Fossils Resource

All sounds reasonable to me so far, if they're an Uncommon/Rare resource it shouldn't crowd out the others too much right?
+1

If you are touching the resources I dare to say again: I would love to see camels in the game too.

What difference would they have to horses?
  • A new mounted unit line that has bonus against horse units.
  • Camel as a resource could also be an OR requirement for the mobile defense line units and the adventurer unit.
  • Different spawn areas and tile bonus: dessert and tundra. (Background: Dessert for dromedary camel, and tundra for bactrian camels)
 
I think Fossils and Ancient Relics should be combined into one single resource. i.e. rename Ancient Relics to something including pre-human remains as well. And maybe change the look of the resource on the map.
 
I think Fossils and Ancient Relics should be combined into one single resource. i.e. rename Ancient Relics to something including pre-human remains as well. And maybe change the look of the resource on the map.

Ancient relics are not pre-human. They represent the ruins left behind by ancient civilizations, like Stonehenge and Petra.
Fossils have a different purpose: They represent ancient animals, vegetation and even humans.
 
Ancient relics are not pre-human. They represent the ruins left behind by ancient civilizations, like Stonehenge and Petra.
Fossils have a different purpose: They represent ancient animals, vegetation and even humans.

Yes. I think it is not necessary to have two different resources, one for archeology and one for paleonthology. I think one single resource can represent both.
 
Any particular reason? I think it sounds like a nice idea.

They're just not significant, in my view, from the point of view of a nation-state empire-building game.

Fossils don't really have a history at all. They have always been around and are basically a scientific curiosity. They don't contribute to any meaningful research or development. (I imagine paleontologists will jump at me here, but seriously...) They are fairly common, and outside of being a novelty tourist item, serve no use.
 
Yes. I think it is not necessary to have two different resources, one for archeology and one for paleontology. I think one single resource can represent both.

From a gameplay standpoint, that *might* be a reasonable thing (Although it'd be a bit strange for the two prehistoric-themed wonders to benefit from something that could potentially be spawned from a Town Ruins....)

I however would prefer them kept separate. I don't see how one resource could represent both when one is clearly for prehistory (by millions of years at that) and the other is more human-themed. At least, I can't think of any way that would make sense for both a "recent' ancient history and a prehistoric ancient all rolled into one.
 
They're just not significant, in my view, from the point of view of a nation-state empire-building game.

The same could be said about a lot of what's in AND, especially post-modern content. Ancient Relics are hardly worth keeping in using that logic, since how does the ruins of the Mayan empire really help us further the research into Accelerator technology and Invisibility? In its current state they would becaus eof the Museum building.


Both resources would contribute as "Luxury" resources at the very least, and with the Plesio/Dino parks, Fossils would have that going for them too.
In the end though, I don't think I can contribute to this discussion very well. I don't do so hot in 'debates' of any kind, and where Joseph feels very strongly about the Jungle Camps, this is something I feel quite strongly about as well - which of course will only get my 'discussion skills' all clouded and prevent me from contributing anything meaningful. So... I'll just leave the discussion to the important folks, and hope Fossils don't just get dropped v_v
 
I haven't given up on this idea yet, and I really want to go through with adding Fossils. I think Fossils make a good counterpoint to Ancient Relics; both boost Museum and Adventure Tours, and Fossils boosts Theory of Evolution, Pleistocene Park, and Dinosaur Park while Relics help Rosetta Stone and MileHigh Travels. Most non-strategic resources come in pairs or (usually) trios, and I don't really like solo resources or improvements that only do one thing (like the Archeological Dig currently does).

I don't mind having Mines and Quarries spawn Fossils, but I do want to have some spawn at the beginning of the game. I think if we put Fossils in the same placement step as Relics, then it won't crowd out any more important resources.

I think both fossils and ancient relics are completely irrelevant. Name one instance when access or non-access had an influence on a civilisation and its prosperity??

Here are ressources that would be MUCH more important:

If Phosphorus becomes scarse/more expensive modern agriculture collapses and most people starve to death. There is no way to replace it in Biochemistry, because it is an element. THAT is relevant. would be a much more important ressource.

