China wasn't my choice, "The Socialist" mentioned it. I totally agree that Japan would be a much better example.

I also fail to see how the Crusades were anything other than trying to reclaim a holy site from infidels. One could argue that they were the result of the Byzantine Emperor's request for mercenaries, but not that they were a war for specific resources.

I agree, however, that a resource system would be nice for later time periods, like the 20th Century. The problem is that you'd be fighting over uranium deposits and oil fields in ancient times because you know they're going to be useful later on. I suppose you could hide them until the relevant techs come into play, but I don't think that's logical. I'm sure ancient people knew oil was in certain places, they just didn't know what to do with it.

Again, I must stress the point of rewarding those who do trade, rather than punishing those who don't. It allows more choice instead of restrictions. No one ever responds to the idea (originally posted by "The Diplomat") that if we make money more useful, people will trade more. Like cyclotron7 always says, the open-ended-ness of Civ is a great thing, and we have to make sure people can play it however they want.

Socialist,

You're defining "success" differently than I am. If you want a civ that produces a great deal of goods, has a huge army, and keeps tight control over its people, China is a lot more "successful" than the United States. They're going a different direction than we are, but they are going in that direction very, very well. Would I like to be a citizen of China, compared to the United States? Hell no. But I bet it's easier to wage a war as the Chairman of China than it is as the President of the United States.

I definately agree that money should be used for a lot more than just rush buying. It seems from the site updates that you'll be able to use it in diplomacy, i.e. peacy treaty but for 5 gold a turn...but this isn't much different than from buying technologies and stuff.

I see your point about fighting over resources early on, and how that feels like a kind of cheat...

quote: I suppose you could hide them until the relevant techs come into play, but I don't think that's logical.

The reason why cyclotron's open-ended-ness falls short of the mark for me is because Civ 1 and 2 simply weren't designed that way. In fact they're designed with all kinds of restrictions but in a way that made you feel like it was open-ended. Remember there are things in Civ 2 that make the game impossible at times -- but for every one of those there's always a work-around. Triremes can't leave the coast vs. Lighthouse wonder, large amounts of outdated units vs. Leo's Workshop, etc. My belief is what you think is really limiting is actually really challenging, and what makes it Civ is if that limitation also has a work-around. I don't want to conjecture what the Wonder would be to work around a resource shortfall, but there should be something that mitigates it, allowing you the option to not worry about coming up short because you didn't want to participate in a land grab.

quote: From what I've managed to divine from your previous posts about your mandatory resource system, not trading in ancient times would have the penalty of not being able to make anything requiring iron (if one were not blessed with iron deposits near one's starting location). I find this a significant disadvantage.

"Iron" is something in between basic and strategic resources. Iron is used for many things(important) but is pretty evenly distributed and numerous(easy access)compared to real strategic resources such as oil.

quote: I just believe that giving more benefits to those who do trade is a better system than penalizing those who don't.

This is very very subjective interpretation and based on how you see it. You see them as penalties because you don't like the system. But I see the enormous benefits of trade. While I'm enthusiastic about the benefits, you are depressed with the penalties.

quote: I've always stood by the idea that making money more useful would make trade more appealing.

I'm all for making money more important but this way alone can not encourage trade enough because an isolated kindom still can collect tax(money) from it's subjects.

quote: Look what happened to China. They seem to be doing well now, aren't they? They were isolationist, then they had a Communist revolution (effectively isolating them from the most economically powerful force in the world, the free West), and they are one of the fastest growing economies in the world now. They played the game of Civ3 choosing not to trade, and they've done well. I want that option when I play.

Why China could do that? China has secured big chunk of land that holds enough resources which can support China itself without seriously harming its economy. China has earned the resources by force or primarily culture. You can do that too under the resource system. If you can secure enough resources , the reward will be that great, self sustaining.

quote: Again, I must stress the point of rewarding those who do trade, rather than punishing those who don't. It allows more choice instead of restrictions.

quote: Originally posted by TheSocialist on 03-24-2001 04:04 PM ...the American military is so far ahead technologically that a single US regiment could defeat a division of China's finest.

This really shows poor judgement by TheSocialist. But, I've got to admire his patriotism!

At any rate, Let's enjoy this game as it is. It is a game after all!

