How should resources work in Civ4?

I've started this poll to find out just how interested people are in this.

If there's an option I haven't posted above, let me know soon and I'll add it.


For info on resource system ideas, check these threads:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=88219

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84914

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1783692

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2557241#post2557241

(There are probably others, but I’m too lazy to look for them. Probably plenty in the Civ3 Requests forum—can’t post but still viewable.)


[Note on option B.: See Aussie_Lurker's first post for a more accurate description.]

Now, you see Yoshi, I can't really vote in your poll-because none of the options really fit what I want. I have picked option two, because it comes closest, but I do think that resources should be 'quantative', but that the overall system should remain largely abstract in nature, with size and 'scarcity' effecting the 'supply side' of the disappearance rate, and # of connected cities and number of appropriate units and improvements effecting the 'demand side' of the disappearance rate. Ultimately, I think that a player should be kept on his/her toes when it comes to resources-knowing that it could run out, but not exactly sure of WHEN it might come to pass!
In almost all other aspects, though, I DO agree with your idea!

Yours,
Aussie_lurker.

I don't really like the current implementation. It gives too much precedence to the luck of starting position - not that they should be absolutely equal, but (theoretical situation)starting between 2 military civs with iron (without your own) is rediculous.

I'm against any inclusion of resource stockpiles, as this would make wars even less tactical as stopping your opponent from using a resource probably wouldn't affect them until after the actual conflict.

resources running out would be more realistic. and would mean that you couldn't rely on certain resources indefinately prompting the need to aquire new sources.
some resources shouldnt run out (like the plant type ones).
maybe some mineral ones (coal, oil) etc should run out on the surface and require more advanced ways of mining/drilling to aquire them. or maybe this would be unnecessarily complicated. you should be able to build off shore oil rigs to drill for oil in the sea though.
maybe instead of building surveyors/prospectors once you have researched as specific tech resources that were hidden would be revealed.

OK, a VERY simple overview of my preferred model:

1) Resources do NOT magically appear when you get the tech for it. Instead, they can theoretically appear-AT ANY TIME-based on the resource SIZE, relative SCARCITY, RELEVENT TECH LEVELS, PROXIMITY to Cultural Borders or City Radii and amount of Public Works budget assigned to EXPLORATION.

2) After a resource 'appears', it can only be used if it is connected into the 'Trade Network'.

3) The chance of a resource deposit 'running out' is based on its scarcity, its size, the number of cities it supplies, how many other deposits of the resource are also in the trade network, and the number of units/improvements which rely on the resource to be (a) built and/or (b) function each turn. i.e., if you are building a dozen units needing iron-in a single turn-then your iron deposit has twice as much chance of 'drying up' as if you were building only SIX of these units. Overall population in each city might also determine the chance of resource disappearance.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If any of you read Sirian's game reports for Vanilla Civ3, one of the things he disliked the most and lobbied Firaxis to fix was the 'random chance' factor of a resource disappearing was set too high. He got it patched and fixed to its current levels, where there is still a chance of a resource moving, but the chance is greatly diminished. I agree with his assesment and I'm not a big fan of a resources randomly running out.

That said, part of the fun of the epic game is really not know where a resource might pop. It is part of the challenge of the game for the player to figure out how to acquire resources they don't have. This is just a fact of life in Civ3 and it works. The best games I've had and the best games I have read have involved some major catatrophic lack of a major strategic resource and the ensuing plan to take it from another Civilization. That's where the fun is. If everyone had access to every resource, it would be pointless to even have them in-game. It is one of the greatest innovations in the Civ canon. I simply cannot accept Civ4 if this was taken out or changed significantly. It MUST BE INCLUDED in Civ4. Early screens show horses, which is a good sign that it will make a reutrn.

With regards to how they will be implemented, quantitative stockpiles (IMHO) skew too far on the micromanagement side and may benefit the human players because we can probably manage stockpiles much better than a rule based AI.

