What I really hate about the actual ressource system is the fact that they are less ressources than players... I thought the game was also about peacefull coexistance... They should be a setting allowing for the number of ressources to be set prior to starting the game... I peacefull game would have more resources than CIVS, while a War game would be just the other way around

Why have resources at all if everybody has one? That's just silly. There's no game element there at all.

Arathorn

I agree with Arathorn

Originally posted by Arathorn
Why have resources at all if everybody has one? That's just silly. There's no game element there at all.


Aeldrik didn't say everyone would have one, just that there would be enough for everyone (number of each resource > number of civs). My neighbor might have more than his share, and I might have none, in which case I'd have the option of either trading for one of his extras or invading to take one of his extras. The game element is still there, nothing silly about it.

The problem with the current setup (# resource < # civs) is that I might have none and nobody else has a surplus! In that case, trade isn't an option - my only choice is to go to war. Now, personally, I'm happy to "correct" my neighbor's surplus by force of arms, but builder-types (my wife is one) are out of luck when trading is not an option. Aeldrik's suggestion would just make sure that both trade and warfare were viable means to get what you need. Since resources tend to be "clustered," increasing their number slightly would probably not decrease the excuses for warfare much at all: the civs without would still be without, but the civs with a resource would be more likely to have an extra. If you like peace, you try to trade it from them, if you like war, you take it by force, but both options should be viable, so that all types of players can be happy.

thx to judgement for the explanations, he is right is all he says.
but he forgot one point:

One really Important gameplay issue of having ressources even if everyone has them, is the fact that you can bomb/destroy the road and thereby make the ressource unavailable...
This was one of the main reasons for the introductions of ressources by the Team, making players have to defend the land around the cities, this would still be given!

Aeldrik: I agree. Have you checked my suggestion for a new resource-model? It is supposed to address this problem among others, although it is not explicitly said there. It is just simply stupid that some modern nations would completely lack oil. Now point me any country that couldn't have any oil if it wanted (and show me a country that didn't want oil :rolleyes: ). And in Civ we are actually talking about the best of nations, the few most influental nations.

Judgement: I have never noticed resorces being clustered, only luxaries. But that may just be observations in my games and not the norm.

Other than that, your point is well taken.

yes, I checked it (at least your first post) and it is quite good, even though I would rather go for a system saying 1 tile allows you to support a certain number of units instead of producing a certain number (as an oil field, f.e. produces so many barrels a year which are used by so many units...)

Aeldrik: There's a lot of thinking done in that thread. If you have the time, read it through. My point is actually that an oil-field allows a certain number of units. It is actually a sort of simplified supporting system. 50 oils means you can have 50 oil-based units at any given time. It has no effect on producing the units, only to the unit gap. But, as I said, this has been thought quite thoroughly in the thread. Go ahead, jump into the fray and make your own suggestions! :)

I agree that there should be a more balanced distribution of resources, but I also feel that the current system we have in Civ3 does indeed mimic what we see in the real world (albeit in a flawed manner). Obviously, any country can buy essential resources (oil, iron, etc) if they're willing to pay the right price. However, it's not the availability of the resource, but the quantity that causes to go to war over them. Witness the Iraqi war last year - although the U.S. had several suppliers available, we still had to attack Iraq to ensure a stable and plentiful supply. Since the resource quantity and cost per unit might make the game unnecessarily complicated, Civ3 ensures we have resource wars by having some civs with no resources!

I also think there is a problem with the resources. If you want to play a fast game on a tiny map it is even possible that some resuorces never pop up:( Or that they are so limited that you can't buy them, and a war is not a good idea if you're playing an OCC.

They should be a setting allowing for the number of ressources to be set prior to starting the game

I like this idea. However, I think being able to adjust the diversity of resources would be better. This would encourage more trading and wars for resources if one continent had a lot of horces, and anouther continent had a lot of iron. It might also be a good idea to be able to adjust the diversity of terrain types to provide for a more even playing field. Both of these features I believe exist in the game, "Civilization: Call to Power".

