Discuss about the resources here.
But if you wish to talk about their location on the Worlmap please do it in the World map section.

You should add cocaine as a resource. It is a primary source of income for many countries. Particularly in South America.

WarKirby

Cocaine ? How bout Weed ? Its main income of ALL countries in World :)

Coca itself is pretty benign, giving some benefits in altitude and for quelling hunger/fatigue, and containing some important nutritional benefits. It is only thanks to a process that relies on potent chemicals and a disposable labour force that makes cocaine proper, and it has only been around for about 100 years.

http://www.cocamuseum.com/main.htm

Or how about the opium poppy in Afganistan or China? It's probably had more impact in history, provoking full scale war, but today is both sold on the streets as heroin and purified for medicinal use.

A similar (tho slightly less negative connotation) case could be made for quinine made from tree bark in India, and possibly a national wonder for penicillin or aspirin?

But I think that this could add to a problem I have already; by late-game there are already so many resources, they almost need modifying so that rather than a straight cumulative effect the addition of each new resource to a civ improves heath/happiness/wealth by a smaller and smaller amount.

Weed or actually hemp is already in the game. ;)

regarding resources, indeed there are thought in the modding communiy to restrict the effects of resources to the population. One source of lemon won't give happiness to all cities etc but maybe the 3 biggest cities. that will solve the lategame issues with having too many effects from resources.

On the thought of restricting resources... would probably make sense to have resources stack because you can only make so much from one area... that way, if you have 2 lemons, it's not like you only get 3 cities with +lemon effects. If you wanted to get silly with the coding, you could vary how large the resource actually is and say "Lemon (50)" where it covers 50 population points... and towards the endgame, that's not too many cities.
Doing it that way would also make it interesting because everyone would likely be fighting over the larger resource pools. If you could find some way to do this for mineral resources without messing it up, it would get interesting... I mean, everyone fighting over the largest oil deposits so they can support their armies... :)

THAT is a brilliant idea. Resources only supply a certain percentage of the population.

Is this possible?

WarKirby

Bleh, I ended up writing a reeeally long post about this, but it ended up being too long and disjointed. When I get back from work, I'll rewrite it so my justifications for everything doesn't break things up. My main concern with what I'm going to post is that it might be too CPU intensive and might not add enough to the game to justify the expense.

More or less I went with:
Each resource has a set value of some sort (be it population, etc) ... which creates problems, and I explored some possible solutions to this via distribution methods... and tried to rate them on realism level, how hard it would be probably to code it, and how much memory/cpu it would take to grind it.

storm6436

Well you gave me a good idea. Lets say 1 source of Iron allows you to use it in 2 or cities. For instance, if you have 5 cities and one source of iron and want to train swordsman, you can do it only in 2 cities as there is not enought iron mines to supple all cities.

As fir resources, can you add Silicon, led (required for late gunpowder units), calcium (+health), prostitutes (+10% income in all cities :P), Metan (CH4), boars.

Gems are a bit harder. I want them to stay as 1 resource on but, after resarching metal casting, split them into Shaphires, Rubbies, Emeralds, Topazes and Amethysts. So i source of gems give you 5 happines, and also 5 trade resources.(still 1 resource on map)

We dont have monkeys !!!

Ok, internet ate my last post so here's a quick wrap of what I was thinking. Also, just talked to my brother, so I'm modding my suggestions as some of them (like the resource scarcity via deposit strength/quality) do not seem to be feasible at this time.

Non-perishable resources (anything not food-based), we can't justify limiting their distribution based solely distance from a city, after all, they can't go bad. We also can't designate how much is available, so it's probably easiest to just let them be global as they are now. Metal types, it would be nice to have a set amount per deposit you can use... ie. 1 iron = say, 3 cities making iron based units, with additions to certain techs, like engineering, that increase the number of cities per deposit.

As for perishables, it would make sense to limit them based on how long they'd last + how far you could get them. For a complex system, you could limit it as follows (or similarly):


In city cross: that city only
Owning horses would give you a 3 square distance from resources for the city to benefit, so you can at least get the +health, +happy, +whatever for that resource just out of reach. Don't know how easy this would be to code out (more later)

A Road connecting to it to the rest of the nation or the closest city (that kinda deal), max range would be 3-5 squares in any direction (3 if no horsies, 5 if horsies). Any farther, and it has spoiled before it gets there.

Invention of car-type vehicles makes the base road rate hit 10 squares. A railroad would make it 15, and aircraft (not blimps) would make it 25. Refrigeration should double the distance of whatever mode of transport is being used.

Concerning difficulty of coding, an interview I read with one of the firaxis devs stated something about at any given time, the pathfinding engine is eating 15-20% of your CPU... well, the "Distance to X" function ties into the pathfinding engine... and even if we could come up with the code to impliment this, I'm not sure we should, given the fact that large maps bog down enough as it is...
instead, I think a more realistic perspective would probably be something like giving a big +food to all the grain specials for having railroads, and decent +food to grassland/plains types with railroads... and a significant increase to food production with refrigeration. It would be a lot easier and less time consuming to work in an approximation that fits within the boundries of the game instead of eating resources not everyone here has.

I have a question about gold. Is it supposed to give -1 hammer when you mine it? (At least thats what civilopedia says.) I have the chinese and I built a mine on top of a plains/hills tile with gold. Now, according to civilopedia, that should give me 6 hammers. (2 from plains/hill, 2 from the mine, 1 from the gold and 1 for having chinese.) Instead, I get 4 hammers from that tile. The adjacent tile that is plains/hills too, gives me 5 hammers when I mine it.

@Houman

After some prodding from our favorite Froggie; I have decided to ask if we could include timber (wood) as an actual resource. Having helped out on Civ3 TAM mod, and to a lesser extent the Civ4 TAM mod, I must say that the timber resource makes for a lot of contested borders and plenty of friction between civs. In TAM (The Ancient Mediterranean mod) all early warships (Bireme, Trireme) require timber as a resource prior to being able to build these ships. Froggie reminded me of the cedars of Lebanon and how all of the African (Egypt, Nubia, Carthage) and Asiatic (Babylon, Persia, Medea, Lydia, the Hittites) fought for hegemony over this region because the cedar trees in Lebanon (Phonecia) were perfect for ship building and also for the construction of large wood structures. So no timber no early navies; or if you can produce ships they should be qualitatively inferior to those ships constructed with superior wood. This would definitely increase conflict between states during the early and mid games right into the Age of Sail...I know this would be too much to add to the first Warlords conversion...so how about in an ensuing update...:) Blame Hian he cannot stand to see your hands idle, lol. :mischief:

@Houman

After some prodding from our favorite Froggie; I have decided to ask if we could include timber (wood) as an actual resource. Having helped out on Civ3 TAM mod, and to a lesser extent the Civ4 TAM mod, I must say that the timber resource makes for a lot of contested borders and plenty of friction between civs. In TAM (The Ancient Mediterranean mod) all early warships (Bireme, Trireme) require timber as a resource prior to being able to build these ships. Froggie reminded me of the cedars of Lebanon and how all of the African (Egypt, Nubia, Carthage) and Asiatic (Babylon, Persia, Medea, Lydia, the Hittites) fought for hegemony over this region because the cedar trees in Lebanon (Phonecia) were perfect for ship building and also for the construction of large wood structures. So no timber no early navies; or if you can produce ships they should be qualitatively inferior to those ships constructed with superior wood. This would definitely increase conflict between states during the early and mid games right into the Age of Sail...I know this would be too much to add to the first Warlords conversion...so how about in an ensuing update...:) Blame Hian he cannot stand to see your hands idle, lol. :mischief:

:lol: :lol:

yea i like the timber idea and the idea for units with certain resources should be stronger then the same units without a certain resource. maybe this could apply with other units as well?:mischief:

Timber. how could I fail to notice that.

Agreed. It should be required for

Trireme
Galley
Caravel
Galleon
Frigate
Vaisseau de Ligne
Catapult
Trebuchet
Longbowman
SpearmanAnd obviously should be harvested from any square of forest or jungle.

WarKirby

Timber. how could I fail to notice that.

Agreed. It should be required for

Trireme
Galley
Caravel
Galleon
Frigate
Vaisseau de Ligne
Catapult
Trebuchet
Longbowman
SpearmanAnd obviously should be harvested from any square of forest or jungle.

WarKirby

WarKirby,

Right about boats and siege units. Disagree for longbowman and spearman.

Nevertheless, a Timber ressource could and would be added. No naval power unless you have timber ressource, it's sure. In France it was our Prime Minister Colbert (under Louis XIV) that order the built of our " timber camps". The goal was to be free from foreign countries and costly importations to built our war navy (used to fight the Dutches, Spanishes, Portugueses and Englishes,....no more ,no less).

Tmber ressource could be find in forests and jungles. A kind of camp as improvement should be built to "harvest" this ressource. I really like this strategic ressource, timber was very important in naval construction until the end of the XIX century.

The Frog.

why not longbows and spearmen? They were made from wood too.

WarKirby

why not longbows and spearmen? They were made from wood too.

WarKirby

@ WarKirby,

Right, there was also wood in their weapons. But i don't think we can compare the quantity of wood needed to buit a boat and a bow. Furthemore, some units need to be built without strategic ressource. I let you imagine a gameplay where you have no iron, no copper, no timber,... what units can you build ? warriors... hypatists... Archer units must stay units that can be built with no ressource, as spearman, IMO.

@ All,
In our mind, Timber is THE strategic ressource nedeed to built a war navy.
Ankenaton and i wish is to have Timber used as:
- lower the cost of war navy (double production speed)
and/or
- increase the strenght value of wooden boat by one or free combat I (+10% strenght) promo.

Some other ideas we suggest:
- adding a building: carpentry (if i'm right in english) that gives +10% shield production for exemple.
- double production speed : port, harbor for exemple

The Frog.

timber should be required for boats, not just speed them up.

