have said this for why a complex trade system is bad, but I read this and went 'COOL! I want something exactly like that' .

What is so cool about limited strategic possibilities and predictable strategies?

quote: I like Youngsun's arguments so far. What I want to see is trade takes it rightful place beside war in the game of civ. After all, why did Marco Polo know of China? Why did Columbus set sail? Why the futile search for the NorthWest Passage? Why did the British build such a massive fleet? Trade, the one thing that is seriously missing from Civ, and holding it back.

Trade is not seriously missing from Civ. Trade was an essential part of Civ2, and although some steps should be taken to improve it I want to play the balanced game that is Civ3, not a purely trade based game.

I honestly will never understand why anybody should need trade for anything. Want? Of course. Almost necessary to so much as survive? Yes. But making Civ a game where you MUST HAVE something to do something else destroys the freeform nature of Civ, instead resricting you to certain strategies, tactics, and ways to win. Adding more rules does more to hinder the game than help it. If you guys want to increase the importance of trade, why not siomply increase the value one gets from trading, like I have suggested? If you want to get the realism argument too, here it is: Throughout human civilization, people have had a choice, in both trading and other matters. To take away choice in favor of enforced trading is not only unrealistic but destructive to the gameplay of Civilization. Go ahead and make trade more important, but no mandatory stuff! Keep Civ3 a game of choice, not of excessive rules!

quote: What do labor points do? They determine how fast you can build units.

Yes.

quote: What do "basic" resources do? They determine how fast you build units, too.

If you don't trade, yes. If you trade, no.

quote: A nation with only a limited supply of a common resource will only get so many resources per turn, so this will limit how many units they can build as well.

That's why trade is needed here. Once you buy things that you can not get in time from your land, you can save plenty of time.

quote: What I am saying is that they both accomplish the same thing:

If you let your economy go insular, yes. If not, resources never become time consuming factor but only avaiable labours.

quote: so it is better and less confusing to combine common resources with labor points

I think you understands clearly about this. No one was confused. Is there anybody, who is confused about what resources and labours do? If there is any, I'm willing to explain again.

Resources and labours are there for many other things. one reason is to represent full spectrum of civs like this.

high tech, resource rich, labour rich civ: USA
high tech, resource poor, labour rich civ: Germany and Japan
high tech, resource poor, labour poor civ: Holland and Belgium
low tech, resource rich, labour rich civ: China and Indonesia
low tech, resource poor, labour rich civ: ?
low tech, resource rich, labour poor civ: Burma and Saudi Arabia
low tech, resource poor, labour poor civ: any banana republic or under developed resource poor African countries.

Note: "Labour rich/poor" was decided based on total labour points(quantity) not labour efficiency(quality).

quote: This makes no changes to your strategic resource system.

I said

quote: Pre-modern merchants can be replaced by corporations and the private sector which are the true form of open market for any nation.

"Open market" may not be the best way to describe "merchant trade" but it covers modern period fairly well. It is difficult to find a term to cover every era in satisfactory way. you have better idea on this?

me_irate

quote: I like the labor points idea. Here is how i think they should work. In any given city near the begining of the game half the pop in farming (working grass or plains squares would be plenty for food and growth) maybe 1/4 would be mining for resources and the other 1/4 would be labor. Assuming that it was a size 10 city 3 units would be for labour. The laborer starting out would produce about 10 labor. Thus 3 workers =30 labor a turn. Later in the game you could have better laborers assuming they are suplied with certain commodities as in imperialism. trained workers produce 20 labor but require certain luxuries. But they also cost a good deal more money thus making gold more important. It would be difficult to support a well trained workforce unless you have allot of income. Also later you could build factories and mills like you do farms that would increase labor points. Thus i worker working in a square with a factory would produce 50 labor but nothing else in that square. Also i believe later the gov. should have a greater bearing on support. Instead of just shield like in other games you must pay your soldiors also making gold more important and making trade more important.

That was exactly what I was thinking. I support the idea!

Imran Siddiqui

Thanks for the support. I see there is a trend that people, who have the experience of playing games with good resource system, do support the resource model. Imperialsm was one of the best and showed the potential of resource system though we don't need to have the system in that degree of complexity.

cyclotron7

quote: Throughout human civilization, people have had a choice, in both trading and other matters.

I don't even know what you're talking about. My argument is not semantic (as yours appears to be); I am concerned with the idea that a large, global open market would not apply to any time before modern ones. Before there is technology to sufficiently reduce transaction costs, you simply can't buy stuff from anywhere in the world, as you would do in a panglobal open marketplace.