I see that everyone points to Imperialism and Imperialism II as games to look at for their resource systems. I must admit that I've never played the two games. Reading what I can about them now: 1, I want to purchase them, they sound fun; and 2, in both cases you're talking Early Modern European Colonialism games. Imperialism I seems to be a 19th Century economic simulation, while Imperialism II expands that to include the Age of Exploration. From my meager knowledge of history I would naively assume that not all of human history progressed in a manner comparable to Post-Renaissance Europe.

raingoon,

I hear you about the "No matter their situation" thing. The difference of each individual game is something that makes Civ great. The problem I have is that some of the resource models proposed here end up in situations where "No matter their situation," a civilization has to trade. It's kinda the opposite of what you're saying. Maybe your resource model doesn't, but many here do.

Youngsun,

quote: This is very very subjective interpretation and based on how you see it. You see them as penalties because you don't like the system. But I see the enormous benefits of trade. While I'm enthusiastic about the benefits, you are depressed with the penalties.

Will you admit, however, that your model is different from the current one (Civ2) insofar as a civilization that doesn't trade will have less options than one that doesn't trade in the old system? This I see as a limitation, a penalty. You're introducing limits into one aspect of the game system (production) to encourage a certain type of playing style (trade). I propose making a different aspect of the game more robust (spending money) to encourage the same behavior (trade).

quote: I'm all for making money more important but this way alone can not encourage trade enough because an isolated kindom still can collect tax(money) from it's subjects.

All you have to do is keep adding things to do with money until you encourage trade "enough".

quote: The reason why cyclotron's open-ended-ness falls short of the mark for me is because Civ 1 and 2 simply weren't designed that way. In fact they're designed with all kinds of restrictions but in a way that made you feel like it was open-ended. Remember there are things in Civ 2 that make the game impossible at times -- but for every one of those there's always a work-around. Triremes can't leave the coast vs. Lighthouse wonder, large amounts of outdated units vs. Leo's Workshop, etc. My belief is what you think is really limiting is actually really challenging, and what makes it Civ is if that limitation also has a work-around.

So, raingoon, where is the work-around for mandatory resources? It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed. In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade (build marketplaces, etc.). There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

It is true that one thing that made Civ2 great was the ability to have work-arounds for different problems, to have choice in your winning strategy and different solutions to the same problem. That is, after all, what makes cultures unique. Civilization 2 had the far-sightedness to build in multiple avenues of problem solving and worlds of choice. Why doesn't your system? Just because you want to make trade all-important doesn't mean everyone should have to play like that.

And raingoon: I didn't take my chess example to the point of having no pieces because at that point, you no longer have a game. Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy, and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-25-2001 09:50 PM You do have options but when you choose the clearly inferior one(not trading)you get penalised(slow growth). People are not stupid to choose the option which will penalise them. obiviously not you too. so why worry about it? Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing? and what should happen when you do a bad thing or good thing? "whip" or "carrot" depends on what you do. This is not anything like a teaching human beings but playing a game.(please, don't be confused about that)A game has clear "penalty" and "bonus" is superior to that has only bonus. I already menetioned the penalty will be harsh for only modern age and it's all up to how the resource distibution mechanism of the game works. [This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 25, 2001).]

A way around this problem is to give a penalty to trading, if you have trading it is easier for other cives to spy on you.

So if you trade x amount with civ a, but dont trade with civ b, civ a has a bonus to spy on you.

quote: It seems to me that if you can't get a certain important strategic resource, you are basically screwed.

Like Iraq, North Korea or Cuba did and it is very logical and legitimate result.

quote: In Civ2, if trade was not feasible you would have to resort to high taxes and better internal trade

Because of that unrealistic option, people have greatly neglected diplomacy and trade.

quote: There were always options, and ways of attaining the same goal. With mandatory resources, there is no work-around, no lifeline, no way to go. If you can't get it, tough. With your system you are making the player play by your specific rules and are not giving him the choice that makes Civilization so unique.

I kinda see where you're going, but I just think it's wrong.

quote: Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing?

No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing. Forcing civilizations to engage in international trade is wrong. Again, this brings up the point that you're taking away choices, and making choices, as cyclotron always says, is what makes Civ games great.

quote: No, I won't admit that. If I want to have a wealthy capitalist country, trade should be my main objective, a good thing. If I'm running a religious fundamentalist civ then, to me, trade is a bad thing. If my civilization is communist, then international trade is often seen as a bad thing.

You are free to think whether trade is good for some or not but historically the consequences of not trading have been all the same, the ultimate downfall. Look what happened to USSR and its communist bloc. Fundamentalist? Taliban regime in Afghanistan you talking about?

I will ask you the question more specifically.

