growing trees / trading

[raymond]

If a tree is cut down, it is possible that a new tree can grow anywhere? In some maps there are only a few trees on the map.

Another Tread: http://www.wildfireg...showtopic=16479

So I hope there are some people for re-growing trees, because in the late game it is the one only renewable resource. And: in the late game tradings rate is very expensive (e.g. 100 food for 10 wood) if you trade a lot.

Edited December 18, 2012 by raymond

[leper]

That is not trade you're talking about, that is barter. Trade is using traders or merchant ships to generate resources. Yes, you can trade with your own markets.

As for regrowing trees: I think there is another topic (maybe titled 'Renewable Resource') and the decision was that we're not going to implement them as there is no real benefit as we already have trade.

[raymond]

Barter with own markets? So if you have two markets you can send traders to your other market? It doesn't make sense.

[leper]

Barter is the exchange of resources in the market (the buttons on the left).

Trade is the generation of resources by traders when moving back and forth between two markets.

[raymond]

Barter is the exchange of resources in the market (the buttons on the left).

Yes I know

Trade is the generation of resources by traders when moving back and forth between two markets.

But why is it possible to trade with itself?

I think it is better to deactivate the possibility to trade with itself and instead enable re-growing trees.

Edited December 18, 2012 by raymond

[leper]

Found it!

I suggest you read quantumstates post on the last page.

As to trading with youself: Imagine a huge empire without trade...

[FeXoR]

Ah, just to say it: It is historically (and actually) incorrect that trading generates resources. Gathering stuff and forming stuff to more complex stuff (and inventing new even more complex stuff) raises the total amount of "value" compared to the time before (but not resources and even lowers the amount of gold, that goes to the trader). Trading only raises the variety of stuff available in the trade partners societies (and grands the trader itself wealth). That might be seen as a higher value for the quality of living but it doesn't raise the amount of resources in any of the trade partners economy or globally.

Edited December 20, 2012 by FeXoR

[Kimball]

Ah, just to say it: It is historically (and actually) incorrect that trading generates resources. Gathering stuff and forming stuff to more complex stuff (and inventing new even more complex stuff) raises the total amount of "value" compared to the time before (but not resources and even lowers the amount of gold, that goes to the trader). Trading only raises the variety of stuff available in the trade partners societies (and grands the trader itself wealth). That might be seen as a higher value for the quality of living but it doesn't raise the amount of resources in any of the trade partners economy or globally.

Not everything is designed to represent real life. It's just a game mechanic that allows you to collect more resources.

[Yves]

Ah, just to say it: It is historically (and actually) incorrect that trading generates resources.

I think that it basically makes sense even though it's a bit simplified.

Imagine you lived in village A with a lot of wood but very little stone. You'd bring some wood to village B far away which has too much stone but very little wood. They'd give you some stone in exchange for wood which you exchanged for wood again in another village © which is close to village A and also requires wood. After that you bring the wood back to village A.

You were a bad trader if you wouldn't have more wood in the end .

In this example you essentially just increased the amout of wood from village A's perspective even though there's still the same amount of wood "in the world".

[sanderd17]

Next to growing trees, there could also be a possibility to "recycle garbage".

When you break down a building, you could quickly demolish it (deleting all resources) like it is the case currently, or you could let it recycle, and recuperate a certain amount of the resources. I'm thinking about 80% of metal, 50% of stone and 20% of wood. It follows a bit the real-life recycling. Metal can always be melted again, stone and wood can only be re-used if they're not broken. And wood is more likely to break than stone.

Of course, recycling costs time and (wo)men power.

Maybe you could even have the option to recycle enemy buildings that aren't dangerous.

[longtomjr]

Trees that Grow: mabe make a Plantaition Building that have a unit running arroud planting trees or mabe assing a worker to a "forest Area" to plant trees... Then They grow and can only be chopped of on full groth

[Pedro Falcão]

Are there any records of ancient civs planting trees to chop years later?

[dvangennip]

Maybe you could even have the option to recycle enemy buildings that aren't dangerous.

I believe destroying some buildings already gives loot, thus a set amount of resources. This is at least the case for units.

Are there any records of ancient civs planting trees to chop years later?

Based on the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, which deals with the collapse of societies from an environmental perspective, I'd say hardly any society did that. Some were better at establishing limits for themselves, so forests would stay intact (i.e., not chop everything now). The Japanese did start active forest management hundreds of years ago, thanks to a relatively centralised government (which is why Japan still has a large percentage of land as forest, despite the huge population). I cannot remember any remarks in that book about earlier civs doing so, but then again, it focused on those civs that fared worst

[longtomjr]

Are there any records of ancient civs planting trees to chop years later?

I dont know but I saw it in some settlers game... LOL... I dont think there will be any record... but anyways