And forests are everywhere in just about every game, getting some for archers/spearmen would never be a problem.

WarKirby

timber should be required for boats, not just speed them up.

And forests are everywhere in just about every game, getting some for archers/spearmen would never be a problem.

WarKirby

WarKirby,

Not easy for a non english native to weel explain this idea.
We don't want to forbid the built of boats for those who don't have Timber. It would too much to forbid. Imagine a gameplay on an island type map, only those with timber would be allowed to cross the seas. No, it's too powerfull.

We rather prefer giving bonuses. Egyptian navy was made of usual wood most of the time, but they tried as most as possible to build these boats with Cedars of Lebanon because of their very high qualities. Even today, these cedars are high prized. Bonuses of production, combat value, free promo,...all can be done. We just have to chose what is the best one, what is the more realistic, what is the more balanced,....

Furthemore, some precious woods are still highly prized today. So the idea of a carpenter, or the bonus production.

Think about this, please. Try to find a balanced use for Timber. Imagine a game where you can't have access to timber, and the same with one ressource. What could change in your gamplay ? Will you lose if you don't have access to a timber ? and so on...

Thx.

The Frog.

The chances of someone being stranded without forest or jungle are very small, and those that are unlucky enough, why should they be able to build boats.

It's the sam e with iron and bronze. Certain ubits cannot be built without them. Why should a civ be allowed to build something that it physically cannot? This is a realism mod. And sometimes reality sucks

WarKirby

WarKirby,

Not easy for a non english native to weel explain this idea.
We don't want to forbid the built of boats for those who don't have Timber. It would too much to forbid. Imagine a gameplay on an island type map, only those with timber would be allowed to cross the seas. No, it's too powerfull.

We rather prefer giving bonuses. Egyptian navy was made of usual wood most of the time, but they tried as most as possible to build these boats with Cedars of Lebanon because of their very high qualities. Even today, these cedars are high prized. Bonuses of production, combat value, free promo,...all can be done. We just have to chose what is the best one, what is the more realistic, what is the more balanced,....

Furthemore, some precious woods are still highly prized today. So the idea of a carpenter, or the bonus production.

Think about this, please. Try to find a balanced use for Timber. Imagine a game where you can't have access to timber, and the same with one ressource. What could change in your gamplay ? Will you lose if you don't have access to a timber ? and so on...

Thx.

The Frog.
What we are trying to do with this resource is to a) increase strife amongst nations (lol always a laudable goal) b) reward those nations with access to superior timber (cedars of Lebanon is one example, along with other hardwoods); thus allowing them to build superior ships of the line. This would give the player the added incentive of securing this resource and to prevent its falling into the hands of an opponent. For the most part nations were able to build adequate siege equipment, spears with the wood available to them. It is just that cedar and other hardwoods can give a strategic advantage to those nations who follow the naval pathway to dominance. :)

too many resourcs cloud map, restrict trading, with say saltpeter, there now must be at least a certain amount on a map inorder to make it reasonable. Having 10 saltpeters on a map for 18 civs makes it unbalancing.

The ai and i am sure humans for the most part wont trade a resource that they have one of. By having soo many resources that require improvements results in making it difficult to trade.

I think maybe this should be considered for adding new resources.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179993

for certain units, not having a resoruce could just make it weaker. This can be a good idea to some units. Say timber, if you dont have access to timber your ships are just weaker. (historically other types of "inferior" wood would have been used) however some units this cant apply to are oil based units. If you dont have oil you cant build tanks,etc... period, no exceptions.

too many resourcs cloud map, restrict trading, with say saltpeter, there now must be at least a certain amount on a map inorder to make it reasonable. Having 10 saltpeters on a map for 18 civs makes it unbalancing.

The ai and i am sure humans for the most part wont trade a resource that they have one of. By having soo many resources that require improvements results in making it difficult to trade.

I think maybe this should be considered for adding new resources.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179993

for certain units, not having a resoruce could just make it weaker. This can be a good idea to some units. Say timber, if you dont have access to timber your ships are just weaker. (historically other types of "inferior" wood would have been used) however some units this cant apply to are oil based units. If you dont have oil you cant build tanks,etc... period, no exceptions.

Spartan117,

I agree with you about Salpeter. It's a "true" pre requisite ressource. No salpeter, no gunpower units ! Too powerfull IMO. It's the same problem with Oil in fact... Some units with no ressource pre requisite, with lesser strenght or higher cost for exemple, should be added. ( as the Hyspatist for the "copper" period.)

With Timber, we don't want to forbid the built of boats. We want to give boats built with such high quality woods a bonus. (strenght, promos,...nothing is yet decided) Wood/timber is a very common ressource, so why making this ressource a pre requisite to boat building ? It would be not logical. On the other hand, high quality woods were always researched to give some "bonus" to boats building. Even if adding a new ressource may cloud the map, i agree with you, Timber must be added IMO.Why ? From the beginning of human history to our days, Timber was/is always used as a major ressource. It's less important today that it was in the past, of course, but it is still very common to use wood as raw material. You are American if i'm right. How many of your houses are still built in wood in your country ? In Europe, we use stones and concrete, even in our countriside, but in USA you are more prone to use timber. Right ? In Far East countries (China, Japan,...) Timber was also a very important ressource. The Japanese Mikado Palace is a wooden one....
We hope to add this ressource to be closer to our common history and to add more taste to the mod (wich had already a very good one). But we don't want to "unbalance" it. Adding Timber is not revolutionnary, only more realistic. Furthemore, if well look at the world history, only civs with a great amount of quality timber (either by purchasing it or "harvesting" it) had built powerfull war fleets.

I hope that,now, you well understand our wish, Spartan.

The Frog.

Yea i know, but i like the timber idea. Without timber your wooden ships are weaker makes sense.

I was speaking in general that adding many resoruces stifles trading between civilizations. Now the map has to be filled with a sufficient amount of a certain resource inorder to trade it. When the ai only has 1 resource of a particular type. Say cotton. Then wont trade it. By adding sooo many different types of resources, there will be less room for the abundance of other resources. I.E. by adding 10 (enter the new resource here) of resources(should be likely more) to the game, that takes up 10 land plots. (i rather have those plots for resoruces in the game so that trading can occur)With there only being 10 resources, it is not likely for trading to occur. A civ must have a few resources by themselves inorder for the ai to trade it.

Think of the horror, every plot filled with a resource.:lol:
Maybe if the map was bigger sure, that would easily solve it.

There is a number of resources that arent included in the game but should be. I like rubber as a resource also. Without rubber no tires and numerous amounts of goods. The US had a problem during WW2 and rubber. US was lacking rubber and were actually trying to create a new type of chemical to simulate rubber. Ineteresting it ended up as the material, "silly puddy". That was a bit offtopic but interesting nevertheless.:D

I am mexican but live in america.:D My house is built from concrete, thank you very much....:lol: :lol: :lol: You ever heard of the 3 little pigs?:lol: :lol:

Yea i know, but i like the timber idea. Without timber your wooden ships are weaker makes sense.

I was speaking in general that adding many resoruces stifles trading between civilizations. Now the map has to be filled with a sufficient amount of a certain resource inorder to trade it. When the ai only has 1 resource of a particular type. Say cotton. Then wont trade it. By adding sooo many different types of resources, there will be less room for the abundance of other resources. I.E. by adding 10 (enter the new resource here) of resources(should be likely more) to the game, that takes up 10 land plots. (i rather have those plots for resoruces in the game so that trading can occur)With there only being 10 resources, it is not likely for trading to occur. A civ must have a few resources by themselves inorder for the ai to trade it.

Think of the horror, every plot filled with a resource.:lol:
Maybe if the map was bigger sure, that would easily solve it.

There is a number of resources that arent included in the game but should be. I like rubber as a resource also. Without rubber no tires and numerous amounts of goods. The US had a problem during WW2 and rubber. US was lacking rubber and were actually trying to create a new type of chemical to simulate rubber. Ineteresting it ended up as the material, "silly puddy". That was a bit offtopic but interesting nevertheless.:D

I am mexican but live in america.:D My house is built from concrete, thank you very much....:lol: :lol: :lol: You ever heard of the 3 little pigs?:lol: :lol:

Spartan,

I know about the 3 little pigs ;) . Are you the wolf ? ;) or one of the three ? ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just want to say that some country are more prone to still use Timber as raw material than us in Europe. It was not an insult. To be as clear as possible, we only began to (re) built wooden houses in France....with American "technologies and knowledge". It's less costly, ecological,..... It's only a "problem" of habits. We built in stone since the middle age, then in concrete when it was created,.... Only now we began to use Timber. Strange, isn't it ? :crazyeye:

You are also right about rubber and the problem of " every plot filled with ressource". Timber should be enough common to allow each civ to have access to one ressource, but should be found by pack. So, trading it would then be necessary if you don't have access to....

The Frog.

Spartan,

I know about the 3 little pigs ;) . Are you the wolf ? ;) or one of the three ? ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just want to say that some country are more prone to still use Timber as raw material than us in Europe. It was not an insult. To be as clear as possible, we only began to (re) built wooden houses in France....with American "technologies and knowledge". It's less costly, ecological,..... It's only a "problem" of habits. We built in stone since the middle age, then in concrete when it was created,.... Only now we began to use Timber. Strange, isn't it ? :crazyeye:

You are also right about rubber and the problem of " every plot filled with ressource". Timber should be enough common to allow each civ to have access to one ressource, but should be found by pack. So, trading it would then be necessary if you don't have access to....

The Frog.

No worries.

I was just messing around to begin with, i didnt take it as an insult at all. :D :crazyeye:

I like a pack idea. One resource on tile can amount to a certain amount of resource. Say even 2 or so, so trading can occur more. If you have 3 improvements that are harvesting cotton, this could be enough to trade to 5 other civs or something. This would solve problems with limits in trading due to the lack of similiar resources that are available. But maybe someone could take this idea a step further and actually think it completely through, as i am just coming up with a "quick fix solution" off the back of my head(or as the saying goes).:D

I am the little piggy who just slept under the tree, he wasnt mentioned cause he didnt bother building a house like the others.:lol: Imagine making a house of straw, what a time waster.:lol:

If I remember some of my history correctly, didn't the Brits go after certain colonies because of the high quality woods they could recover (steal, heh) from the native populations? :mischief: Thus ensuring that their navy retained a significant edge on the high seas.

If I remember some of my history correctly, didn't the Brits go after certain colonies because of the high quality woods they could recover (steal, heh) from the native populations? :mischief: Thus ensuring that their navy retained a significant edge on the high seas.

Ankenaton,

Right. England is very poor in high quality timber. They had to buy most of their timber in Sweden and/or Denmark (which include Norway at that time). It was costly and dangerous, Sweden was very close to France during the Renaissance.
Nevertheless, most European countries (France included) built colonies to be free from importations. They stole (there is no more adapted word) many to the natives, even their lifes.
This week-end, i will try to make a sum-up of our ideas, and all the comments, about Timber.

The Frog

Timber should make people happy :)
Lighting a fire whith high quality wood, cant beat it :D


It shole make naval units stronger. I dont know if a resource can give some promotion. To change this, adding a new building that requires timber to build and gives +3 expirance points to timber using units.

QUOTE: To change this, adding a new building that requires timber to build and gives +3 expirance points to timber using units.

I like the idea. One small problem might be: You build the building and then trading the wood-ressource away ... your building is still here.

But at all, a simple expirence bonus is nice. And easy to implement.

-------------

@Storm:

The pathfinding in Civ4 is much more complex then to calculate simply the distance of two titles.
If u want to learn something about game-pathfinding, the keyword is A*-Algorithm.
In Civ4 the pathfinding doesn't take simply the shortest way. The algo take the way with good defence (forrest prefert), roads are faster, ... If u visualize the landscape with the diffrent speeds for units (slower in wood, faster on roads, etc.) the land isn't that flat. It is a "complex" structur. That make the pathfinding time consuming. I estimate the algo may take around 30-100 steps for a 10 title long path. In every step the algo has to calculate something - maybe every step the distance.
So a simple distance calculation from a ressource to see if a city is inside the radius, doesn't need CPU time in a large scale. And we can store the result for the cities until a ressource changed ... But - after all - i don't think this is easy to include.

After all the pathfinding algorithm of civ4 is quiet fast! You can hold your right mouse button down and u get without big delay the shortest way.
I think the 15% of CPU for pathfinding refers to the Time the AI need for the Computer-Players. And yeah, this seems much, but it is normal. Pathfinding has some quiet nasty operations (getting the distance between two points needs division/radical).

Right Exterior... But what if you dont have timber, this building dont give you bonuses ? Like it is done whith Coal Plant. You need coal to build it, but when you loose coal (trade, loose mine), coal mine still exists, but gives no polution nor bonus to production. At least it was this way in Civ III. Havent chacked it in Civ IV.

QUOTE: To change this, adding a new building that requires timber to build and gives +3 expirance points to timber using units.

I like the idea. One small problem might be: You build the building and then trading the wood-ressource away ... your building is still here.

But at all, a simple expirence bonus is nice. And easy to implement.

-------------

@Storm:

The pathfinding in Civ4 is much more complex then to calculate simply the distance of two titles.
If u want to learn something about game-pathfinding, the keyword is A*-Algorithm.
In Civ4 the pathfinding doesn't take simply the shortest way. The algo take the way with good defence (forrest prefert), roads are faster, ... If u visualize the landscape with the diffrent speeds for units (slower in wood, faster on roads, etc.) the land isn't that flat. It is a "complex" structur. That make the pathfinding time consuming. I estimate the algo may take around 30-100 steps for a 10 title long path. In every step the algo has to calculate something - maybe every step the distance.
So a simple distance calculation from a ressource to see if a city is inside the radius, doesn't need CPU time in a large scale. And we can store the result for the cities until a ressource changed ... But - after all - i don't think this is easy to include.

After all the pathfinding algorithm of civ4 is quiet fast! You can hold your right mouse button down and u get without big delay the shortest way.
I think the 15% of CPU for pathfinding refers to the Time the AI need for the Computer-Players. And yeah, this seems much, but it is normal. Pathfinding has some quiet nasty operations (getting the distance between two points needs division/radical).
Also an additional movement bonus of +1 would be nice in that it would simulate higher stress/failure ratios than would be found in lower quality woods, thus allowing an "experienced crew" to sail faster/farther knowing that their ship could withstand the additional stress. Let me know what you guys think about this point. The extra experience points sounds good.

How about units made of high quality wood recieve 20-30% more experience after fights?

WarKirby

How about units made of high quality wood recieve 20-30% more experience after fights?

WarKirby

Hi man,

I disagree. English boats of the Napoleonic wars, for exemple, were worst than those built by the French. But their crew were ABSOLUTLY the best since a century and a half ( They can shoot four to five times whereas the French shoot two times and the Spanish one time at Trafalgar !!!) . They won because of very well trained crew, good admirals also of course but their boats were at best of medium quality. They usually tried to "stole" the French built after a victorious battle, as Trafalgar.
So, no about giving them 20-30 % more experience after a fight.

Giving them a bonus of + X xps is a good solution, but i prefer a specific promo. Defense I seems good IMO because it could represent the ability of the boat to resist to more stress, attacks,.... due to the superior quality of Timber used during the built. Last solution is +1 mvt point, but i think it's not the best one. It can destroy the unique ability of the Viking to travel faster than other civs....

The Frog.

Destroy the unique ability? If vikings has timber ... wow ... the first rocket ship :)

Only a bonus to defence seems ... not right. A good "armored" ship is also good at attacking, because it can stand more damage. The diffrent between the attacker and defender on open sea is quiet small, if it exist. Only if the defending ship has the option to run away, and the attacker want to kill it at all cost, the defender is in a better position. But in Civ4 the ships are just fighting.

I suggest a simple +10% Strength and +1 Movement or +10% Strength and 10% Withdraw chance.

+25% more fighting Exps ... no ... as frog said ... :)

Destroy the unique ability? If vikings has timber ... wow ... the first rocket ship :)

Only a bonus to defence seems ... not right. A good "armored" ship is also good at attacking, because it can stand more damage. The diffrent between the attacker and defender on open sea is quiet small, if it exist. Only if the defending ship has the option to run away, and the attacker want to kill it at all cost, the defender is in a better position. But in Civ4 the ships are just fighting.

I suggest a simple +10% Strength and +1 Movement or +10% Strength and 10% Withdraw chance.

+25% more fighting Exps ... no ... as frog said ... :)

Right. Why not free combat I promo instead of Defense I ? But no bonus of exps in fight....as i said. Flanking is an other good bonus, you are right.

The Frog.

Destroy the unique ability? If vikings has timber ... wow ... the first rocket ship :)

Only a bonus to defence seems ... not right. A good "armored" ship is also good at attacking, because it can stand more damage. The diffrent between the attacker and defender on open sea is quiet small, if it exist. Only if the defending ship has the option to run away, and the attacker want to kill it at all cost, the defender is in a better position. But in Civ4 the ships are just fighting.

I suggest a simple +10% Strength and +1 Movement or +10% Strength and 10% Withdraw chance.

+25% more fighting Exps ... no ... as frog said ... :)
I prefer the 10% strength and 10% withdrawal bonuses. They both seem like a good fit.

Hi man,

I disagree. English boats of the Napoleonic wars, for exemple, were worst than those built by the French. But their crew were ABSOLUTLY the best since a century and a half ( They can shoot four to five times whereas the French shoot two times and the Spanish one time at Trafalgar !!!) . They won because of very well trained crew, good admirals also of course but their boats were at best of medium quality. They usually tried to "stole" the French built after a victorious battle, as Trafalgar.
So, no about giving them 20-30 % more experience after a fight.

Giving them a bonus of + X xps is a good solution, but i prefer a specific promo. Defense I seems good IMO because it could represent the ability of the boat to resist to more stress, attacks,.... due to the superior quality of Timber used during the built. Last solution is +1 mvt point, but i think it's not the best one. It can destroy the unique ability of the Viking to travel faster than other civs....

The Frog.
One thing you have to hand to the Brits is that they squeezed the most out of what they had; even though they were often at a disadvantage in terms of quality and/or numbers. Also add in some good luck; and some unimaginative opposing admirals. ;)

One thing you have to hand to the Brits is that they squeezed the most out of what they had; even though they were often at a disadvantage in terms of quality and/or numbers. Also add in some good luck; and some unimaginative opposing admirals. ;)

Ankenaton,

Right. Most of the time, French admirals were VERY unimaginative ! :(
But when they got some knowledges of naval combat, it became very hard to defeat them. De Grasse, Jean Bart, Surcouf were among the admirals that the English deeply hated :D . English people always speak of the Battle of Trafalgar to (try to) upset French :mad: . It's very funny to reply that they lost USA when they were encircled by the Continental Army and defeated on sea by.....the French (Battle of the bay of Cheseapeak) :lol: . It's also funny to reply that Surcouf had blocked all trade between India and UK for many monthes with ....only 6 boats roaming and sunking all that was English in the Indian Ocean. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Meanwhile, despite a beautifull navy, Frenchmen were/are/will always stay a continental/land power. :)

The Frog.