Will you admit that not trading is a bad thing and trading a good thing economically regardless of government form?

If you just mean economically, then that's true. You will suffer economically from being an isolationist, fundamentalist civ. You should make less money, and, in Civ2, you get less tech. With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

One may say that it's the same as not getting tech, the end result is not being able to produce high-quality military units. Well, the difference lies here: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way. The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about. Trade was just about money and tech, with the mandatory resource system it's linked to production. I don't think that's right. I find the mandatory resource system anachronistic (for other reasons) and unbalancing.

To answer your question, No, I do not think it should have economic advantages, but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

quote: With a mandatory resource system, not trading equals not producing military units.

Do not overly simplify the matter. In real game situation, that's not supposed to happen very often and even if that's the case, that is the consequence of how you have managed your civ so far.

quote: with the tech, you can at least steal it, but you can't get the resources any other way.

Where is the military conquest option?

quote: The mandatory resource system makes trade so incredibly important, that it's the only thing you're worrying about.

You will seriously worry about trade at later stage of the game only. Do I have to remind you all the time that the reward and penalty things become greater only after industrial age? and Stop calling the Primary resource system, mandatory one. It is a respected rule for calling a thing that was suggested first time. Remember I'm still calling the supplementary one as it is. If you insist to call the system as you are calling right now, I'll call the supplementary one, a variant of the shield system which in fact really suits for the name I think.

quote: but I also don't think it should have both economic and industrial penalties.

Economy and industry should be dealt in separate way? Aren't they related each other very much? Industry suffers? bad economy. Bad economy? Industry suffers.

quote: Your idea that somehow restrictions = an interesting game is a fallacy and you have said nothing to prove to me that this is not true.

But what are we really talking about? Again, rules, restrictions, limitations, whatever you want to call them, are not only conducive to making choices interesting, they are absolutely necessary. And what's on the table here would only make the game more interesting if it doesn't make it less. That's not a trick statement, it's a nod to the fact that we are all talking completely in the abstract. All I know is that Firaxis has intigrated resources into the game. I'm sure we both can't wait to see how.

Gary

The problem is this entire argument is out of context -- notice the way words like "mandatory" become assumed and whole new meanings are given that aren't necessarily accurate to anything except what is in the head of the person using them. The hypothetical system Youngsun advocates is hardly as tangible as Civ 2, which, btw, is almost the definition of an anachronistic game. Not trying to prove you wrong, just making the point. I also realize you probably meant that resources appearing SO early is simply TOO anachronistic for the suspension of your disbelief. Maybe so, maybe so... There are of course plenty of examples of events in Civ 2 that make the timeline there look equally like a double helix.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-25-2001 11:24 PM When a civ becomes economically isolated? When a civ run by a person who have inferior skills of diplomacy ,lack of strategic planning or poor military management. When you lose a war, you face consequences. Nothing will save you from the unconditional surrender. Will you still ask options even if you lost your war? Why keep making unreasonable request for a situation that is not worthy of options?

Here is where it breaks down, Youngsun: Options are not things that are earned, and one cannot be "worthy" of options. Indeed, one uses options to become a worthy Civilization, and correct manipulation of options is wht makes a good player and creates game diversity.

In addition, utter defeat is different from trade. Defeat as you are saying above is a consequence of a long series of actions, which has eventually led up to your defeat. Actually, the options to get out of this losing scenario are played out before the loss itself. Your trade model, on the other hand, has no options from the start. I must play a certain way.

What is so unrealistic about raising "taxes" for money instead of international trading? In Civ2, taxes really reprresent internal trade goods within your cities, trade that is redirrected to your coffers. Basically, Civ2 taxes are intra-city trading.

Another problem is that governments do not directly intervine with most resources (some very strategic resources excluded). The government usually buys armaments from those who make them, which is why total production (shields) and money aare important, while most resources (especially your basic resources) are irrelevant to most governments. This brings up the question of scale, how much should a leader control? I thought CTP (despite its flaws) took a step in the right direction, in that it decreased the city-by-city micro and promoted the "whole empire" perspective. Mandatory resources seem like they would increase the city micro factor by making specific routes and commodity stockpiles essential to all parts of the game.

quote: Do poorly run civs deserve options?

If we don't give them options, they will always stay poorly run.

Youngsun, the entire reason I disagree with mandatory resources is because people need choices; it creates more gameplay styles and makes the game more interesting (and multiplayer more unpredictable). I COMPLETELY AGREE that trade should be enhanced... all I am asking is that just like war and diplomacy, trading should be important yet optional.