Aeldrik: It is just simply stupid that some modern nations would completely lack oil. Now point me any country that couldn't have any oil if it wanted (and show me a country that didn't want oil :rolleyes: ).


Congo, Zaire, Madagascar, Luxemburg, and Federated States of Micronesia

all of these have no oil and some of which have no need for it (The Long named country its islands) and before you say it those countries have no national stock piles\supplies of oil not to say someone within the countries doesnt have a car


also i have to add the less resourses the better (I LOVE WAR) if you have to many then its pointless although i do understand where peace loveing ppl come from. the setting idea is good for all ppl

You can create your own scenario with the resources however common you like. Use the editor. High numbers mean there's a lot of it or that it jumps a lot. You can even make luxuries available in almost all areas, like strategic resources. What's really wrong is that its all or nothing. You either have a connection to it, or you don't. There's no measurement of how much of the stuff there is or how much is being used, except that you have to have multiple iterations of it to trade it. To do this might add complexity, but really it would have far reaching side effects and multiple functionality that might be worth it.

I kinda agree, with this. I don't mind liberating resources from my enemy, but in my current game I think there is a total lack of Aluminum on the planet, I can't find it anywhere, and it the only resource I don't have.


Also have anyone ever seen Iron and Coal together. I want to build the Iron Works but never been able to build it.

i say have a scenerio in Civ4 where each person gets one supply of a different strtegic resourse so one person would have iron and be very powerful in the late ancient and early to mid dark age another with saltpeter would be dominant until rifleman and so on and so forth

I kinda agree, with this. I don't mind liberating resources from my enemy, but in my current game I think there is a total lack of Aluminum on the planet, I can't find it anywhere, and it the only resource I don't have.

Also have anyone ever seen Iron and Coal together. I want to build the Iron Works but never been able to build it.

Try some user-created maps, like mine. I always make a few spots per map where an Iron Works is possible. :)

One of my favorite parts of the game is the scramble for seemingly-useless, corruption-ridden bits of land far from my capitol, which usually end up being my only source of oil or rubber later on. However, a random map setting (akin to adjusting the level of barbarian activity) for resources would suit different styles of play.

Maybe this could be randomized...make it possbile to hasve ample resources some games, but very scarce in others.

Having searched this site I noticed discussions on resource and many have been already suggested by others. Also, someone named "Amra" (of Conan the Barbarian fame) compiled several resource types on another thread. I've decided to add a few of my own for future referrence for game modders as well as for the people at Fireaxis. This was the best thread I could find to post my suggestions. Thanks.

Resources

Titanium: A strategic resource. Used to make advanced modern military units mainly tanks and aircraft and possibly space craft components. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

Tin: Strategic Resource. Required to make bronze. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

Plutonium: A strategic resource. Used for fission and fission/fusion based weapons. Possibly as for fusion based weapons. +2 hammers, +4 gold. Requires Mine.

Platinum: A luxury resource. Used to make fin jewlery. May also be a strategic resource. +4 hammers, +7 gold, +1 happy. Requires Mine.

Nickel: A strategic resource. Used in several industrial possesses sinse the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Also required for WWI and WWII era units as well as batteries for electricity. Nickel is also used in steel production. +4 hammers. Requires Mine.

Zinc: Stategic resouce. Needed to make brass with copper. Again used in several industrial processes. Also for music (instraments), coinage, churches (toll bells) and shells for tanks, artillary as well as munitions in general. Also used in some early gunpower units. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

The following food resources would add some "colour" to the game.

Garlic (good for health): +3 health, +1 food. Requires Farm

Dates, figs, apples, cherries/berries, oranges, pinnaples and coconuts: +1 food, +2 health each. Requires Plantation or Orchard.

Tea: +1 happy face, +2 gold. Requires Tea Plantation.

Game birds (grouse, turkey, duck, pheasent etc...): +2 food, +1 health. Requires Farm.

Bison/buffalo: +2 food, +2 hammers. Requires Ranch.

Camels: A strategic resource for camel based units. +2 hammers, +1 gold. Requires Pasture.