Access to Nitrates was incredibly important before the discovery of the haber-bosh process in the 20th century. Also, historically very relevant. (e.g.for the economic history of South America)

Rare Earth mininerals are essential to most forms of modern electronics and technology. Without them kiss anything from Iphone to PCs good bye.

Natual Gas provides is hugely relevant to modern Energy systems (albeit closely related to oil).

Amber was/is a very important trade ressource in various periods around the world. Less strategic, but historically MUCH more relevant than fossils or ancient ruins.

I have no idea why you are so stoked on a ressource that is absolutely irrelevant for history.

Also, on a side note, it would make sense to change "bananas" into "tropical fruit", Lemons into "citrus fruits"
 
Well, if we're changing things, rename "Corn" to "Maize". "Corn" as a descriptor for your most common foodstuff varies by geographical location, e.g. in Europe, "corn" can be anything from wheat or oats to rye or barley.
 
I would be strongly against renaming resources. At this late stage, it will only cause confusion for players used to the current names.
 
Moreover, it would generate many changes in code, english and translated text.
 
I'm also against changing names. As for new resources, I like some of those proposed but I'm not sure we really need them. As for fossils, I'm ok with Vokarya explanation although I don't think we really need them.
 
I think both fossils and ancient relics are completely irrelevant. Name one instance when access or non-access had an influence on a civilisation and its prosperity??

Here are ressources that would be MUCH more important:

If Phosphorus ...

Access to Nitrates...

Rare Earth mininerals ...

Natual Gas...

Amber ...

I have no idea why you are so stoked on a ressource that is absolutely irrelevant for history.

...

I much prefer any of these (except amber perhaps) over fossils. If I recall correctly, an earlier Civ' version had saltpeter as a resource, and early gunpowder units needed it. I particularly like the idea of rare earths, what with the tension around these being sourced 90% from China at the moment and the recently dropped 'export quotas'...

But then again, there are already quite a few resources. Perhaps we should make some of them become obsolete, so there's room for more relevant types in later eras.
 
I kinda miss saltpeter. I swear an early version of ROM had that.
 
I started playing ROM around about the time you/Afforess released your/his collection of modmods, but before it became A New Dawn, and I'm not sure that saltpetre really was in there.
 
I kinda miss saltpeter. I swear an early version of ROM had that.

Saltpeter was in civ3, earlier versions of AND had sulphur resource. It was removed (same as ammo in modern units) because it was needed for any gunpowder unit (and modern units respectively) and it was a problem because civs without that resource couldn't build any defense unit past longbows, so it wasn't very balanced. Once removed that requirement, every civ can build some defensive unit although it needs iron to build offensive units. I guess we've discussed this problem a very long time ago.
 
Yeah, I was not implying we should restore it. Just that it was an interesting resource.
 
I think both fossils and ancient relics are completely irrelevant. Name one instance when access or non-access had an influence on a civilisation and its prosperity??

Here are ressources that would be MUCH more important:

If Phosphorus becomes scarse/more expensive modern agriculture collapses and most people starve to death. There is no way to replace it in Biochemistry, because it is an element. THAT is relevant. would be a much more important ressource.

Access to Nitrates was incredibly important before the discovery of the haber-bosh process in the 20th century. Also, historically very relevant. (e.g.for the economic history of South America)

Rare Earth mininerals are essential to most forms of modern electronics and technology. Without them kiss anything from Iphone to PCs good bye.

Natual Gas provides is hugely relevant to modern Energy systems (albeit closely related to oil).

Amber was/is a very important trade ressource in various periods around the world. Less strategic, but historically MUCH more relevant than fossils or ancient ruins.

I have no idea why you are so stoked on a ressource that is absolutely irrelevant for history.

Also, on a side note, it would make sense to change "bananas" into "tropical fruit", Lemons into "citrus fruits"

By that logic, we should axe Ancient Relics too. When has examining the remains of the Roman or Mayan empire helped us in our efforts to send a human to Mars, or further research into curing lethal diseases, or provide insight into anything other than how ancient people lived?

There are other fields of science and research that don't involve computers and technology, whether people want to admit that or not. "Irrelevant to history" I find terribly offensive as well. If it's not bringing a golden age to a whole section of the world or conquering entire continents, it's not "relevant"? I again mention there are other important parts of history and research, just because you personally don't find something interesting doesn't make it worthless and useless.
 
Top Bottom