Intercity resource trading

[rysmiel]

Again, I still think the same: filling people will silk or gold isn't going to make them forget their kinsmen were lined up and shot.

It's an abstraction from one generalisation; to wit, that comfortable people are generally happier than uncomfortable people. Questioning it at the level you do is fine on philosophical grounds, but I do not think that level of realism is relevant to a critique of the mechanism as a game mechanic.

Secondly, didn't you earlier argue that more complexity is a good thing?

It depends on the complexity. I have argued strongly against the Civ IV unit promotion system in the past, for example, because it is complexity at that tactical level of having to think about individual units in combat, rather than at the logistical level of running a whole nation. I strongly favour fixed governments over civics.

Additionally, I don't see how ideology affects this. A liberal might think Nationalism is silly but still recognise that it causes strife. Capitalists realise that anti-globalisation protesters exist, and that unions do strike, even if they think they shouldn't. Authoritarians recognise that Amnesty does write letters, and people go on hunger strikes, and socialists also know that people like having consumer goods, and dislike arbitrary controls. This section isn't to do with what ought, it's to do with what the populace thinks ought.

I think you miss my point.

Ask a libertarian what's going to make people most happy, and they will say freedom. Ask a social democrat, and they will say peace, order, and good government. Ask a dedicated follower of Trotsky or a neoconservative and they will say something else again. I think trying to implement any half-way complicated model of what does and does not make people happy, in Civ, is going to risk failing for players of any political persuasions other than that of whatever the model assumes, in exactly the same way that implementing differences between religions risks failing for people who believe in the religions in question, and that's something I would like to see Civ avoid.

 

[Larklight]

It's an abstraction from one generalisation; to wit, that comfortable people are generally happier than uncomfortable people. Questioning it at the level you do is fine on philosophical grounds, but I do not think that level of realism is relevant to a critique of the mechanism as a game mechanic.

I think it is, because if it is true (as I think very likely) that after their basic material needs are met, people care more for safety and the like than consumer goods, the current mechanism is a mistake.

It depends on the complexity. (implicit macro-complexity > micro-complexity)

I kinda agree about the disadvantage of micro-complexity, but internal strife is very much a macro issue.

I think you miss my point... I think trying to implement any half-way complicated model of what does and does not make people happy, in Civ, is going to risk failing for players of any political persuasions other than that of whatever the model assumes, in exactly the same way that implementing differences between religions risks failing for people who believe in the religions in question,

I think you're viewing this in too complicated a manner. I don't think anyone would object to massacres causing unhappiness, or a lack of political representation. I personally value freedom over most things, but I recognise that this isn't generally true, for all people, times and places. Anyone who thinks that their highest value is universal is clearly mistaken: but there is, I think, a general amount of agreement that representation is good, safety from arbitrary arrest is good, security from violent death is good.

I do think it would be good to model ideologies in the game, but in a very equal manner: liberals would gain happiness if you relax censorship, socialists would like you if you nationalise the mines.

I really don't see what most people would object to here

 

[Wimsey]

Hm, it might not be too hideously complicated to divide happiness into two different categories, one for materialistic goodies, and one for freedom and equality and other abstract needs. In that way you would have to score high in both in order to have a perfectly happy city.

Anyway, this thread has strayed a bit from the original topic, and I'll think I'll post my more finished, and slightly revised, idea in a new post, just for the tiny off-change that some-one working with civ 5 will see it and implement just a tiny little fraction of it ...

 

[Scilly_guy]

I realise this thread started about intercity resource trading, my opinion on that is simply caravans!

I have only read the last three posts though and in particularly the last one and the mention of two types of happiness. I think it makes sense to have each cities productivity happiness dependant on its material entertainments/goods & services. If a city is happy then it has production bonuses, if it is content production is standard and if it is miserable (note miserable not unhappy) then there are production penalties. I think its also important to think about what the game says about people and CIVILISATIONS, money and stuff doesn't make people happy. I heard a radio broadcast the other day on the subject and they were saying how people in developed countries are no happier than those in undeveloped parts of the world... I'm not sure where I am going with this... hmm.

I think that people being content with the government should result in them being willing to pay more taxes (I think of commerce on tiles in civ4 being equivalent to taxes) and if they aren't happy it would lead to protests in the capital and possibly leading to anarchy.

This is very similar to the situation at present, if workers go on strike they stop working their tile, making the city less productive and/or reducing commerce (taxes). If they are angry with slavery you may get a slave revolt, and disorder can occur too. I would suggest dividing these into two clear categories. Although I am not fussed about this, it was merely a thought I had.

Now getting back on the topic of intercity trade, I want to elaborate on caravans! I don't think quantifiable resources belong in civ, its just not what the game is about. My idea for caravans is to have automated units operating along trade routes. I've mentioned them before, probably in this thread. Each caravan carries the resources available at the city it has left that are not already available at the destination city. So if there is a trade route connecting London and Nottingham and they both mine iron it will not be transported between the two. When I say it carries the resource I mean access to the resource for the number of turns of a round trip (this makes sense and is "realistic"). As these caravans are actual units they can be captured by enemies or barbarians and once taken to a city provide access to the resource for the number of turns mentioned above. It should be easy to add guards to the caravans to escort them. Caravans are not units that require building, they represent the trade routes that already exist (in civ4). So when you first found a city you are given a single caravan, a coastal city two caravans (one water-borne), river cities should get a water-borne one too but civ4 has no graphic for boats on rivers. When buildings are built the city gets extra caravans, market, grocer, supermarket, or merchant fleets, lighthouse, harbour, river port (cannot enter sea tiles).

