quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 03-23-2001 01:19 AM I disagree very much. Trade SHOULD be emphasized. Why? Because trade is utterly horrible in Civ2, SMAC, CtP, etc. Trade is and has been extremely important. From the 1500s on it has competed with war for what is most important for countries (trade was how to get the most money). Civ is and should not be a war game.

Imram,
Well, I posted in the two other threads about Trade issue and I said exactly that: Trade started to be important only from the XI century and it became very important from the 1500s on. So we agree over this point. When you say it STARTED to compete with war from that moment on, you recognize it was less important then war in Midle Age and ancient times, and we agree again. I added that Trade only became the most important factor in XX and XXI centuries. If Civ III can be implemented in this way and with this historical coerence, I think it will be greate. But that's not what we see in the two threads dedicated to this issue. They want Trade as the dominant element of the game from the beguine, and, of course, i it is a very big mistake.

A spartan universe. i wonder what Aristotle would think about that?

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 03-23-2001 01:36 PM And during the early centuries you mention, religion was a greater factor in the west than trade or war. As a footnote to the discussion, that ought to be available as a component part of the game engine as well.

Raingoon,
Of course, religion had its hole but that's not the point. the discussion is: Should trade be the dominant factor from the beguine or not ? In according to the two threads about this issue they say yes it should, and I say not it shoundn't. What do you say ?
Only to note: World is what it is now thanks to WWI and WWII not thanks to trade. Only when destruction power surpassed the human understanding (Nuclear Power) war became to low its influence. And that was the very moment when trade and dimplomacy took the dominance in the international affairs. Instead of hot and real war, commercial war. But it was only from the last 50 years wich means only one second in the humankind history.

quote: Raingoon, ...the discussion is: Should trade be the dominant factor from the beguine or not ? In according to the two threads about this issue they say yes it should, and I say not it shoundn't. What do you say ?

I'm confused, what do you mean what do I say? I said:

quote: Trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on...

That means I say that trade should be available in full force from the beginning of the game on. Obviously it should potentially be the dominant factor, depending on how you use it. To that end, the others are right to suggest very intricate trade models. And by the same token, war should also be potentially dominant, and you might suggest intricate war models. Others certainly have. But I disagree with your argument that trade should be reigned in at the design stage. I disagree with the title of this thread -- Civ 3 is a trade game AND a war game. And this is a non-issue.

Why? We already know that the machinery of war is clearly available from the first turns in Civ 3. So, if you favor a war game, you should be very happy. On the other hand, this thread wants to say that the ability to build your nation through trade should be curtailed, or at the very least should not be emphasized. I totally disagree. And arguing about when trade was or was not influencial in world history is irrelevant. Who cares? If you want to force me into using trade or not at a certain point in the game, make a scenario mod. But don't argue against a game design that gives me more options simply because you think it would deviate from history. Deviating from history is part of the fun of Civ 3.

Civ is obviously a trade/war/exploration & diplomacy game. I am for more options in all those categories, while I am against arguing for less in any, which is what this thread does. I've reviewed the other threads this thread seems to refer to and I have to agree that arguing for more trade options is not detrimental to the fun of the game or the players ability to make war. There are some seriously flawed assumptions going around this topic that are interesting to discuss, nevertheless.

The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you. And if a hypothetical trade model increased the element of chance by randomly seeding the map with resources necessary to make war, it would also increase your motivation to go to war in order to compensate for drawing a weak hand. Does anybody seriously want to remove the element of chance from a game? Particularly this game, where the stakes are so clear? "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...

Just my opinion.

Vitmore

For one thing, I don't like how you use "this thread" to refer to certain poster's opinions. I, for one, agree with you that trade should be available from the beginning. The fact that certain people in this thread believe one thing is not a basis to condemn the entire thread, and thereby the people posting in it regardless of their individual opinions.

quote: The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you.

Would you say that having only ten units restricts tactical possibilities? Probably not. How about 9? 8? How about one? Your thesis here is flawed. How far do I reduce it to get maximum "challenge?" Perhaps if I had only one unit, the "challenge" would be even greater? It very well might be, but at this point you have taken away the strategic diversity of the game and it is not fun anymore. I don't understand how reducing the amount of units could in any way ENHANCE strategic possibilities. This seems like the ultimate contradiction. If all pieces in chess were bishops, would that make chess more interesting? Would it make you "creative" with bishops? No, because a unit has no strategic depth within itself, a legion can only be that. Add a phalanx, an archer, a catapult... and you increase strategic depth. Take them away because of mandatory resources, and you decrease strategic depth. It's as simple as that: more options are better, with war and trade.

Furthermore, it is hypocritical of you to say that we are wrong to argue against "trade options," when your mandatory resource system decreases unit and military options. We are all for options in trade... a mandatory resource system, by it's very nature, restricts trade options my making trade enforced and telling us what we absolutely NEED to trade.

quote: "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...

Restrictions are liberating? I think this is all wrong. I want to play a civ game where I have choices and my empire is in my hands. I would like to hear from you exactly how, in any way, more restrictions in Civilization3 would "liberate" us Civ players and give us more choice and control.

quote: Obviously it should potentially be the dominant factor, depending on how you use it. To that end, the others are right to suggest very intricate trade models. And by the same token, war should also be potentially dominant, and you might suggest intricate war models. Others certainly have. But I disagree with your argument that trade should be reigned in at the design stage. I disagree with the title of this thread -- Civ 3 is a trade game AND a war game. And this is a non-issue.