I will continue calling it the mandatory resource system. When I refer to that, you know what I'm talking about, and so do I. When you refer to the supplemantary resource system, I know what you're talking about and vice versa. If you want to call it the "variant of the shields system", that's cool, too, since I now know what you're referring to. I would reserve that term for later, however, as if I develop some system to deal with this it will be much more like the shields system than the supplemantary system.

quote: Do not overly simplify the matter. In real game situation, that's not supposed to happen very often and even if that's the case, that is the consequence of how you have managed your civ so far.

Of course it's not supposed to happen, because with that system, to be successful you have to trade.

quote: Where is the military conquest option?

You tell me where the military conquest option is when your opponent can produce much more advanced military units in much greater numbers than you?

quote: Economy and industry should be dealt in separate way? Aren't they related each other very much? Industry suffers? bad economy. Bad economy? Industry suffers.

Watching a lot of CNBC are we? This is Wall Street stuff. Anyway, by industry I mean producing goods. By economy I mean money coming into the coffers of the kingdom. Also remember that what we're dealing with here is international trade. There's lots of domestic trade (as cyclotron pointed out) that accounts for a lot. Probably the lion's share of all money changing hands in nearly all historical periods.

raingoon,

quote: The hypothetical system Youngsun advocates is hardly as tangible as Civ 2, which, btw, is almost the definition of an anachronistic game. Not trying to prove you wrong, just making the point.

So? If Civ2 is anachronistic, what does that have to do with Civ3 being anachronistic?

quote: I also realize you probably meant that resources appearing SO early is simply TOO anachronistic for the suspension of your disbelief.

I was referring not to the idea of resources appearing early (while I am opposed to that as well), but many other factors. For one, I find that the mandatory resource system forces one to trade from the initial stages of the game on. It produces much too great necessity for international trade. I also used the term "mandatory resource system" to include Youngsun's "labor" thing (because I was discussing it with him). I find that terrible.

quote: Here is where it breaks down, Youngsun: Options are not things that are earned, and one cannot be "worthy" of options.

Youngsun, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a misinterpretation of what you said. What you said was:

quote: Why keep making unreasonable request for a situation that is not worthy of options?

quote: Do poorly run civs deserve options?

It's a given that poorly run civs are the result of a great many poorly chosen options. What's implied is "more options" to escape your fate should not be given after you've chosen all the bad options in the first place.

quote: If we don't give them options, they will always stay poorly run.

I agree with Youngsun that this word "mandatory" is becoming more and more misleading. It is certainly "mandatory" in Civ 2 that the player found a city on a tile within reach of X number of shields. That's no different than what Youngsun is saying about his resource model in the early game. He has clearly stated the early game will deny no player of the necessary material to create a sufficient force to defend and expand itself. If later in the game one had to acquire both shields AND oil barrels in order to build battleships and carrier fleets, this would hardly seem unfair or unrealistic, and logically the equanimity of the preceding parts of the game has created a situation where everyone has a running shot at getting those resources necessary to maintain such extreme hardware. Some will have to make up for shortfalls by going to war, others by conducting trade. Right there you already have (1) new choice you did not have before, and one that is inherently "Civ" in its nature. Is it "mandatory" that you trade for this new resource, oil? Not when you can go to war before the other guy gets to big of a head start. Do you want to not do either AND not have oil? So don't do either! But if you're saying you want to not do either and also have all the resources you need, than you're not advocating interesting choices (read: options), you're advocating lower stakes. I say, Go bore up somebody else's Civ, I hope for leaner and more challenging things.

I believe, Raingoon, that trade should be more important. But this is the wrong way to do it. I understand you are saying that nobody is "forced" to trade, because there are other options (conquest, etc.) but every player IS forced to center their strategy (late game strategy, at least) on claiming x resource, by whatever means. It seems to me that this shifts the entire point of the game. In Civ2 the objective was to win (AC or total war) by any means available, in your prospective Civ3 the objective is to win by getting resources. That's it. Civ2 was in part good because it gave a few ways to achieve victory; with your system as soon as I get into the late game I am forced to take only one path to victory: trade. Even if I want to win by conquest, and not trade, I still have to do a lot of trading in order to get any powerful units. All ways of winning seem to become a quest for diplomatic trading. I appreciate this, but other ways of achieving victory should be open.