I have proposed this in the past but it is a sort of compromise. The resources would not be quantitative, having it in your empire means your city can create units and build improvements that require that particular resource. However, Firaxis can introduce a 'strategic reserve' function which allows players to 'save' turns for a resource that they are importing.

For example a 20 turn oil deal will be executed as is, but instead of having those 20 turns used up upfront, players can in the course of the 20 turn deal, designate several turns as a reserve. During those turns, although they are technically importing a resource, they cannot make use of that resource as the game is shifting it to the reserves.

What this does is it abstracts away from numbers. Remember, we're not playing a tactical RTS game, but rather an epic strategy game. This also isn't far from the truth. The US pegs its oil reserves in terms of the number of months the reserve can last. Ultimately, the quantity isn't so important, but the amount of time/turns you can use it is the key fact.

One of my favorite things to do is bomb another civ's resources so they cant use it... So definitely dont make them stockpile like a RTS, that would be crap...

I agree on Aussi's proposal for a resource system and also prefer what Maxum wrote. Stockpiling resources also turns you into a warehouse manager because you surely don't want to run out of (strategic) resources.

Ah finally, some discussion.

@Aussie_Lurker: Sorry for simplifying your idea but the rest wouldn't fit into the allowed space. I guess I could have put down, 'Quantitative (Simplified)' but I think that would confuse people so they wouldn't know the difference between the two.

Rather than change the poll (which I don't think can be done now that I think of it), I'll add a footnote referring people to your post. Is that acceptable?

My reasoning for going with a completely quantitative (i.e. RTS-style) system is as I stated in the other thread: Civ already uses this system to a degree in the form of accumulation of gold in the treasury. Since being economical makes a feature more attractive to developers, I figure why not just stick to something that has already been proven in other games and that all strategy gamers are familiar with. At the same time, it's not so unique to RTS that it will cause Civ to overlap generes (like making Civ real-time for instance).


@MeteorPunch: Well, tecvhnically this can be remedied in Civ3 as is: just have an alternative unit that requires no resources (this is the Archer I think). I don't think that is really a problem (i.e. it has mostly to do with proper resource distribution). The issue here is having to actually consume resources when building things (and possibly also maintaining them--see first post in 4th thread link) and that over-consumption can result in gaugeable depletion, thus causing players to search out new sources of the resource elsewhere.


@boots468: I don't know if you've noticed but disconnecting an enemy city from all resources required to build a particular unit does not prevent that city from completeing units/buildings it has already begun, only from initializing the building of another item with this requirement.

Good thing you raised this point though because I didn't address this in my post (as a good deal of other things): in most RTS games, required resources are consumed as an item is being built--proportional to the percentage of the item built thus far (i.e. if the 'stockpile' of any of the item's required resources are consumed before the item is complete, constuction is halted until more of the resource is aquired.

I think in C&C1/2, minerals are stored in Silos that can be destroyed thus deleting a certain amount of minerals from the player's 'stockpile.' Could have something like this in Civ4 (e.g. improvements with 'Stockpile' ability can be destroyed; a Civ's general Stockpile cannot exceed a certain amount so cities must build these improvements to "store" resources). It might be to sophisticated for Civ though--not that you would have to do much additional micromanaging. These improvements would work like flags: if x built, then # resources may exceed x; if x destroyed x # resources lost.


@DexterJ: I think just having increased rate of collection would do the trick--that's how it works in RTS (i.e. tech allows x % more units of resource to be collected per turn; so, a Mine collecting 1 Iron per turn would consume double or triple that once the appropriate tech is researched).


Okay, I'm out of time...will continue later.

None of the above; I think resources should only be used if you build something that requires them, unit or otherwise(or if a city is working the square with the resource, since it's implied that the city is using said resource for something), but no stockpiling or quantitive aspects should be added.

