quote: All right. Then prove me manufacturing capability is something else than Labour.

It is both basic resources and labor. Coal gives you shields, so it must be basic resources, and more tiles give you more shields, so it must be labor... it is therefore a mix of the two, which I call industrial capacity.

quote: That's indeed as it should be. But in Civgames, factories increase the amount of shields (thus resources, not labour/manufacturing capability). Show me the logic in that. Can factories create resources out of thin air?

Referring to my above comment, factories increase labor and therefore increase industrial capacity, increasing shields.

quote: I never claimed otherwise. But you never really touched that I was making. Did you really read my post well? I'm wondering. If you did, did I really explain my point that bad???

I certainly tried to read your point well. If I'm not adressing the point you would like me to adress, I would appreciate you clarifying yourself.

Youngson:

I just am trying to say that the sytem is how it is. I don't want you to be quiet, you have excellent points to make. I just want this to stop being a battle to convert the enemy. Your post:

quote: So you now like the mandatory nature of the resource system. Will you call the civ3 resource system a "mandatory one" too? You wouldn't would you? Because now you understand how the resource system can work beautifully even if the nature of the resources are "mandatory". Please, don't tell me only my model was mandatory and civ3 one is not. Whether it's simple or not it is still mandatory, simple mandatory or complex mandatory. there is no supplementary...

Really threw me off, because it seems to be trying to convince me I have been wrong all along. It seemed like you waited for me to make a small concession, and then leaped at my throat. Maybe it's my fault, but I just don't want to fight about things like which is more important, because that is only our interpretation. Let's compromise: They are both equally important.

quote: It is both basic resources and labor. Coal gives you shields, so it must be basic resources, and more tiles give you more shields, so it must be labor... it is therefore a mix of the two, which I call industrial capacity.

Despite there are, since the Civ3 goods system was presented, people around here who claim that you get as much coal or iron out of 1 mine than out of 100 mines, the opposite is actually true.

!!!You get more coal out of 2 mines than out of 1!!!
What a discovery!

So it's kinda obvious you get more shields (in my eyes, resources) if you work two mined hills tiles than if you work one tile. Nothing to do with labour, in my very very humble opinion.

You know, I have respected your opinion all along during our argument and I spent many hours to convince you my model could work and there was one fundamental thing in my model that you vigourously opposed was that the nature of the resource, so called "mandatory"(though I prefer the term "primary").

I wouldn't be surprised if you said you don't like the model suggested by Firaxis(I would even respect that opinion)but one thing that put me into great shock was that you actually said you like the Firaxis model which shares the same principles with my model. The principle you had opposed so much! The principle which was the main issue of our long painful argument. The principle which I thought virtually uncompromisable. Why? Now I doubt if I say something, that sounds unconvincing but if Firaxis says something similar to it, it sounds very convincing to you, even if those two are almost identical? I find this extremely insulting.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-14-2001 09:40 PM I wouldn't be surprised if you said you don't like the model suggested by Firaxis(I would even respect that opinion)but one thing that put me into great shock was that you actually said you like the Firaxis model which shares the same principles with my model. The principle you had opposed so much! The principle which was the main issue of our long painful argument. The principle which I thought virtually uncompromisable. Why? Now I doubt if I say something, that sounds unconvincing but if Firaxis says something similar to it, it sounds very convincing to you, even if those two are almost identical? I find this extremely insulting.

I understand now why you are insulted, so thank you for bearing with me.

Perhaps a point I should have made is that I like it, but not as much as I like my own system. The debates I had with you were debates between these two systems, so obviously I had to point out the fault in one and try to build up my own.

Now, when Firaxis announced its model, I compared this to Civ2, not my system. I realized that people here would not remember my position or my debates, and I had no interest starting another huge debate thread about resources. You will hopefully remember that although I argued against mandatory resources, I agreed that even they would be better than Civ2. Therefore, after Firaxis' announcement, I felt good that they did not regress to Civ2 trade and decided to voice this.

There is, however, some truth to the fact that I was at least a little more receptive to the idea because of Firaxis' presentation of it. Perhaps it was also in part to a "sudden revelation" of mine. I don't really know. What I do know, and I believe you will heartily agree with me, is that it is better than Civ2... and that is a reason to be glad.

quote: Originally posted by M@ni@c on 05-14-2001 04:20 PM cyclotron7 Despite there are, since the Civ3 goods system was presented, people around here who claim that you get as much coal or iron out of 1 mine than out of 100 mines, the opposite is actually true.

Of course it is true that more mines gives you more . However, more coal/steel/whatever does not neccessarily give you more production. If I can only build something at a given rate of speed, as long as I have enough coal I can produce it. Excess coal is useless to me, unless some time in the future I lose my constant supply of coal... this is called stockpiling, and the idea seems to have been trounced by Firaxis.

So when I say that 1 mine gives you the same benefit as 100, it is to a certain degree true... Since stockpiling is not allowed, excess coal does not get me anywhere, and does not speed up my production.

quote: I had no interest starting another huge debate thread about resources.

me neither.

quote: You will hopefully remember that although I argued against mandatory resources, I agreed that even they would be better than Civ2

Although I don't recall that, I'm very glad to hear that.

quote: What I do know, and I believe you will heartily agree with me, is that it is better than Civ2... and that is a reason to be glad.

quote: Of course it is true that more mines gives you more . However, more coal/steel/whatever does not neccessarily give you more production.

I agree! That's just the point. You also need labour. Which is not represented in civ2 shields for a number of reasons I've mentioned in my previous post.

By the way, you didn't respond to my reply to your assumption that shields represent both resources and labour:

quote: So it's kinda obvious you get more shields (in my eyes, resources) if you work two mined hills tiles than if you work one tile. Nothing to do with labour, in my very very humble opinion.

This is purely speculative so hopefully a Firaxian can confirm this but it may be that when you trade resources, you can only trade in whole units.

So if you have 10 iron mines, you will use one and can use the other 9 surplus mines to trade for access to 9 other resources.

But if you only have access to 1 iron mine, you would then be trading away your only access to iron and would thus not have access to iron yourself.

Like I said, this is purely speculative but could explain why access to surplus is absolutely critical.