I can imagine programming this so that a caravan takes the available resources from a city to another city, that city then has all its resources plus all those from the 1st city in its resource box. Any caravans that leave the 2nd city now will take all the resources from the first city too, which is fine, that is how supply chains work. However what happens if the original source is lost, it may have only been one caravan captured from the enemy. By the time the 1st city loses access it might be resupplied by a city further down the supply chain. What I am saying is that this mechanic is incomplete and I would like to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I don't get why you think quantifiable resources don't exist in Civ. We have quantifiable gold, and quantifiable food, production, and commerce, and quanfitiable culture and research...

 

[rysmiel]

I think that people being content with the government should result in them being willing to pay more taxes (I think of commerce on tiles in civ4 being equivalent to taxes) and if they aren't happy it would lead to protests in the capital and possibly leading to anarchy.

This is essentially pre-Civ 4 unhappy people, civil unrest and revolutions back again; I say yes.

Now getting back on the topic of intercity trade, I want to elaborate on caravans! I don't think quantifiable resources belong in civ, its just not what the game is about. My idea for caravans is to have automated units operating along trade routes.

I'm with you up to the point of "automated". If I can't make the choice between a quick delivery to a near city for less money, and a further delivery to a farther city with more risk of raiding for more money, it doesn't appeal to me. I do not trust the computer to always know what makes sense with my current strategy. I may not want to send a caravan to the city that will theoretically make me most money if that city is about to be conquered by a third civilisation, for example.

When I say it carries the resource I mean access to the resource for the number of turns of a round trip (this makes sense and is "realistic"). As these caravans are actual units they can be captured by enemies or barbarians and once taken to a city provide access to the resource for the number of turns mentioned above.

Hmm. That would work; I had been thinking you get the trade-route type benefit only after you get the caravan safely to its destination.

Caravans are not units that require building,

I strongly disagree here.

 

[Frank327]

I for one do think quantifiable resources belong in civ. Pretty much everything in the game as far as yields and numbers is concerned, is quantifiable. I think resource management should be a big factor in empire management, because it's had huge impacts on civilisations throughout history. A large empire should be prepared to wage war to get another field of iron, and one pasture with sheep shouldn't be enough for half the world.

I do think it should be a simple system where the a lot is automated. It would need another screen like the diplomacy screen or domestic screen, called resource management screen. It would show for every resource how much you have, how much you get, and where the resource is being used. Health resources will give a health bonus, where you need 1 of the resource if you want the health bonus (or equal to the population), and a sheep pasture should give a fixed amount of sheep.

This should work the same for luxury resources. You could also apply this to strategic resources, giving +1 production for buildings for example.
The way strategic resources work would be for building a swordsmen, you need 40 production and 10 iron for example. For building the pyramids, 2 hammers + 1 stone = 4 hammers, so you get the 100% bonus, as long as you have enough stone for it.

I think as long as this gets a user friendly interface, and the automaton gives resources to cities in such a way that they'll always have enough health and happiness, this shouldn't be too much micromanaging. It would be best if there are no new resources added beyond the Civ4 ones.

 

[rysmiel]

I think as long as this gets a user friendly interface, and the automaton gives resources to cities in such a way that they'll always have enough health and happiness,

But what if what you want for one specific city for one specific turn means readjusting resource balance so that other cities pass a couple of turns at less than optimal health and happiness ?

I like your general ideas, but I do not like having to trust that a simple automation's notions of what is optimal will match with my own notions at every possible stage and in every possible circumstance of a game.

 

[Scilly_guy]

By automated caravans I meant that they go to and fro between the cities by themselves. By all means there should be a way to choose which city, an interface much like the city building one with a suggestion for best economic and one for safest.

I said that the caravans do not need explicitly building, but you get a caravan by building things which add trade routes. This would stop caravan spamming and seems perfectly logical for those "Realists".

As for quantifiable resources, I don't want civ to turn into a trading game or something like settlers II (which was and still is a great game). I think perhaps requiring more than one source of a material for multiple simultaneous constructions is sensible, like 1 source of iron allows construction of 2 iron clads at a time, although this should probably scale with the map, although a bigger map will have more iron, either way this is merely an example, don't start arguing about the numbers. I hate the idea of having to transport x amount of iron around just so I can build something, supply chains would constantly need adjusting.

 

[rysmiel]

By automated caravans I meant that they go to and fro between the cities by themselves.

And avoid barbarians ? And avoid risking capture by a third civilisation that invades while it's en route ? And can be redirected when part-way there if my priorities change ?

Have it automatable if you like, but not only automated.

I said that the caravans do not need explicitly building, but you get a caravan by building things which add trade routes. This would stop caravan spamming and seems perfectly logical for those "Realists".

Why is caravan spamming something that needs stopping at this level ?

I hate the idea of having to transport x amount of iron around just so I can build something, supply chains would constantly need adjusting.

I'm not thinking that you should need to explicitly transport iron (for example) between cities within your civilisation to have access to it, but then I am inclined to see internal trade as represented perfectly well by commerce bonuses from working squares. Trade with other civilisations, though, appeals to me much more with explicit exchange of a specified quantity that one then physically moves to its destination.

This would also mean that if you establish a trade route with Paris in 500 BC, and conquer Paris in 1000 AD, the benefits of the trade route would vanish. To my mind, having Paris and Paris' income/production at this point makes up for that to some extent, and it's yet another way to weight the game against warmongering, so that's good.