Trade, Resources, Money

[Hail]

the exact numbers and names are subject to discussion. the amount of resource that a resource icon represents and the amount to "extract" from it each turn is also subject to discussion.

1) the city itself should generate trade: 1t per pop head. this number is added to the trade "gathered" from worked city tiles. e.g. this is the base trade that markets and/or bank and/or stock exchange will increase.
2) drop the "selfevolving" [pottery] cottages and replace them with "fair"->"market"->"supermarket"->"hypermarket" tile improvements.
a fair generates 2 trade, a market 4 trade, a supermarket 6 trade, a hypermarket 9 trade.
3) resources become depletable and gain 2 flags: renewable/non renewable, consumable/non consumable.
a resource when consumed, will add food and/or shields and/or trade... not sure about food and shields, but the consumed resource should add 1 trade per pop head per turn.
e.g. a city of size 1 can consume 1 ivory, 1 spice, 1 etc. per turn to gain 1 trade per resource per turn.
now a city of size 5 can consume 5 of each resource per turn if it has them. big cities have a greater consumer capacity than small ones.

3.a) resources that a city was unable to consume are stored. stored resources can either be sent to other cities of of the empire to be consumed by the city or used for some other purpose.
3.b) resource renewablity: any renewable resource that a civ discovered can be replanted on any other tile belonging to the civ if the following criteria are fulfilled:
3.b.a) no 2 renewable resources can be adjacent.
3.b.b) the reqs for the resource must also be met (e.g. deer can only reside on a tundra tile, etc.).
3.b.c) a tech for replanting must have been discovered. for domestic animals it would be "animal husbandry", etc.

4) international trade:
any resource in any quantity can be traded with any civ that you have a relation with. all access resources from all cities are pulled into 1 logical resource pool. all international trade is for gold per unit of resource.
4.a) any civ can set a tax on trade so the buyer will actually pay more then "gold per resource" * "number of resources bought". this tax money will directly go into the seller's treasury.
4.a.a) the number equal to "gold per resource" * "number of resources bought" is turned into trade and divided proportionally by the cities (or city) whose resources where bought. NOTICE: this trade bonus is subject to building bonuses!
OR
4.a.b) the number equal to "gold per resource" * "number of resources bought" is also added to the treasury.

5) markets, banks, stock exchanges, airports, docks should all increase trade and leave the taxes along. however libraries, schools, univercities, etc. should still only increase science.

6) selling and buying units: any unit you own can be set to sell for gold by a setting a price on it. groups of units can be sold together.
6.a) a unit for sale must be passive: sleeping or fortified, or doing nothing.
6.b) if attacked or forced to defend, the unit is removed from the selling list.
6.c) a civ cannot buy units it does have the preqs for. e.g. cannot build. should buy the preqs first.
6.d) any civ can buy any unit on the selling list. if bought, the price is deducted from the treasury and the unit is removed from the selling civ and appears at the nearest from the seller's civ buyer's civ's city.
6.e) any civ can create a buying order for units by setting the type, amount, and price per unit. the sum is deducted from the treasury immediately.

7) sellin and/or buying land and/or cities can be negotiated during diplomatic contacts between civs.

 

[CivMyWay]

Selling units makes no sense, unless either of the following conditions is met:
- You can allow another civ to "Rent" (mercenary) the unit for x turns, in which case they gain full control of it.
- You introduce a "personnel" (people-cost) to each unit. You can then produce and sell a unit (WITHOUT the personnel cost; so it is effectively buying the military hardware). The personnel cost is then born buy the purchaser.
- You should be able to buy units for which you don't possess the tech to build, but then you must pay an increased support cost to a civ which does possess the necessary techs ("military support contract"). The seller to military hardware should be able to "bundle" together (exclusively) the hardware AND the support. This allows for more diplomatic options (embargo etc).

 

[Camikaze]

the exact numbers and names are subject to discussion. the amount of resource that a resource icon represents and the amount to "extract" from it each turn is also subject to discussion.

1) the city itself should generate trade: 1t per pop head. this number is added to the trade "gathered" from worked city tiles. e.g. this is the base trade that markets and/or bank and/or stock exchange will increase.

What would be the purpose of this? The only think it would do is give smaller cities a relative advantage over larger cities, contrary to what is actually the case in reality, particularly considering exponential real population growth in cities.

2) drop the "selfevolving" [pottery] cottages and replace them with "fair"->"market"->"supermarket"->"hypermarket" tile improvements.
a fair generates 2 trade, a market 4 trade, a supermarket 6 trade, a hypermarket 9 trade.

If I understand this correctly, the four would not be selfevolving, but would be separate improvements that could be built. Would there in this case be any point in building a fair, when you can just build a hypermarket and get 450% of the trade? That only way I see it could work is by making the improvements evolving, but only through workers manually expanding the improvement, after a certain number of turns that that improvement has been worked, like the evolving nature of cottages now. Having said that, why not just have cottages? Is there any real difference other than the name?