Furthermore, many food/animal/plant based resources should be situated according to climate. Some resources may also be rarer (harder to come by) than others.

Having searched this site I noticed discussions on resource and many have been already suggested by others. Also, someone named "Amra" (of Conan the Barbarian fame) compiled several resource types on another thread. I've decided to add a few of my own for future referrence for game modders as well as for the people at Fireaxis. This was the best thread I could find to post my suggestions. Thanks.

Resources

Titanium: A strategic resource. Used to make advanced modern military units mainly tanks and aircraft and possibly space craft components. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

Tin: Strategic Resource. Required to make bronze. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

Plutonium: A strategic resource. Used for fission and fission/fusion based weapons. Possibly as for fusion based weapons. +2 hammers, +4 gold. Requires Mine.

Platinum: A luxury resource. Used to make fin jewlery. May also be a strategic resource. +4 hammers, +7 gold, +1 happy. Requires Mine.

Nickel: A strategic resource. Used in several industrial possesses sinse the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Also required for WWI and WWII era units as well as batteries for electricity. Nickel is also used in steel production. +4 hammers. Requires Mine.

Zinc: Stategic resouce. Needed to make brass with copper. Again used in several industrial processes. Also for music (instraments), coinage, churches (toll bells) and shells for tanks, artillary as well as munitions in general. Also used in some early gunpower units. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

The following food resources would add some "colour" to the game.

Garlic (good for health): +3 health, +1 food. Requires Farm

Dates, figs, apples, cherries/berries, oranges, pinnaples and coconuts: +1 food, +2 health each. Requires Plantation or Orchard.

Tea: +1 happy face, +2 gold. Requires Tea Plantation.

Game birds (grouse, turkey, duck, pheasent etc...): +2 food, +1 health. Requires Farm.

Bison/buffalo: +2 food, +2 hammers. Requires Ranch.

Camels: A strategic resource for camel based units. +2 hammers, +1 gold. Requires Pasture.

Furthermore, many food/animal/plant based resources should be situated according to climate. Some resources may also be rarer (harder to come by) than others.

... This is for the Warlords expansion, isn't it?

Btw, I like the idea of a limited stock of resources - maybe a bit like civ3 where ressources ocassionally disappear or a new source is found. Is this still implemented in Civ4? (I know mines have a small chance of finding metals, but does it work the other way around? Are resources disappearing or being used up in CivIV (I have never experienced this yet)?
I also agree that Ironworks is nearly impossible to get your hands on, atleast in non-edited maps.
One should bear in mind though, that the only source of iron disappearing in the middle of a hard war is a vast loss, and this could remove some of the control the player has of the game - then again, you'd have to think twice before starting a long-time war.

Tin: Strategic Resource. Required to make bronze. +3 hammers. Requires Mine.

Or, in other words, instead of needing to hook up one resource to access all bronze based units, you'd have to hook up two resources. I'm all in favour of including extra strategic options that are available to all civs but this seems pointless.

Similarly for most of the other proposed resources - just because they have a use in real life doesn't mean that they'll improve the strategic depth of the game. There might be room for a resource linked to early gunpowder units but that's about it.

On extra food resources; the health cap would become largely irrelevant if there were so many possible sources of health.

... This is for the Warlords expansion, isn't it?

It certainly could be, that or a future expansion such as "Beyond the Sword" coming out in July or for CIV V. Or, it could be modded into the Warlords expansion.

Btw, I like the idea of a limited stock of resources - maybe a bit like civ3 where ressources ocassionally disappear or a new source is found. Is this still implemented in Civ4?

I think the concept of resource yield (basically the amount of resource per mine etc.) is a good one - basically how large is your supply of iron, coal, gold etc... per mine? The same would apply to resources such as oil. For example, you might have moderate amounts of copper, a little silver and lots of iron within you empires borders. So the amount is as important as the resource itself. Units should also require X number of a given resource for there construction and maintainence. A tank for example would require iron, nickel, oil, rubber and perhaps a little tin and copper for shell casings and such. A knight would require iron and horse. The amount of such resource units would also vary from unit to unit. In the above examples the tank would require far more iron than the knight.

