Like how having a copper tile is required to build Axemen? I would think it would be very uncommon for a civilization to be without at least SOME copper reserves. I would prefer if the copper resource itself just sped up the protection of the units that used it, instead of it being required. Would make games a lot more fun early on, instead of playing "guess what resource I'll get" all civilizations would be capable of defending themselves with a variety of units.
Do you think the resource system is sort of bunk?
- Thread starter Levgre
- Start date
What do you mean, strategy? I mean, there is some, but for the most part you either you have the resources or you don't and thats it.
Only horses, try to hold off against someone with copper/iron until you get catapults.
Only archers, try to hold off against someone with copper/iron until you get catapults.
Only horse and archers, try to hold off until you get catapults.
Only horses, try to hold off against someone with copper/iron until you get catapults.
Only archers, try to hold off against someone with copper/iron until you get catapults.
Only horse and archers, try to hold off until you get catapults.
Bradlius
Warlord
That's an interesting idea, speeding up production rather than denying or allowing production. But I like the strategy of playing the hand you are dealt, as it were. It makes me realize, about real life civilizations, why were the so-and-so's so warlike -- well, maybe they had copper available, but not much food.
Also, it's not true that some resources are available everywhere. Horses, in real life, were historically only available in Europe/Asia, bananas only in Africa, grapes only in the Middle East, rice in Asia, corn in America, etc.
Also, it's not true that some resources are available everywhere. Horses, in real life, were historically only available in Europe/Asia, bananas only in Africa, grapes only in the Middle East, rice in Asia, corn in America, etc.
Silence101
King
I like it the way it is... I often find that some of my more enjoyable games are when I don't start of with copper or horses and have to figure out what to do - kill someone for it or live without it.
Happened for me also every now and then and every time it's annoying to try to find out resources you dont have...
Wenla
Desert-Fox
King
If you get no copper/iron/horses... you start next to shaka/monty/ragnar. Very funny to play 
magicalsushi
Prince
Why would you have only horses and no archers? Archers don't need a resource, just a tech.
Soneji
Prince and Great Steward
He never said that...
magicalsushi
Prince
Okay, it looks like I misinterpreted what Levgre wrote, but frankly it wasn't exactly expressed clearly. In any case, I still don't see the point in trying the "horses but no archers" one. What is that supposed to prove? I also get the impression that Levgre expects the "only horses and archers" one to be impossible/difficult - but if that's so, why bother even trying the "horses but no archers" one? It's not going to prove anything you didn't already know, *and* it's completely nonsensical. It doesn't represent an actual game situation, as you can always build archers. If Levgre's point only stands if you make artifical restrictions like that, then I don't think it's much of a point. If it stands independently, then why bother messing around the "you can't build archers" restriction?
The idea of speeding production, rather than unlocking it is interesting.
But generally, it's very, very unusual to not be able to get either Copper or Horses in your first 3 cities (Capital and 2 others). After all, if necessary, you delay the founding of one of them until you KNOW it'll give you the resource you need, and found the city even if it's not in a good position (i.e. no food resources nearby or further from the Capital than you'd prefer).
With one of those two, you can usually set yourself up to make sure you can go to war to get the other.
That all being said -- it certainly makes play difficult. If you try to play at a difficulty that will be "competitive" if you get Copper easily, it's difficult to win if you don't have it. If you try to play a difficulty that can be "competitive" without Copper and Horses, then it's a cake walk if you get Copper easily.
But generally, it's very, very unusual to not be able to get either Copper or Horses in your first 3 cities (Capital and 2 others). After all, if necessary, you delay the founding of one of them until you KNOW it'll give you the resource you need, and found the city even if it's not in a good position (i.e. no food resources nearby or further from the Capital than you'd prefer).
With one of those two, you can usually set yourself up to make sure you can go to war to get the other.
That all being said -- it certainly makes play difficult. If you try to play at a difficulty that will be "competitive" if you get Copper easily, it's difficult to win if you don't have it. If you try to play a difficulty that can be "competitive" without Copper and Horses, then it's a cake walk if you get Copper easily.
Historically not everyone had access to every resource, and it hurt them badly. Japan does not have much iron or oil, and it is because of this that they invaded China in WW2. Italy's iron is mixed with sulfur, and because of this they had difficulty in making tanks in WW2. I could go on and on with examples of this, but suffice it so say that availability of resources has had a huge effect on civs, and in many cases wars have been fought over access to resources.
A percentile hit to production does not make sense to me in most cases. How do you build horse archers without any horses, or war elephants without elephants? The only change I would make is to allow for certain units to be made with either bronze (copper) or steel. Bronze is actually stronger than steel, it just costs more to make.
A percentile hit to production does not make sense to me in most cases. How do you build horse archers without any horses, or war elephants without elephants? The only change I would make is to allow for certain units to be made with either bronze (copper) or steel. Bronze is actually stronger than steel, it just costs more to make.
Hangly Man
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 247
I like how you can have access to horses for thousands of years but can never figure out how to domesticate or breed them. Ditto any kind of livestock or crop.
Hangly Man
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 247
Bananas are from Malaysia and Indonesia, and rice originated in India.
It's not true at all that people "played the hand they were dealt." They improvised with what they had, and developed it. If you have no metal whatsoever, you can work out how to make an obsidian sword, or at least one made out of hardwood.
Some of your ancient civilizations fought with tamed cheetahs and leopards. The Laps had reindeer cavalry. Horses weren't the only option.
It would be an interesting mod to play with the resource system. You could remove almost all resources from the map and instead make them dependent upon buildings.
If someone trades you grain and you have plains within your city radius you can build the "grain farm" improvement which gives one food, one health, and one grain resource you can trade away to someone else. That way you can trade horses to America.
Where it gets fun is when you can start building wonders that give unique resources. Iron + coal + some wonder gives Damascus or Hanzo steel which gives all your melee units +20% attack or something.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
you can always build archers after you know hunting and archery. which isn't the same as always. you might be following a different tech path. this week i had an isolated start where i built the great wall, so i didn't research archery until 900ish AD. obviously i didn't need to fend anybody off which is the point of his examples, but it does show you it can represent an actual game situation. not a typical one, but it can happen /shrug.
