I'm not a crank, I love the new, I stay with the times... I work in games myself... But cV is not settling well with me. One thing that I have realized is driving me crazy is the removal of Health. They removed health, but kept in the health resources - why?? When my settler is scouting around, I get excited and settle near an abundance of fish, deer, sheep - but really, who cares? +1 food for working the tile? That's not worth an icon on the map imo.

In CIV, every resource you discovered mattered, but in cV half of them are nerfed to being pointless.

Swearing is not allowed on these forums, title edited. :)

Yeah it sucks, but nothing we can do. Oh wait there is, but it will not happen. Everyone will be buying the first DLC that Firaxis puts out so nothing will change.

Either you accept it and keep playing, or, don't accept it and quit. But what ever you do, do not buy any DLC or expansion packs, or your complaing is for naught because nothing will change and it will be the same thing over and over again.

There is a mod that increases the food and production output of resources.

I get excited and settle near an abundance of fish, deer, sheep - but really, who cares? +1 food for working the tile? That's not worth an icon on the map imo.

It's worse than that, these "bonus resources" keep you from building more useful improvements on the tile. I think you can only build GP improvements, but e.g. no trading post or mine.

Most of the food resources in this game are damn near worthless.

A food bonus would only make a city grow faster and thus crave more luxury resources. I really am starting to hate the way happiness works in Civ 5.

Yeah, Health worked so well. There was no reason to take it out, at all. Food resources are there just to look pretty now. So sad.

I'm not a crank, I love the new, I stay with the times... I work in games myself... But cV is not settling well with me. One thing that I have realized is driving me crazy is the removal of Health. They removed health, but kept in the health resources - why?? When my settler is scouting around, I get excited and settle near an abundance of fish, deer, sheep - but really, who cares? +1 food for working the tile? That's not worth an icon on the map imo.

In CIV, every resource you discovered mattered, but in cV half of them are nerfed to being pointless.

Agree on food resources - they're pretty pointless in current state... maybe wheat, but deer, banana, and sheep are pointless. Fish at least include a commerce bonus, IIRC.

I was originally (and the part of me that likes a lot of varied resources still is) angry that we lost a lot of resources -- I liked the increased variety in IV -- but at this point, might as well have tossed sheep out together with pigs, corn, rice, etc.

They removed health, but kept in the health resources - why??

Food resources have always been in Civ. Removing health, which only existed in CivIV, doesn't mean food bonuses have to be removed as well.

Well considering how food resources actually provide hardly any food I must disagree Thedrin.

Yeah, Health worked so well. There was no reason to take it out, at all. Food resources are there just to look pretty now. So sad.

I hate how pointless some resources are in this game, but don't you remember the awful global warming (which was health related) that was inevitable in Civ4?

Food resources have always been in Civ. Removing health, which only existed in CivIV, doesn't mean food bonuses have to be removed as well.

I'm wondering if there was originally a mechanic that meant worked food resources gave +1 food to every city with a market or something like that. Maybe it was decided to be OP.

Was it Health related? I didn't ever get too much global warming, the only time it started to spread a lot was when I started using Nuclear Weapons. Usually my games were over before I got that far into the game.

I misread the title of this thread as SLEEP; who gives a $hit.... then when I saw the complaining I was confused...


makes more sense after fixing

Well considering how food resources actually provide hardly any food I must disagree Thedrin.

I'm not certain what I said that you disagree with.

Does removing the health feature mean that food resources also have to be removed?

One thing that I have realized is driving me crazy is the removal of Health. They removed health, but kept in the health resources - why?? When my settler is scouting around, I get excited and settle near an abundance of fish, deer, sheep - but really, who cares? +1 food for working the tile? That's not worth an icon on the map imo.

In CIV, every resource you discovered mattered, but in cV half of them are nerfed to being pointless.

This.

I began playing Civ V like I played Civ IV. One of the weirdest habits that I could not crack easily was looking for a place with lots of resources. My level of play went up considerably when I finally started to simply look for happiness resources, rivers and fish. Sheep don't mean a thing unless they're on depleted lands like tundra.

