RTS-Style Resources

Here's how it works:

- Resources function just as they do in Civ3 (i.e. resource must be connected by Road or Sea/Air-based trade route).

- Resources are quantitative (i.e. get used up).

- Resources are collected/consumed per turn (units of resource).

- Total number of resources are stored in 'treasury' just like currency (gold).

- When a resource is depleted, it disappears.

- Modifiers: tech level, government form.

- When city taken, percentage of resources are also plundered (just like gold in Civ3).

- An individual item in the city build queue may require a definite number of units of a specific resource. If requirement is not met, construction will not initiate. (Resources are consumed next turn.)


My additions:

- Some units/Buildings consume resources per turn (in the case of units, double when outside frindly territory); number of units of resource consumed per turn varies with item.

- If there are not enough units of particular resource to cover all units/buildings, highest consumption (?) items lose 50% movement and combat values (units)--due to low supplies--or simply cease to function (buildings).

- Storage Depot (?) improvement allows a city to function as though it were still connected to the required resource for x number of turns (i.e. items can still be built and buildings continue to function).

- Units in friendly territory that does not contain at least one city connected to required resource will suffer effects of resource depletion.

- Units outside of friendly/allied territory suffer same effects of resource depletion. (Ally's capital must be connected to your capital in order to negate the effect.)

- 'Support Tactics' tech allows units to operate outside of friendly territory without suffering ill-effects.


This may seem complex, but its not. Its just a slightly more sophisticated version of what you see in Civ3. (My additions are not required for the first part to work--they are meant to stimulate resource dependence even after an item has been built (especially in the case of buildings) and to use a VERY simple method of simulating logistics, keeping with Civ's simple mechanics.)

I've tried to deal with any exploits but this is a relatively simple example meant only to define what the average sees and not what a pro sees.

Well, I have said it before that, though I definitely want SOME form of quantification for resources, I believe it can be kept relatively abstract. i.e. each 'supply' of a certain resource has a given SIZE (say from 1-10). Then, the chance of a resource supply 'disappearing' will depend on factors like how many cities do you have (and what are their population), how many improvements and/or units do you have that rely on the resource on an ongoing basis (with units outside your borders counting as double-unless within range of a 'supply point') and how many units and/or improvements you are building, that turn, which have the resource as a requirment.
This way, people will STILL need to consider resource 'depletion', but not necessarily have to be amateur book-keepers in order to play the game !
Overall though, Yoshi, I do believe the idea has much to recommend it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

...each 'supply' of a certain resource has a given SIZE (say from 1-10).

Click to expand...

I had a similar idea some time ago but using the RTS system is more familiar to players of RTS and Civ (Civ already uses this for gold in treasury; i.e. when x runs out, nothing can be bought/built).

This system has also been thouroughly tested as has the present Civ3 system, so combining them should be relatively simple.

Additionally, this system works well both in turn-based and real-time making simultaneous turn play no problem.

It also makes logical sense: x + quantitiy of x = accumulation of x.

Your system would require a whole new design (with potential exploits).

IMO, Firaxis didn't go with this system in Civ3 because of that program's inefficient way of checking for things (i.e. the fewer features, the better).

Really, the ONLY thing simpler than this system is Civ3's system (i.e. connected resource allows construction--regardless of number).

Basically it's this: resource = 0 therefore item cannot be built.

The other stuff I added was to add the illusion of logistics but I doubt they'll add it.

Would be interested to know just how capable Python will be when applied to Civ4. Maybe the stuff I added can be done that way through special triggers.

i think on specific resource squares there should be specific buildings to extract the resource...these should evolve during the times as do fortresses...
oil

coal

aluminum

rubber

iron

diamond

brinko man, easy on the pics!

Actually, that's another typical RTS feature (e.g. AoE: Lumber Camp for collecting Wood from Forest, Mining Camp for collecting Gold and Stone).

What you're proposing is basically an elaboration on that.