But okay, so Youngsun and I don't seem to be very persuasive that resource trading can be done without making that the only pathway to victory. I was going ask if you could think of a way it could be done that would still please those of us who want resource exploration and exploitation to be tied to unit production. Then I remembered that I authored the energy model that was submitted to Firaxis in the EC3. It's based on a lot of discussions here over the past couple years. Maybe it will be useful to this debate. What was sent to Firaxis basically says:

quote: An energy resource model...should be implemented in Civ 3, as distinct from the current production resource model in Civ 2. Where production resources would remain as SHIELDS, energy resources could be depicted as BARRELS.

Okay, barrels? What do I know. I think lightning bolts might be better, and I can visualize little gold lightning bolts next to the shields pretty easily. But essentially Civ 2 implies this already in the shields system, and Civ 3 would alter that slightly, dividing shields into raw material and the energy/fuel needed to convert that material into production. So shields aren't REALLY shields anymore, they are now "raw material" that requires energy to be converted into production. It goes on:

quote: Energy could be derived from animal power, wood, water, wind, coal, oil, uranium, and solar, depending on your current level of technology. The map would seed (resources) according to their energy yield potential. E.g., the more profitable the resource is to exploit, the less frequently it would appear on the map. Perhaps Uranium, which might yield the most barrels per site of all, would be the hardest to find.

Basically it all comes down to numbers. I stress that I don't know what the exact ratios are, but it breaks down roughly like this:

ANCIENT ERA
Low energy yield resources readily available: wood (for fire), animal power, maybe water?
Shields readily available as in Civ 2 (though now represent raw material such as wood, stone, ore? etc.)

Required energy to convert one raw material unit into one unit of production = 1 energy unit.

Units available to build can be built readily with available energy and raw material.

MIDDLE AGES

Same as above. But increasingly stronger units require more raw material and energy, in equal amounts. In othe words, just more expensive. Perhaps the advent of wind power now gives another option for generating low yield energy if you live in hilly or plains areas. To build the actual windmill on the hillside would require only raw material shields (the energy that comes from manpower would be assumed).

NOTE: at this point you cannot determine where the oil and uranium deposits are on the map. I don't know when coal comes into play historically, but maybe that happens here, or soon. Whenever, in each case it should be that the map algorythm seeds the map with only enough "deposits" to foster fierce competition as they are discovered, but not so few that if one loses they are out of luck completely.

Let's put coal here and say that coal now allows you to convert shields into production at a rate of twice what wood, water, and air did. Coal is a 2:1 resource, readily available across the map.

INDUSTRIAL

Now we get into whatever tech triggers the availability of oil. Oil should be something like a 4:1 rate of shield conversion, but don't forget the units are getting tougher to build as well.

Here is where we might have trouble. You might say oil is mandatory for building a battleship. However, it is theoretically possible to do it with coal, it will just take you twice as long. Remember raw material is always simply shields. It could mean titanium or steel is in those shields, or whatever. The variable is what fuel is your nation is running on? That will determine whether you choose to trade for more efficient fuel than you currently have, or if you can afford to wait and build a decent force more slowly (similarly to Civ 2) -- and find better fuel yourself, in your own time.

Imagine a game where the two of us are playing in the industrial age where the necessary tech has been discovered to trigger the potential for oil exploration and exploitation. Oil has suddenly been found near our shared border, but on your side. Not surprisingly, my diplomatic efforts to get you to give me that land fail, and I decide that it's in my best interest to seize the deposit and declare war on you, committing my forces to full scale war. Now, playing the game, I know it's highly likely that other oil exists behind me somewhere and within easy reach, but I'm committed to depriving you of this deposit. Better a bird in the hand. So, I damage my reputation, lose the war, end up ceding some of the land I HAD and in general get pretty banged up. But it was worth the try. Now I turn around and try to find that oil that's behind me, or trade for some oil with my allies and build up a force that allows me to stave off any aggression you might be emboldened to make now that your oil deposit allows you to build bigger machines (or smaller ones that much faster). OR I do none of the above, maintain a strong defense that I build up, albeit at a rate half as fast as yours.

MODERN AGE

Uranium Deposits are the Holy Grail of energy and there ought to be one less on the map than there are Great Nations (as I believe they're called in Civ 3).

Uranium is a 6:1 ratio, or something like that. It allows you to create units perhaps one and a half times as fast as oil.

So that's the basics of the Energy Model.

