Do you think they should bring old saltpeter back in order to have gunpowder units? I know I wouldn't mind it especialy if in exchange you could get a bonus for musketmen to make them more useful. Anyone know why they toook it away in the first place? I kinda liked it because that was one resource that if you didn't have it in your area, you had to go on a an all out bloody rampage to get, or else you'd get left behind and your army would get ripped to shreads.

For sure. I love Gunpowder and usually beeline to it. This would only make it more powerful.

Im glad they removed it, was one of the few resources i hated back in the days.

I hate saltpeter too.Once i played on huge map.There were 14 civilizations, but only 4 Saltpeter source.Only two civ had it.I lost the game:)
I don't want it back!!

Gunpowder units are really important and World maps are too small to have another resource.

Actually you guys are right. Having saltpeter means that you have to you might have to go to war to get gunpowder units. That would be awful!

What I like to do is go to war WITH gunpowder.

No to saltpeter.

I don't know, I just think it would sort of add a realistic twist. Plus a good way to get revenge. If Monty has been annoying you with his units, or if mansa has been outreching everyone but they don't have saltpeter and you do it would turn the tables. All of the sudden you'd have grenadiers, and cavalry while the poor backward army led by monty would still have macemen. That's how some civs got taken out in the real world.

yeah but welcome to a game anyway.

I'd prefer to see some of the resources that are in the scenario's before they add Saltpeter :)

Adding a few new resources ain't a bad idea, but there should be a real reason for doing so, adding something substantial to the game.

Adding must-haves are a bad decision, however. Salpeter didn't add anything to the game once you had it, it only meant defeat if you didn't. If it must be in Civ4, let it give a 10% discount on producing gunpowder units or something that doesn't completely hose the civs without. (Or change the power balance between Cavalry and Rifleman along the Chariot and Axeman lines, allowing survival without Copper).

It should be resources that enhance certain styles of gameplay, preferably styles that are believed to be underpowered today.

If, for example, the play style of having lots of unhappy citizens was considered underused, you could add the Poppy Flowers resource to the game... ;-)

So should iron, copper, aluminum, coal, oil, and horses be removed?

Yes, I don't think you should just be able to build gunpowder units out of fresh air when you need the iron to build the maces etc

I'm all up for it! :) Just another condition that needs to be met for victory!

They removed the saltpeter resource for two reasons:
1) Musketmen were a big step up from pikeman and if you didnt have them your oponent would have a massive opportunety to attack you and cause major damadge with Cavalry.
2) Saltpeter was very common so they didn't need it to be realisic.

note: saltpeter only allowed musketmen, cavalry, a couple naval units, and I think a building.

King of Town...

The difference with copper, iron, horses etc. is when these appear there's usually still room to expand and found cities nearby to grab them. By the time gunpowder (and therefore Saltpetre) appears, the whole map has usually been settled, so it's just pure luck who gets the resource and who doesn't.

Exact same could be said for aluminium, uranium etc

To be truthful, you really don't "need" saltpeter in order to produce gunpowder. Many resourceful chemists through the years have figured out ways to generate the potassium nitrate needed for the gunpowder through various other means. In many cases they even made it so that potassium nitrate wasn't needed at all and some other oxidizer was used.

If they were to make saltpeter a required resource for gunpowder units, I think it should be obsoleted with some other "advance". (I'm at work right now so I can't recall when chemistry comes into play).

[

note: saltpeter only allowed musketmen, cavalry, a couple naval units, and I think a building.[/QUOTE]


I had forgot this was true, and this could be accounted for as the advance made as chemists come up with new ways to replace saltpeter. This would still give an advantage to those who had the saltpeter, but not particularly a game changing one.

In C3, if you didnt have saltpeter or a very weak neighbour who did, the game was in effect over. It was a pain, even in c4, you're almost always going to have at least Iron or Copper, which means you can get horses, which means you can usually get whatever other resource you need... no resource should be so critical the game isnt worth playing if you dont have it

PLEASE DON'T bring gunpowder back to the game. Copper, cool. Iron, a bit over-powered but it works. Horses, a good back-up plan if you lack iron. Saltpeter, a resource that encourages unfairness, and on a whole less fun.

My two cents.