(I know mines have a small chance of finding metals, but does it work the other way around? Are resources disappearing or being used up in CivIV (I have never experienced this yet)?

Indeed they do, in one game I gained several resources (over six, I'm sure) over the course of the game. That just simulates that your miners hit a rich vain of a particular resource. In answer to your next question, no, resources do not "run out" as it were in CIV IV.

I also agree that Ironworks is nearly impossible to get your hands on, atleast in non-edited maps.
One should bear in mind though, that the only source of iron disappearing in the middle of a hard war is a vast loss, and this could remove some of the control the player has of the game - then again, you'd have to think twice before starting a long-time war.

I think that resources should also possess a range of how common or rare it is. Some resources will be common, other more rare and everything in between. In the real world not everyone has direct access to oil, for example. Other countries have plenty of coal, but little iron, still others have huge gem deposites but are low on copper and so forth. This would encourage trade and mutual dependence, or war as the case may be between nations.

In think the additional resources that I listed, should be included. There would be no Bronze Age without tin and high tensile strength steel requires nickel. Tin, nickel and zinc is are indispensible reasources in the modern age. Uranium is also requires for DU ammunition and titanium has many high tech and military applications.

I like the ideas, but it might make the game a bit advanced. Also, every tile would be occupied by some sort of resource, vastly increasing cities' yield from them. I have an idea - Ask a modder to make a game where each era lasts longer (maybe like the Epic speed), without units costing the Epic amount of shields and the villagers costing epic amount of food. Then include these resources and maybe render some of them obsolete late age, so that you're not missing uranium or aluminium because of a large vein of copper in your mines. Also, a tile could hold several different resources, and when you build the mine (or pasture or quarry) on the tile, you would choose which resource to yield. This could also be used in customising your land, ie. ignoring the copper and tin veins in your ironmines to field a large number of praetorians quickly.

-Diamondeye

Or, in other words, instead of needing to hook up one resource to access all bronze based units, you'd have to hook up two resources. I'm all in favour of including extra strategic options that are available to all civs but this seems pointless..

Yes, this would also create two seperate ages, the copper and bronze ages. With copper alone you could have archers and axemen, Bronze could give you spearmen, phalanxes. So simple solution; Increase requirements for some units.

Similarly for most of the other proposed resources - just because they have a use in real life doesn't mean that they'll improve the strategic depth of the game. There might be room for a resource linked to early gunpowder units but that's about it.

It seems to work for "Amra". Why not me? It adds variability, which is almost always good increasing the value of the game. More options equals = increased gameplay value.

On extra food resources; the health cap would become largely irrelevant if there were so many possible sources of health.

Simple solution; Increase the health cap.

I can understand that some/many people might be interrested to play such a version of the game but it seems unnecessarily complex.

Simple solution; Increase the health cap.

You misread me. I'm saying that it will increase the health cap which would be a problem. You could say that the solution is to lower the health cap but at some difficulty levels it can't be lowered by very much.

I can understand that some/many people might be interrested to play such a version of the game but it seems unnecessarily complex.

Fair enough. I repect your opinion.

You misread me. I'm saying that it will increase the health cap which would be a problem. You could say that the solution is to lower the health cap but at some difficulty levels it can't be lowered by very much.

But considering you're not going to have excess to all the food resources in the game (especially early game) it could work. Besides, some resources could only be found in certain climates. Failing that, you could always brainstorm a solution -- I'm sure one can be found with not too much difficulty.

You already don't have access to all food resources in the early game (or I don't at any rate). An increased number of health resources (and this goes for happiness resources to a lesser extent) in the game means a statistical likelihood of access to an increased number of health resources in the early game.

Climates: Do you mean restricting certain resources to 1) a climate type (arid/rocky/tropical/etc.) or to 2) certain terrain types (grass/plains/desert/etc.).

Failing that, you could always brainstorm a solution -- I'm sure one can be found with not too much difficulty.

The only thing I can think of is to reduce the number of each health resource generated. If there are twice as many health resources, only place half the normal amount of each on the map. This has a failing:
1) less excess resources means less trading of resources. Trade becomes a much less succesful method of obtaining new resources. Warfare becomes more powerful.