Ankenaton,

Right. Most of the time, French admirals were VERY unimaginative ! :(
But when they got some knowledges of naval combat, it became very hard to defeat them. De Grasse, Jean Bart, Surcouf were among the admirals that the English deeply hated :D . English people always speak of the Battle of Trafalgar to (try to) upset French :mad: . It's very funny to reply that they lost USA when they were encircled by the Continental Army and defeated on sea by.....the French (Battle of the bay of Cheseapeak) :lol: . It's also funny to reply that Surcouf had blocked all trade between India and UK for many monthes with ....only 6 boats roaming and sunking all that was English in the Indian Ocean. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Meanwhile, despite a beautifull navy, Frenchmen were/are/will always stay a continental/land power. :)

The Frog.
Vive Le France! People forget all of the little battles away from the main scene. Also most Americans forget and/or never learn that without France's involvement there are no United States. :eek: :eek:

@ Ankaneton

I disagree. There will be allways "patriot" movie Mel Gibson, who will alone from woods kill tens of brits :D. + No one would ever want to have a colony over poeple, that choose for president a man who says "I.R." instead for "I'm" :lol:

Right. Why not free combat I promo instead of Defense I ? But no bonus of exps in fight....as i said. Flanking is an other good bonus, you are right.

The Frog.

I must disagree whith that.

In fiction lets compare 3 ships. Black Pearl, Flying Dutchman and Dountles. Each was specific. Black Pearl was fastest, Dutchman had most fire power, Dountles was big and sturdy. Lets say each was made whitgh "timber". So accotrding to your free promo every of this 3 ships would be same. But if we use my free xp, you can specialize ship, to make it faster, stronger, defancive or expantionist giving eighter, speed/withdraw promo, attack/combat promo, defansive promo, sight range promo. And you can name your units as you wish, so you can make your own Black Peral :)



Also later it was mentioned about Vikings. Well their longboats could cross land "short distances". For instance, an Italy in TR World Map. It has sicyly and main continent as one, and you have to sail around it. But longboats could cross it. Cant put any more accurate as English is not my first language.

I must disagree whith that.

In fiction lets compare 3 ships. Black Pearl, Flying Dutchman and Dountles. Each was specific. Black Pearl was fastest, Dutchman had most fire power, Dountles was big and sturdy. Lets say each was made whitgh "timber". So accotrding to your free promo every of this 3 ships would be same. But if we use my free xp, you can specialize ship, to make it faster, stronger, defancive or expantionist giving eighter, speed/withdraw promo, attack/combat promo, defansive promo, sight range promo. And you can name your units as you wish, so you can make your own Black Peral :)



Also later it was mentioned about Vikings. Well their longboats could cross land "short distances". For instance, an Italy in TR World Map. It has sicyly and main continent as one, and you have to sail around it. But longboats could cross it. Cant put any more accurate as English is not my first language.

well adding 3 exp + having drydocks built = enough to increase the speed of ship.:)

Hi everybody,

About Timber.

1) Could be "harvested" in Forests and Jungles. They should exist by pack of 2 and more to allow an increase of trade (recommanded by Spartan117)

2) Visible at the beginning of every gameplay or when you discover Sailing tech. I prefer the last solution, more realistic.

3) Must be improved to receive the bonus. Name, picture,... of the Timber improvement still not chosen, but we could ask Thamis and the TAM team to use their stuff.

4) Give bonuses to the built of wooden boats only. It's not a pre requisite. The bonus could be: either free promo Combat I + Flanking I or +3 xps. It's not yet decided, Ankenaton and I prefer the first solution, other guys (as Anaztazioch) a more flexible one.

5) New building: Carpenter. Buildable when you discover Sailing and if you have some Timber (either by trade or you own one) , 90 shields to build, +10% shields production, no health penalty.


That's all. I don't know how to do to only give this bonus to wooden boats only and not to all boats. Is it doable, Houman ?

Wait for comments.

The Frog.

Hi everybody,

About Timber.

1) Could be "harvested" in Forests and Jungles. They should exist by pack of 2 and more to allow an increase of trade (recommanded by Spartan117)

2) Visible at the beginning of every gameplay or when you discover Sailing tech. I prefer the last solution, more realistic.

3) Must be improved to receive the bonus. Name, picture,... of the Timber improvement still not chosen, but we could ask Thamis and the TAM team to use their stuff.

4) Give bonuses to the built of wooden boats only. It's not a pre requisite. The bonus could be: either free promo Combat I + Flanking I or +3 xps. It's not yet decided, Ankenaton and I prefer the first solution, other guys (as Anaztazioch) a more flexible one.

5) New building: Carpenter. Buildable when you discover Sailing and if you have some Timber (either by trade or you own one) , 90 shields to build, +10% shields production, no health penalty.


That's all. I don't know how to do to only give this bonus to wooden boats only and not to all boats. Is it doable, Houman ?

Wait for comments.

The Frog.
Nice succinct redition of what we spoke of at length Hian including the constructive criticism of Los Tirano, Spartan, WarKirby, Anaz, Exerior, and others who I may have left out. This resource will really alter the naval aspects of the mod and perhaps help in fleshing out this neglected portion of the game. As a side note when timber was first implemented by the TAM team as a resource I disagreed with the Carpenter Building improvement having a negative -1 health effect on the city that builds it. What the environment is negatively impacted by all of those woodchips and sawdust? :rolleyes: I know they used varnishes, shellacks and tannins that could degrade the environment to a certain extent; but not to the level of a -1 health effect in my opinion. But then again I could be wrong and lets face it most good mods are collaborative in their development and implementation (like we have here at Realism 2.0). A one or two-man band cannot compete with an orchestra. :)

@ Ankaneton

I disagree. There will be allways "patriot" movie Mel Gibson, who will alone from woods kill tens of brits :D. + No one would ever want to have a colony over poeple, that choose for president a man who says "I.R." instead for "I'm" :lol:
Well with Bush The Younger, he tries to give the impression to Americans and to a lesser extent the world that he is a native Texan (State of Texas). :p His family are old Maine (State of Maine) blue-bloods (rich/noble ancestry) who came over on the MayFlower to the English colony at Plymouth. So to appear closer to the common man, and to show how tough he is; Bush attempts to portray himself as a Texan. It is similar to me (a citizen of New York City/New York State) attempting to portray myself as a native of the states of Mississippi or Louisiana, no matter how many years I lived there. :p

regarding gunpowder resource...

currently in the game, no gunpowder means no military for a while. which i dont think is realistic because gunpowder is a relatively common resource.

since the substances used to make gunpowder are fairly common. What about not needing the actual improvement of gunpowder to build early gunpowder units. Instead the gunpowder resource if a civ has access to it increases production by say 25% or something for the production of early gunpowder units. The resource on the map will act as a concentrated area for gunpowder. With a large concentration of a given resource would make production easier as there will be a constant supply of resources.

what do you guys think?...

@ Spartan177

Remember the year Japan used gunpowder units in larger number ?

@ Ankenaton

ITS NOT F*ING ANAZ !!! :<

regarding gunpowder resource...

currently in the game, no gunpowder means no military for a while. which i dont think is realistic because gunpowder is a relatively common resource.

since the substances used to make gunpowder are fairly common. What about not needing the actual improvement of gunpowder to build early gunpowder units. Instead the gunpowder resource if a civ has access to it increases production by say 25% or something for the production of early gunpowder units. The resource on the map will act as a concentrated area for gunpowder. With a large concentration of a given resource would make production easier as there will be a constant supply of resources.

what do you guys think?...

I would say not. Seizing Saltpeter resources to prevent the enemy making guns is a perfectly viable strategy and I would not like to see it lost. If someone lacks saltpeter they can always trade for it.

WarKirby

based on this disscussion, what you think about this:

each resource can cotribute small amount each turn to central deposit. when you want to buikd some unit/building/wonder, you need standard hammers and some amount of resource:
let's copper mine will give 20 copper unit to central deposit each turn, axeman need for build 5 coppers - so with one mine at start you can build 4 axemans and no copper is added to pool. but when build only 2 axemans, you got +10 coppers to pool - so after 5 turns you have 50 coppers in pool (+20 per mine), so you can build 9 axemans (if you have enough cities of course)

and maybe some advanced units need 1-2 copper(iron,oil,...) each turn for upkeep

you can also has some resource converters (ie iron to steel with steel mine - so advanced unit do not use raw iron, but steel)....


only one problem: how to teach AI to use this

Excellent. why did noone else think of that?

Why didn't I think of it? It's brilliant. 100% support from me

Could you maybe have certain resources richer than others? Like one oilfield gives 5 per turn, and another (scaled up) might give 8.

WarKirby

This is kind of complex ... I am still unsure if i like the idea.

Civ lives from many simple things. Combined to a complex game.

I generally dislike the idea to make the small things too complex. It tend to destroy the feeling, the gameplay ... and nothing is worser then that.

I think the suggestion from Mexico isn't detailed enough to say much about it.

Brainstomring (dont have enough time to deep thought):

---
If u want to hold it simple, i would implement at most 3 or 4 diffrent "complex" ressources at one time. It might be timber, copper and iron in the beginning. Later on you will lose these three and get others.

---
You cannot store the ressources. If u have a source of 5 copper, you can produce 5 axeman (require each 1 copper) at the same time. You can say it: You need one strategic ressource to let a city builid one unit.
This way you don't have to "manage"" the ressources in a hard way.
You get a stronger army, if u build constant at some cities. Call it: build a army up slowly.
If u love to play peacefull, you cannot build an strong army with all yor towns.

---
Cap the storage room of the central depot (3 per city). Otherwise you can store some of the ressource and trade them away.

---
Ressource Converter is a GOOD idea. For Example: In the WW II many nations tries to get oil artifical and some other ressources. With more or less good results. But see: You can use "rape oil" to make a sorch of energy.
With Converter you can simulate this. You need a lot of iron to make steel, or a lot of production to make some "rape oil" ... and so on. It will be expansive, but possible. (but i would make it HELL expansive - i think ... around 5 times the normal production costs of a unit.



I have to go. Maybe i will post this night some deep thoughts about this :) But who wants to hear them? Nobody? :)

You could convert corn into rape oil. Corn powered tanks....