You can't make aluminium from crap can you. If anything it should require horses.:D And we might as well bring back rubber while were at it and add a % chance that these resources will move to somewhere else each turn. This game would be a lot easier if they couldn't build muskets and infantry.

I think it all depends on the game lenght and map size you use, even then its fun if you have to throw your whole might against an equal enemy to attain one objective, that resource. I suppose that people play for different reasons. Just like you can have a whole continent practically, and never get hold of uranium. This happened to me on a huge map. Everyone else was arming up with nukes, same kind of thing.

I don't know, I just think it would sort of add a realistic twist. Plus a good way to get revenge. If Monty has been annoying you with his units, or if mansa has been outreching everyone but they don't have saltpeter and you do it would turn the tables. All of the sudden you'd have grenadiers, and cavalry while the poor backward army led by monty would still have macemen. That's how some civs got taken out in the real world.

Concerning any "realism", in the middle ages they "mined" saltpetre from the local midden. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltpetre. So all you need is a large urban population and you can crystalise all the potassium nitrate you need from their urine.

hahaha well I guess that would be one way to do it. So when you get to gunpowder you can have one musketman per population point:) I don't know, I've been on maps where all I had was horses, and I still did well. Saltpeter would be a midgame resource, so you could do alot of landgrabbing with maces, and swords, and you should ahve the same chance of getting it as you would oil or aluminum. I mean if you don't get oil, you miss out on a lot of units. if you don't have aluminum, you can basically say goodbye to a space win. If you were going for one, and you didn't have aluminum, that would make the game not worth playing.

I dont think I've literally ever been without aluminium

I have, on a large map. And I am never the size of my initial settlements, more often a lot more than that!

it will be more realistic to have saltpeter back. This will only affect musketman and cuirassier in this game anyways. Musketman are not really counter to cavalrys anyways and cuirassier is only 2 strength higher than knights.

it will be more realistic to have saltpeter back. This will only affect musketman and cuirassier in this game anyways. Musketman are not really counter to cavalrys anyways and cuirassier is only 2 strength higher than knights.
I usually want the game to be as plausible as possible, but saltpeter in the game is just outright stupid! As previous posters said, saltpeter was readily available almost everywhere. Geez. :shake:

In early game, you have the Archer line of military units to fall back on if you don't have any strategic resource. Mid game, you have the Gunpowder line. I actually like it the way it is now, from a game-play point of view. Gunpowder is your savior if you simply cannot acquire Iron/Copper.

I usually want the game to be as plausible as possible, but saltpeter in the game is just outright stupid! As previous posters said, saltpeter was readily available almost everywhere. Geez. :shake:

Fair enough. But then what's the deal with "stone" as a resource? A little more abundant than saltpeter, don't ya think? What about dirt? Or air? I think the point is that what's in and what's out as a resource seems almost random. If you're going to have copper, what about tin, without which there would have been no Bronze Age (yes, other materials can be used, but they weren't discovered until much later)? If you have fur, why not cotton? If wineries, why not breweries?

Etc., etc.

Stone just represents an abundant amount of it since you can still built everything that uses stone, its just takes twice as long.

it will be more realistic to have saltpeter back. This will only affect musketman and cuirassier in this game anyways. Musketman are not really counter to cavalrys anyways and cuirassier is only 2 strength higher than knights.

Well, if you're talking realism then why are Cuirassiers armed with guns at all? Napoleon's cuirassiers were primarily armed with swords. Some had a flintlock pistol for when they got in close, but still used their sword most often.

I say no to saltpeter not only for the fact that it was--literally--as common as crap, but because Renaissance warfare wasn't always won by the guy who had muskets, but it would be so in Civ4, were there a requirement for the unit.

So, in short--Both history and game balance back up not needing a resource.

If anything gets added, let it be wood to represent good forests (+1 Production, +1 more with Lumber Mill!). Not dung.

I think saltpeter should be returned too. Yes, it sucks if you don't have it, but c'mon -- it's mainly for only musketmen. By Riflemen, it's no longer required, due to tech breakthrus. It adds more purpose to acquiring the gunpowder tech... and let's face it, Musketmen are more on the defensive side anyway (well, in Civ4 it's changing, but they should be...)

What I don't understand is why tanks require oil, but mechanized infantry do not. Are they like on the Flintstones? Or maybe each has a nuclear reactor? I know it's not coal, because in a recent game, I had neither coal nor oil, but built a whole lot of mech inf.

What I don't understand is why tanks require oil, but mechanized infantry do not. Are they like on the Flintstones? Or maybe each has a nuclear reactor? I know it's not coal, because in a recent game, I had neither coal nor oil, but built a whole lot of mech inf.

None of the defensive units require any resources. I mean archers, longbowmen, musketmen, rifleman, infantry, and mech infantry. The military resources only give you and advantage with countering enemies and offensive units.

None of the defensive units require any resources. I mean archers, longbowmen, musketmen, rifleman, infantry, and mech infantry. The military resources only give you and advantage with countering enemies and offensive units.

Hmm... thanks for pointing that out. Still doesn't make any sense from the RL perspective, but I see the game-playability rationale.

To be truthful, you really don't "need" saltpeter in order to produce gunpowder. Many resourceful chemists through the years have figured out ways to generate the potassium nitrate needed for the gunpowder through various other means. In many cases they even made it so that potassium nitrate wasn't needed at all and some other oxidizer was used.

You mean a "Gunpowder" corporation? :D

I miss Saltpeter and Rubber, but if I had to make a choice about adding one it would be Rubber.

I think it all depends on the game lenght and map size you use, even then its fun if you have to throw your whole might against an equal enemy to attain one objective, that resource. I suppose that people play for different reasons. Just like you can have a whole continent practically, and never get hold of uranium. This happened to me on a huge map. Everyone else was arming up with nukes, same kind of thing.


I've experienced the same thing with oil before. I've had to go to war and conquer my neighbour in order to get the oil resourse, and I was the second largest civilization (landmass wise) on a Huge Map at the time.

If anything, Rubber should be included before saltpeter

I don't know, I just think it would sort of add a realistic twist. Plus a good way to get revenge. If Monty has been annoying you with his units, or if mansa has been outreching everyone but they don't have saltpeter and you do it would turn the tables. All of the sudden you'd have grenadiers, and cavalry while the poor backward army led by monty would still have macemen. That's how some civs got taken out in the real world.

No, they got taken out because they decided not to research Gunpowder. Monty got his butt kicked because he had no idea what gunpowder was, not because he did not have the resources to make it. Saltpeter is not even found in nature; according to Wikipedia it is made "from urine from which it was forced to crystallize in various odorous ways." I'm pretty sure that the Aztec Empire of tens of millions of people had plenty of urine at its disposal. Finally, horses, epidemic diseases, and steel or iron weapons were the main tools used to destroy Mali and the Aztecs, and misuse of gunpowder is the reason Britain lost to the Zulus

If you have fur, why not cotton?

I'm sorry, but I see no similarity between something taken off an animal's back and something grown in a field.

lutzj your signature is too long limits are:

Size 1=7 lines
Size 2=5 lines
Size 3=3 lines
no larger sizes should be used.

yes to saltpeter for musketmen and cuirassiers. i always find strategic wars to control resources the most fun. plus it will hold back the small civs that convert a small empire into a science factory and fly ahead of the rest.

I'm sorry, but I see no similarity between something taken off an animal's back and something grown in a field.

You're being either disingenuous and/or obtuse. You know full well that: (a) They're both used for clothing and other dry goods; (b) they both are resources; and (c) they've both played a major role in world economies at one time or another. If anything, cotton has had a much more widespread and enduring importance during the eras in Civ. And, if you're at all sensitive to animal rights, cotton would be a far more politically correct resource than fur.

It still seems to me that it would be nice to have to adjust your gameplay throughout the game to lack/abundance of resources. You can go from a whipping boy, to king of your continent. I mean If you have iron and horses you don't need any other resource until the modern era. Shouldn't there be something in the middle to break that up? If you are on a small continent with one other civ, and you have the only iron and horse on the continent somehow, is the game still fun? Wouldn't it be better if there was some advantage they would have? I mean you would be without one unit or maybe two. Does anyone quit when they don't have elephants? It may be found everywhere but in order to produce it enough to build an army with it, you still had to have an organized production effort. You get to use iron and bronze after you discover those techs even if you don't have a source of it, because you can still find small enough pockets to build better tools for your workers.