I was going to add that but just asking for anything around here prompts a hail of 'that changes the ganme too much,' when in fact it doesn't (at least where the key game concepts are concerned).

What would be great would be a caption in the Resources window of the Editor (using Civ3 lingo) where you could select a Tile Improvement type is required in order to collect the selected resource (e.g. Iron requires Iron Mine--like the pic).

Another thing I would add is an improvement requirement (e.g. Rubber requires that at least one of the connected cities have a Rubber Plant in order to be able to collect the Rubber resource.

Having options like this would be a modder's wet dream and make for a more interesting game in general without significantly affecting the standard format.

(Note that Resource requirmeent/trading was introducd in Civ3 and it changed Civ strategy quite a lot. Adding a quantitative element is a pretty minor change in comparison but a logical next step IMO.)


...I can't believe this thread only got 2 people posting in almost 24 hours, in a forum that is packed 24-7. Considering the fuss people made about resources in Civ3, you'd think this would be a hot topic.

Could someone at least debate this?

Maybe I should just post a poll...

I think it is an excellent idea. But in your model of how thibngs work, units that can't be supplied with their resource should get disbanded, not run at half strength. Let's keep it consistent with civ2 shields as supply and civ3 gold as supply.

Have each city have it own supply of these resources. Then move them around as need for trade. This would be good for the advanced rule idea I had.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111608

That's what I went with initially, but many people objected; they didn't like the idea of losing a unit that way. The other option was to have the unit become immobile (if a mechanized unit) when the reasource runs out but that's all WAY too complicated for Civ. No, this is the best way: units suffer shortages but that's it.

Buildings function just as unit-producing buildings do in Civ3: if city is disconnectd from building's required resource (if any), building stops producing units until city is reconnected. The only difference is, buildings in Civ4 would cease to function entirely (i.e. no effects) when city is disconnected from resource. (This is actually how it should have worked in Civ3 but I think the program only checked for this flag in the C3C version--when the unit-producing feature was added. It would have made modding and strategy much more interesting had this one little flag been added (i.e. program checks if resource is connected to building's city for the building to function, not just for it to be built.)

What I've mentioned here is a tiny bit of the possible appications for adding resource requirements to unit/building function.


But first, resources should be quanifyable.

Here's a few more reason:

- Would also make trading more effective: x # of gold for x # of resource as opposed to the Civ3 system, x # of gold for...resource.)

- Larger units (like ships) not only cost more in terms of production/gold but in terms of resources. This means that you can't just build ships ad eternum as long as you have the production and the gold to maintain them.

The above reply was for rhialto.

@arkammler:

I considered this at one point but found that it was unecessarily compicated as it doesn't really affect strategy that much, requires too much micromanagement and wastes too much processor time checking for these things.

The key is that cities must be connected to the resource (at least one) and each turn of control over one resource yields resource points (units of resource--just like units of currency that are stored in treasury.

The only significantly different strategy using your system that you can destory resources located in a city via bombardment (i.e. store resources in 'Storage Depot' improvements that can be destoryed without having to capture the city). Still, not worth the trouble just for one tactic. (Could always create some equivilant using events.)

As for advanced rules: I don't see the point. If you buy a game, its for ALL the features. Besides, there's little chance of that happening considering what Firaxis has in mind for Civ4. The only reason why I bring up quantitative reqources is because it's a simple, logical, tried and true system that conforms to Civ's format. Even then, I don't think something as simple as this has much of a chance as it can't just be 'added later' as Firaxis likes to do; it's part of the game now or never.

I think I would divide required resources into Strategic (required for contruction) and Fuel (required for function).

I think its fair to say that units still in the field when all deposits of a 'fuel-type' resource are probably running on emergency reserves. Given that, I think said units should probably suffer an ongoing loss of 'stamina' and/or 'morale' until the unit is killed or is forced to disband.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Considering Firaxis is saying Civ4 will (may) include a moral function, that would make sense: supply shortages make for grumpy soldiers (as Iraq has shown us).