You already don't have access to all food resources in the early game (or I don't at any rate). An increased number of health resources (and this goes for happiness resources to a lesser extent) in the game means a statistical likelihood of access to an increased number of health resources in the early game.

This is less of a problem if some certain resources only exist in certain climate belts.

Climates: Do you mean restricting certain resources to 1) a climate type (arid/rocky/tropical/etc.) or to 2) certain terrain types (grass/plains/desert/etc.).

Both, I would imagine.

The only thing I can think of is to reduce the number of each health resource generated. If there are twice as many health resources, only place half the normal amount of each on the map. This has a failing:
1) less excess resources means less trading of resources. Trade becomes a much less succesful method of obtaining new resources. Warfare becomes more powerful.

Actually, I think it could increase the potential of both trade and war.

This is less of a problem if some certain resources only exist in certain climate belts.

...

Both, I would imagine.

????

I could probably do with further clarification on that. Are you using 'climate belt' to refer to a new concept? Resources are already restricted to certain terrain types.

Actually, I think it could increase the potential of both trade and war.

No, it (generating less of each resource) couldn't. Less resources means less excess resources for trading.

This topic is originally a brainstorom to a solution of lack of existing resources.
Why add more resources when theres too few tiles for the existing spread of resources?

-Diamondeye

There might be room for a resource linked to early gunpowder units but that's about it.

They had Saltpetre in Civ III, which fulfilled this role. Curiously though, this can be obtained from decomposing organic matter, such as dung - I don't think I need to explain how worrying it would be to find out your citizens don't produce any...uhm...side effects to all that bread they munch, according to your city screen.

Back to the topic, I find it curious that a thread about how resources are spread too sparsely in the game ends up producing a list of extra resources to be included in the game. If we're not careful, we'll have to have every tile on the map covered in resources on tiny maps.

They had Saltpetre in Civ III, which fulfilled this role. Curiously though, this can be obtained from decomposing organic matter, such as dung - I don't think I need to explain how worrying it would be to find out your citizens don't produce any...uhm...side effects to all that bread they munch, according to your city screen.

I think sulpher will be added as a new resource at some point.

Back to the topic, I find it curious that a thread about how resources are spread too sparsely in the game ends up producing a list of extra resources to be included in the game. If we're not careful, we'll have to have every tile on the map covered in resources on tiny maps.

Small maps should be local or regional in nature and would eliminate your concern. If this is the case, only resources more specific to that area need be considered.

Furthermore, maps larger than huge (modder maps) can hold plenty of additional resources. Such mods do exist on this forum.

This topic is originally a brainstorom to a solution of lack of existing resources.
Why add more resources when theres too few tiles for the existing spread of resources?

-Diamondeye

There wouldn't be depending on the size of the map you use. Refer to my reply to Ceritoglu.

Nice thread here

I think tin and tea were very important resources in world history.

All bronze requires tin.

And tea is not only important in many cultures, but also important trade item in colonial times. Not to mention US independence movement kind of started over a dispute on tea trade.

Salt is also important, there were entire economies based on salt caravans and trade.

Some fruits (other than banana) would be nice too.

I think they should also fix the stone resource. It needs to signify monolithic stone to give bonus to only pyramids, obelisks etc. Brick-sized stone mines to use in Citywalls or Oxford, you can find everywhere, so these shouldn't be a resource.

Nice thread here

I think tin and tea were very important resources in world history.

All bronze requires tin.

... But bronze consistsof 90% copper, making it logical to simply add copper as the needed resource. Eventually, you could make tin a luxury, and giving bronzebased units a +10% :hammers: if copper AND tin present.


And tea is not only important in many cultures, but also important trade item in colonial times. Not to mention US independence movement kind of started over a dispute on tea trade.

Salt is also important, there were entire economies based on salt caravans and trade.

Some fruits (other than banana) would be nice too.