You're being either disingenuous and/or obtuse. You know full well that: (a) They're both used for clothing and other dry goods; (b) they both are resources; and (c) they've both played a major role in world economies at one time or another. If anything, cotton has had a much more widespread and enduring importance during the eras in Civ. And, if you're at all sensitive to animal rights, cotton would be a far more politically correct resource than fur.

I didn't say fur was better, I said it was different from cotton.

I hated saltpeter in Civ III, glad it's not in IV.
I also think it's extremely easy, even if unpopular, to find saltpeter (in buildings, mostly in stales, and also in old battlefields, of which there are plenty), so it's unrealistic to boost.

lutzj your signature is too long limits are:

Size 1=7 lines
Size 2=5 lines
Size 3=3 lines
no larger sizes should be used.

Sorry about that. is it okay now?

loved salpeter, always liked the advantage it gave me against bigger but unfortunatte civs.

Sorry about that. is it okay now?

Those look like their size 3 lines but if their size 2 I guess it would be fine.

loved salpeter, always liked the advantage it gave me against bigger but unfortunatte civs.
And if you are the bigger but unfortunate civ?

then you beat the crap out of the smaller civ and steal it before he can take advantage of it or tech to the point you don't need it.

If you are the big but unfortunate nation, you have to earn it by war. Also, in the civ3 you didn´t have a great penalty for too many cities, quite the oposite, so 30 knigths against 2 musketeers is easy to arrange resulting in the conquest of the desired resource. I once played a Europe MAp( my favorite) and had to cross all the map in order to get oil. We still get this sort of thing in Civ4, and still the AI never trades important resorces( logically but still annoying, cause isn`t accurate), so you gotta go to war sometimes, so why not for salpeter, or coal, another ingredient of gunpowder, which could came earlier in the game, since you always used coal for heating.

I prefer Civ IV to III.

Yes, Britain had accesss to higher grade saltpeter in India than France did from it's latrines, and it gave them a little more range, but it didn't stop the French from using cannon and muskets.

I like the idea of military re-balance in the mid -game. I also welcome the idea of the Aluminum and Ethanol corps, so that I'm not forced to go to war to get to space, or to get oil to have an airforce to protect myself.

As for rock, at least it's more common in BTS than it was in vanilla.

David: I take issue with only one statement. The penalty for too many cities in CivIII was actually quite high: rampant corruption. Once you passed the designated threshold, additional cities were essentially worthlessly unproductive (60 turns to build a courthouse, 120 turns to build a factory, etc.). I ended up having to use the Editor to make more buildings which reduced corruption and raising the number of cities before corruption set in big-time. Otherwise, if you were an expansionist (as I am), the corruption just killed you.

T[...snipped...] If they were to make saltpeter a required resource for gunpowder units, I think it should be obsoleted with some other "advance". (I'm at work right now so I can't recall when chemistry comes into play).

If I remember right, Chemistry did obsolete Saltpeter in some fashion (i.e. it was not needed to build the units). It seemed historically accurate, but kind of moot since by that time during the game progression, Gunpowder units were effectively obsolete. Conceptually at least, I supposed it did justify why modern units that "use gunpowder" did not need Saltpeter, but it had no other real effect.

Saltpeter could just add a production bonus to gunpownder units and other units of the era (cannons, frigates), something like 25% bonus production.

You already need strategic resources for the vast majority of good quality units, Copper,iron,horses,oil,uranium,aluminium, there needs to be some basic generic units because otherwise a poor start postion could effectively end the game for you before you've even started, even now a res poor start postion is a major disadvantage.