WArKirby

@ Spartan177

Remember the year Japan used gunpowder units in larger number ?

@ Ankenaton

ITS NOT F*ING ANAZ !!! :<
My apologies; my use of a shortened version is meant to indicate camraderie, not as an insult. :)

Hi all,

An other solution which completly change our way of playing is to:
- allow the built of ALL units without ressources but only techs.
- giving promos linked to ressources.
- these new promos (which are now linked to ressouces) are available to specific types of units.
- meanwhile, there would have some exceptions. Some lands units ( tanks, humvee,...) and modern naval type units ( ironclad, all oil and uranium boats and subs) would at least need one specific ressource (coal, oil or uranium).

Promos linked to ressources could give bonuses as (for exemple, it's just an idea):
- copper +10% strenght ( melee units, mounted units,...) named "Copper Weapons"
- iron +15% strenght ( as above ) named "Iron Weapons"
- salpeter +10% strenght ( gunpowder units,...) named "Superior Guns"
- ....... to continue..........

This is just an idea. It could be interesting to have a look at it. It could give some solutions to one of the great problem of the game: when gunpowder arise, and "oil" boats, you are sure to die if you don't have salpeter and oil...

With such a system, you are allowed to build all units but if you own specific ressources you could receive bonuses that make your army stronger.

Comments are welcome.


PS: Sorry Mexico, i don't really like your system. I think it's not adapted to civ4, it's not in the "spirit of the game".

The Frog.

Hi all,

An other solution which completly change our way of playing is to:
- allow the built of ALL units without ressources but only techs.
- giving promos linked to ressources.
- these new promos (which are now linked to ressouces) are available to specific types of units.
- meanwhile, there would have some exceptions. Some lands units ( tanks, humvee,...) and modern naval type units ( ironclad, all oil and uranium boats and subs) would at least need one specific ressource (coal, oil or uranium).

Promos linked to ressources could give bonuses as (for exemple, it's just an idea):
- copper +10% strenght ( melee units, mounted units,...) named "Copper Weapons"
- iron +15% strenght ( as above ) named "Iron Weapons"
- salpeter +10% strenght ( gunpowder units,...) named "Superior Guns"
- ....... to continue..........

This is just an idea. It could be interesting to have a look at it. It could give some solutions to one of the great problem of the game: when gunpowder arise, and "oil" boats, you are sure to die if you don't have salpeter and oil...

With such a system, you are allowed to build all units but if you own specific ressources you could receive bonuses that make your army stronger.

Comments are welcome.


PS: Sorry Mexico, i don't really like your system. I think it's not adapted to civ4, it's not in the "spirit of the game".

The Frog.
I like it. It allows more or less equal access to units, but reserves elite status to those nations that have access to the resources.

I like it. It allows more or less equal access to units, but reserves elite status to those nations that have access to the resources.

I like it also but they should have different effects and this should not apply to all resources. There should be some "hurtful" effects for destroying an improvement then not being able to build units with an extra 15% strength or some whatever % increase.

Some resources I think should remain the way they are now are horses, oil, and maybe some more. just some preliminary ideas. I think without horses you should not be able to build mounted units no exceptions. Without oil i think you would not be able to build tanks and fighter jets. And elephants too, no elephants mean you cant ride elephants:D

possibly iron also, iron is a big upgrade from bronze weapons. A knight with strength 10 with iron, and without iron and bronze you are able to build cataphracts with strength 7. So in some cases the elite status is in placed. But the idea should apply to other resources.

I think the new idea could apply to timber(not even in the game yet, but oh well), saltpeter, and possiby some more. For timber you can build superior ship units. With access to saltpeter resource i think +25% production for gunpowder units. Or just early gunpowder units maybe including rifleman age.

Houman?,
Cathage again?,

did you install a horse resource nearby? or at the very least one in Africa preferably closer to Nubia or whatever???

Hian's Post, and all subsequent agreeing with it

I hate it. This is a bad idea.

This is a realism mod, not a 'fair and balanced gamplay' mod. You cannot make swords and axes without metal. Nor tanks and battleships without both the appropriate materials and oil to power them.

Allowing access to restricted units by those who do not have the resources, and relegating the resources to only a promotion, practically defeats the purpose of having them, and seriously devalues the strategy of siezing resources so as to deny them to your opponents.

Fights over pools of oil, or uranium deposits is one of the most tense and enjoyable parts of Civ, and I would really hate to see it removed, and [U]realism/U] denied, in the name of fairness.

I am vehemently opposed to this concept, and I will fight it to my last.

WarKirby

I hate it. This is a bad idea.

This is a realism mod, not a 'fair and balanced gamplay' mod. You cannot make swords and axes without metal. Nor tanks and battleships without both the appropriate materials and oil to power them.

Allowing access to restricted units by those who do not have the resources, and relegating the resources to only a promotion, practically defeats the purpose of having them, and seriously devalues the strategy of siezing resources so as to deny them to your opponents.

Fights over pools of oil, or uranium deposits is one of the most tense and enjoyable parts of Civ, and I would really hate to see it removed, and [U]realism/U] denied, in the name of fairness.

I am vehemently opposed to this concept, and I will fight it to my last.

WarKirby

notice, i saids to some resources.:D

not including oil, horses, iron, uranium.

but including saltpeter and timber if possibly added.

Salt peter is very common and ships can be made with out timber preciesly.(use other wood) There are 24 civs or however much on realism map(I play with my own custom Earth map/ so not sure how many precisely are on the map)24 resoruces or plots needed for salt peter is jsut outrageuos considering some civs may not get them but should have an oppurtunity as seeing saltpeter is common and found in sooo many places. I repeat, saltpeter is common, wars werent fought over acces to saltpeter.

Unlike salt peter, other resources are not found nearly everywhere. Oil, iron, uranium, etc... are not found on certain areas of the map.

Instead of having tens of bunch of resources that are requied to build units(having too much resources like these, hurts gameplay especially when it doesnt coincide with reality) So there should be some change. I suggested 25% production increase due to the concentration of saltpater on a particular plot making production easier due to the increased supply of gunpowder.

In case no concern is taken to fair and balacned, might as well have 2 resources of oil, they could just duke it out beteween the 24 civs.:lol: :lol:

Saltpeter I agree with, but not timber.

Surely timber coul be incorporated into Mexico's resource pool plan, where chopping down a square of forest would say, add a one time +50 to the timber pool, and a forest with a lumbermill in it might produce +10 a turn seeing as it's renewable. To prevent early civs being stuck without boats, an unimproved forest could produce +0.5 per turn, representing that work can be done without metal tools, but is simply much slower. I believe early man used stone axes.

Very few people will be stuck without forest and it does regrow every so often so I believe the requirement for timber to produce certain units could work fine.

Say 0.5 timber to make archer/longbowman/spearman/pikeman, 4 for a galley/caravel/trireme and 6 for a galleon/frigate/vaisseau de ligne.

The numbers may need a little work, but the concept is sound and could allow a requirement for timber to make boats without seriously impacting gameplay.

Also, using mexico's idea, some really rich resources (Saudi Arabian oil for instance) could produce significantly more and so a single resource could be shared among several civs. Thus eliminating the problem of too many resources and making trade much more of a part of the game. One less reason to start wars.

WarKirby

Saltpeter I agree with, but not timber.
Snip.....

WarKirby

YAY!!! We agreed on something.:lol:

Mexico's idea was similiar to many other people's ideas. However i think they didnt accomplish it though. If Mexico gets it to work properly, it would be great though.:goodjob: and would be better then the system now.

Where does saltpeter actually come from? Can you just find it lying on the ground?

WarKirby

Hi WarKirby,

I hate it. This is a bad idea.


Please WarKirby, don't say it's a "bad" idea, but you don't like this idea. There are no bad ideas in such a forum, but ideas people are spoking about...;)


This is a realism mod, not a 'fair and balanced gamplay' mod. You cannot make swords and axes without metal. Nor tanks and battleships without both the appropriate materials and oil to power them.


Wrong. The game is now really unbalanced and not realistic because of some ressource (as salpeter) used as pre requisite. Furthemore, if you really want to play a realist mod, i let you play Japan against me for exemple in a multiplayer game. There is no strategic ressource at all in real Japan, they must import everything (coal, iron, copper, saltpeter, oil, uranium,...) On TR world map, Japan had these ressources and that make this country playable... It's not really realistic. No ?
Last point: modern armored vehicles and ships are nearly built without metals. Why ? To avoid radar detection. The last French, UK and Italian war ships are using stealth technologies. They are built with as less as possible metal...


Allowing access to restricted units by those who do not have the resources, and relegating the resources to only a promotion, practically defeats the purpose of having them, and seriously devalues the strategy of siezing resources so as to deny them to your opponents.

Fights over pools of oil, or uranium deposits is one of the most tense and enjoyable parts of Civ, and I would really hate to see it removed, and [U]realism/U] denied, in the name of fairness.

Wrong again. There is no devaluation of having such a ressource if promos are well made/created. A strong promo on an swordman (str 6) is sometime better than nothing on a maceman ( str 8) . Both units are using Iron.

As Spartan and I already wrote, some ressources will be nedeed as pre requisite: horse and/or elephant (mounted units), oil (tank, oil engine boats,..) and so on...


I am vehemently opposed to this concept,...


It's your right to VEHEMENTLY oppose to this concept. I just like to read some constructive comments.:eek:


....and I will fight it to my last.


to the last !!! pff...impressive ! :lol:
I have more important tasks to do in my life that fighting to the last only for a leisure game....:D

To conclude: it was only an idea, as the one of Mexico. Let's try to speak of them while staying cool and constructive.;)
The Frog.

Hi WarKirby,

Please WarKirby, don't say it's a "bad" idea, but you don't like this idea. There are no bad ideas in such a forum, but ideas people are spoking about...;)
Wel, OK that is a bit out of order I suppose.