3) resources become depletable and gain 2 flags: renewable/non renewable, consumable/non consumable.
a resource when consumed, will add food and/or shields and/or trade... not sure about food and shields, but the consumed resource should add 1 trade per pop head per turn.
e.g. a city of size 1 can consume 1 ivory, 1 spice, 1 etc. per turn to gain 1 trade per resource per turn.
now a city of size 5 can consume 5 of each resource per turn if it has them. big cities have a greater consumer capacity than small ones.

This would not work with the current system of resource values. Some sort of formula (like in the other thread) would have to be worked out to put actual values on the resources. Otherwise, it would be hugely impractical for any empire with more than, say, 3 cities.

Unless, of course, I've misunderstood, and you meant that for one resource that an empire has, every city has one resource of that type. In which case your system would overvalue resources, by attaching so much gold to them.

3.b) resource renewablity: any renewable resource that a civ discovered can be replanted on any other tile belonging to the civ if the following criteria are fulfilled:
3.b.a) no 2 renewable resources can be adjacent.
3.b.b) the reqs for the resource must also be met (e.g. deer can only reside on a tundra tile, etc.).
3.b.c) a tech for replanting must have been discovered. for domestic animals it would be "animal husbandry", etc.

This is way too difficult to function realistically. Imagine a civilization, in 1000BC, transporting a herd of deer (which is actually non-renewable, but can be sustainable) across a continent. It just makes no sense.

And I cannot think of any renewable resources in the game. Unless wind and sunlight were to become resources in the game.

4) international trade:
any resource in any quantity can be traded with any civ that you have a relation with. all access resources from all cities are pulled into 1 logical resource pool. all international trade is for gold per unit of resource.

So this eliminates international trade of resource for resource? Why limit it to just gold? More so, wouldn't it be better to have it as it currently is, whereby you have to have some access to another nation, rather than just a relation with them, in order to trade?

4.a) any civ can set a tax on trade so the buyer will actually pay more then "gold per resource" * "number of resources bought". this tax money will directly go into the seller's treasury.

Shouldn't this be compensated for by the amount of gold per turn you accept for trade? This would, however, be a good idea if applied to trade with a city, though not for resources.

6) selling and buying units: any unit you own can be set to sell for gold by a setting a price on it. groups of units can be sold together.
6.a) a unit for sale must be passive: sleeping or fortified, or doing nothing.
6.b) if attacked or forced to defend, the unit is removed from the selling list.
6.c) a civ cannot buy units it does have the preqs for. e.g. cannot build. should buy the preqs first.
6.d) any civ can buy any unit on the selling list. if bought, the price is deducted from the treasury and the unit is removed from the selling civ and appears at the nearest from the seller's civ buyer's civ's city.
6.e) any civ can create a buying order for units by setting the type, amount, and price per unit. the sum is deducted from the treasury immediately.

Yeah, that sounds cool. It sounds like the professional armies idea from a while back. The only thing is that perhaps instead of the unit magically teleporting to the buyer's city, it should just become a nit of that civilization, that then must be moved back to that civilization's empire.

7) sellin and/or buying land and/or cities can be negotiated during diplomatic contacts between civs.

I agree. Although, this could be easily abused by both powerful AIs and powerful humans.

Selling units makes no sense, unless either of the following conditions is met:
- You can allow another civ to "Rent" (mercenary) the unit for x turns, in which case they gain full control of it.
- You introduce a "personnel" (people-cost) to each unit. You can then produce and sell a unit (WITHOUT the personnel cost; so it is effectively buying the military hardware). The personnel cost is then born buy the purchaser.
- You should be able to buy units for which you don't possess the tech to build, but then you must pay an increased support cost to a civ which does possess the necessary techs ("military support contract"). The seller to military hardware should be able to "bundle" together (exclusively) the hardware AND the support. This allows for more diplomatic options (embargo etc).

This would go quite well with an expanded tech tree, IMO. Whereby your civilization could focus on non-military techs, whilst another civilization focused on military and supplied your units.

 

[Hail]

- You can allow another civ to "Rent" (mercenary) the unit for x turns, in which case they gain full control of it.

what if the unit dies or is bribed while rented?

- You introduce a "personnel" (people-cost) to each unit. You can then produce and sell a unit (WITHOUT the personnel cost; so it is effectively buying the military hardware). The personnel cost is then born buy the purchaser.

complexity for the same of realism?

- You should be able to buy units for which you don't possess the tech to build, but then you must pay an increased support cost to a civ which does possess the necessary techs ("military support contract"). The seller to military hardware should be able to "bundle" together (exclusively) the hardware AND the support. This allows for more diplomatic options (embargo etc).

no. realizable, if and only if new civ concepts where added and unit creation would become colonization-like.