OK, IMHO there are manifold benefits to my 'semi-quantitative' resource system.
I personally didn't have a problem with the 'Appearance' and 'Disappearance system for resources-in principle. My problem with it was that it was so darned 'arbitrary'-totally unaffected by player actions. My system retains the better elements of the civ3 system, whilst making player actions far more important. So, how long a resource will last will depend on the TYPE of resource your talking about AND how much you use it. This will prevent nations from expanding ad-infinitum on a single resource deposit. By the same token, as resource discovery would not be automatic, there is a chance for smaller nations-by successful investment in exploration-to get a monopoly on certain resources. Also, because their own nation is relatively small, they will have much more of the resource for trade to resource deprived nations. My system also introduces some of the better elements of Yoshi's model, but without the headache of having to keep track of exact amounts of every resource in the game-a fact which micromanagers could easily exploit, BTW. Also, because you never know EXACTLY how much of a resource you have, you have to be potentially more cautious in how you use the resources you have-thus forcing you to frequently be looking for new deposits of a currently used resource, whether by exploration, trade or conquest!!

P.S: I have been thinking that, in the case of large deposits of a resource (say size 6-10) they won't automatically 'disappear' if their disappearance threshold is breached (by the RNG). Instead, these large deposits would be reduced to half size, before being used up on the second 'breach'. This would make large deposits even MORE valuable for players!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

DexterJ said:

some resources shouldnt run out (like the plant type ones).

Click to expand...

Why not? In most RTS games, Forests are consumed--as they are in reality I might add. (Far better than getting ambiguous 'shields' that can be used for anything as is the case in Civ3.)

I'm working on a mod for the Civ3 vanilla game where I have Timber as a resource required for early ships. In this case, I can build wooden ships ad eternum--as long as I have control of the Timber resource; the bloody Timber NEVER runs out and having it randomly disappear can result in it disapearing before you manage to build a single ship. These extremes are not fun. It would be much better to have the Timber resource be graduallly consumed when you build little ships and be quickly depleted when you start building massive Men-of-War.

Aussie_Lurker said:

OK, a VERY simple overview of my preferred model:

1) Resources do NOT magically appear when you get the tech for it. Instead, they can theoretically appear-AT ANY TIME-based on the resource SIZE, relative SCARCITY, RELEVENT TECH LEVELS, PROXIMITY to Cultural Borders or City Radii and amount of Public Works budget assigned to EXPLORATION.

2) After a resource 'appears', it can only be used if it is connected into the 'Trade Network'.

3) The chance of a resource deposit 'running out' is based on its scarcity, its size, the number of cities it supplies, how many other deposits of the resource are also in the trade network, and the number of units/improvements which rely on the resource to be (a) built and/or (b) function each turn. i.e., if you are building a dozen units needing iron-in a single turn-then your iron deposit has twice as much chance of 'drying up' as if you were building only SIX of these units. Overall population in each city might also determine the chance of resource disappearance.

Click to expand...

1) You have a point that mineral deposites are discovered over time (new ones are still being discovered even today). Wouldn't it be simpler (and more fun) to use units (e.g. 'Surveyor' unit that reveals resources)? I find that automated (or abstract) functions always have hidden bugs and are not really that fun as they do not involve direct player participation.

2) Isn't this how it works in Civ3?

3) But what is the advantage of having it work that way? (I stated the reasons for having an RTS-style system in my previous post.) I understand how your system works but I don't understand why it's better than the RTS-style system; the latter can do everything that the former can do without abstraction.

dexters said:

It MUST BE INCLUDED in Civ4.

Click to expand...

I don't see why you would question this. Civ3's resource system is certainly not the work of genius but it's probably the most innoivative addition to the Civ franchise. What kind of nutcases would have to be working at Firaxis to even contemplate getting rid of this?

dexters said:

With regards to how they will be implemented, quantitative stockpiles (IMHO) skew too far on the micromanagement side and may benefit the human players because we can probably manage stockpiles much better than a rule based AI.