It has more to do with rate and volume of production than anything else. Trade and trade routes remain helpful, but not essential to victory. Resources aren't mandatory for making certain units, they only change the rate at which you can make them. So there is always a floor beyond which you cannot fall. At the minimum any nation will be able to have coal and water power to convert their shields into production. It may limit the size of the army they can build in a short time, but that's better than being forced into trade, is it not? And lastly, something else this promotes is colonization. It gives you a reason to colonize and trade with yourself -- beyond accruing gold, science and luxury. It increases the rate of productivity of your nation. Which is true to history, and I think very Civ-esque.

My idea, that I called a "supplementary resource system," was based on the idea that trade should be important, but it should neither be dominating or absolutely necessary. I envisioned something similar to your system. I thought that certain "strategic resources" (as Youngsun puts it) would be scattered on the map, only visible when you had a certain advance (i.e. refining for oil, industrial revolution for oil, nuclear power for uranium).

A city with these resources would get a shield bonus from the commodity (either an addition or a multiplication). It is feasible, however, that you could put in an extra resource (energy), which makes sense (industry + energy = production). Low tech units might take more industry and less energy, while the reverse would be true of higher-tech units. Each unit, when being built, would have two boxes for energy and shields (industry). Overflow would be lost until both boxes were filled, at which time the unit would be produced.

Only cities with energy resources could build energy-required units, however a Civ2 style trade route with another city would supply that resource to them, too.

Here's an idea: Energy resources can only be used if you have built a power plant. When a power plant is built, you can choose what type of resource you want it to use. Pollution and energy from the plant will depend on this.

I think readily available things like wood and stone shoudl not be commodities, that's excessive. In other words, no basic resources.

So, in conclusion, I like your model (basically a supplementary model)! It makes resources a valuable thing, but lets everyone build any unit as long as they have some shields and some energy. I must credit you with a very good idea. I think all and all everyone here has given good points, what we need is a model that is a compromise that is fun for all of us.

My ideas for resources, modified:
NOTE: To allow for all units, every city has a base amount of energy produced, dependent on population, to represent human labor.

Ancient:
- Shields would be readily acessible. I don't think much energy is needed here, allowing civs to expand and secure territory with possible energy in it for the late game.

Middle ages:
- Mostly the same as ancient.
- The waterwheel improvement can be built to get a little energy from river squares in the city radius.

Industrial:
- Units begin to take more energy.
- Early on, coal would be available as a resource in hills and swamps, providing plentiful energy. Coal plants would be very polluting, however.
- Later on, oil is discovered (dependent on advance, as with all other sources). Oil is found in deserts and glaciers, with a little at swamps and other terrain. Oil is cleaner but rarer than coal. When miniaturization is discovered, cities may build the offshore platform improvement to reveal undersea oil within the city radius (modern times, actually).

Modern:
- Units now require nearly as much energy as shields.
- Aside from offshore oil, natural gas would be discovered as a resource. It would be rarer than oil and have output between coal and oil, but would be very clean.
- Once the wind farm improvement is built, all hill and plains squares now produce a small bit of energy. No pollution.
- Once the solar plant improvement is built, the city gets an increased amount of the base energy per population point. No pollution.
- The hydroelectric plant obsoletes the water wheel, and basically acts as a slightly better water wheel.
- Uranium is discovered, providing an extremely rare but very potent energy source. It is very clean, but meltdown is a possiblity. In addition, uranium is used for nukes (the only unit I think shoudl use a resource in a mandatory manner).

I like it, you have a great idea Raingoon!

quote: Youngsun, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a misinterpretation of what you said. What you said was:

You interpreted EXACTLY as what I meant.

Yea! I remember the energy model.

quote: Energy could be derived from animal power, wood, water, wind, coal, oil, uranium, and solar, depending on your current level of technology.

I have several questions on this.

How do we acquire animal power?
Is there any "manpower" factor included?(manpower, the most basic form of energy?)
Do we need city improvements(or infra outside cities like the irrigated tiles)to get energy from wood,water,wind and such?

quote: dividing shields into raw material and the energy/fuel needed to convert that material into production.

How the division of shields take place? If you have a city like this what happens?

CityA
Grassland(shield) shield 1
Hill shield 4
Hill(coal) shield 8

total number of shileds:13
converted to
Energy:?
Raw material:?

Other misc. questions.
A Battleship = Raw material(?)+Energy(?) is right assumption?
Do city improvements require constant supply of energy?
Do military units require constant supply of energy?
Do infra structures like railroad require constant supply of energy?
If you build city improvements like a mill or a factory do they have positive effect on energy unit?
Can we stockpile energy unit for any future use as well as raw material?
If we can, is there any national pool or city level storage like granary?
Can energy and raw material be transported? by power line or cargo ships?
If they can be, what kind of tranportation model are you portraying?