What would be the purpose of this? The only think it would do is give smaller cities a relative advantage over larger cities, contrary to what is actually the case in reality, particularly considering exponential real population growth in cities.

really!? a city of 3 would get 3 additional trade, while a city of 8 would get 8 additional trade. a city of 3 would have a resource consumer capacity of 3 while a city of 8 would have a rc capacity of 8. so if 2 consumable resources are provided: a city of 3 would get 3 + 2 * 3 = 9 trade, while a city of 8 would get 8 + 2 * 8 = 24 trade in addition to what the worked tiles provide.

If I understand this correctly, the four would not be selfevolving, but would be separate improvements that could be built. Would there in this case be any point in building a fair, when you can just build a hypermarket and get 450% of the trade? That only way I see it could work is by making the improvements evolving, but only through workers manually expanding the improvement, after a certain number of turns that that improvement has been worked, like the evolving nature of cottages now.

no. a fair reqs "Trade" to build, "market" reqs "Currency", supermarket reqs "Something0", hypermarket reqs "Something1". NOTE: Trade should "go" before Currency and Something0 should go before Something1 and should go after Currency. so you can build fairs until Currency, after that you can [only] build markets since fairs are obsolete and so on.

Having said that, why not just have cottages? Is there any real difference other than the name?

cottages break the tile improvement mechanics. e.g. they behave differently from irrigation, for example.

This would not work with the current system of resource values. Some sort of formula (like in the other thread) would have to be worked out to put actual values on the resources. Otherwise, it would be hugely impractical for any empire with more than, say, 3 cities.

why?

Unless, of course, I've misunderstood, and you meant that for one resource that an empire has, every city has one resource of that type. In which case your system would overvalue resources, by attaching so much gold to them.

no. a city can consume resources that are either obtained by working some tile in the city radius or sent to the city from another city.

This is way too difficult to function realistically. Imagine a civilization, in 1000BC, transporting a herd of deer (which is actually non-renewable, but can be sustainable) across a continent. It just makes no sense.
And I cannot think of any renewable resources in the game. Unless wind and sunlight were to become resources in the game.

by non-renewable civ-wise i mean gold, copper, iron, uranium, oil, etc. everything else, such as wheat, sheep, horses, deer, spices, crab, whales are renewable [civ-wise]. trireme floating at sea for hundreds of years also does not make sense. there always should be a balance between abstraction and realism. i think i kept it somewhat balanced.

So this eliminates international trade of resource for resource? Why limit it to just gold? More so, wouldn't it be better to have it as it currently is, whereby you have to have some access to another nation, rather than just a relation with them, in order to trade?

maybe, or maybe not, it's debatable. i do think that gold should become the universal unit of value. no barter. about discovering their cities before enabling trade, well i dunno! it is more realistic.

Shouldn't this be compensated for by the amount of gold per turn you accept for trade? This would, however, be a good idea if applied to trade with a city, though not for resources.

no. taxed money go into the treasury, the base sum can also go into the treasury, but that is rather lame. i propose for it to be added to the selling cities as trade, to imitate the civ2 trade mechanism.

The only thing is that perhaps instead of the unit magically teleporting to the buyer's city, it should just become a nit of that civilization, that then must be moved back to that civilization's empire.

yes, that is more realistic, but i proposed as i did for the sake of simplicity.

 

[Camikaze]

really!? a city of 3 would get 3 additional trade, while a city of 8 would get 8 additional trade. a city of 3 would have a resource consumer capacity of 3 while a city of 8 would have a rc capacity of 8. so if 2 consumable resources are provided: a city of 3 would get 3 + 2 * 3 = 9 trade, while a city of 8 would get 8 + 2 * 8 = 24 trade in addition to what the worked tiles provide.

So the resource consumer capacity works as a multiplier? That's fine then.

no. a fair reqs "Trade" to build, "market" reqs "Currency", supermarket reqs "Something0", hypermarket reqs "Something1". NOTE: Trade should "go" before Currency and Something0 should go before Something1 and should go after Currency. so you can build fairs until Currency, after that you can [only] build markets since fairs are obsolete and so on.x

So, once you have a particular technology, you can build these improvements? That still doesn't really work, though. It is unrealistic to think that with the discovery of a technology, a nation can suddenly have the output of a developed financial powerhouse. I like the cottage system the way it is.

cottages break the tile improvement mechanics. e.g. they behave differently from irrigation, for example.

And the idea of fairs and markets wouldn't?

why?

Well, going off the average game, let's say you have, maybe, 3 of a particular resource. This would be used up by 3 cities, having just one for each. This would mean that the other cities would have no resources, which is highly unrealistic, and impractical for gameplay.

by non-renewable civ-wise i mean gold, copper, iron, uranium, oil, etc. everything else, such as wheat, sheep, horses, deer, spices, crab, whales are renewable [civ-wise]. trireme floating at sea for hundreds of years also does not make sense. there always should be a balance between abstraction and realism. i think i kept it somewhat balanced.

