Strategic balance

[Soronery]

Does anyone else feel like this should be the standard start? This basically guarantees you horses and iron. Now horses might not be that important anymore and they are usually plentiful but iron can be really rare sometimes. And basically you are at a huge disadvantage if you fight someone with iron while you have none. The main problem is that longswordsmen dominate for around 40 or so turns (on quick pace). Now that's a hell of a long time. And even if you tech to muskets, they come out incredibly late and they are still weaker than longswordsmen. Also without iron you cannot attack any cities. Pikes are too weak and horses and knights have a huge penalty vs cities. And you can't even build siege until cannons.

I really feel that iron and horses should be standard in a starting location. It's just too big of an imbalance when one guy has iron and another doesn't. Much worse than starting next to El Darado or the Fountain of Youth.

 

[Luckystrike77]

No fun. I love to win multiplayer games with no iron, it's really possible for people with other strategies then early warmongering. Of course you have to be good at defending your self in case of war. I usually don't build many iron requiring units anyways in my strategies even if I have loads of iron. City walls and archers (and with my great research getting castles and crossbows fast) do the trick defending, while i take the lead in science and culture.

 

[Tokira]

I use the strategic balance setting on about half of my games but sometimes it just feels stupid that I start with 12 horses around my capital and that everybody has 2 6 iron tiles nearby their capital (one straight next to the capital and one a bit further).

I occasionally get bored of this and start a game with the normal setting. I haven't tried the others though. I just ended up using the strategic balance pretty much after playing a few ironless games.

 

[Jon the Bastard]

I play on the normal setting. I think not having access to certain strategic resources can lead to some pretty tough decisions that make the game more interesting. For example, in the game I am playing right now, I am playing as Mongolia. Of course, my viability as a military threat in the game largely depends on whether or not I have access to horses so that I can make use of Mongolia's awesome UU. I didn't have horses anywhere near me; so, I took them. I declared war on Genoa and wiped out the Inca to gain access to the resources that I needed in order to win the victory type I am going for, which is domination.

 

[Drakarska]

I play on the normal setting. I think not having access to certain strategic resources can lead to some pretty tough decisions that make the game more interesting. For example, in the game I am playing right now, I am playing as Mongolia. Of course, my viability as a military threat in the game largely depends on whether or not I have access to horses so that I can make use of Mongolia's awesome UU. I didn't have horses anywhere near me; so, I took them. I declared war on Genoa and wiped out the Inca to gain access to the resources that I needed in order to win the victory type I am going for, which is domination.

Why start off the game automatically knowing your going to have goodies near you? I rather have to hunt around for the stuff, at least that gives me a brief sembelance of immersion.

 

[Soronery]

I really think that 1 patch of 6 iron should be present in every capitol. Or at least somewhere nearby. Some games there just isn't any reasonable nearby iron. Which really puts you behind if someone does have iron.

 

[Luckystrike77]

I really think that 1 patch of 6 iron should be present in every capitol. Or at least somewhere nearby. Some games there just isn't any reasonable nearby iron. Which really puts you behind if someone does have iron.

6 iron? Thats alot! Would be better to remove all strategic ressources and making it possible to build whatever you want, like in Civ1, wouldnt it?

Anyone tried to ally with a City State if they absolutely need iron, or heard about a great game feature called trade? If iron is so crucial to your strategy, build 2 scouts, explore as much as possible, discover iron working as soon as possible and make sure to build a city where there is iron. Please not try to dumb all the good game elements down. And you can live well without iron if you invest in your defence, invest alot in developing your civ in every way, and are waiting with war expansion dreams until gunpowder and cannons. If you play against the AI you can easely rob his iron city with a surprise attack with archers, horseman and some spearmen as well. Some humans it should be possible to play that trick on as well.

 

[Celevin]

The last 5 games on Normal starts as Montezuma have yielded me:
- No iron in my starting area
- No iron in any spots that I can settle nearby
- No iron in any city states that I have come into contact with.

I have the most rotten luck. All I wanted was an Aztec war

 

[Luckystrike77]

The last 5 games on Normal starts as Montezuma have yielded me:
- No iron in my starting area
- No iron in any spots that I can settle nearby
- No iron in any city states that I have come into contact with.

I have the most rotten luck. All I wanted was an Aztec war

Hehe, you surely can't call yourself Lucky strike..... But I do not look upon iron as so vital as all others. I prefer gold, gems and silver any day!

 

[Soronery]

6 iron? Thats alot! Would be better to remove all strategic ressources and making it possible to build whatever you want, like in Civ1, wouldnt it?

Anyone tried to ally with a City State if they absolutely need iron, or heard about a great game feature called trade? If iron is so crucial to your strategy, build 2 scouts, explore as much as possible, discover iron working as soon as possible and make sure to build a city where there is iron. Please not try to dumb all the good game elements down. And you can live well without iron if you invest in your defence, invest alot in developing your civ in every way, and are waiting with war expansion dreams until gunpowder and cannons. If you play against the AI you can easely rob his iron city with a surprise attack with archers, horseman and some spearmen as well. Some humans it should be possible to play that trick on as well.

