Something about commerce and how to use workers in a 3d tile-less map?

You don't.

This has been one of the most contested issues regarding the 3d tile-less map, and as a firm believer in KISS I think the easiest solution is that simply not control workers. Cities will manage themselves and improve the land around them as they grow. This doesn't mean that you have no measure of control over a city though, this can easily be achieved by assigning priorities. For instance, you could prioritize food over hammers and your people will begin to farm the countryside. Do the opposite and mines and tiny factories begin to spring up.

Notice I didn't say anything about commerce, I don't think a commerce resource is needed in this system. Commerce will instead be based off your total food and hammer production, since after-all what do you trade to gain money in the real world? Food and manufactured goods.

I believe a good solution would be to have commerce be based off a percentage of your food and hammer production. This makes commerce much more pliable and paves the way for better economic mechanics and features. For instance you could direct one city's commerce to another low population city, which would turn into food for the low population city. In this way you could have your heavy industry cities live off the food that your 'farm' cities produce. You're still generating gold because you are gaining taxes off the domestic sales of the food being exchanged by the cities.

Same goes for turning commerce from one city into hammers for another.

So what does the new commerce model do for us? Like mentioned before you can achieve more realistic synergy between cities in your empire by trading hammers and food. You can also trade with foreign cities, therefore making trade much more important aspect of Civ and making Diplomacy much more robust. Trading food and/or hammers with foreign civs suddenly gives you an option OUTSIDE of going to war. Don't want to fight? Simple, develop a strong trade network with other civs and threaten to cripple their economies by cutting them off if they dont' do what you want them to.

Lets look at the nuts and bolts of just how that could happen though:

Your civ occupies the 'bread bowl' of the world and is blessed with massive food production, you begin to export all your excess food to civ A. Civ A's cities grow to larger sizes due to the imported food, however because they are growing off your food they cannot sustain themselves. Civ A displeases you and you hit him with a trade embargo. Within 5 turns all of Civ A's cities have lost 5 population points each. His economy suffers because the extra 5 population per city is no longer producing hammers or commerce, his treasury dips and he can no longer afford maintenance on his large army. The population grows angry over the sudden famine which only compounds the disaster.

The new model helps keep civilizations that start off in poor hammer or food areas still be competitive. Most importantly it adds a much needed trade system that allows for multiple conflict resolutions and paves the way for much improved treaties, alliances and United Nations.

Thoughts?

KISS?

Food, production and commerce are ridiculously hard things for the game to incorporate, and even harder for them to be incorporated with any semblance of realism. Which is why they are in the game in the state they are. So I'll agree that they do not revision. However, I don't think that simply doing away with one by making it a product of the other two is really the correct solution. Financial hubs (an approximation of modern cottages, I guess) do not produce food and do not produce anything that could be classified as 'production'. So I don't think this idea quite hits the mark.

And I have to say, I am completely opposed to a tileless system. The game works with tiles, there is no need to change it, I don't think it would make anything better.

Your example, also, seems to detract from the idea further, more than make it seem better. Is the entire game's direction going to be based on geographical location? You are giving an awful lot of power to those that occupy bread baskets.

trickofthehand said:

[...] Thoughts?

Click to expand...

KISS principle contradicts a 3d tile-less map as such maps pose more problems than they solve

I was using KISS in reference on how to control workers and production, not in reference to the map system. Just because something is hard it means we don't change it? Glad Kennedy never thought the same way.

What exactly is wrong with giving more power to food producing nations? First, it's accurate. Everyone has to eat and in the real world countries don't mess with countries that export food and energy. Also in the real world this is called 'comparative advantage', sure you may produce a lot of food but you're not going to be generating a lot of manufacturing.

Secondly, it completely eliminates the inherent weakness of low production nations currently in Civ. Every response by the AI is based off your military strength. Your military strength is directly correlated to your production capability. If this isn't a far more broken system then my proposal I'm not sure what could be. In my system the AI will have to take into account how valuable your exports are to itself and other civs before it goes to war against you. If Shaka is importing 20% of his food from you then Montezuma is going to be more cautious about going to war with you because Shaka could very well declare war on him. This adds to the complexity of the diplomacy system and helps eliminate military dependence and war as the only solution.