Raingoon fully understands it! Amen! God bless Raingoon!

quote: Civ is obviously a trade/war/exploration & diplomacy game. I am for more options in all those categories, while I am against arguing for less in any, which is what this thread does.

The greatest interpretation of all, which deserves to be carved into a stone obelisk to inform any future generation who might read it.

quote: The most flawed assumption is the assumption that "restriction" means less options. In what I've seen suggested, for every restriction caused by some of these trade models there is in fact a gain. For instance, if a trade model made it harder for you to conduct war -- let's say it reduced your "tactical possibilities" by making some units unavailable to you. It may also makes your challenge more interesting and forces you to become creative with the units that are available to you. And if a hypothetical trade model increased the element of chance by randomly seeding the map with resources necessary to make war, it would also increase your motivation to go to war in order to compensate for drawing a weak hand. Does anybody seriously want to remove the element of chance from a game? Particularly this game, where the stakes are so clear? "Free form" is not a good thing in a civ game. If one thinks it is, one is not considering all the implications of "free form." Restrictions are far more liberating -- see the design and aesthetics of almost, well, anything...

We need another obelisk for this, too!

TheSocialist

quote: Trade should be at least on par with war, if not greater.

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 03-23-2001 01:26 PM The first war over trade priviligies (rather than land, which used to be what war was about) was in the mid-17th century (between England and Netherlands)

Sorry, Henrik, but the Phocean Greeks and the Carthaginians fought just for trade privileges in the Western Mediterranean in the Batlle of Alalia (535 BC).

Check out my Tartessos trade in the Spanish Civ2 Site Forum.

I said this in the trade thread too but I repeat.

People do have a choice but the consequences of economic isolation should be harsh enough to deter people not to engage in trade. Slow growth, halted industry in even worse case and weaker military all sounds reasonable to me and you and I know this penalty is so harsh thus almost forcing us to engage in active trade and diplomacy.

Strategic resource, in the model, comes only later stages of the game so the penalties will be harsher during later stages of the game whereas during early stages of the game the penalties aren't so harsh or even laughable.

Should the consequences for not trading be that great? I just don't know. What I think might be happening here is that we overlook the difference between international trade and domestic trade. Domestic trade accounts for a lot. I bet an argument could be made that domestic trade was the dominant economic force for a great deal of history. I wouldn't feel prepared to make such an argument (hell of a dissertation, though), but I just have a feeling that no one could make the opposite.

quote: On the other hand, this thread wants to say that the ability to build your nation through trade should be curtailed, or at the very least should not be emphasized.

Cyclotron. I brought up the paradox that restriction is liberating. And you pointed out that if it were so, a chess game of all bishops ought to be even more interesting than regular chess. But why did you stop there? Why not accuse me of suggesting that a game with NO pieces whatsoever would be the most "liberating" of all? I guess it would -- it would certainly liberate you from having to play chess! Honestly, what's with the sophistry? Do you think that's what I really meant? Perhaps you didn't know what I meant. Fair enough.

I guess I need to say for the record that I wasn't actually suggesting Civ be restricted to the point that it becomes unplayable. I was just loosely implying that restrictions are liberating inasmuch as restrictions make the choices more interesting and enhance the fun. And I believe the trade complexities stated on the other two threads are quite plausible, and their attendant restrictions sound like fun. While on the other hand, some of your statements there call for keeping out the element of chance and decry complexity as "tedious." Seems to me the other side is talking about playing chess, while you're suggesting chess is more fun if you play it like checkers.

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.

I agree that after industrialization, trade should become more important. I just believe that giving more benefits to those who do trade is a better system than penalizing those who don't. I've always stood by the idea that making money more useful would make trade more appealing. That guy named "The Diplomat" suggested that once, and I think that's the best idea I've heard.

In my opinion, and I think this is the fairest idea that caters for all party's, trade should be equally important as war, diplomacy and the other 'core' areas that make up the game. To focus on one in particular would detract from the others.

I seem to remember the fall of the Roman Empire being attributed to slightly more complex factors than "Egypt stopped sending food." Breaking everything down into resources is an awfully simplistic way of looking at history. The dominant western enterprise of the 13th and 14th centuries, the Crusades, were fought over land that had no real resources at all. Lots of wars were fought because "The other guys are not us", rather than "They have stuff we want."

The Socialist,

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.

Wouldn't Japan be a better example for your non-trade scenario? Japan through the -- what, the 15th through 18th centuries? I don't think China closed off its trade in the 20th century. I think they got with the program on the double-quick, expanded exponentially through trade with the Free West and have become a world power in the process, holding a "most favored" status with the US for decades. Can anyone name a super power today that does not and never did trade? Seems to me that policy would be less penalized in ancient epochs.

Stuff2

has said it perfectly when he says there are only resources, and trade & war should be just two equal ways to get them. Does that mean war is tied to a resource model? Well, yeah. Does anyone really think it shouldn't be? After all, it ever was thus. Even in the Crusades. If the Vatican hadn't been able to award and sway power the way it did, and thus land and resources, there would never have been six Crusades over hundreds of years. Wars are never fought just because people are different, although propagandists have been very successful at times in convincing people they were.

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 03-24-2001 07:07 AM So, basically, everybody has some very divided opinions on how trade should be implemented...cool down people!! In my opinion, and I think this is the fairest idea that caters for all party's, trade should be equally important as war, diplomacy and the other 'core' areas that make up the game. To focus on one in particular would detract from the others. It takes an equal weighting on each core area to achieve the "civilization" experience...others, as others have said, I think we'd end up with a World Trade, or World War game as opposed to a "civ" game

Well put Zanzin!