This is not a good element of the game. It is a huge balance issue. A start that has iron has an enormous advantage over one that does not. Some games you cannot get your hands on any iron through trade and no city state nearby has iron.

 

[Wulf38]

It's one thing to generate tension by having limited resources for neighbors to fight over, but another thing entirely to have an entire continent with three civs and only one deposit of iron way off in a corner. Though I've only seen that problem on Small Continents, so I suspect it may just be a bug with that mapscript not scaling the amount of strategic resources properly for different map sizes.

 

[RonMar]

You can't even upgrade your warriors later in the game without iron. They become a dead-end unit. You have to upgrade through swordsman and long swordsman before you can get to a non-iron unit (rifleman).

Once, I finally got 2 iron in a trade and had to go through the upgrades of two units a turn until I made them into riflemen. I had to concentrate to be certain I took advantage of every turn. I felt good when the process was completed, but for many of the turns before I got the iron my warriors were only good for generating happiness while as garrison in cities. I had visions of getting to the future era with those several warriors.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Hills & Mountains should provide us with some mini-deposits (a quarter here, a tenth there - that piles up!) of such stuff while variable random amounts (between 1 & 10+) of the real genuine Iron Tile could be distributed on any given maps.
That would do it.

 

[Drakarska]

Hills & Mountains should provide us with some mini-deposits (a quarter here, a tenth there - that piles up!) of such stuff while variable random amounts (between 1 & 10+) of the real genuine Iron Tile could be distributed on any given maps.
That would do it.

I actually like this idea, would make terrain resources and city placement much more viable. Good idea.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

It's definately tough when you have no iron (or even horses) at the beginning. I think though if everyone started with iron in abundance they should just remove the resource requirement from building the units as it would no actual value in game.

 

[basta]

Hills & Mountains should provide us with some mini-deposits (a quarter here, a tenth there - that piles up!) of such stuff while variable random amounts (between 1 & 10+) of the real genuine Iron Tile could be distributed on any given maps.
That would do it.

Then you should check out Thalacassus' Balance Mod for resources--this is pretty much what it does--sprinkles more but smaller deposits more evenly on the map. In all about 20% less iron/horses but at least you will get some, and there are no whopper/game breaker deposits either.

Personally I hate the anti-player bias that iron gets--always on the other side of the map from your capital, it' so annoying and "game-y." Of course the trick is building all those mines quickly.

 

[UWHabs]

We have limited resources - if everyone started next to them, then that would definitely imbalance the game.

What should happen is to have the minerals system a lot more like the production system. So instead of 1 iron = 1 catapult or 1 swordsman or whatever, iron (and other strategic deposits) should be plentiful. Like 5/10/20 deposits. But then you would have 1 swordsman = 2 iron, 1 longsword = 4 iron, 1 catapult = 2 iron, 1 trebuchet = 5 iron, or whatever. Then, if you throw enough deposits around, everyone will have access to some iron, but you have to more strategic with it. Do I want 1 longsword, or a catapult and a swordsman?

 

[Soronery]

We have limited resources - if everyone started next to them, then that would definitely imbalance the game.

What should happen is to have the minerals system a lot more like the production system. So instead of 1 iron = 1 catapult or 1 swordsman or whatever, iron (and other strategic deposits) should be plentiful. Like 5/10/20 deposits. But then you would have 1 swordsman = 2 iron, 1 longsword = 4 iron, 1 catapult = 2 iron, 1 trebuchet = 5 iron, or whatever. Then, if you throw enough deposits around, everyone will have access to some iron, but you have to more strategic with it. Do I want 1 longsword, or a catapult and a swordsman?

Without changing the system I think the only real way to balance it is to add a deposit to every capitol. And no it would not imbalance the game. Since everyone would get iron it would be "balanced". A bit of variety in the game is fine but no iron is not fine. I think a 6 deposit near every capitol is reasonable enough. Perhaps change it to a +4 deposit. I wouldn't go lower than that though.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Then you should check out Thalacassus' Balance Mod for resources--

Certainly a fair (alllllmmmoooosssttt excellent) solution when taken into a MOD context perspective... but, i'm more after completely altering vanilla defaults (by Firaxis devs) in a way that such a re-balanced system can be made to be truly strategic by complex distribution rather than the current over reacting rarety principles. Not only does Uranium makes the Nukes but all destroyers *must* be dependent on Oil (as a self-depleting supply of fuel, btw) also.

I could even see catapults & triremes built with wood. Weaponry ammunitions pulled from varying mineral (incl. copper, sulfur, nickel..) stockpiles. Modern "robotics" providing electronic components that need silicon & rare-earths to be manufactured and be required by these units instead of just Production Hammers.

I'm dreaming of reality perhaps... still, rational enough to be massively immersive.

 

[Celevin]

I suggest that they add 2 of each strategic resource for each player to start. It would certainly balance multiplayer.