They should give the granary +1 food per food resource, perhaps only the land-based ones. Perhaps give it +1 happiness also and make it a slight bit more expensive. I think it would streamline the early gameplay.

I'm not certain what I said that you disagree with.

Does removing the health feature mean that food resources also have to be removed?

Well - I do think it's more than health... When you add the way happiness is calculated, add the fact that food buildings are now flat boosts (though some do retain 'storage bonus' aspects), and finally -- maritime CS -- food resources ARE worthless... in fact, in many instances, I'd say they're counter-productive.

I can tell you that I actually AVOID settling near food resources now in many cases -- that's a pretty big flaw in a Civilization game IMHO.

I'm not saying that food resources have been well implemented in CivV. But the absence of the health feature does not mean that food resources should be removed.

I would like to see the food resources made more significant. Maybe introduce buildings that can only be built by cities working a specific type of food tile, or instead have food resource tiles give large bonuses, as it was in CivIV, so that there's a big incentive to work these tiles earlier. Alternatively, and most simply, just allow farms to be built on them.

However, that want is a hold over from CivIV, where planning out the placement of my cities was my favourite part of the game. The rules for city placement are vastly different now. And I don't know enough about the game - particularly how cities evolve as the game progresses - to say if it's better or worse.

I'm not saying that food resources have been well implemented in CivV. But the absence of the health feature does not mean that food resources should be removed.

I would like to see the food resources made more significant. Maybe introduce buildings that can only be built by cities working a specific type of food tile, or instead have food resource tiles give large bonuses, as it was in CivIV, so that there's a big incentive to work these tiles earlier. Alternatively, and most simply, just allow farms to be built on them.

However, that want is a hold over from CivIV, where planning out the placement of my cities was my favourite part of the game. The rules for city placement are vastly different now. And I don't know enough about the game - particularly how cities evolve as the game progresses - to say if it's better or worse.

Ultimately, I think you still run into the problem of city growth (especially direct via local food resource tiles) being counter-productive.

Sure - population = science and gold, but the curve flattens to the point of diminishing returns fairly quickly, while happiness scales out of control (population, not number of cities, seems to be the big unhappiness driver).

There were, of course, instances in IV when you wanted to limit growth/at least, max production -- but I find myself setting virtually ALL my cities to max science/production/commerce by default.

This is where health is sorely missed -- even if you had a potentially huge mega-city in the making and you didn't need that pig, you still wanted to improve the tile for the health bonus, if not also to trade it (and later in the game -- for many resources -- to take advantage of corporations).

The happiness problems are basically solved when you get to the buildings that improve happiness. They come too late. There is a large part of the game where you're trying to curb growth. In Civ IV you could whip and improve the happiness of the city more easily. I think they need to add early happiness buildings to smoothen it out. The granary or the monument would be good choices I feel for extra happiness. Perhaps add one happiness for a garrisoned unit.

Food is pointless in Civ 5. Forget about Civ 4. I use world builder to create my own map with resources. I can tell you that the AI players all skip on Banana. They work with sheep for money.

Anyway, I can't tell you how disappointment I had with Civ 5. My unsatifation since Colonization, now I will not buy any game from 2K. Their credibility is finished.

The happiness problems are basically solved when you get to the buildings that improve happiness.

In addition to coming late, most have a crippling maintenance cost. :(

Perhaps add one happiness for a garrisoned unit.

Military Caste. (Tier 3 Social Policy in the Honor branch.)

I wondered whether it could be a good idea to make food resources add to the hit points of a city, since it could be argued that these cities are better equipped to dealing with a siege.

Or maybe that could reduce the number of food needed for the city to grow, since they promote a varied diet.

In all honesty though i agree they can be worse, but the flip side is at the beginning of the game they can be useful since they give benefits to new cities before you have a chance to start improving tiles around them.

I agree that the food bonuses are weak. One way to make them more relevant would be to first reduce the unit cap (which is based on difficulty, number of cities, and population, IIRC). Then for each food resource that you control, your unit cap would increase by one. By making this into a mechanic that would allow a player to field a larger army, there would be some incentive to go after these resources.