But the system is completely unrealistic regardless. How on earth are you meant to realistically transport a population of whale from one side of your empire to another?

maybe, or maybe not, it's debatable. i do think that gold should become the universal unit of value. no barter. about discovering their cities before enabling trade, well i dunno! it is more realistic.

I was under the impression that the international trade system worked for centuries and centuries under bartering systems. I, for one, am on the resource and gold per turn options side of this debate.

 

[Hail]

So, once you have a particular technology, you can build these improvements? That still doesn't really work, though. It is unrealistic to think that with the discovery of a technology, a nation can suddenly have the output of a developed financial powerhouse. I like the cottage system the way it is.

the fair->market->... thing will work exactly like irrigation->farmland in civ2.

Well, going off the average game, let's say you have, maybe, 3 of a particular resource. This would be used up by 3 cities, having just one for each. This would mean that the other cities would have no resources, which is highly unrealistic, and impractical for gameplay.

all resources are quantifiable.
so let's say a spice thing on a tile is a supply of 100 spice. working this tile will extract let's say 10 spice per turn. therefore if a city is < 10 then it will consume those extracted spice and will store some each turn producing trade for the city. these access spice can be sent to other cities to be consumed there or can be sold overseas.

But the system is completely unrealistic regardless. How on earth are you meant to realistically transport a population of whale from one side of your empire to another?

 

[rysmiel]

But the system is completely unrealistic regardless. How on earth are you meant to realistically transport a population of whale from one side of your empire to another?

You slaughter them, you salt and dry the meat, you barrel up the oil (which I think is what much of the bonus for whales actually signifies) ?

Likewise, you're not transporting a herd of deer, you're transporting wagonloads of deer hides and deer meat, no ?

I like some things about the intial post, and will come back to it when I have a bit more time.

 

[Hail]

You slaughter them, you salt and dry the meat, you barrel up the oil (which I think is what much of the bonus for whales actually signifies) ?

Likewise, you're not transporting a herd of deer, you're transporting wagonloads of deer hides and deer meat, no ?

as a resource, yes. but the quote was about "renewable" resource "replanting". without "replanting" quantifiable resources will not be a workable idea. one may think of it as transporting a herd, other may think of it as transporting the deer's DNA. it is as important as how may square km is a tile? gamewise some resources can be "replanted" at a different location(tile) if the criteria are met.

 

[CivMyWay]

what if the unit dies or is bribed while rented?

Good question. If the unit dies, that's that. That's the same as what happened in medieval times when slaves were effectively "rented" out. Likewise in modern times when a country "lends" units to the UN, or some other multinational task force. Dead = dead in anyone's language. (So generally only surplus troops would be agreed upon as being mercenary-rents). If they are bribed, then the calculation should be a mix of the owner-civ (primary) and the renter-civ (secondary), and also the civ trying to bribe them.

complexity for the same of realism?

I don't see it as too complex... it also adds several new dimensions to the game which make for potentially rich game play.

no. realizable, if and only if new civ concepts where added and unit creation would become colonization-like.

Having no knowledge of colonization, I don't comprehend... I'm not saying it would necessarily fit within the current structure --- just the way I think it should be.

 

[Camikaze]

You slaughter them, you salt and dry the meat, you barrel up the oil (which I think is what much of the bonus for whales actually signifies) ?

Likewise, you're not transporting a herd of deer, you're transporting wagonloads of deer hides and deer meat, no ?

I like some things about the intial post, and will come back to it when I have a bit more time.

as a resource, yes. but the quote was about "renewable" resource "replanting". without "replanting" quantifiable resources will not be a workable idea. one may think of it as transporting a herd, other may think of it as transporting the deer's DNA. it is as important as how may square km is a tile? gamewise some resources can be "replanted" at a different location(tile) if the criteria are met.

What Hail said. The idea was for the complete relocation of a resource tile, not the internal movement of an already cultivated resource itself.

 

[Hail]

Good question. If the unit dies, that's that. That's the same as what happened in medieval times when slaves were effectively "rented" out. Likewise in modern times when a country "lends" units to the UN, or some other multinational task force. Dead = dead in anyone's language. (So generally only surplus troops would be agreed upon as being mercenary-rents). If they are bribed, then the calculation should be a mix of the owner-civ (primary) and the renter-civ (secondary), and also the civ trying to bribe them.
I don't see it as too complex... it also adds several new dimensions to the game which make for potentially rich game play.
Having no knowledge of colonization, I don't comprehend... I'm not saying it would necessarily fit within the current structure --- just the way I think it should be.

play colonization. better the original, than the civ4:colonization. highly original. you will get new ideas from it. trust me.