I was just wondering how luxury/bonus resources would be affected (I'm pretty sure both will be in the next release); do they function as they do now and have quantity only count for production purposes (i.e. controlling a square with a luxury connected resource on it causes 1 citizen to become happy)?

Well, I think the way it should work is that a single UNIT of a resource should be able to increase the happiness of a SINGLE city by X points. Every extra city to which the resource is connected reduces the number of happiness points generated but, obviously, spreads the happiness over more people.
However, the more cities a single deposit of a luxury has to make happy, the more chance that deposit has of disappearing.
The REASON I support an abstract, as opposed to abolute, resource quantity system is that, in real life, world leaders often don't know just how long a resource will last, although they will get a clue as to when things are getting dangerous. Allowing people to see, at a glance, how much of a resource they possess, they can easily exploit the system to make sure the resource deposits NEVER dry up, wheras an abstract system keeps people on their toes !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

What about just having each citzen consume 1 unit of a luxury resource up to 3 citizens in each city (so that having a lot of units of a particular luxury resource would not result in all citizens being happy).

I don't like abstract systems because they are too prone to exploits or ver-simplification that degrades strategy. Having x resource with x quantity is what it is. A resource with a quantity; to be applied as the designer sees fit. (Also considering the other reasons I stated which are simply for purposes of efficiency.)

I was thinking about the possibility of adding a randomize option for resources: if flag checked, # of units of selected resource are random as opposed to the usual pre-set base number.

Where ignorance of resource potential is a factor, particularly in the early stages of the game, you could make the amount unavailable and have a tech ability that reveals the amount (e.g. Modern Geology reveals amount of remaining units of each resource on the map). Although, the fact that other data that would usually be unknown to leaders is available in the ancient times (e.g. population demographics are available from the start so a leader is able to calculate population growth exactly and so on), makes the issue of resource amount availablity somewhat unecessary.

But Yoshi, what if I want a system where happiness is seperate from citizens? I find the current pop-head model for determining happiness to be lame and a boon for micromanagers (but tedium for those who dislike MM). A 0-100% happiness rating for each citizen would be much less easy to manipulate, and would give you a greater range of possible positive and negative consequences for happiness changes.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think a RTS style resource system could be a big improvement

Of all the 'quantitative resources' ideas, I like this one the best.

This really is a MUST in civ, and I would have loved it if it were in civ3

@Aussie_Lurker: I don't understand what you mean by 'separate from citizens.' If you mean just have an abstract concept of city happiness where citizens are unaffected, I doubt Firaxis will so much as touch that area since this is one of the hallmarks of the franchise (i.e. citizen mood). (Although I think I remember seeing something about specialists being out--would be unfortunate because I've found plenty of uses for citizens ever since the Civil Engineer and Policeman types were added, or rather the production and corruption citizen values respectively.)

As for variants in happiness levels (of individual citizens?), again, I doubt they'll mess with this. (Apparently, Civ4 may be introducing rich/poor types--or something along those lines--that will give citizens a greater role in how cities operate.)

[In Civ3, I like to have certain improvements (e.g. Factories) cause unhappiness so as to recreate the effect of increasingly stressful working conditions with the dawn of industrialization and the factory system. This forces a civ that wants a lot of industrial power to seek luxury resources abroad with which to make its citizens happy (i.e. colonialism/imperialism). Makes for more interesting gameplay than you get with the 'pacified' vanilla game.]

@Zeekater: Way I see it, it works in RTS and will work just as well in TBS and considering its popularity in RTS, it seems to be the logical next step.

What an addition this would be though: like playing TBS (Civ) with the advantages of this RTS feature. It would be nice to have limits on how many items can be built at one time due to lack of materials and actually have to face the challenge of gradual depletion rather than just suddenly losing the resource when you least expect it.


