Lost my third game this morning.... (SMAC was so much easier!)

I did notice something strange(though you could discout it with bad luck).....But..

In all three of my games, I've really tried to explore as much as possible....(I've been playing mostly HUGE maps)....By the time I've discovered Horsback Riding, or Iron Working, my first warriors are quite some distance from my cities......These important resources are very hard to find in the three games I've played so far...

My question is, Strategic Resources don't appear on the map until you discover the appropriate advance....Do they appear in squares that you have explored, or only within the "black shroud"?

Been trying to play as the persians or greeks....(I always thought SMAC's University was the best..) but this is tough..(And I'm only playing prince! :)

they appear evrywhere. when i discoved iron working, 2 iron deposites poped-up right next to my cities. ive onlt seen iron in mountains and hills though. yes, resources do pop-up in already seen areas

Yeah--thankfully, when I discovered the steam engine I had coal deposits pop up right on my roads. Very convenient!

As I understand it, with some experience you will be able to work out which resources will appear on which terrain types and so if you try and settle these terrain types with the hope that they will yield as yet undiscovered resources, this will be a wise calculated gamble. Of course, it may be that the resources do not appear on your continent or within the radii of the cities you have specially positioned then it will not pay off and you will have to trade for them as you would anyway, but I think that it would be worth taking this risk. This is entirely conjecture as I don't have a copy of Civ 3, but has a good basis behind it and I'd encourage others to play with this strategy and see how it develops.
Also, is it a good or a bad idea to stick a fortified unit on top of one of the resources in order to prevent other civs taking it until your settler/worker can arrive there?

I've played only two games to completion but about 10 partially. What I have found it that the number of resouces seems to be dependant on the number of civs, not necessarily the size of the continent. Compared to my HUGE map games, the small map games are much more resource dense.

Hope this helps,

Sent

Rubber tends to show up in the jungle.

Around all my major cities I've cleared most of the the jungle squares.

Am I screwed? Or will I have rubber show up in the plains the way I have gems (which were visible from 4000BC in the jungle) in the plains now because I cleared those squares?

I guess what this comes down to is:

Are the resources there from turn 1, and you only discover them later (so they're still there even if you planr trees or clear jungle/forest).

Or are resources randomly placed when you get high enough to discover them so that if you've cleared a lot of jungle, you're going to get less rubber?

In the back of your manual, there is a list of terrain types, their values for food / shields / gold, what roads and mines and irrigation will do, and also the types of resources and luxuries that can show up in them. That having been said - planning your civ location around discovery of a specific resource is not necessarily effective or wise. I (playing as the French - special unit musketeers, requiring saltpetre) began a game right next to a huge desert, and (since there was a river and floodplains running through the center, and since I was quickly hemmed in by expansionist AI from other directions) settled the whole thing. So, here I am, waiting for the discovery of saltpetre, and camped out in a desert / mountainous terrain, with big plans for musketeers. What happens when it's found? The only sources of saltpetre are half a continent away, in some mountains surrounded by the AI. I had to use galleys and hug the coast carrying workers and settlers to access it. The same thing happened for iron (same set of wondrous mountains). Also, the game is in a large (one greater than standard) size map, with 8 civs. I just discovered the steam engine. Due to agressive exploration and trading, I have all the landmasses visible on my map. How many coal resources do you think I can find? Four. Four :mad: for the whole d@mn world, and none of them accessible to me. I'm beginning to have paranoid delusions that the resource system was designed by the antichrist.

b

Resources are tied to STARTING terain types. If you clear jungle etc. You will not lose them.

belarivo, what resources exactly did you settle the desert for? Oil I would assume, but don't get angry because iron and saltpetre do not turn up in the desert. They never would have done. My strategy is to expand and choose city sites that will be near jungles for rubber and hills for iron and coal, etc. There is no guarantee that these resources will turn up exactly where you want them every game, but it's surely better than waiting for ages until the iron shows up and then having to war over it. I say that this will not always pay off, but it is definitely worth consideration. :goodjob:

Saltpeter is a desert resource.

Well OK. I don't see why they made it a desert resource but I suppose that they needed more reasons for people to have cities in the desert as opposed to just oil. This still doesn't mean that the strategy is necessarily a bad one. I'd be surprised if anyone could come up with a resource seed map like the one for Civ 2, because I doubt that it works like that, but bearing in mind which resources crop up in which areas should have a bearing on your expansion.

I have not played through to completion yet but it seems to me that building cites on plans with some hills close enough to mone works best for me. I tend to build a lot of culture so if posible I try to place cities so that things like jungles and desserts are close but not within the 20 squares that I can improve. I can build a road out to the resources as the pop-up which by then my borders have usually expanded a couple of times.

Salt Peter is also a hill resource as well.