Lets look at what you can actually build without special resouces and how effective these units are if you fight someone with access to the good stuff, after all if you dont have the resouces an you need to take them by force then this is what you have to make do with to acomplish this

Ancient era - Archers + catapults + galleys + Triemes
Feudal era - Longbowmen + trebs + Caravels
Early gunpowerder era - Musketeers + galleons + Privateers
Late gunpowder era - Riflemen + Grenadiers + Aiirships
Early modern era - Infantry + Artilery + Marines + paratroops + anti tank
Late modern era - Mech infantry

Anyone notice the gaps in there? at the start of the game you will get flattened if you go to war with archers an catapults vs swordsmen, horsemen & axes, its a very tough start if you have nothing to hand

Same goes for the medieval period with longbows

Musketeers at least in this time period, if you've survived the prev two, allows you to compete a bit on the field of battle, but it's going to be hard work digging out city defenders with these

This next bit your actually quite competive, no horses is a bummer, but at least you can actually hold your own here, without special resources, this is the time period if you need to go to war to do it, it's your best chance

Were still competive, but no planes, navy or tanks is going to hurt

Mech infs are great, but with no planes tanks or etc your dead in the water

As you can see without access to special resouces you are at a massive military disadvantage, in all era's bar one, theres already great incentive for strategic wars, since not having access to iron, horses or oil in particular is a huge deal, without adding another on a basic gunpowder unit

I hate saltpeter too.Once i played on huge map.There were 14 civilizations, but only 4 Saltpeter source.Only two civ had it.I lost the game:)
I don't want it back!!

Besides, it's quite easy to manufacture saltpetre to make gunpowder. There has never been any time in world history when someone had problems producing it.

On a related note, I think it should be possible to export horses (or take them from a neighbour) until they are present in all civs that are interested in them. That would make the quest to get a horse resource limited in time, but think of all the fun trying to persuade someone to sell breeding stock to you; or letting a spy attempt to smuggle horses across the border to you. Or letting your army capture horses. There could be a sort of scaling to the thing: at first, buying breeding stock and so on only enables you to build a limited amount of mounted units, but after enough horsetrading/horse stealing/horse smuggling/horsejacking incidents, you simply have horses, period.

Besides, it's quite easy to manufacture saltpetre to make gunpowder. There has never been any time in world history when someone had problems producing it.

Not so at all! In 12th Century China there was a shortage. There was a shortage in France in 1775. In fact, there were continual shortages throughout Europe during the 16th, 17th and the first half of the 18th Century:

The shortage of saltpeter, derived largely from barnyards and pigeon lofts, was acute until the Dutch East India Company found a supply in India after 1750. And, despite that find, good supply of saltpeter and gunpowder was to remain a major military problem as late as the French Revolution.(From Crossbow to H-Bomb By Fawn (McKay) Brodie, Bernard Brodie)

But the shortages didn't end in the 18th Century. There was a shortage again before and during the War of 1812. There was what's been called "a desperate shortage" in the U.S. in 1861, right before the Civil War. During World War I, a shortage of Chile saltpeter threatened to bring the manufacture of gunpowder and explosives to a halt.

In fact, there was generally a shortage of saltpeter (except in China) until the Nobel Prize winning Borne-Haber process, invented in World War I in Germany, resolved the nitrate shortage by making synthetic nitric acid from air and fossil fuels (natural gas, naphtha, coal), as is still practiced today.

Maybe some people don't want saltpeter re-introduced to Civ. But the notion that there's always been an abundant supply of the resource throughout the world is a fiction.

Maybe some people don't want saltpeter re-introduced to Civ. But the notion that there's always been an abundant supply of the resource throughout the world is a fiction.

If one husbanded one's resources led carefully, there was always enough of the stuff. If there was a shortage anywhere, it was due to bad management. They didn't have enough inspectors travelling around to all farms and deciding when to harvest the floors of stables and so on. Perhaps some historical cultures didn't pay enough attention to micromanagement? ;)

During the last weekend I played a game and got no coal, no oil and no aluminium. I can live with that because you can build sam infantry, anti-tank infantry and such and you can promote your units to suit your needs. It's hard but If I play until modern times I won't give you because of that.

It don't think adding the old salpetre would be so much fun, just another chance that you would be the one without a chair when the music stops.

I remember civ3 when I sometimes "lost" my iron but kept playing because I wait for my war when I have salpetre but ended up in a big disappointment because I got no salpetre either.

But it would be some logic to link how many units you can have with your population (more than it is now, the cost for units are very low).