I think they should also fix the stone resource. It needs to signify monolithic stone to give bonus to only pyramids, obelisks etc. Brick-sized stone mines to use in Citywalls or Oxford, you can find everywhere, so these shouldn't be a resource.

I like the idea about tea, salts and fruits - only, more health resources would mean a health issue, making it impossible to balance because of too many healthy resources, so that you would either be very healthy or (if lacking :health:-resources, be :yuck: and lose the game.

I think the stone resource is fine as it is. A bit overpower, maybe, but okay.
Maybe limit the bonus a bit on wonders.

He's an informative piece on bronze that I think is interesting and expalins the great and varied uses of bronze alloys.

BRONZE 101 - What is bronze?

Alloys that contain no iron are called nonferrous. Of these, the copper alloys are the largest group. Most copper alloys are brasses and bronzes. Brass is copper alloyed with zinc. Most kinds of brass are easily shaped and have a pleasing appearance.

Bronze, like brass, is a manufactured product and was one of the first alloys developed by ancient metal workers. The earliest bronze was probably made by accident. Copper is extracted from natural ores and alloyed with tin or other elements to create a metal which does not exist in nature. Some copper ore deposits also naturally contain small amounts of tin. When such ore is refined, the metal looks like copper but is harder and more useful for making tools, weapons, and artwork. Early metal workers appreciated this improved "copper" and later learned to mix copper and tin, sometimes with other metals, in different proportions to obtain various desirable alloys. The Bronze Age, following the Stone Age, was so-called because of the far-reaching effects the developing copper-bronze metallurgy had on early societies. Later, iron replaced bronze in the manufacture of swords and other weapons. Bronze is now widely used in making tools and machinery as well as in making coins.

Since ancient times, bronze has been the most popular metal for casting statues and other art objects. It is preferred because of the unique way in which molten bronze becomes a solid. After molten bronze is poured into a mold, it expands as it cools and fills every detail of the mold. When it solidifies and cools further, it shrinks slightly so the final piece of art does not stick to the mold. With time, the bronze takes on a range of colours caused by oxidation of the surface, an effect that is called a patina.

Traditionally, "bronze" was a copper alloy which contained tin (not exceeding 10%). Tin increases hardness, making bronze more resistant to wear than is copper and bronzes with 10 percent or more tin are harder, stronger, and more resistant to corrosion than brass. They have been used for bearings, electrical hardware, springs, and clips.

Variations of Tin Bronze
Phosphor bronze contains a small amount of phosphorus. Phosphorus further increases the hardness and wear resistance of bronze. In addition, it allows molten bronze to flow better, which enhances its casting quality.

Leaded bronze has lead, usually small amounts, mixed in to act as a lubricant. Such bronze is often used to make machine parts, such as bearings, that must endure a lot of sliding action against other parts.

Bell bronze is very hard and provides a special tone to bells that no other alloy can match. It is one fifth to one fourth tin.

Nickel bronze, which adds nickel to the alloy, is hard and resistant to wear. It is used to make gears and machinery bearings.

Silicon bronze has small amounts of silicon, which makes it grow stronger when it is worked, such as by rolling. It is also particularly resistant to corrosion and is used in boilers, pumps, water wheels, parts for ships, and electrical parts.

Today bronze composition may vary significantly, and contemporary bronzes are typically copper alloys which may contain silicon (Si), manganese (Mn), aluminium (Al), zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), iron (Fe) and other elements, either with or without tin (Sn). The variations in bronze (both in proportion and elemental composition) can significantly effect its characteristics, whether it is providing a higher resistance to wear, better machinability, less corrosion in water, etc.

Some alloys of copper without tin are also called bronzes. For example, there are copper-aluminium alloys called aluminium bronze. This alloy may also include iron, nickel, and silicon to add greater strength. Aluminium bronze is used to make tools and, because it will not spark when struck, many things that will be used around flammable materials. Aluminium bronze is also used for aircraft and automobile engine parts. Manganese bronze is actually a brass that contains manganese. It is often used to make ship propellers because it is strong and resists corrosion by seawater.

These bronzes ranges in colour from a dark yellow-red to a bright yellow-gold depending on their composition.