And from where does everyone's great lust for "labourers" come from? I realize that this was the topic from another thread, but I think it's such a pointless idea, I have to mention it again. In the current system (yes, the shields system), the "citizens" working the land are not only working the land. It is implied that they are helping out to manufacture things in the city area. If the citizens working the land were only farming and not producing anything, you wouldn't get any shields from that square. If you want this laborer specialist, you would need to either increase the food production of land squares (to support extra specialists), or decrease the food needs of citizens. The end result would be nearly precisely the same as the shields system. This seems to be a terrible case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other." Except the half-dozen you are suggesting is much, much more complicated. (and anachronistic)

I also like, Youngsun, how you produce tons of examples for your labour system from modern day nation-states. If Civ3 were a game of political theory in the Information Age, I would give you a round of applause, but it's not.

Gary

quote: I don't even know what you're talking about. My argument is not semantic (as yours appears to be); I am concerned with the idea that a large, global open market would not apply to any time before modern ones. Before there is technology to sufficiently reduce transaction costs, you simply can't buy stuff from anywhere in the world, as you would do in a panglobal open marketplace.

I don't get it why you think this such a big deal. The actual implmentation and mechanism are more important than a term. I'm not insisting that we must use the term to cover all time periods and that's why I ask you whether you got better idea on this or not. I already menetioned the ancient version of open market is not the true form of open market by saying only the modern one is. But we need some form of trading entities that are not bound by any nations. Disagree?

quote: I realize that this was the topic from another thread,

It's from the original trade thread and the idea was suggested by monolith94.

quote: In the current system (yes, the shields system), the "citizens" working the land are not only working the land. It is implied that they are helping out to manufacture things in the city area.

and you know that was one of the reasons for ICS. Field workers gathering resources and engaing in industry at the same time? come on. In colonisatin, ICS problem didn't exist. Why? The separation of these two worker classes led to the conclusion that developed cities outperform many small sized cities.

quote: If you want this laborer specialist, you would need to either increase the food production of land squares (to support extra specialists), or decrease the food needs of citizens.

Colonisation took the former approach(increased food production)and the system worked well.

quote: The end result would be nearly precisely the same as the shields system.

You once again baffle me with your reply. I do not care about the word, (semantic: 1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.) I care about the actual thing.

quote: But we need some form of trading entities that are not bound by any nations. Disagree?

Of course I disagree, that's what I've been saying. If you want a mandatory resource system, then such a form is required. However, as I've said before, such an open market is incredibly anachronistic for nearly any time period before Wall Street.

quote: Field workers gathering resources and engaing in industry at the same time? come on.

Did I ever claim that Civilization 2 implied that individuals were in different places at the same time? Of course not. Something that I assumed was clear from the beginning is that all those little people in the city view represent more than one person. That labor is implicitly divided by the game already. That being stated explicitly now, I think my previous statement is clear.

quote: Colonisation took the former approach(increased food production)and the system worked well.

I absolutely agree with you there. I love Colonization, and think it is wonderfully designed. Of course it deals with a small sliver of world history, during which the only goal was trade. The raison d'etre of colonies is trade. The game (before the revolutionary war) is basically a trans-Atlantic trade simulation. Civ3 should not be.

quote: Why? I don't see any similarity between the two system.

While I believe that much of a supplementary resource system is already implicitly executed in Civ2, I believe the laborer thing is the most ridiculous "six of one, half a dozen of the other" case. If in the civ2 system you have 4 people "working the fields" and they produce 8 food, 6 shields, and 6 trade, it's no different from 2 "farmer" specialists producing 4 food each, and two "laborer" specialists each producing 3 shields (or your "labor point" equivalent), and your trade coming from wherever you have it coming from. You see, if the numbers produced from your specialist system are different significantly, then it will significantly affect the pace of the game, whether through city growth or unit production. If you then change the "skeleton" of the game to return the pace to how it was before (and by skeleton, I mean the preset growth rates, tech tree, and unit costs), you've made a completely arbitrary change that has no real effect on the game. If you want to change the pace of the game, say that explicitly. Please, please, please don't just write, "No, you're wrong." Show me, clearly, how what I've just written differs from your "laborer" specialist system.

Gary

Ooh, I figured out how to quote!

quote: Of course I disagree, that's what I've been saying. If you want a mandatory resource system, then such a form is required. However, as I've said before, such an open market is incredibly anachronistic for nearly any time period before Wall Street.

You say you don't care about the word but the actual implementation. Did I EVER mentioned how the open market should be implemented? No. The only thing I said clearly several times was that "we need a third party that is not bound by any civ such as a merchant". Also I said "the ancient version of open market is not the true form of open market by saying only the modern one is" You can derive my intention from those statements that the actual implementation of "open market" must be different for both ancient and modern era and the implementation should be effected by available technologies.

quote: all those little people in the city view represent more than one person.