It is sad how food resources have been kicked to the curb. They really are meaningless and ultimately dull. They look nice though so the designers probably just left them in for eye candy.

I agree that the food bonuses are weak. One way to make them more relevant would be to first reduce the unit cap (which is based on difficulty, number of cities, and population, IIRC). Then for each food resource that you control, your unit cap would increase by one. By making this into a mechanic that would allow a player to field a larger army, there would be some incentive to go after these resources.

You know - that's actually not a bad idea...

I mean - everything else has been boiled up to the empire/global level, why not food? Why should individual cities grow up of their volition, but have absolutely no happy/unhappy city level effects?

Make food a global resource you "spend" on unit support and/or city growth (where city growth just means "work another tile").

I don't particularly care for the way CiV made cities into depots, more or less, but if you're going to go that route --- just go all the way.

Global empire food store, spend it on units or city growth. Works for me...

EDIT: Actually -- this would also allow you to make food a tradeable resource, giving it more value. It might actually make it worthwhile to build things like granaries and lighthouse, too.

The more I think about it, the more I like it...

Even with the perceived "lack" of food resources, you guys are not able to grow your cities? And you want to add more food resources?!?!?

I think most of you are missing the point in that there are now more diverse ways to grow. Why unbalance the game even further by adding more of what you really don't need?

well, not entirely pointless, doesn't more food mean more pop, more science?

Even with the perceived "lack" of food resources, you guys are not able to grow your cities? And you want to add more food resources?!?!?

I think most of you are missing the point in that there are now more diverse ways to grow. Why unbalance the game even further by adding more of what you really don't need?

I don't think the complaint is "lack" -- at least -- it's certainly not for me... I avoid food resources like the plague because I'm suffering too much growth.

For me, anyway, that's why doing to food the same thing they did to happiness and culture would actually be better.... just make it into another "currency to be spent", on selected city growth or units. Go negative, either you have to kill off a unit of lower a city pop point.

well, not entirely pointless, doesn't more food mean more pop, more science?

Yes - but I find that the tradeoff isn't worth for the SP increased costs and happiness issues.

The science basics are 1 beaker per 2 pop -- with the building tree (uni --> PS --> RL) being a modifier atop that value.

Together with the outrageous building maintenance costs -- this means you rarely want to see more than your 3-4 core cities grow (and in some cases, maybe just your capital).

My empires skew pretty badlly.... 2-3-4 10+ pop cities and everything else I cap at 2. In fact, I've been trying to work out the most effective way to starve cities I capture down to size.

Didn't 2kgreg say on the official forum that the next patch will improve thos kinds of resources so as to make them more meaningful ?

I think I read that somewhere on this forum...

I just hate having a sheep on a hill, and not being able to irrigate it. I mean, 2 food 2 production is the same as an irrigated normal hill, come Civil Service. It just isn't exciting.

Also, I think the real killer about resources in general being low yield modifiers, is that there isn't the same excitement in city placement. You aren't conflicted by settling near THIS rather than THAT because there is fairly little difference.

Look at the threads for civ 4 where people agonize for a long time over where to put their first few cities. It just doesn't seem that important in civ 5.

I wouldn't even mind not being allowed to build non-special improvements on bonus resources, if those were always better than what I got otherwise.

I very much agree that they need to improve the decision making for settling cities, to the point where you have to find a good spot for your first (and subequent) cities - whether based on food, resources, geography, luxuries, etc.

Hmm, what if food resources reduced the unhappiness caused by the city that works them? (Though frankly, I think they also need their effect in general boosted).

Sheep should provide some kind of additional bonus for their wool. Sheep aren't just butchered for food. Same goes for just about every domesticated animal. It doesn't make sense for gameplay or realism to have only a paltry food bonus.

I hate how pointless some resources are in this game, but don't you remember the awful global warming (which was health related) that was inevitable in Civ4?

That's a strike against global warming as a game mechanic, not health.

Food tiles allow you to maximize production and increase city size at the same time.

You need less citizens to occupy tiles to feed your city and you can stack any extra citizens in production tiles, gold tiles or gear towards great people.