Civ currently does not let you play your civilization as you wish. You MUST play aggressively and you MUST be a military powerhouse in order to be competitive. The current civ model makes our real world a complete impossibility. Japan, amongst others, would've been long gone because of their weak military.

Camikaze, what you fail to realize is that financial hubs are processing money created by the sales generated by food and production. We are dumbing down real-life to represent all food products as a Food unit and all manufacturing products as a Hammer unit because this is Civ. Financial hubs in the real world are not working with money generated by magic, they are working with money generated through the sales of goods and services. Now sure cottages represent services but the current civ system of cottage spam is unrealistic and hurts you if you happen to start off in a poor cottage spam location. Why shouldn't a country like say, Canada, which exports valuable ores and minerals be able to stay competitive with other countries? They do in the real world.

How does it make sense that an ocean tile generates commerce and a forest tile doesn't? Civ represents commerce as a magical unit that is magically created by having your workers present in some tiles and not others. Civ implies that forests have no economical value, neither do mines (unless there's a special resource on them) or the vast majority of improvements.

This is completely unrealistic. Because of the limitations of Civ I agree with the Hammers and Food, however the Commerce resource as is needs to go away. Why does a forest not generate commerce, afterall there's an entire logging industry in the real world. Why does an ocean generate commerce? Thru the sale of fish, clams, oysters and later oil. All of these are ALREADY represented in-game so why are we making the system further redundant by adding an extra resource to those tiles?

The current commerce unit is obsolete and restrains the growth of the civ franchise and any hope for a realistic trade and diplomacy system. Not only is my system balanced, but it allows you to play your civilization as you wish and creates a precedent for a much richer trade and diplomacy system. Also it completely eliminates Civ's current and biggest problem, that war is always the answer.

I'm not completely against eliminating cottages, but not as magically commerce generating entities. I propose instead that under the new system cottages instead magnify by a percentage the commerce that is generated in your city. After-all those cottages still require food and manufactured goods to thrive.

Re: the tileless map.

A tileless map allows you to think more strategically when waging war or building in general. The current system of hill tile, forest tile, grassland tile is dumbing the whole game down. I have seen this system work quite well in other games and have no reason to believe it wouldn't work with Civ.

trickofthehand said:

Re: the tileless map.

A tileless map allows you to think more strategically when waging war or building in general. The current system of hill tile, forest tile, grassland tile is dumbing the whole game down. I have seen this system work quite well in other games and have no reason to believe it wouldn't work with Civ.

Click to expand...

you should find Soren Johnson's comments or someone allegedly quoting Soren about civ4 and a tile-less map: in my words: "we [Soren and the team] did some coding in civ4 and created a tile-less map to playtest. later the idea [of a tile-less map] was dropped because it was near impossible to tell 'land yields' when forests smoothly turn into grassland, plains turn into hills, etc."
something like that.

as to trade & diplomacy: i agree. they need an overhaul

as to commerce: it forces players to make a choice between and
removing commerce in it's present form will overpower because, all things being equal, will not build any units

At the very least, I'd place more importance on civ3-style colonies and make them survive even after they're absorbed culturally.

If hammers are overpowered compared to food then simply increase the amount of commerce generated by food. You may build fewer units but you will tech faster. Also the extra gold generated would allow you to do other interesting things, such as buy mercenary units, coerce others to fight for you, etc.

You're still missing the point of the importance of trade in this model. You can still exchange production and food between cities, or just feed your production cities in the mountains and use them to build units. Ofcourse you can also build a strong alliance with another civ by providing him with food/hammers.

Not every empire was an industrial giant.

As far as the tileless map, I don't buy it. It may be difficult, but not impossible to figure out how much food can grow where, etc. Also if you are still thinking in terms of using a worker to create land improvements you're not going to get far.

For people at CivFanatics that can play Civ4 very well, like us, it is a good idea. But for dumb people that don't know to play CivIV and hang the game for the first time at the shop and don't have any idea of how is CivIV like, at might be a little difficult for them

I think the learning curve might not be as steep as you think. Sure you'll have to get the hang of dealing with 3d terrain but imagine this:

For movement each unit has a movement bar and is allowed to move until the bar empties. A unit can commit an action and drain half it's bar or move half it's bar and commit an action (this can be reworked as needed but u get the idea). Steeper terrain will drain more of the bar since the unit is 'sticking' to a flat trajectory that rises or dips (suppose you could give slight movement bar increase for going down).