Just to be clear, the reason why IMO, this system would probably work better than any other (aside from simply leaving it the way it is) is due to its non-abstract nature (i.e. a unit of resource is just what it is: a quantity without abstraction and it is not dependent on any elaborate formula that consumes more processor time). And, as I said, Civ already has this function in the form of gold collected in a civ’s treasury; this feature essentially just gives each resource type it’s own ‘treasury’ so to speak.

I was also thinking that you could ‘man’ a resource-extracting improvement with Workers (also RTS) so that you could actually stop consuming by just sending the Worker elsewhere.

[The only argument against this that I can see is that perhaps it implies too much micromanagement for some. All I can say to that is that this is a strategy game and micromanagement is only meant to be frowned upon when it serves no justified purpose (i.e. requires the player to waste time doing something that could be automated or that lacks a ‘fun’ factor). Otherwise, the excessive micromanagement argument is irrelevant as strategy games are really little more than micromanagement made fun.]


Problem with all this is, this type of feature, for all its pros, is something that has to be added early on in the design process (i.e. it’s not like adding a flag or interface option where you can add it at the last minute or in an XP). Firaxis has yet to mention anything to do with resources and they’re already well into the process.

Well, no-one has yet raise any con argument against having resources work this way so I guess that means there is no good reason not to add it. But then considering this topic was pretty hot in the Civ3 forums, this thread should be on page 5 or 6 by now…which it isn’t. So, I can only assume there’s not a lot of interest. (Nevertheless, I’ll open a poll just to be sure.)

Quite simply, Yoshi, what I want to see is something along the following Lines:

London; Population: 4.50 (equal to say 500,000 people-4 is 100,000 to 1,000,000 and .10 to .90 is the fraction of 100,000).
Happiness: 56% (Content).
Citizen mood would still be a factor in the game (a VERY major factor) but wouldn't be as it is now! As it stands, citizen mood is a micromanagers dream, as you just need to be prepared to be anal enough to go to each and every city and click around until you have the mood you want. In MY system, however, the ability to control citizen mood would be less cut and dried, with more broader factors as crime/corruption, pollution, employment and wealth/taxation being important in overall mood, as well as a number of nation-wide factors. In addition, the effects of very high and very low mood would be much more gradual than the trilobed revolt, content, WLTKD system we are laboured with at present.
With that in mind, a single unit of a luxury could increase happiness (in % terms) of a single connected city by-for example-5%. If you have 5 cities, though, this single unit would boost each cities happiness by 1% only. In addition, though, the more cities a single luxury is connected to, the more likely it is to 'run-out'.
Lastly, just because something HAS been a part of the Franchise up until now, doesn't mean it will, or even should, be retained. Instead we should try and get the best system possible-even if it means abandoning certain 'staples' of past game versions.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

@Aussie_Lurker:

Population: Yes, I remember you posing this decimal idea some time ago. I think my comment at that time was that the decimals would complicate the simple 1 pop = 1 square = 1 happy/sad face format.

Citizens: I think last I heard, specialists will not be in Civ4. Although I enjoyed the production and corruption modifier citizen types, a lot of people rarely used the other types. Better to se the concept go for something more streamlined. Corruption amy also be out but I'm note sure I agree with this entirely unless they replace it with something that really improves on it (same with pollution). I think employment may be added though. It's possible that Civ4 will function similarly to what you are describing where city functions are concerned.

As I am not talking about pop-heads, by the same token I am not referring to traditional 'specialists' as are in civ1-3. To me, specialisation should come largely as a result of the kinds of terrains and resources in your city radius, the kinds of terrain improvements you build on them, and the kinds of improvements you build within your city. This will, in turn, have a strong impact on the wealth and income of the city. Beyond this, though, I think there should be an option for a player to 'overspecialise' his people-at both a city level and nation-wide level-through manual adjustment of specialist distribution. Doing this, though, will come at a financial cost to your nation.
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.