Yea... I agree that having immediate access to resource should allow for cheaper costs, or something like that

Because it's totally realistic that nails created in one city can only be used in that city, right?

"Materials" are generic building materials. Things like lumber, nails, and so on. A workshop provides those materials (and once you can create one, a mill on a forest tile produces a lot more). It's totally realistic that you can move these materials from one city to another in order to build things. That's pretty much how EVERYTHING in a real city is built.

The traditional TBS mindset of every city having production that is totally isolated from every other city doesn't really exist in Elemental. And really, how realistic is a model where one city can build a grainary twice as fast as another city because there happens to be a hill nearby? That's how the Civ model works, and it doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense at all.

If the "Global Resource" transportation issue takes into account that build times include the required movement of said materials from a "have" town to a "have not" Town, via Caravan, than it is not that big a stretch to imagine it working as in reality.

When was the last time you waited for the Grocery truck to get to your Market to supply you the Oranges you bought? We take for granted that someone else, "the great unseen one" is taking care of that as it is in their best interest to do so.

That way, if I have nails from a workshop in City B and ask for a structure in City C that does not have a workshop, simply add a "+ time needed" to transport said nails to City C from the workshop in City B. One could even say that I knew I would need nails in City C as soon as I created it, thus had "nails" added to the materials list on the very next Caravan heading to City C. Pretty smart thinking eh!

As long as the Workshop "has" to exist and it's materials are required to build whatever I asked for. Next up is do I actually have the required store of "materials" or do I have to wait for more to be generated from the workshop?

It seems prudent, at this point anyways, to see if we can "nail" down, pun intended btw, how long a TURN actually is. It is rumored to be about 3 months?

If the math done for that was based on the age of a SOV, after some many turns I am still a tad skeptical...

Wow John, i think you nailed it (pun not intended, but it worked).

That adds realism and simplicity (fun) to the Global resource network.  It could work the same way with food

if (town.hasFood() ) // checks to see towns food production meets need (current population + next turn)

useLocal(food) //returns count of food -- > 50

else

UseGlobal(food) //returns count of food + overhead for transport -- > 50 + 1 gold

now with resources

if (town.hasResources() )  //checks to see if town is currently making enough resources to build project

useLocal(resources) // returns time to complete project --> 5 turns

else

UseGolbal(resources) // returns time to complete project + time for transport --> 5+ 2 turns

I still think local pop needs to be factored into build time.

Well, I don't see how food can be "used faster" in the current build, but I see what you mean by artificially adding to the build time via factoring distance from the "Wheel" to the nearest hub.

I would just prefer making things more expensive for being farther away, but taking longer also works.

Agreed with tormy.

I perfer Longer.

First of all, the "local resources" model people on the forums keep asking for and what existed in 1G aren't even remotely the same thing. 1G didn't require resources at all, they provided a speed boost, and they provided that speed boost to connected places. It wasn't particularly "local", and there wasn't any stockpiling or limits, or even requirements.

There's several pages in two threads about what makes the new system better then the old system.

You must not have been around during the first economics discussion. It was a lot longer then this one and the forum was overwhelmingly in favor of what we call "camp 1", which was a system complicated enough to be at home in Capitalism 2 (at least until "camp 3" presented something similar with less micro). 1G was actually closer to "camp 2", which at the time was complained about endlessly.

TBH, the second beta 2 hits this discussion will end, if not before. There's just nothing else to talk about right now, so people are back to beating the complexity for the sake of complexity drum. What I've really yet to see is an explanation of what the local resource model actually adds in gameplay that the 1Z system can't do (aside from extra micro). We've already got the ability to blockade, we've got resource scarcity if the numbers are tweaked right, we've got rare resources, we've got pretty good trade options. The only thing we don't have is that I don't have to care if the iron is in Toronto or Detroit... and being that I'm a wizard king, can't I hire someone to sort that stuff out for me? I've got more important decisions to make.

This is disingenious. 1G did have requirements, they were just giving a single resource by default. If this is really your problem, all you have to do is lobby for a resource to be set to 0. I actually liked the system because it reflected that you could in fact get things on an open market in a very small amount. Also, how many fans do you know of the Civ4 global resources where if you don't have oil you might as well quit?