It's about min/maxing what you have.

Sure excessive food tiles are worthless. Put almost any resource is if you don't have a worker to occupy that tile.

Sheep should provide some kind of additional bonus for their wool. Sheep aren't just butchered for food. Same goes for just about every domesticated animal. It doesn't make sense for gameplay or realism to have only a paltry food bonus.

Paltry? It gets a 33% (or 50%) bonus. Now you want to add another resource (wool) to an already over-abundant list??

Paltry? It gets a 33% (or 50%) bonus. Now you want to add another resource (wool) to an already over-abundant list??

Over-abundant-list?

We are now blood enemies and I wish to salt your earth!

I hate how flood plains have no bonus now!

In every Civ since 3 I think, flood plains have given like a +2 food (over grassland)!

Paltry? It gets a 33% (or 50%) bonus. Now you want to add another resource (wool) to an already over-abundant list??

It adds a food. Working it adds a production. That's pretty paltry, and comparable to farms with techs adding 2 food -- pretty much all resources are like this, especially the non-luxury, non-strategic ones.

Improving a resource of any sort should always add at least 2 of something, otherwise there's nothing really that special to improving that resource, which is lame.

I hate how flood plains have no bonus now!

In every Civ since 3 I think, flood plains have given like a +2 food (over grassland)!

In Civ IV, at least, it was just +1 food over grassland. I don't remember how Civ 3 had it.

Over-abundant-list?

We are now blood enemies and I wish to salt your earth!

LOL.

The number of resources for a biased start is way too much. A non-biased start should be default and if someone wants an "abundant" resource map (like we had in Civ4), then that will be a valid option. Right now, there is no decision making on starting location or finding city locations. And cities do grow causing some to slow down growth.

Now if they nerf Maritime city-states, then they would have to make up for it by bumping up food resources. But not both.

In addition to coming late, most have a crippling maintenance cost. :(

I don't think it's that bad, but they could make it so that food resources increase the value of trading routes.



Military Caste. (Tier 3 Social Policy in the Honor branch.)

Is no argument. It would simply be +2 happiness per garrisoned unit come Military Caste.

Yeah it sucks, but nothing we can do. Oh wait there is, but it will not happen. Everyone will be buying the first DLC that Firaxis puts out so nothing will change.

Either you accept it and keep playing, or, don't accept it and quit. But what ever you do, do not buy any DLC or expansion packs, or your complaing is for naught because nothing will change and it will be the same thing over and over again.

I can't speak for others but I will certainly think twice before buying anything else from 2K Games / Firaxis.

It adds a food. Working it adds a production. That's pretty paltry, and comparable to farms with techs adding 2 food -- pretty much all resources are like this, especially the non-luxury, non-strategic ones.

Improving a resource of any sort should always add at least 2 of something, otherwise there's nothing really that special to improving that resource, which is lame.

I think some are used to the greater Civ4 scale. I think Civ5 has similar bonuses, just on a smaller scale. In other words, we absolutely do not need a 5-food special in the early game. That would be extremely over-powered. 1-food or 1-production does make a difference. Now whether it should be worked, it shouldn't be automatic like Civ4. We should have to make a decision of what we want to do on that hex.

If the developers want to make sheep/cows/deer slightly useful, while keeping with the (in my opinion) bland nature of Civ 5 buildings and tile improvements, they just need to add a Butcher building. +1 food bonus per sheep/cows/deer like a lighthouse does with fish.

I think some are used to the greater Civ4 scale. I think Civ5 has similar bonuses, just on a smaller scale. In other words, we absolutely do not need a 5-food special in the early game. That would be extremely over-powered. 1-food or 1-production does make a difference. Now whether it should be worked, it shouldn't be automatic like Civ4. We should have to make a decision of what we want to do on that hex.

It's a bad system when the special improvement for that resource often isn't very attractive. It's worse when they make you use that special improvement as opposed to anything else.

Frankly, the improvement system in Civ V in general needs some work. There needs to be more options and choices like Civ IV had with workshops and so forth. I generally like what we have in Civ V, but it needs a lot of polish and this is one of the places that needs adjustment.