Yes, group of people dedicated for a specific task.

quote: That labor is implicitly divided by the game already.

Yes and because of that ICS flourishes. I already menetioned why.

quote: The raison d'etre of colonies is trade. The game (before the revolutionary war) is basically a trans-Atlantic trade simulation. Civ3 should not be.

The ultimate goal of the game is "Colony management and gainning indepence" There are 4 main distinct paths for that goal. Immigration and Industry(English),Integration and cooperation(French) and Military conquest (Spanish) and finally trade(Dutch). Did I say civ should be just a trade game? The resource system will simply give the rightful seat for trade it deserves just to have equal status with others such as military aspect of the game.

quote: working the fields" and they produce 8 food, 6 shields, and 6 trade, it's no different from 2 "farmer specialists producing 4 food each, and two "laborer" specialists each producing 3 shields (or your "labor point" equivalent),

Why use shield? Where are those resources? It's the resources that make "labour points" meaningful. Also, you didn't include "what tile type the field workers are working at".

The Shield system
CityA(with factory)
Grassland: Field worker +4 food
Grassland: Field worker +4 food
Hill(coal): Field worker +8 shileds
Hill: Field worker +4 shileds

Total food: 8
Total shield: 16 modified by factory bonus(50%)

The resource system
CityA(with factory)
Grassland: Field worker +4 food
Grassland: Field worker +4 food
Hill(coal): Field worker +8 coal
Hill: Field worker +4 other metal
City :labour +5 labour
City :labour +5 labour

Total food: 8
Total labour: 15 modified by factory bonus(50%)
Since the resources are managed at national level(pool), it is irrelevant to count total resource for each city.

What if the hill(coal) is just a hill without any special resource bonus?
CityA's total shield will decrease to 12, if the shield system is used but if the resource system is used, the total labour is not effected at all. What does it tell you? A big city without much resource still can be an industrial centre just like the one of those Japanese cities. Under the shield system? Not a chance! Every city's industrial potential is strictly limited by what the city already begin with(city radius) Resources should be shipped over great distance if necessary.

I don't care what you want to call it. I don't care if it represents merchants in the past, and a commodities market in modern times. I don't think there should be any feature of the game where you can buy resources from anyone at any time. I don't know if that's what you're talking about, but it seemed like perhaps some other people suggested it. I apologize if I mislead you.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood something you wrote earlier. What does ICS stand for?

I see the difference in your system now. You want to nationalize everything. That is a ridiculously anachronistic idea. It's in the same boat as the "open market" idea (even if it wasn't yours). You have these worldwide systems of resource distribution in ancient times. Don't even get me started on trying to apply the idea of a "nation" to anything before the Enlightenment. You know why big, resource poor cities aren't production juggernauts in civ? Because before 1850 (arbitrary large scale railroad date), there was no way to easily transport thousands of tons of resources from one place to another! People just built the manufacturing centers where the resources were. Oddly enough, this facet of history is accurately reflected in the city radius resource system Civ2 already uses. Again, if you want Civ3 to be a game that simulates industry in a nation-state that is covered in highways and railroads, I say your system is beautiful. But that's not what Civ3 should be.

Gary

ICS means "infinite city strategy" where you build as many cities as possible instead of improving large cities.

Youngsun, you are unfortunately wrong about civ's division of labor being the cause of ICS abuse. The reason ICS works in Civ2 is because cities start out with one more worker than population, so it is more efficient to have two cities with one population than one with 2 population. Civ2's division of labor has absolutely nothing to do with the extra worker. Gary is right that each worker does not stand for a unit of populaiton working that area, but rather it indicates that this area is currently being utilized by your citizens. This means that not only are people farming a grassland w/ shield and a road, but merchants are traveling down the road selling their wares to peasants and potters are digging up moist dirt to dry and make clay pots out of. If you want to get rid of ICS, get rid of the extra worker problem. Getting rid of Civ2's resource system won't help one bit.

quote: I don't think there should be any feature of the game where you can buy resources from anyone at any time.

Please, explain why.

quote: there was no way to easily transport thousands of tons of resources from one place to another!

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.

When the network of road and sea lane represent your civ's veins, T.capacity(transportation capacity) becomes actual blood of your civ. Historically, vessels were superior means of transportation over their land counterparts and that's why there were so many sea faring empires compared to that rised from land. You will be tempted to have lines of cities located along with coast line due to easier transportation thus ensuring speedy growth. By introducing the concept, resource rich cities will be good/suitable sites for industrial centres while resource poor cities still have chances to become the ones if your civ has got mighty transportation capability. Just think about how many resource carrying cargo ships Japan has right now.

cyclotron7

quote: The reason ICS works in Civ2 is because cities start out with one more worker than population, so it is more efficient to have two cities with one population than one with 2 population.