If one husbanded one's resources led carefully, there was always enough of the stuff. If there was a shortage anywhere, it was due to bad management. They didn't have enough inspectors travelling around to all farms and deciding when to harvest the floors of stables and so on. Perhaps some historical cultures didn't pay enough attention to micromanagement? ;)

Now I understand! The shortages which affected more or less all of the "historical cultures" in the civilized world for the better part of 4 centuries and even into the 19th and early 20th century were just the result of "bad management." Thanks for clearing that up! :lol:

I heard bringing saltpeter back was part of the new patch

I heard bringing saltpeter back was part of the new patch

Please tell me you are joking.

Now I understand! The shortages which affected more or less all of the "historical cultures" in the civilized world for the better part of 4 centuries and even into the 19th and early 20th century were just the result of "bad management." Thanks for clearing that up! :lol:

I was joking, but please mention one single war where one side lost because they didn't have enough salpetre.

Saltpetre is in a random event in BTS. It gives +1 gpt to a tile and 2 others in the world.

It was always an irksome limitation in CivIII, and that's because should I need a source I could look at the dirt under my house, at organic waste and elsewhere. It meant beelining for riflemen.

I can see Rubber being re-introduced, but there should be a tech point where you can synthesize alternatives. Horses should really be more like a thing that you don't have until you have them. I mean, just how many horses would you need to breed up enough for all your needs? 2 stallions and 2 mares is all you would need to start if you gave it enough time and were willing to put up with some rather severe inbreeding effects for a while.

The resource system works better now as there are often alternatives. No Coal? Got Oil? Good enough, that and iron gets you your railroads. Don't have Aluminum or Oil? We've got a corporation for that now. I want to be able to tech out of a resource specific problem, and that happens now more than it did.

I was joking, but please mention one single war where one side lost because they didn't have enough salpetre.

Actually, they were lost due to bad management. ;)

Saltpetre is in a random event in BTS. It gives +1 gpt to a tile and 2 others in the world.

It was always an irksome limitation in CivIII, and that's because should I need a source I could look at the dirt under my house, at organic waste and elsewhere. It meant beelining for riflemen.

I can see Rubber being re-introduced, but there should be a tech point where you can synthesize alternatives. Horses should really be more like a thing that you don't have until you have them. I mean, just how many horses would you need to breed up enough for all your needs? 2 stallions and 2 mares is all you would need to start if you gave it enough time and were willing to put up with some rather severe inbreeding effects for a while.

The resource system works better now as there are often alternatives. No Coal? Got Oil? Good enough, that and iron gets you your railroads. Don't have Aluminum or Oil? We've got a corporation for that now. I want to be able to tech out of a resource specific problem, and that happens now more than it did.

I think it would be annoying and unbalanced to have saltpetre as a resource one would need to have on the map in order to be able to build gunpowder unit. By all means, include saltpetre deposits as a way to build gunpowder units faster, or something like that.

I completely agree about the horses. They should start out as a resource in some places, and then, early in the game, those without horses would have to acquire them through trading deals or theft (by means of spies or pillaging a pasture, for example). Each time you get another civ to agree to sell you horses or acquite horses some other way, you are able to build a certain number of cavalry units. When you have acquired horses a sufficient number of times (three, for example), you are considered as having enough breeding stock to build all the cavalry units you want. The horse pastures within a city area would still give the same bonus, of course, just the way some places are famous for breeding good horses.

Heck, one could even have a random event where a herd of runaway horses (mustangs or the like) cross the border to your country, are captured and then are added to your store of horses! Or a random event where a thief offers to sell you some horses, though at a hefty price.

Rubber as a natural resource would give an unfair advantage to tropical civilizations. I suspect that's the reason why it was removed from the game. I agree that there should always be a way to synhesize what you need at some point. And after the discovery of Electricity, one really shouldn't need coal to be able to build railways.

I like the horse raiding or trading idea eventually giving you horses as a strategic resource. Perhaps if you pillage a horse tile you get 1 credit, if you kill a chariot or HA you capture some of their horses and get another credit and if you trade for horses for 10 turns you get another. Once 3 credits are acquired you have enough horses throughout your empire to meet your need and no longer need access to the tile. You effectively have the horse strategic resource for the rest of the game but can't trade it to others. That would be a realistic solution but is a bit messy in game terms. As far as I know there were no ancient civilisations in Europe, Africa or Asia that didn't have horses. North and South America never had modern horses until they were introduced in the 16th Century.