For working the terrain I honestly think that full automation of food and hammer production by the city is the only way to go, like I said in the OP. This has the advantage of spreading the 'workable tiles' further out from a city and mini-cities could spring up in those areas of your empire that always has 3 or 4 tiles out of reach. Keep in mind the mini cities will not actually build anything, just provide a small bonus to the nearest city. The point is that all your land will be worked and you'll actually look like an empire.

There would be a learning curve, but not so much that it hurts new players I don't think. Coupled with a good tutorial mode and the support of this fantastic website and I think it would be a very friendly interface.

trickofthehand said:

If hammers are overpowered compared to food then simply increase the amount of commerce generated by food. You may build fewer units but you will tech faster. Also the extra gold generated would allow you to do other interesting things, such as buy mercenary units, coerce others to fight for you, etc.

Click to expand...

might work, however in civ4, quantity beats quality

trickofthehand said:

You're still missing the point of the importance of trade in this model. You can still exchange production and food between cities, or just feed your production cities in the mountains and use them to build units. Ofcourse you can also build a strong alliance with another civ by providing him with food/hammers.

Click to expand...

the ability to send food and hammers to other cities, i not classify as a "trade system". maybe some part of it, but not the whole.

trickofthehand said:

Not every empire was an industrial giant.

Click to expand...

you mean like "give Luxembourg a chance?"

on any map, the resources are spread unevenly. and, as i understand, you are trying to even things out. on that basis, your ideas are sound. if, however, you propose a "new trade system", then your ideas fall short.

trickofthehand said:

What exactly is wrong with giving more power to food producing nations? First, it's accurate. Everyone has to eat and in the real world countries don't mess with countries that export food and energy. Also in the real world this is called 'comparative advantage', sure you may produce a lot of food but you're not going to be generating a lot of manufacturing.

Click to expand...

For the system of comparative advantage to really apply, though, those with the comparative advantage in production must have about the same power. Seeing as you can survive without production (just not very productively, obviously), but simply cannot survive without food in the game (and in real life, I'll concede, although the two are more closely linked), then there is inordinate power going to the food producing nations. An unbalancing amount of power. If you are a food producing nation, then that would be an abusable (?) power under what you are proposing. I do agree that there should be a certain degree of specialisation in the game, but I really don't think you hit the mark with how it should be implemented, given that what you propose would involve almost complete destruction of a civ at the beginning of a war.

Secondly, it completely eliminates the inherent weakness of low production nations currently in Civ. Every response by the AI is based off your military strength. Your military strength is directly correlated to your production capability. If this isn't a far more broken system then my proposal I'm not sure what could be. In my system the AI will have to take into account how valuable your exports are to itself and other civs before it goes to war against you. If Shaka is importing 20% of his food from you then Montezuma is going to be more cautious about going to war with you because Shaka could very well declare war on him. This adds to the complexity of the diplomacy system and helps eliminate military dependence and war as the only solution.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree that there should be some sort of specialisation and trade on that basis, and your system does work better for production than for food, but if we assume that low production nations are high food nations, then this would over rectify to too large an extent, dangerously upsetting game balance.

I would add though, that I think one of the best features of Civ4 is the ability to gain a massive production advantage with Industrialisation, and factories and electricity. How will your system, where production is more dependent upon what other civs that you trade with produce, and not what you actually put in to the production process, allow for you to utilise this potential game winning and realistic strategy, considering that changing your specialisation would be exceptionally difficult, especially in the time required?

Camikaze, what you fail to realize is that financial hubs are processing money created by the sales generated by food and production. We are dumbing down real-life to represent all food products as a Food unit and all manufacturing products as a Hammer unit because this is Civ. Financial hubs in the real world are not working with money generated by magic, they are working with money generated through the sales of goods and services. Now sure cottages represent services but the current civ system of cottage spam is unrealistic and hurts you if you happen to start off in a poor cottage spam location.

Click to expand...