Yes, resources are the anti-christ and a savior at the same time. It adds another dynamic not present in CIV2. Those who control the resources dont neciscarily control the game, but are in a good position.

On the protecting a resource. If you dont have a road to a resource, its pretty much useless. If you have a resource you definantly dont want to lose, build a town right next to it (if its not deep within your empire), even if that city never grows. The AI WILL DO THIS TO YOU if its a resource on your border. I had this happen to me a dozen times already, so it IS an AI strategy.

Once the road is built, and its your only resource of that type, build a fortress on it, and put at least one modern defender on it, to prevent a sneaky AI from pillaging the road to it. I had the AI do this to my only saltpeter mine, and it stopped the production of gunpowder units for almost 4 turns, which really stunted my war effort.

If you can figure out where the AI is getting its iron/saltpeter from, and its a single source, find it, pillage it, and fortify it if you can. This will CRIPPLE their ability to produce modern units (this is of course, if you can stave off attacks for a long time).

ironfang

The manual states that resources are relatively evenly distributed among the civs. If the resources are pegged right at the start, that suggests to me that capitals should be near resources. This doesn't seem to be the case for me.

Of all the resources I have reached (I have not played up to alum and uranium yet), oil has been the biggest pain. I would have liked to have seen something like Imperialism's exploration using the explorer unit -- but of course I love Imp II so much that I am always looking to crossbreed it's better features with every game. ;-)

I haven't been truly screwed on resource yet, but I've seen AI civs that have -- large island civs with *no* saltpeter, for example (nobody is going to trade saltpeter, so that prety much counts as screwed). I have had to negotiate deals for horses but haven't had much trouble -- generally it costs a luxury and some pittance per turn, but it gets you out of the short term mounted gap and lets you build sufficient cav to go grab a horse from some convenient corner or coast.

I REALLY LIKE the way resources are done in the game. I would always prefer far more resources and a more complex econ (take Colonization's good ladder for example), but again that's just me.

Originally posted by treadwin
Resources are tied to STARTING terain types. If you clear jungle etc. You will not lose them.

Have you seen this in your games? That is, rubber show up on a grasslands square that you or someone else had cleared?

Does this mean the resources are coded to the square when the gamemap was originally generated or made?

I know the number of resources are set at the beginning of the game by the number of civs, so if you start out with 8 and 4 are gone by the time oil pops up, there will be enough for 8 civs (whatever the ratio is for oil). I don't know if the starting points are fixed on the map when it starts, but that would seem to make sense.

Sorry for multiple post on this one. But this question keeps showing up all over the place.


When I played around with the map editor, ALL resources where placed initially. The map already had everything up to Uranium.

The only thing that isn't clear - If a resource is exhausted. I know it will show back up elsewhere. That may require the correction terrain.

so far as I can tell, you need to build a city next to a resource or risk the computer civs building a city right next to it. I had an ally civ build a city next to my only iron deposit, even though I had a fortress and several defenders on the deposit. The next turn they told me to get my troops off their land or prepare for war... if you've been developing next to a strong ally for many turns this could be an unfavorable position.

Do colonies keep other civs from building a city in that area? Can an other civ build a city whose area of control would contain your colony? or would they need to destroy your colony first... an act of war on their part, before they could build the city?

My colony didn't stop another civ from building right next to it, my last source of iron! That's ok, though, I was meaning to kill those Japanese anyway and they had 2...

I'm not sure about the act of war but Yes, thier cities and boundaries do wipe out your colonies. So I build colonies if I cant get a settler there first.

After the first time a rival built a city that wiped out my colony, I don;t build them anymore. They are not secure, and the land hungry AI will put a city next to them. I don't know whether this is a specific strategy or just the AI's tendancy to settle all of the open land. I think it is something that needs fixed in the patch, because it is a great concept. Maybe the colony could have a small radius itself. I also think that forts should have a radius. That or some way of claiming large chunks of land without settlers.:scan:

I had the same problem... my only source of iron was between two of my cities which were just far enough apart that after a couple of cultural expansions, there was still a narrow strip of 'unclaimed' land between them, containing my iron and therefore my colony. Because this was on a long, thin peninsula, I didn't want to drop a city in there (in retrospect, I should have).

At any rate, one of the AI players sailed a galley past, and then must've traded world maps with the other guys, because pretty soon, they're all sailing galleys to that spot. There were two squares on the coast where a unit could come ashore that were not inside my national borders... the colony square and another. Each time the 'invasion' was the same, regardless of civ, and regardless of whether we were at war. The galley sails up, and a spearman lands in the non-colony square (maybe you cant come ashore onto a colony, considered an amphibious assault?) and then a settler would come ashore in the same square.