I definately like this idea. It changes as history goes (not anachronistic), and it's really simple, but illustrates the idea well. I think that idea that units will require more energy the farther you go in history is very clever.

Just how would you then implement trade, then? Caravans?

Wood +1 raw material or +1 energy
Copper +2 raw material
Iron +3 raw material
Peat +2 energy
Coal +3 energy
Oil +4 energy
Uranium +5 energy

"Iron" or "copper" or other metal resources should provide raw material while fuel resources gives you energy.

First off, Cyclotron solved something that had always bothered me. The 1:1 ratio of energy units from low yielding resources early in the game seems needlessly detailed. Leave it mostly like Civ 2 with a reliance on shields (raw material) and a little energy (man power). Great point.

In Civ 2, energy was abstracted and implied in the use of "shields." The goal here is to show a little more of how the sausage is made, but still abstract the energy part, leaving the raw materil and the energy resource part of the equation. So Youngsun, for now I'm calling raw material "shields," and not worrying what KIND of raw material it is. For simplicity sake only. Once we get into what sort of material or what sort of energy producing resource, then we get into the issue of stockpiling, which I frankly don't know about. I'll get into that below.

Suffice to say, I think Cyclotron's post is a good articulation of how the system should work. There needn't be animal power or wood, etc., modeled in the game at all. Instead, during the early game when firewood and domestic animal power would normally be used, MANPOWER is assumed to include those things. For early game purposes, 1 population produces 1 energy unit (or lightning bolt) per turn. You will never not be able to convert shields into industrial product -- it's just that today's isolated Trobriander Islanders would take forever to build a battleship even if they discovered exactly how to do it. Still, the game will not PREVENT them from building one and I think that's a great step forward in this whole trade discussion. In fact, there's a certain whimsy to it that reminds me of classic Civ.

So, okay! Now, I'm gonna pretend like I'm a five year-old so I'm sure I understand what we're all saying. Uh, in no particular order, the following basic issues:

First, Youngsun:

quote: How the division of shields take place? If you have a city like this what happens? CityA Grassland(shield) shield 1 Hill shield 4 Hill(coal) shield 8 total number of shileds:13 converted to Energy:? Raw material:?

Putting aside that hill with coal for the moment, lets just say the hill produces 8 raw material shields, and all the shields in CityA represent a total of 13 units of raw material per turn. You always have energy units available = to population of your city. That means your shields will automatically be processed at a ratio of 1:1, up to the population of your city, per turn, and let's assume a population of 5 for CityA. This is the base rate of production below which CityA cannot fall right now. So, if CityA produced 13 shields of raw material in its raw material box per turn, a basic warrior unit requiring 10 shields and 5 lightning bolts would take CityA one turn to produce (5 population contributing one lightning bolt to the energy box per turn), leaving you 3 unprocessed shields that for now I say are lost, same as in Civ 2. And although I call it an energy box, it's really an energy RESOURCE box, in this case representative of those resources mentioned above.

Interesting to note that in Civ 2, shields not used are lost. I like to think this accounts for the energy being represented in those shields -- energy not being storable (see California's current woes!). Energy itself is still being abstracted in this new model, it's the actual RESOURCES that we see in the energy box (lightning bolts) next to the raw material box (shields). So the questions becomes would nations get into a stockpiling thing? Could energy resources and raw material be stockpiled? That's a big question, I'll leave it alone for now.

Youngsun, your assumption that Battleship = Raw material +Energy is exactly right. Exactly how much of each is another big question.

I like Cyclotron's idea that a city harvests energy the way it would harvest shields, and only that city can use the energy resource in production, but the energy can be dispersed to other cities vis a vis a kind of trade route, the way food can be added to other cities in Civ 2 via caravan. If you build a power plant, there'd be plenty to go around every turn. Like if certain cities were built up to harvest huge amounts of, say, uranium, they would become conduits to the empire sending this energy out via a trade caravan unit that establishes the connection (and maybe late in the game there is a tech or a new version of Hoover Dam that allows you to do it automatically). OR, to be more precise and simple, it is NEVER the actual energy being sent out, but the resource. And any city that wants to benefit from this new resource must build a power plant, per Cyclotron's idea.

So. Two questions stand out in my mind.

1) Storage/stockpiling -- should it happen? and
2) Unit "Recipes" (i.e., if Warriors require 10 shields, how many lightning bolts are needed? 5? Or two? Would battleships require four times as many lightning bolts as shields? This would represent the need -- though not a necessity -- for an energy producing resource on a par with at least oil).

Essentially, one could say that energy resources should effect trade in Civ 3 the way food currently effects trade in Civ 2, and trade need not be discussed again. At the same time, we now have new things to trade for should we choose to do so, and new reasons to go to war.

1 population = 1 energy unit

That 1 population comes from total number of population of the city(including city specialists), number of field workers or something new(labour)?

quote: 5 population contributing one lightning bolt to the energy box per turn

This sounds like labour points.

quote: Could energy resources and raw material be stockpiled? That's a big question, I'll leave it alone for now.

Maybe, after the discovery of electricity.

I think "animal power(horse power?)" can be represented this way.
Each city keeps it's own record of number of domesticated animal. Animals consume food too like the horses of Colonisation. When combined with its master, animal power is generated which should be far more powerful than just manpower.(working cow/horse and man combination) Number of animal should not excced the number of actual human population.

CityA
Total pop:5
Total animal:3
Total energy 11 = 2(2 X 1 pure manpower)+ 9(3 X 3 animal power)

CityB
Total pop:5
Total energy 5 = 5(5 X 1 pure manpower)

Therefore, the population becomes the base power and things like animal power,steam engined power, combustion engined power and nuclear power act as modifiers.

After industrial revolution, fuel resources(steam engined power, combustion engined power and nuclear power)replace the animals(animal power)

Energy also cannot be stored, at least not in amounts that could sustain a factory or city.

I don't really like having the "domesticated animals" factor in energy. I mean, this is largely dependent on population. If anything, once domestication is discovered, the amount of energy produced per population poin goes to 2 instead of 1, etc.

If anybody hasn't seen the thread, go check it out. This is claimed to be from the May issue of CGW. They quote a preview of Civ 3 as confirming that:

quote: ..."now game worlds sport raw materials that when sitting within a city's sphere of influence can be used for the good of the player's civilization...in firaxis' design the raw map resources tie directly into the gameplay [as opposed to CTP] rather than functioning strictly as a source of revenue raw goods can be used to build certain types of units or to make your citizens happier. you can also use them to amplify your power, and possibly even win the game...

I have faith that Firaxis will do the right thing.

Anyway, and example of the energy model:

I want to build a Musketeer unit in my capital, Cyclocity.
Cyclocity has a population of 8, and a total shield income of 6.
A musketeer takes 20 energy and 40 shields to build.

Normally, I can build a musketeer in 7 turns. Although I will have enough energy by the 3rd turn, I do not have enough production so the extra energy will be lost.

I have, however, discovered domestication, which increases my energy to two per population point. Even so, Shields are the limiting factor, so there is no difference (although it would be if I had a lot of shields).

I have built two more improvements: A factory, and a water wheel.

The waterwheel gives me +3 energy per turn, as there are 3 river spaces in my city radius that I am working. The factory affects shields, increasing them by 50%. Now Cyclocity produces 19 energy (2*8 population, +3 river), and 9 shields. I can now produce a musketeer in 5 turns.

You ask, "but here energy really isn't very important, so why do I need it?"

Well, its not very important in the middle ages with musketeers. But when I want to build a battleship (250 shields, 300 energy) it is obvious that stuff like that water wheel will help me out.

Actual Factors for improvements listed bove:

ANCIENT:
- The discovery of domestication increases the energy output of one population point to 2, instead of 1.
MIDDLE AGES:
- The water wheel gives +1 energy for each worked river square in the city radius.
INDUSTRIAL:
- Coal plants, with coal, add +25% to the amount of population energy accrued each turn.
- Oil plants, with oil, add +50% to the amount of population energy accrued each turn.
MODERN:
- The offshore platform reveals offshore oil, and gives the city +1 energy for each worked ocean square.
- Natural Gas plants, with gas, add +35% to the amount of population energy accrued each turn.
- Wind farms add +1 energy for each tile of hills and arable land that is not improved with farming or irrigation (so mined hills still produce).
- Solar plants add +10 to energy.
- The Hydroelectric plant replaces the water wheel, adding +3 energy per worked river tile.
- Nuclear plants, with Uranium, add +75% to population energy, but there is a 3% chance of meltdown.
- The Containment dome improvement decreases the chance of nuclear meltdown to 1%.