I like the horse raiding or trading idea eventually giving you horses as a strategic resource. Perhaps if you pillage a horse tile you get 1 credit, if you kill a chariot or HA you capture some of their horses and get another credit and if you trade for horses for 10 turns you get another.

In "Colonization", if the Indians killed a European mounted unit they acquired some horses. Through such raids and horse trading they aqcuired an increasing number of horses until they were self-sufficient. If a really very primitive game like Col could have such an item, it shouldn't be impossible to implement it in a much more sophisticated game such as Civ IV.

just say no to saltpeter!

What I don't understand is why tanks require oil, but mechanized infantry do not. Are they like on the Flintstones? Or maybe each has a nuclear reactor? I know it's not coal, because in a recent game, I had neither coal nor oil, but built a whole lot of mech inf.

During the last weekend I played a game and got no coal, no oil and no aluminium. I can live with that because you can build sam infantry, anti-tank infantry and such and you can promote your units to suit your needs. It's hard but If I play until modern times I won't give you because of that.

i played a game once with no ponies (i did have ivory), no coal, no oil, no uranium, no aluminum. go out and get some you say? i couldn't, it was OCC always war :lol:. what i don't have in my cultural borders by legendary will never ever be mine, nothing i can do about it!

that game was when i finally understood just how many things require all those stinking resources, sheesh! and why i am truly grateful that you can make mech inf, which are quite decent troops and have 2 movement, with nothing. luckily i was playing as shaka zulu. impis were my only 2-movement troops until i got mechs *giggle*. well, i could have built scouts/mishes/explorers, but why give the bad guys free exp.

that game was hilarious. but if there was a resource needed for gunpowder units too, i bet you i wouldn't have had it either, and would have to give up at that point.

there's a saying something like "there are no map issues a bunch of axemen can't solve". in OCC that doesn't apply, you can't go grab more land/territory/resources. it's a non-default setting and we know what we're signing up for in theory, but that's the main reason i cringe about adding more resource requirements for units.

just say no to saltpeter!

i played a game once with no ponies (i did have ivory), no coal, no oil, no uranium, no aluminum. go out and get some you say? i couldn't, it was OCC always war :lol:. what i don't have in my cultural borders by legendary will never ever be mine, nothing i can do about it!

that game was when i finally understood just how many things require all those stinking resources, sheesh! and why i am truly grateful that you can make mech inf, which are quite decent troops and have 2 movement, with nothing. luckily i was playing as shaka zulu. impis were my only 2-movement troops until i got mechs *giggle*. well, i could have built scouts/mishes/explorers, but why give the bad guys free exp.

that game was hilarious. but if there was a resource needed for gunpowder units too, i bet you i wouldn't have had it either, and would have to give up at that point.

there's a saying something like "there are no map issues a bunch of axemen can't solve". in OCC that doesn't apply, you can't go grab more land/territory/resources. it's a non-default setting and we know what we're signing up for in theory, but that's the main reason i cringe about adding more resource requirements for units.

So, no saltpeter because it will make OCC that much more difficult? Tail wags dog. :crazyeye:

Maybe the units could cost less to produce with the ressource, but I think this is way too basic to prevent civs from making gunpowder units no matter what. Or maybe they could be a limit to the number of gunpowders units you may have based on the amount of ressources you have.

Oil and saltpeter in Civ III were game-breaking resources. If you didn't have them, you might as well give up while you were still ahead. Both were so important that you HAD to go to war to get them. In my opinion, oil was even more crucial because without it, you could not build transports, tanks, aircraft, advanced ships, and so on, which made you powerless in the modern age.

I had a game once where I had two oil resources in the far northern reaches of a distant continent, surrounded by another civ's territory. When they went to war with me, I airlifted 10+ units into each city every turn to hold them. When the cities were finally overwhelmed and I lost my oil, my army went from the most advanced in the world to using frigates, galleons, and cavalry, no airplanes and no tanks. I pretty much gave up then as you can imagine.

So, no saltpeter because it will make OCC that much more difficult? Tail wags dog. :crazyeye:

i thought i made it clear that it was just my opinion, bringing up a point that i hadn't seen anybody else make. i specialize in pointing out oddball cases :p. and what do dogs have to do with it? my avatar is hello kitty, no dogs around *giggle*.