I've not really seen any supporting elements for global resources, I've seen a lot of people talk around it by talking about speed, resource limits, or detroit. Lets have a real discussion about global vs. local resources like the old discussion.


"Consider this, I never saw that many complaints about your economic model in 1G or earlier just some of the specific content implementations."

I see you're not about to deal with the question either. Where are the complaints about the old model?

Second, you might want to re-read that old thread. I was for camp 3.

Third, lets revisit that thread again because this "global resources" is completely against everything that was argued for back then. Honestly it seems like right now Stardock is giving a "fans be d***ed" approach to what people have asked for with economics. Obviously they think it is a great idea, but they don't seem to be selling a lot of us on it.

What are you willing to bet on that statement? Will you support them going to a different system if it doesn't?

I'll give you two big ones:

#1) Tactical decisions regarding city placement. Having a choice that matter makes you care. This is what strategy games are about.

#2) Better immersion through more realistic gameplay. P.S. A good reality model doesn't necessarily have to be super complex. I have at no point argued for a "complex" model whether in the old economy discussion or this one. I've always wanted a realistic one that offers meaningful choices.

This is a great argument AGAINST the global resources, because it isn't adding any of these things that we didn't already have.

One of the big elements of the 1Z system that I think you are missing is the effectiveness of seiges and pillaging in the new system. Sure destroying a road will only get rid of their % bonus, but to have a city outisde their city walls cuts off all non-self sufficient function.

On a different note, people mentioned allowing global resources as long as using those resources increased the time needed to build the new structure. Well, I will propose that the speed such resources can travel would be 10 tiles in one turn. So the amount of tiles you are away from the nearest Resource Hub, divide by 10, and add that number of turns to the production. If less then one, its unaffected. This is the distance between the nearest building of City Wheel A and the nearest building of City Wheel B. From City Wall to City Wall (minimum distance) so expanding city size can decrease this distance.

Anyways, anything greater than 1 extra turn per 10 tiles away would (to me) seem overly silly, I would dare-say 10 tiles isn't even an arbitrary number. It seems to me to be the average distance between cities of a steadily expanding empire. If I said 20 tiles, it would be so weak a mechanic as to be laughable, and if I said 5 tiles, The time penalty would almost ALWAYS come into effect.

However, with 10 tiles, nearby cities can supply you well, and colonies take extra time to build things. Seems fair to me. You??

(taking 10 turns for a caravan to reach another city is like Marco Polo taking 4 years to reach China instead of 4 months)

Lets try this a different way.

Frogboy, do you remember why you got rid of all those mana bars that we had in an earlier version of EWOM beta? Supposedly the overwhelming consensus was that people didn't want to deal with a handful of mana banks for casting spells.

Well now it has been replaced with resource banks that are EXACTLY the same. Instead of keep track of 1-5 mana banks. I'm keep track of 1 mana bank and what looks like 8+ resources.

If 5 mana banks were a bad idea (which I agree they were), how is having all these resources banks somehow a good idea?

I'm trying to see either the logic or the fun and failing to do either.

Hold on a second. If some wish to be in the forest picking wild flowers and ignoring the trees, then they to cannot be shown.

There has been a fundamental shift in E:WoM resource model. I assume everyone can agree that to be a truth.

Just because some folks prefer it that way does not permit "attitude" to step in and simply ignore the views of those who still aren't convinced.

If everyone isn't open to the views of others, as we hope the Dev are, and seem to be, for example, then just close the Forums, deploy the patches with changes as the few see fit, and hope to hell the final product sells enough copies to be profitable.

Thankfully, today is Thursday. Hopefully we will not get another "Not this Week" post from the Team. And wee will indeed see where things stand.

Personally, I want to hear more about the new Road Model that got mentioned in the 1Z Walk Through thread. But will have to wait until Beta 3 for that.

Tasunke's not dismissing his point of view, he's saying they disagree and it's become obvious to him there's nothing he can do to change his mind...  More or less, agree to disagree, or at least that's how it read to me.

Personally, I've gotta agree with Tasunke on this one.  Haven't played yet, but the way it's handled now does seem like it's working better, particularly for the people actually playing it.  There are bound to be people who don't like the system, as you can't please everyone, but it looks solid to me.

Who I'm really gonna agree with though, is you John...  Puh-lease let it come out today!  The wait is killin' me!