I would think that production tiles in Civ represent actual primary industry, rather than secondary or tertiary or quaternary industry, or whatever. Cottages, I would think represent those three other sectors of an economy. So, they would represent the finishing of a product and its subsequent sale (therefore gaining commerce), the provision of services (therefore gaining commerce) and intellectual services (again producing commerce). Not necessarily just 'financial hubs' as I seemed to suggest. I was using that as a phrase to summarise their function. Now, I see how it may be realistic to not have a Civ cottage spam, as they may not be able to internationally compete by doing so, but firstly, that only really applies to the Modern and Industrial era, when nations did actually have to worry about international competitiveness, and secondly, that is already represented in the game in the fact that not all nations cottage spam.

How does it make sense that an ocean tile generates commerce and a forest tile doesn't? Civ represents commerce as a magical unit that is magically created by having your workers present in some tiles and not others. Civ implies that forests have no economical value, neither do mines (unless there's a special resource on them) or the vast majority of improvements.

Click to expand...

Forests would provide wood, which the cottages, or financial hubs, would then transform into products, given that they represent secondary industry. Why don't sea tiles also just provide the raw resource to cottages to transform into products? Well, I would think it is assumed that the process of processing seafood is much more internalised within the system; the fisherman catches and transforms into a product his fish, because it hardly needs transforming.

This is completely unrealistic. Because of the limitations of Civ I agree with the Hammers and Food, however the Commerce resource as is needs to go away. Why does a forest not generate commerce, afterall there's an entire logging industry in the real world. Why does an ocean generate commerce? Thru the sale of fish, clams, oysters and later oil. All of these are ALREADY represented in-game so why are we making the system further redundant by adding an extra resource to those tiles?

Click to expand...

If you take out the commerce bonus for coast, for example, you are assuming that the sea is barren of seafood unless there is actually a seafood resource. I don't think this is the case. I would assume seafood resources actually represent abnormally large deposits of seafood. So even those without a resource, we can assume still have some seafood, that if worked, allow for a commerce producing industry. That isn't unrealistic at all. In fact, taking it away would be unrealistic.

And as for forests and mines, well, the commerce comes out through the cottages. If you don't have cottages, how can you sell your product and create commerce? You have no secondary industry. So this is also realistically represented. This is where the option of trading production, to a limited extent, would be good, because then there would be an option to just have a primary industry and rely on the secondary industry of other Civs, gaining commerce in the form of Gold via trade.

The current commerce unit is obsolete and restrains the growth of the civ franchise and any hope for a realistic trade and diplomacy system. Not only is my system balanced, but it allows you to play your civilization as you wish and creates a precedent for a much richer trade and diplomacy system. Also it completely eliminates Civ's current and biggest problem, that war is always the answer.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think that commerce is broken so much as poorly represented. There are conceivable improvements that could be made to it. However, I don't think your system does make those necessary improvements, so much as it provides for an unbalanced system negating that secondary industry, and focusing purely on the primary industries of farms and mines.

trickofthehand said:

This doesn't mean that you have no measure of control over a city though, this can easily be achieved by assigning priorities. For instance, you could prioritize food over hammers and your people will begin to farm the countryside. Do the opposite and mines and tiny factories begin to spring up.

Click to expand...

This removes the ability to say "I want to deveop this tile this way and this idnetical tile this other way and to change to a diffeent way again later when a new tech becomes available", so I do not like it.

Notice I didn't say anything about commerce, I don't think a commerce resource is needed in this system. Commerce will instead be based off your total food and hammer production, since after-all what do you trade to gain money in the real world? Food and manufactured goods.

Click to expand...

Simplifying away a dimension of semi-independent variation, so I do not like that.

So what does the new commerce model do for us? Like mentioned before you can achieve more realistic synergy between cities in your empire by trading hammers and food. You can also trade with foreign cities, therefore making trade much more important aspect of Civ and making Diplomacy much more robust. Trading food and/or hammers with foreign civs suddenly gives you an option OUTSIDE of going to war. Don't want to fight? Simple, develop a strong trade network with other civs and threaten to cripple their economies by cutting them off if they dont' do what you want them to.

Click to expand...

This is not a step forward; controlling AIs through trade has been doable since Civ II and is something of an art in Civ III. (Not one I'm very good at but one I enjoy.)