Click to expand...

As I said, micromanagement is part of the game. As long as it serves a good purpose, there's nothing wrong with having a little more micromanagement. As for the AI, most RTS AIs can handle it well enough (they just suck when it comes to using tactics--an ailment Civ's AI also suffers from). Let me ask you this: do you find using gold (i.e. paying for items, managing income/taxes/luxuries/science/maintenance, using it during diplomacy) to be too much micromanagement? (Really, I don't see why this objection is always so prevalent in this forum.)

dexters said:

Firaxis can introduce a 'strategic reserve' function which allows players to 'save' turns for a resource that they are importing.

Click to expand...

Would have been good for Civ3 but again, I don't see what the advantage is over simply using the RTS system (and you get so much more than storage out of the latter too); a reserve is a reserve regardless of which system you use.

Hyronymus said:

Stockpiling resources also turns you into a warehouse manager because you surely don't want to run out of (strategic) resources.

Click to expand...

That would make the economic aspect of civ more fun--I think it's generally agreed that the game lacks punch in that area.

Juputoru said:

None of the above; I think resources should only be used if you build something that requires them, unit or otherwise(or if a city is working the square with the resource, since it's implied that the city is using said resource for something), but no stockpiling or quantitive aspects should be added.

Click to expand...

Then your choice is option A only without trade networks? That would be a step backwards to the city-state system of Civ1 and 2. It's like saying that each city should only be able to use the gold it recieves from income PER TURN (i.e. city-based and no stockpiling) and that would suck...obviously.

Aussie_Lurker said:

My system also introduces some of the better elements of Yoshi's model, but without the headache of having to keep track of exact amounts of every resource in the game-a fact which micromanagers could easily exploit, BTW. Also, because you never know EXACTLY how much of a resource you have, you have to be potentially more cautious in how you use the resources you have-thus forcing you to frequently be looking for new deposits of a currently used resource, whether by exploration, trade or conquest!!

Click to expand...

I'm still not getting what the big deal is with the micromanagement; no-one complains about this in RTS games (and besides, there's not that much micromanagement involved anyway: if you have the required amount of x then you can build x--what's so elaborate about that?).

You do know how much resource you have when you've collected it. As I said in the other thread, you could make the amounts of resources unavailable until the discovery of a tech that allows you to view them (today, the actual contents of mineral deposits quickly become known to those that exploit them).

Where incentives to colonize and conquer are concerned, there are plenty of ways to do that without resorting to 'scaring' the player into doing so.


Look, the question I'm implying here is this: why wouldn't every other resource be accumulated and used just like gold in a civ's treasury?

Someone give me one good reason why this contradicts Civ's TBS format in any way, and that'll be something but just because some people would find the (minimal) added 'workload' to be not-fun is not a good enough reason IMO.

and Yoshi, do you know WHY nobody complains about Micromanagement in RTS games? Its because RTS games are made with micromanagers in mind. They are perfect for people who prefer speed over strategy, as well as the ability to absorb large amounts of information in no-time flat, as that is what RTS really requires of the player. TBS games predominantly attract a whole different class of people-people who feel that excessive MM in TBS allows for rampant exploitation of both the rules AND the AI. Therefore, I support trimming back MM as MUCH as possible-including workers-not introducing even more!! As I said in my previous posts, what is so good about my model is that it brings together the best elements of the current Civ3 resource system, whilst incorporating the best elements of YOUR system-whilst leaving MM to the absolute MINIMUM!!!!
Also, Yoshi, consider the fact that with almost ALL resources, we do not know for certain how long they will last-only whether each deposit is relatively large or small. I'm not talking about 'scaring' players, just withholding some of these 'certainties', so that they have to give greater consideration to the future-especially their reputation!! Imagine going to war with someone over territory, and ruining your reputation with one of their allies then, later in the game, you find yourself out of iron-only to discover that the 'ally' is the only nation you have contact with who has any deposits of iron!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

For once, this once, I agree with Aussie_Lurker. The RTS-style system for ressources is too much micromanagement, ESPECIALLY for a game that has as many ressources as civ.

2, 3 ressources, I could see the notion of ressources stockpile. But civ don't have 2-3 ressources : Civ III has 8 strategic ressources and if modders are any indications, the general idea is "we want even more of them!".

Keeping track of several stockpile is hell ; it's the reason why, for all that Victoria is a brilliant game, I almost always play the less-detailed Europa Universalis II over it : Vicky requires wayyyyy too much micro-management on the ressources front.

And you'd essentialy make Civ works along those lines? I say no, thanks.

As I said, micromanagement is part of the game. As long as it serves a good purpose, there's nothing wrong with having a little more micromanagement. As for the AI, most RTS AIs can handle it well enough (they just suck when it comes to using tactics--an ailment Civ's AI also suffers from). Let me ask you this: do you find using gold (i.e. paying for items, managing income/taxes/luxuries/science/maintenance, using it during diplomacy) to be too much micromanagement? (Really, I don't see why this objection is always so prevalent in this forum.)

Click to expand...

AI isn't the most adept at using its gold reserves, and it is not until the late game, and only on Civs on a certain size that they can keep a bank balance of over 1000 gold, and earn the 50 gpt extra income from wall street (assuming they build it). An RTS resource system of the same general idea isn't really going to help the AI manage their stockpiles better, because human players have always had an advantage in stockpiling gold and spending it at the right times, the AI has proven time and again It can't come close. An RTS stockpile system that relies on quantitative stockpiles will at the end of the benefit the human player the most.

Secondly, on the issue of resources, it matters insofar as historically and geopolitically resources have been a major strategic issue. The Civ3 system already captures this. Moving a step further into the realm of quantitative stockpiles would be akin to the million suggestions here which suggets that air, land, sea units be expanded, with the idea as a suggestion for improving Civ but if you really look at it, it is just someone's idea of expanding one element of they game they enjoy the most. Unfortunatelly, Civ isn't a Naval simulator (so out goes the 10 different types of battleships idea) it isn't a city simulator (no plopping buildings) it isn't a land combat simulator (out goes the 20 tanks, 10 mechanized units) and it also isn't an RTS. Believe me, I've played RoN and if that's how Civ plays like as an RTS, I'd be horrified. That game was all tactics, and was about as interesting as WarCraft III in Age of Empire's clothing.

Because Civ covers so much ground, there's always pressure from any number of niche factions within the community to push the game in one direction or another, and I think this is one such case.

I wouldn't grieve if no such stocking system is introduced, but I do believe the most workable alternative or compromise is to keep the simplicity of the resource system by making its quantity infinite during the turn that a player has access to it. However, it can still 'run out' once your run out of turns in your reserves. Naturally, resources in which a player have a native source will never run out, but those they are importing can also last for so many turns until the deal expires, so players can strategically allot turns into its reserves for future use. The advantage is immense, as to the AI its only an ON-OFF switch and it would be much easier for them to plan and decide when to release stored turns by estimating when they will have the most city free to start building the unit. When they release the resource during that turn, all the available cities start building and on the next turn, they cut the resource and keep the remaining turns in their reserves. As opposed to quantitative micromangement, which they suck at doing.

Would have been good for Civ3 but again, I don't see what the advantage is over simply using the RTS system (and you get so much more than storage out of the latter too); a reserve is a reserve regardless of which system you use.

Click to expand...

The advantage of the current system over an RTS system is simplicity. Civ isn't a game about resources. RTS games makes resources quantifiable as a means to put a cap on growth and also because that's about as far as the 'economy' of a given faction goes. RTS economies is all about resource gathering. Civ's economy is a lot deeper than that, you have food, shield, and commerce. Resources are there in Civ3 but it doesn't play the central role it does in an RTS game, nor should it. It serves its purpose as an item of strategic importance with which Civilizations go to war for, and that's modeled well already.

don't see why you would question this. Civ3's resource system is certainly not the work of genius but it's probably the most innoivative addition to the Civ franchise. What kind of nutcases would have to be working at Firaxis to even contemplate getting rid of this?

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure it will be back in, and I didn't say it was a work of genius, but what I said was, it is the one most important innovation of the Civ canon. Resources were there in 1 and 2 but were mostly tile modifiers and their importance were abstracted too much, in Civ3, their importance was brought forward. I don't think we need to bring them up any further.

Ultimately, my belief is, for a sequel to work, not all elements of the game needs an added layer of complexity. That's what they did with MoO2 and MoO3 and that franchise has seen its decline from the original. I do believe that Firaxis means what they say when they say they want to keep the game as is and make changes not rewrite the entire Civ game mechanics. That may be conservative, but the Civ formula works and there are really far more pressing issues for them to work on. You can have the resource system in the world but if the AI is dumb as a brick and can't use it properly, which was the case in SMAC with all the nice features that the AI can never use, then you might as well not have it. It's an illusion and the people who really care about AI, about the feel of the game will disown Civ4 as a step back.

Yoshi

Why not? In most RTS games, Forests are consumed--as they are in reality I might add. (Far better than getting ambiguous 'shields' that can be used for anything as is the case in Civ3.)

Click to expand...

That's the classic RTS system. RoN aka Rise of Nations, a Civ-style RTS game designed by most of the original Civ III Dev team made the decision to have the resources in that game never run out. Their reason was there's a lotof needless micromanagement and they were right.

On a strategic level however, playing RoN is like playing one small part of Civ3, mostly the going to war part. The game is shallow and the epic conquer the world game feels like an outdated board game. I wasn't impressed and I would be very against moving Civ4 in the direction Brain Reynolds (of Civ2 fame) is directing RoN.

Yes, there are differences in market orientation between RTS and Civ but, as I said, the quantitative resource system is not an infringement on that (i.e. RTS doesn't need this system but it just happens to work, and Civ is not so simplistic that it cannot accomodate this without alienating some of its target market).

As for the AI, RTS AI handles it well enough. If you're comparing with Civ3's AI...why would you do that? Civ4's AI will be better. I think I can say that with certainty. A quantitative system is in fact well suited to AI as it is purely numerical and thus the AI requires far fewer canned actions in order to use it effectively (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 as opposed to 1 + x = 2, which required programmers to tell the AI what x is). It also means that the program doesn't have to check as much stuff every turn (assuming it works anything like Civ3).

I've attached an example of what resources screen(s) might look like in Civ4.

I think you'll see that the first screen is the only one that is really necessary if you don't bring per-turn resource consumption into it. This is hardely overwhelming MM and if it were, Civ3 would also fall into that category, as it contains the equivilant table-like.

Now, if someone were to mod in 30 or 40 strategic resources, you might have a point but then, you're not buying the mod. (Likewise, there are Civ3 scens that way outclass the vanilla game in complexity but that says nothing about Civ3.) The Civ4 vanilla game will probably not have much more than there are in Civ3 and, as I said and indicate in the example, of those only a few require constant vigilance. And if you want even more simplicity, you can always mod the game to your preference (which is part of what makes Civ so great).

A way to have RTS style resources without all the micromanagement would be to have 3 or 4 resources "per age" (or if there are no actual ages, new ones are introduced with new technologies, and others are made obsolete by other technologies.)

Ancient Age: Iron, Horses
Middle Ages: Iron, Horses, Saltpeter
Industrial Age: Iron, Rubber, Saltpeter, Coal
Modern Age: Aluminum, Rubber, Uranium, Oil

(Just as an overly-simplified example.)

The idea being that your resource needs change. At a certain point, you can take iron for granted. Or iron is less necessary than, say, steel once you're building skyscrapers.

This wouldn't be much more complicated than what Civ has now. Instead of managing 8 resources, you manage 3 or 4, but with more detail.

At a certain point, you can take iron for granted. Or iron is less necessary than, say, steel once you're building skyscrapers.

Click to expand...

Steel is made from iron and is a tech in Civ3. It doesn't occur naturally. Let's not even get into manufacturing our own secondary resources from primaries. It'll get real messy.

The idea being that your resource needs change. At a certain point, you can take iron for granted. Or iron is less necessary than, say, steel once you're building skyscrapers. This wouldn't be much more complicated than what Civ has now. Instead of managing 8 resources, you manage 3 or 4, but with more detail.

Click to expand...

This idea is already modeled. Resources become relatively more or less important as time passes, the only constant relatively speaking has tended to be iron, but even that takes a back seat to aluminum, oil and rubber from the late industrial era.

The problem with limiting yourself to 3-4 resources per age is you implictly assume other resources become absolutely useless. This isn't true. After RR, coal iron becomes basically unimportant but when you expand or your RR infrastucture gets damaged they both become relevant.

The nice thing about the current model is you can still build cavalry if you want to in the modern era. What's the point? Well, why do we dictate to players why they should build certain units. The current model works by implicty rendering certain resources useless without implementing any heavy handed system to force a resource to become obsolete.

RTS systems imply supply and quantities, both items I have repeatedly said should be abstracted in Civ and in the big picture. This only worked in RTS games because their economies have been relatively shallow and the rate of your resource gathering has tended to be the one of a few measures of your economic strength and even so you only tended to gather only 2-3 (not even 3 in games like StarCraft) resources at most. Not so in Civ.

Managing your domestic sources of resources is a waste of micromanagement time. It's pointless and adds nothing to the game. The only area where I see this resource management idea having a good run is for
managing truly scarce resources, such as the ones you import. It would add additional layers of strategy hence my suggestion about the creation of a strategic reserve to save turns of an imported resource you don't plan to use and treat resources as quantities only as turns and not actual nominal values. Truly scarce resources (the resources you don't have access to) always leads to interesting strategic choices. Intentionally creating scarcity by making local resources quantifiable and thus prone to running out however is something else and to get to that effect, you add an extra layer of complexity. In fact, in Civ3, people hated resources disppearing from their territory so much Firaxis toned down the rates of resource disappearance.

I know it's not perfectly realistic, but it's simpler, and that's the point. Iron IS an ingredient in steel, but why measure your store of both iron and steel when you can measure both? Heck, have it evolve from Stone to Ore to Metals, for all I care. The point is to model a basic need -- it doesn't matter if those needs are highly simplified. (For example, can water be taken for granted? Or can it not? Civ assumes you CAN take it for granted, but it's not even remotely realistic.)

Resources are about giving players a need. And to me, it's not too objectionable if you're scrounging for uranium to build a Nuclear Power Plant that you take the ability to produce Cathedrals and Temples for granted. Whereas in the early game, Cathedrals and Temples hinge on your supply of building materials.

It seems your only real objection to reducing the number of resources to 3 or 4 is realism. But the mechanics of it are still basically there -- we've just taken out detail, without taking out any of the actual mechanism.

With the mechanism still in place, but with fewer resources to oversee, you could make resources more interesting.

The problem in Civ 3 with resources disappearing wasn't as simple as "stop making them disappear"... the problem is you gave the player a problem, but very few tools to solve it. Trade wasn't necessary enough to the seller -- you could go the entire game without selling a resource -- so there was very little economic motivation to resource control. The alternative was war, but that's the solution to everything in Civ. We don't need another excuse to start wars.

I guess the deeper question is how to make resources a more central part of the game without making the game lopsided to someone with the best geographical circumstances. It almost almost seems like these two propositions are diametrically opposed... and that's before we even ask if scarcity is the best way to make economics more interesting.