Wrong. The game is now really unbalanced and not realistic because of some ressource (as salpeter) used as pre requisite. Furthemore, if you really want to play a realist mod, i let you play Japan against me for exemple in a multiplayer game. There is no strategic ressource at all in real Japan, they must import everything (coal, iron, copper, saltpeter, oil, uranium,...) On TR world map, Japan had these ressources and that make this country playable... It's not really realistic. No ?
No, you are wrong. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Mining_resources_and_Energy_founts) is a list of the various industrial resources in Japan. While it is certainly not rich in resources, it is far from barren. You say there are nho strategic resources but that is not right. An what Japan lacked in resources, they simply invaded China and took. The Japanese empire got a lot of resources from conquest.


Last point: modern armored vehicles and ships are nearly built without metals. Why ? To avoid radar detection. The last French, UK and Italian war ships are using stealth technologies. They are built with as less as possible metal...
Who said anything about metal? I said the appropriate materials. You just assumed I meant metal. Although, if not metal then what are they made of? Plastic hulled ships would not be very militarily useful.

Wrong again. There is no devaluation of having such a ressource if promos are well made/created. A strong promo on an swordman (str 6) is sometime better than nothing on a maceman ( str 8) . Both units are using Iron.
Your example is invalid. Both units use iron so they would both get the same promotion. And it does devalue it. Having slightly better trained units is not the same as having a whole different class of unit that another civ cannot make because you had the initiative to sieze and hold the appropriate resource.

Having a slightly better swordsman is not as good as having swordsmen while your enemy is stuck with short swordsmen (hypaspists)

As Spartan and I already wrote, some ressources will be nedeed as pre requisite: horse and/or elephant (mounted units), oil (tank, oil engine boats,..) and so on...
All resources apart from saltpeter should be a prerequisite because saltpeter can be easily manufactured. (I did research;) ) All others must be found naturally occurind and cannot be manufactured.


It's your right to VEHEMENTLY oppose to this concept. I just like to read some constructive comments.:eek:

to the last !!! pff...impressive ! :lol:
I have more important tasks in my life that fighting to the last only for a leisure game....:D

To conclude: it was only an idea, as the one of Mexico. Let's try to speak of them while staying cool and constructive.;)
The Frog.
I was just being dramatic. I do that sometimes. Maybe I should have added some:crazyeye: :lol: :eek: :cry: :) ;) :mad: to make it clear.

By the way, I really love Mexico's system. What do you think, Hian?

WarKirby

Where does saltpeter actually come from? Can you just find it lying on the ground?

WarKirby
One of the largest most readily available sources of saltpeter are middens filled with animal feces. :p Bat guano (e.g. feces) was a ready source of saltpeter from the medieval period to the early industrial age.

Thanks but I already researched it myself.

WarKirby

WarKirby,

I don't really like Mexico's system, at first.:( But it could change if this system is well built.:) What i don't like is uneasy for me to explain, i'm not english language native.... I will try to.;)

1) Even if you can stock some ressources to build a precise amount of units, if you don't have this particular ressource you will never be able to built at least one... It will not change the problem of the lack of some ressources on TR world map :cry: . Furthemore, i don't think that it is in "the spirit of the game". Civ4 is not a game of economy....

2) As Spartan already said in an other post, trade is nearly impossible on TR world map:mad: :cry: . Still the same problem: not enough ressources to trade. When you got one iron, one copper, one salpeter as France (for exemple) what can you trade ? There is only wine (2 plots) that can be trade for this country. As England, you can trade....some fish or clam, i don't remember. A common ressource, easy to find, so uneasy to trade:cry:

3) Some ressources can be found nearly all around our planet: salpeter, iron,.... for exemple. Others are found in large quantities but only in very particular parts of the world as oil...
Have a look at coal for exemple. At the end of the XIX century, six countries were producing more than 80% of the coal produced (not in order, Germany, UK, USA, France, Russia and Belgium). Explain to me how to represent the GREAT power of UK with only one ressource on TR world map. UK was selling coal to many many countries, the Brit had the first steam powered fleet of the world,.... An other exemple: before WW2, Italia bought at least 50% of his coal to UK. When war began between these two countries, trade was stopped of course. It quickly began to be very critical for Italian industry.... but Germany finally helped them.
Only to say that the TR world map not show the true power of many countries because of the lack of titles with ressources. (For coal, UK must at least have 2 if not 4 or 5, IMO).:eek:

4) IMO, tech are more important than ressources to build new types of units. What make the European so strong from the 15 to 19 centuries ? Their knowledge ! With their knowledge they had developped new tactics, new weapons,... and then conquered/colonized most of the world. It was not because they owned one particular ressource that they had spreaded all over the planet....it was because they had the knowledge (so the techs in Civ4) to find/use/improve this ressource.


I hope you will understand what i try to say :p . My brain is overheating ;)
Meanwhile, i stay "open" to have a look and give constructive comments on Mexico's system, if he develop it.;)

Ressources on world map are a problem IMO. How to change this ? I don't know. But the scale of Europe don't represent his greatness on our world history....

The Frog.

Hi all,

There is an other very special solution to solve ressource problem: giving each palace of each civs some special ressources bonuses linked to their history.
Some exemples:
- English Palace ( aka Westminster ): same as a normal palace + X free coal ressources.
- French Palace ( aka L'Elysée ): same as normal + X free wine ressources.
- USA Palace ( aka White House): same as normal + 1 free cotton and 1 free oil.
- Russian Palace (aka Kremlin): same as normal + X free beaver/fur ressources.
- Ottoman Palace (aka Topkapi): same as normal + X free horse ressources.
- Mongol Palace ( aka The Ring): same as Ottoman.

and so on.

Each Palace could receive as many free ressources as we decide, of any kind (historical or "cultural" one are those i prefer) and, if possible, its own picture.
This could add some taste to the mod and allow more trade.
Linked to palaces, other "special" bonus/malus may also be added (food prod, shield prod, cultural prod, war bonus/malus, etc)

Also, it could help us to avoid too great changes, as those Mexico and I described in previous posts....

Comments are welcome.

The Frog.

The simple way for the problems you speak of to be solved, will be by having some resources be richer than others, ad having the ability to trade only part of a resource.

For example, to represent UK coal, a normal coal resource may produce +10 per turn, and the UK's especially rich deposit would produce 40-50, allowing plenty of coal for both personal use and for trading.

Likewise, Japan could have all the resources, but have them be poor sources that only produce half of normal. This would both improve realism, encourage trade and solve the problem of not having enough resources to trade.

It would also allow a solution to the problem of overcrowding of resources on map. Instead of 5-6 oils to represent middle east, you could just have 1-3 that are really rich, thus producing plenty for those who control them, and creating lots of war in the middle east for control of this oil. Realism. And balanced too.

It's a win-win situation no matter what your views on the subject. Mexico's plan is perfect.

WarKirby

The simple way for the problems you speak of to be solved, will be by having some resources be richer than others, ad having the ability to trade only part of a resource.

For example, to represent UK coal, a normal coal resource may produce +10 per turn, and the UK's especially rich deposit would produce 40-50, allowing plenty of coal for both personal use and for trading.

Likewise, Japan could have all the resources, but have them be poor sources that only produce half of normal. This would both improve realism, encourage trade and solve the problem of not having enough resources to trade.

It would also allow a solution to the problem of overcrowding of resources on map. Instead of 5-6 oils to represent middle east, you could just have 1-3 that are really rich, thus producing plenty for those who control them, and creating lots of war in the middle east for control of this oil. Realism. And balanced too.

It's a win-win situation no matter what your views on the subject. Mexico's plan is perfect.

WarKirby

first so perfect that no one was able to accomplish it yet.:lol: :lol: From what i understood from otehr programers in the forums it is quite difficult and only the original plans took place. I think if mexico was able to perfect that system, (i dont think the idea with japan is a good idea), then it would be very interesting:goodjob: . However seeing as that idea will be extremely hard to implement(ai understanding/ bugs within the system to work out/ balance), i say maybe other ideas should recieve consideration. But its all up to realism mod team, and what they think is the best "course" for the mod.:goodjob:

P.S. I dont think a world map that size with 24 civs will ever work. THe map is too crowded, too little of plots. I would rather have portions of the map enlarged. Like say a map of europe alone, or east asia, or eurasia. i think it would be great if realism team came up with those maps and worked them to perfection. A 24 civ, even 18 civ map will never work on whatever size map realism map is. I think the map should be discarded due to the unplayableness of the map and unrealism associated with the map. Some civs are destined to be screwed with 2 or 3 cities. So i think the map should be discarded completely or not be taken so seriously and the realism team could expand to other ventures in map making. It may sound extreme but I think it will compliment the realism mod well. I hear strategy guy is working on different locations.

As much as I would like the map to work out, it wont, nobody has successfully been able to create a balanced earth map, that small. Impossible I say. Europe is too small, too many civs located on the mediterrean area, etc....

All,

I both agree and disagree with Spartan.
A map of THAT size is overcrowded with 24 civs, that's right. But if you create an enlarged map, how many PCs will be able to run it ? Not many i suppose. Creating maps of Europe, Africa,...is an other idea but will not change the problem of a world map.

I think that we had to create a system that better represent the world with this map. Mexico's idea is a solution but others can be found.....

The Frog.

Hi all.

Uh, well, I have a suggestion about the saltpeter stuff. Why don't double the production cost of all units that requires thar resource, and that the effect of the resource would be to double the production speed of those units. That would represent large quantities of saltpeter, not the presence of saltpeter itself.

@ Hian the Frog

I dubbled the size of large map, and played it. Didnt notice any slowdown exept those when each civ had stack 24 units in each city and 1305 barbarian attackers... And it was only a bit slower than WTR WorldMap.

amd 32 3500+
x850xt
1024mb

Anaztazioch: Really? I say this warrants more testing. If it can be proven that the map size can be increased without significant impact on performance, we could have an XXL TR map. That would go some way towards solving these problems.

You'll need to find out how pronounced the slowdown is as you approach the modern era though, with civilisation at it's height, that time will cause more slowdown than any other I should think

WarKirby

Well the slowdown is made by WB and units "spam".

I checked 45 x 32 size "custom game" fractal map. It was smootly untill mass unit stack began appearing. After delating units via World Buidler performace increased to 20 secs turn wait instead for arround 2 mins.

The original XML file is here :
C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Warlords\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4WorldInfo.xml
Make a back up and open it even in notepad.
At the end you have:
<WorldInfo>
<Type>WORLDSIZE_HUGE</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE</Description>
<Help>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE_HELP</Help>
<iDefaultPlayers>11</iDefaultPlayers>
<iUnitNameModifier>0</iUnitNameModifier>
<iTargetNumCities>6</iTargetNumCities>
<iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>7</iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>
<iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>100</iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>
<iMaxConscriptModifier>75</iMaxConscriptModifier>
<iWarWearinessModifier>-50</iWarWearinessModifier>
<iGridWidth>32</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>20</iGridHeight>
<iTerrainGrainChange>1</iTerrainGrainChange>
<iFeatureGrainChange>1</iFeatureGrainChange>
<iResearchPercent>150</iResearchPercent>
<iTradeProfitPercent>30</iTradeProfitPercent>
<iDistanceMaintenancePercent>100</iDistanceMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>20</iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>6</iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>
</WorldInfo>
</WorldInfos>
</Civ4WorldInfo>


I changed only
<iGridWidth>32</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>20</iGridHeight>
to
<iGridWidth>45</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>32</iGridHeight>

Try it ;p. Even whith all civs.
But i say every use of World builder slowes down the game by even 5% !!!

If you want me to do it, i can email you modified XML

So it's only the units that cause slowdown, not the actual map?

Do you think that in having a large map, civilisations would spread out evenly, and be limited by maintenance costs, or would it just lead to huge empires that would cause a lot of slowing down anyway?

We need to establish the long term workability of this idea. In the back of the CIv manual, in the developers notes, I believe it mentioned that for testing civs, they turned off all animations, set all civs to AI and taped down the enter key. This allowed the automated playing of a whole game in just a few hours.

Maybe try doing that to fast forward to the modern era, and then test the performance then?

WarKirby

dont know how to actually do that

You might help or do it whith me.
Make 45x32 map, playi it whith WTR (Warlords Toral Realism) whith no barbarians and whith only 5 or 6 civs on noble or even easier, making enemy maintanace get higher. Im gonna try do this tomorow.
Lets just say, count the duration of waiting for enemy at year 1000 or arround turn 400 or 500.

I just realised that there is one resource which is completely missing from TR.

Natural gas. It's one of Russia's biggest exports, and is far too important to not be included.

In the sea, it could be represented by a bubbling effect, but how to represent an invisible gas on land?

WarKirby

@ WarKirby

Natural gas is allready implented. Its called "pigs".

Ever watched Mad Max ?
". .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ."
"Pigshit"
"What ?"

:lol:

Steam coming off the ground :)

I just realised that there is one resource which is completely missing from TR.

Natural gas. It's one of Russia's biggest exports, and is far too important to not be included.

In the sea, it could be represented by a bubbling effect, but how to represent an invisible gas on land?

WarKirby
Good idea WarKirby. :D How about a large gas tank with LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) printed on the side? To represent it on land. But the suggestion by Storm6436 ( steam ) is definitely a good choice for land and perhaps the sea as well.

I just realised that there is one resource which is completely missing from TR.

Natural gas. It's one of Russia's biggest exports, and is far too important to not be included.

In the sea, it could be represented by a bubbling effect, but how to represent an invisible gas on land?

WarKirby

Hi man,

I liked this idea too, at first. Develop it, that we can have a look on what could be done or not. What tech, what bonuses, what uses,....

The Frog.

I got an idea regarding gas, it also goes to oil.

To have access to resource you need improvement and road/river/railroad.

But to trade it you and the buyer needs a building. Im thinking of "pipelines that Germany and Russia are building under Baltic sea. Whith out pipelines trading gas is imposible. (Oil can be transported in planes, by cars, trains, ships, but this isnt a good idea, as you need oil to use planes, cars and ships). Gas can also be transported as liquid, but they cant be closed, as presure will change conteiner whith liquid gas into a bomb. Physics.

So both owner of resource and seller must have pipeline built to trade gas and maybe oil betwean

a lot of the natural gas resource "work" has already been designed by other mods. I think Sevo made the improvement graphic and someone made the natural gas graphic. So most work is done so that would make it easier to implement if it were added.

Is there possibility to create additonal "in-city" resource(food,hammer,commerce,+something)?

Great mod, keep up good work, cant wait WTR gold

@ julko

Ur gonna wait. This aint no crap-full-o-bug-'n'-glitches-mad-o-mod-for-unpatient-waiters.

This team so far likes to debug and patch before adding new features. But so far it seems diplomatic bug will stay in beta 3.

Wonder if WTR go "most anticipated Civ IV mod of the year" !!!

@ julko

Wonder if WTR go "most anticipated Civ IV mod of the year" !!!

I hope so, it's worth enough for this title

about that in-city resources - i was only asking if it is POSSIBLE to do it, not to do it right now. Im not coder so Im only curious if it si hardcoded or not, maybe someone should tell me.

Anaztazioch, in fact you can transport and trade gas without pipelines, there are port termianals capable of receving ship transports of liqufied gas.. Poland is considering building one in Gdansk or Sczecin.. Strange you havent heard of it..

There are already made graphics and improvements of gas resaurce in other mods, (Sevo, Amra etc..) im sure we can use those in WTR..

@ noid

Ever seenw hat happens to a liquified gas close id a conteiner ?

It is a tranporting, but its not as good as pipelines. Still ships build in ports needs oil to run. Or are "we" building sailed ones ?

And i tought we allready have such ports... Still its a new building. But note that it requires access to sea. Czech Republic cant have them for instance.

What about some luxury resuprces ?

Like water "pet" creatures. Thats gold fishses or other nice looking ones, sea tourtles (required to make a tourtle raft), land tourtles, bunnys, hammsters etc.

I think there is enough luxury or hapiness-resources in game already, it must be a challenge to make your citizens happy, so too much resources - no use for buildings and civics which gives hapiness.

What about the following Idea:

Split Oil into two seperate oil resources types called Sweet Oil and Sour Oil.
Sweet crude oil is a type of petroleum. The adjective sweet refers to small amounts of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide; sweet crude generally contains less than 0.5% sulfur. This high quality,
low sulfur crude oil is commonly used for processing into gasoline.
Sour crude oil, on the other hand contains much more impurities like
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide, or mercaptansand and are there much harded to refine

Add an aditional Building class which generates at economic bonus when supllied with the Two oil resources.
Because Sweet Oil is much easier to presess the Sour Oil, it should get a higher economical (tax) bonus.
For exaple 20% for Sweet oil and 10% for Sour oil.

Beside Direct economical bonuses, 2 oil resources also provided addition option for militairy unit construction.
For every oil consuming unit class we add 2 unit types. To gether with the normal unit they creatre 3 types called called Discount, Normal and Charged

- Discount units need both Oil resources to be build but cost 25% less to construct and quere -1 gold for upkeep
- Normal units need at least one of the 2 oil resources, to be build at the normal prize tag at normal gold cost
- Charged units can be build with no Strategical Oil resources, but will cost 50% more to construct and +1 for upkeep

by creating an upgrade path from Charged unit to Normal unit and eventualy Discount unit, players will automaticly build
the units which cost the lowest resources and gold.

As you can imagine, splitting up the single Oil resources into 2 seperate resources creates an entirely
new concept to the give which will improve realism since different 2 oil resources s better than 1 and
for those unlucky nation that have no access to oil themselves, can still build these units with oil
accuared from the free market.

Note that this idea could also be applied to other resources like Timber. Just like Oil, 2 timber resource Wood types could be introduced called HardWood and Softwood. Hardwoods are generally far more resistant to decay than softwoods when used for exterior work. Just like oil a special Resources building could be introduced called the Sawmil. It could give and 20% Construction bonnus when supplied with Hard wood and 10% with Softwood
As with Oil, all units which need large amounts of wood for construction, like wooden ships, each class of ship could be give 2 attitional units types. Similar with oil unit, The construction of the unit becomes lower as more resources are available. This way, all nation will be able to build al wooden units but, those with access to one ore een 2 wood resources will be able to create much large fleets

low sulfur crude oil is commonly used for processing into gasoline.
Poland would be rich if that was true...
Yes it can be done, but making usable gasoline from such sulfur oil is quite expansive, very often its better not to dig (you may spend more on digging and changing into gasoline, than gain from selling)

Because Sweet Oil is much easier to presess the Sour Oil, it should get a higher economical (tax) bonus.
Ever played as Victoria, got Stockexchange and producted wealth ? One city can upkeep whole empire, second its army. Such things might lead to disballance. Wealth it self is allready strong (all hammers into gold).

- Discount units need both Oil resources to be build but cost 25% less to construct and quere -1 gold for upkeep
- Normal units need at least one of the 2 oil resources, to be build at the normal prize tag at normal gold cost
- Charged units can be build with no Strategical Oil resources, but will cost 50% more to construct and +1 for upkeep
Since there is a national wonder that gives access to oil resource Charged is pointless, exept if you dont have coastal city to build it.

Discount units need both Oil resources to be build but cost 25% less to construct and quere -1 gold for upkeep
25% cost reduction is too high, as for upkeep. Well the better equipment, the higher price, even if you have all resources, factories and staff in your contry. Also when comming to Factories, plants, forge, military academy and polica state WILL lead to imbalancing.

As you can imagine, splitting up the single Oil resources into 2 seperate resources creates an entirely
new concept to the give which will improve realism since different 2 oil resources s better than 1 and
for those unlucky nation that have no access to oil themselves, can still build these units with oil
accuared from the free market.
So far there is a national wonder. Still needs coastal city to build, but for those that dont have Coastal cities, they have enought oil resources to find a civ that is willing to trade it. But sometimes infantry is better than tanks(tanks cant capture cities).

As for timber. It will be a bit hard to place Timber in World map, but 2 timbers ? There might be no place for hamlets. Over production/sciance from bonuses etc etc.

I've got an idea... Well, it's not exactly about resources, but this is the closest thread. Say, how much food can one really harvest from an unirrigated flood plain? Isn't it so that flood plains are not producing more food by themselves, but are much easier (and effective) to irrigate? Maybe they should produce one less food as they are, but +2 when farmed?

And as for natural gas, it being a cheap fuel source for those who produce it, should provide a production bonus (+5-10 :hammers:) and maybe a health/happiness (cheaper heating/electricity) to the cities it's connected to either directly or via natural gas plant building.

As for flood plain, they were used by "desert" nomads as a very good spots for a camp. Thats why they give pollution, making them give less food to big cities, but more food for small settlements.

Hey, I just found out there is a realy simple way to solve the missing resource problem

for example, let's say someone doesn't have access to an iron bonus resource, and want to build a unit which logicaly requires iron. We can then give the player with no iron a build penatly by doubling construction cost and adding the following line to the unit:

<BonusProductionModifiers>
<BonusProductionModifier>
<BonusType>BONUS_IRON</BonusType>
<iProductonModifier>100</iProductonModifier>
</BonusProductionModifier>
</BonusProductionModifiers>

Yes, this way Mansa Musa doesnt need iron, only 24 turns to build up swordsman...

TR team made some wonders witch get bonus production when having access to a resource.

I was like you when i joined up. Plenty of ideas, most were discarded. Eighther they were pointless or too hard to implent or disballancing. I have 391 (+ this one) post all were posted in TR threats. About 70's i become more "realistic" and started doing something more productive than putting a lot of ideas.

I dont see how this would work in game. I belive that giving a promotion when lacking resources is better idea. Like -20% strength to swordsman when you dont have iron, but you have copper. Or -15% withdraw, -1 speed and -10% strength to modern oil units.

As for mounted units, if you dont have horses, so how are you going to teach people how to ride one ?

About the Nation wonder (Eric Raude) you mentioned which gives an Oil resource. I think this is highly unrealistic and kills gameplay. It is unrealistic because in the real world, you can't always magicly find a large oil field, in you territorial water, that is absurt. It kills gameplay because the oil resource effectivly becomes obsolete once you constructed the national wonder.

Instead, meabee we could implenent by script in which existing oil bonus resources disapear (because it dries up), forcing a nation to attack another country (like in the middle east) to to access to oil again.

Dont know. If you have a large source of oil and self use it with no trade, why would it dry up ? Besides when it dries up you still have reserves.

About that Eric Raude, i dont like it eighther. But still Arbia needs to have 18 sorces of oil in its country to support as many countries as it does nowdays.

About resources and promotions: a reverse logic. Maybe if you have more than one instance of resource a unit needs, it could get a bonus promotion.

For example, if you have two "horses", it means you have a broader breeding base, and as such the horses are higher in quality (+5% to withdrawal for every spare horse, maybe). Likewise, if you have more saltpeter, that, of course, doesn't mean you have better gunpowder, but it could mean that it's available to troops in greater quantities both for training and war (+5% vs. gunpowder units, maybe, or first strike chances). If you have much oil, that, of course means, that you have lots of cheap fuel, and you can do lots of manoeuvering without regarding economical consequences (withdrawal bonus again, maybe). This logic applies to most resources (I can't think of any for aluminum only).

This gives a player an alternative to outright selling away any surplus he has.

@ Walter

I put simmilar idea in post #100. But was to disadvantage.

As for more resource access, i belive it should boost production speed. For instance 2 sources of Horses makes more of your population know how to ride it = easier to find riders for military.

I didnt read your post (lol) just take a few glances. Too tired right now.

@ Walter

I put simmilar idea in post #100. But was to disadvantage.


That's what gave me the idea in the first place. Hence "reverse logic" part.

i said i didnt read your post ;P

Im thinking about no-longer-needed resources.

Thats copper, iron, marble, stone and horses in modern world.

What about changing copper by industrialism to have -1:hammers: but +1:commerce: .
In modern world copper no longer is a "needed" resource to production. Only wires and few other thing, unlike bronze weapons and armor etc. Still Copper and bronze was used to make some statues etc. thats why im thinking of giving it extra commerance. Still access to copper will hasten prduction of wonders such as Statue of Liberty.

As for iron that is repelled by aluminium (even for tanks in game :o) i think it is still very needed, even more normally iron gives you sword and armor, now how much swords and armors we need to make a tank ?
But lets say that iron mines will give -1:hammers:, but having a city connected to iron gives it +1:hammers: in it. (close to how luxury gives happiness/health).

Marble, i dont know if it is used in any other way than a place to work (qarry), so no penalty to qarry :hammers:, but it is no longer so valuable resource, so lets lower quarry's :commerce: by 1.

Stone, how about making a new improvement, need to be build on stone and it is like cement factory or concrate factory. Will give 1 more :hammers: than stone quarry and concrate resource.

Horses, as we have upgrading cavalary into gunships in mounted thread. So what to do with them ?
Im using horses for entertaitment nnot production, so maybe horses will give happiness ? Or health becouse they are used in hipoterphys (healing whith the use of riding horses), or eating horses, or simply money for renting horses. As pasture with horses still gives 2:hammers: if i remember right.

How could we Forgot Pineapples !!!

About the Nation wonder (Eric Raude) you mentioned which gives an Oil resource. I think this is highly unrealistic and kills gameplay. It is unrealistic because in the real world, you can't always magicly find a large oil field, in you territorial water, that is absurt. It kills gameplay because the oil resource effectivly becomes obsolete once you constructed the national wonder.

Instead, meabee we could implenent by script in which existing oil bonus resources disapear (because it dries up), forcing a nation to attack another country (like in the middle east) to to access to oil again.

Maybe make Eirik Raude a World Wonder, thereby increasing the chances of fighting over oil?

Or else make it so that Eiric Raude provides oil only to the city it is built in. It still leaves lots of room for fighting over oil.

Im thinking about no-longer-needed resources.

Thats copper, iron, marble, stone and horses in modern world.

What about changing copper by industrialism to have -1:hammers: but +1:commerce: .
In modern world copper no longer is a "needed" resource to production. Only wires and few other thing, unlike bronze weapons and armor etc. Still Copper and bronze was used to make some statues etc. thats why im thinking of giving it extra commerance. Still access to copper will hasten prduction of wonders such as Statue of Liberty.

Copper is a very valuable resource in modern world in electronics. Even more that ever before. In modern age it should have even +1http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/hammer.gif
+1http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/commerce.gif


As for iron that is repelled by aluminium (even for tanks in game :o) i think it is still very needed, even more normally iron gives you sword and armor, now how much swords and armors we need to make a tank ?
But lets say that iron mines will give -1:hammers:, but having a city connected to iron gives it +1:hammers: in it. (close to how luxury gives happiness/health).

I was thinking maybe to implement new resource - steel. Available with industralism and steel mills (in forge you cannot produce much steel).
The idea is to produce steel with coal and iron and to use steel for tanks , ships etc.


Marble, i dont know if it is used in any other way than a place to work (qarry), so no penalty to qarry :hammers:, but it is no longer so valuable resource, so lets lower quarry's :commerce: by 1.

Stone, how about making a new improvement, need to be build on stone and it is like cement factory or concrate factory. Will give 1 more :hammers: than stone quarry and concrate resource.

I would say, that stone and especially marble is as valuable as always before - even more because demand is higher. I would not make any difference.


Horses, as we have upgrading cavalary into gunships in mounted thread. So what to do with them ?
Im using horses for entertaitment nnot production, so maybe horses will give happiness ? Or health becouse they are used in hipoterphys (healing whith the use of riding horses), or eating horses, or simply money for renting horses. As pasture with horses still gives 2:hammers: if i remember right.

I agree. Lets say, instead of 2http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/hammer.gif for pasture, we could have +1http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/commerce.gif +1http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/health.gif

I got three ideas:

1) civ specific resource effects
some resources can have different effects on different civs. say, spices (peppers!) would provide more bonuses to some european civs. say, asian civs get more :food: from rice.

2) add birds as resources
every time i play a mod, i wonder why there is no bird, e.g. chickens, turkeys and ducks. i guess turkeys and ducks can redress insignificance of hunting tech on food.

3) owning certain resources can affect diplomacy
say, owning gold can make some civs terribly aggressive against you. say, owning horses makes some civs like you (they think your people are deities).

one more thing: i really enjoy this mod! it's great!

@ usi

Right now we have problems adding new resources. They are added, but Civopedia is bad. It may lead to some crashes in future, so ATM were trying to puzzle the bug rather than adding new resrources.
Your post has been read.

PS: Im sending you a Personal Message. Hope you be of help.

Hi, did U noticed that

Americans do not have HORSES?:confused:
Nowhere to find in North America.

Did U skip it for some reason? Or?

I think it should be there. Two Words - Legendary Mustangs.....
And btw. American settler has nice animation of Horses towed coach so it makes me wonder why aren't horses there.

;6136608']Hi, did U noticed that

Americans do not have HORSES?:confused:
Nowhere to find in North America.

Did U skip it for some reason? Or?

I think it should be there. Two Words - Legendary Mustangs.....
And btw. American settler has nice animation of Horses towed coach so it makes me wonder why aren't horses there.

Originally, there were no horses in the Americas. "Legendary mustangs" were descended from the horses brought from Europe. So, till approximately XVI century, there were no american horses to be found.