If I was at war with the civ, I would march out an Immortals unit (playing as Persia) from the closest city and kill them before they could settle a city next turn. If not at war, I would bully them in diplomacy, trying to goad them into war (never worked, I always declared war) then kill the invaders (earning two workers each time from the captured settler) and then sue for peace. I had no choice... this was my only iron source, and no Iron = no Immortals, and no Immortals = no crushing the worthless Aztec Scum! Mwuhahahaha......!

Sorry. At any rate, I quickly learned to defend both the colony square and the other square, to totally prevent landings from sea. (Being on a long penisula, I had long ago sealed my borders to the south from the WORTHLESS AZTEC SCU....

Ahem, yes. As a general principal, in future games, any single-source strategic resource i have that is not well within my borders and highly defensible will not only have a defender in the colony square, but also a strong attack/defense unit (like immortal in ancient times) or combined arms pair (archer/spearman) on hand to chase away WORTHLESS AZTE.., i mean, potential squatters.

What you are saying will work, but what about when you don't want to be at war with whoever lands? In you case you could station units in both squares, thus preventing landings, but in many cases the route will be more accessible, and forming a wall will not be cost effective. Better IMHO to build a city. Even if it will be in a spot that never gets above 2 pop., your resource is more secure, and occasionally the city can produce something.:beer:

Originally posted by lkendter
Sorry for multiple post on this one. But this question keeps showing up all over the place.


When I played around with the map editor, ALL resources where placed initially. The map already had everything up to Uranium.

The only thing that isn't clear - If a resource is exhausted. I know it will show back up elsewhere. That may require the correction terrain.

If somebody saw rubber show up in a grasslands they cleared from jungle, this would clearly demonstrate your point.

If I find a really important resource (iron, saltpeter) in an area that might be in contention sooner or later I build the city directly on top of the resource - NOT next to it. Access to the resource is the most important thing, I am willing to give up some production. Since iron is mostly found on hills it also adds to the defense of the city.

I have gotten out of building colonies for both strat resources and luxuries. I just go in and build a city, no matter what the terrain type. Here is my line of thinking; basically no matter what type of tile you are on-you can support a size 1 or a size 2 city. In the city I build a temple, walls, and maybe a harbor if it is on the ocean. These cities do not need to be huge (bigger than 6) since you no longer lose a city to attack unless all you units are killed. So, you can station large numbers of troops in a size 1 city and they can heal there if attacked. Plus, if you have to build a colony overseas you need a city with a harbor or airport anyway to get that resource back to your empire—why not just build a darn city. I like the idea of a colony, it is quaint and it throws a little variety into the mix. But since the AI can assimilate your resources and your colony by building a city---forget it… I just make a city and keep them the heck out…

If you allow your colony cities to get larger than size one, then you may want to build a marketplace to take advantage of the happiness luxuries bring and maybe a courthouse as well. However, if you are far from your empire corruption will be a problem-so getting bigger than size 6 is probably worthless, the same applies to building a lot of stuff there that costs money (i.e. universities and factories and such…)

I've posted several threads on this topic. People keep saying, it's because you aren't playing with enough civs!
Bull$@#*!
The game I'm playing right now has a total of 8 civs, there are two sources of oil on the "huge" map I'm playing and one source of coal, all of which are in enemy territory and yes I've explored all of the landmasses. The most frustrating thing is that no matter where you build, gambling on resources showing up, it never happens.:mad:

Here's one tip: Play on small map...MUCH easier and less frustrating...

For starters and getting used to the mechanics, it's better to try Small maps rather than huge ones..why? Because it's hard to see whether you screw up overall in huge maps cuz it's hard to meet other civs early in the game and the map is SO BIG.

Let me remind you one factor that is crucial in this game: Expansion. Agressive but do not overstretch yourself.
These strategical resources gives a new dimension in the game...One that changes the rule entirely. You gotta be brave this time...Exploring around, and finding close patches of resources and settle down quickly. My tip: build warrior then a settler quickly but do not hurry the production unless necessary.

I recommend you take an Expansionist Civ so you can use the Scout to gain recon advantage. Basically you want to find best spots and usually they are located near rivers. If you can't find any strategic resources, don't worry. Horses and Iron are quite common and adequate for your offensive and defensive needs(Knights and Pikeman). You can use your money to trade with other Civs..Last time I played, I traded Money for Salpeter from the French and used those 20 turns to build up on Musketeers and Cavalry.

Don't rely too much on your neighbours...once you get the military units you need, go get a more stable source of Resources. Take out your neighbour's colony. (in my case, the British) Once done, you have the option to wipe out the enemy at your discretion or sue for peace and continue with your original plans. Don't worry about late game too much, the Middle Ages takes quite a while to pass.

I hope I don't get too off topic...enjoy the game! And remember: TRADE. Money plays a HUGE part in Civ III. :king: