[Vote] (6-33) Move Coal Reveal from Steam Power to Chemistry

[Anarcomu]

Is it technically possible to add a specific resource reveal to numerous techs ?

 

[CppMaster]

And note that this gap is part of the reason for the proposal in the first place. This is the time in the game when you are often doing second expansions, and if your going to do that in some ways to acquire coal (which is devilishly rare on many maps), you need to know where it is. You need the time to go found those cities before you actually need the material, and that's where the extra gap proves useful.

That's a good point. Also, an improvement takes time to be done and you get more yields, so it's definitely not useless.

Precedents that are dumb don’t excuse making more of them.

I see no good reason to reproduce bad decisions elsewhere.

You state that these precedents are dumb or that these decisions are bad as a fact, but that's an opinion. Getting more yields alone is not dumb. Discovering a resource first and finding a use for it later also makes sense.

 

[adan_eslavo]

You state that these precedents are dumb or that these decisions are bad as a fact, but that's an opinion. Getting more yields alone is not dumb. Discovering a resource first and finding a use for it later also makes sense.

Yeah, but moving it to the bottom part of the tree when it was in the middle and Train Station is in the upper part?

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, but moving it to the bottom part of the tree when it was in the middle and Train Station is in the upper part?

Then it's just more techs between discovering coal and using it (except for yields that you get with just discovering it). I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. You may not like it, but calling it bad or dumb is not accurate imho.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Then it's just more techs between discovering coal and using it (except for yields that you get with just discovering it). I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. You may not like it, but calling it bad or dumb is not accurate imho.

I didn't say it is dumb. I would rather call it "very questionnable".

 

[pineappledan]

I’ll call it like I see it. If there is no strong thematic tie to a resource being on a specific tech, then unlocking a resource before you can use it is dumb. And choosing to do that is a dumb choice.

 

[CppMaster]

I didn't say it is dumb. I would rather call it "very questionnable".

I know. I was referring to pineappledan.

then unlocking a resource before you can use it is dumb.

It's not for 3 reasons, 2 already stated:

1. Improving a tile with the resource takes times, so if you unlock it earlier, you have some time to improve it
2. You still get more yields
3. You unlock it when you research the technology, because you want sth else from the technology or want to research further technologies.

 

[Rekk]

If I had spent much time thinking about it, I would have suggested putting the reveal on Economics (fairly sparse tech), then swapping it with Acoustics.

 

[Stalker0]

If I had spent much time thinking about it, I would have suggested putting the reveal on Economics (fairly sparse tech), then swapping it with Acoustics.

the main issue there is that it doesn't solve the pioneer problem. you are already going to have done your 2nd wave of expansion long before you get acoustics

 

[dostillevi]

- Iron’s early unlock is bad too. Precedents that are dumb don’t excuse making more of them. It doesn’t even make sense, unlocking at Bronze, of all things. I already tried to rectify this, but you dogged sword-rushers won’t allow it.
- arguably uranium/atomic theory do have a thematic uranium unlock on the same tech: Manhattan Project.
Uranium and Aluminum have very strong thematic - IRL reasons to be on the techs where they are: Aluminum refinement requiring a lot of electricity, and uranium having strong links to atomic theory.

Coal and Chemistry has no such thematic tie-in.
This doesn’t solve a problem, it just makes the tech tree uglier and looser for no material gain.

What specifically is your objection to revealing a resource before it can be used?

I can make the case that forward-looking innovation often comes from identifying a potentially interesting resource before having a specific civ level use for it. This reflects the horizon of discovery.

It also gives some time for resources to be claimed and improved, so once you unlock a use for the resource, you can start leveraging it immediately.

Editing to add that a lot of resources are "used" before they have a specific purpose in the context of Civ. Deer are certainly hunted before camps, Iron existed and was used for cultural purposes or ad-hoc weapons before it was heavily adopted for weapons. I could make this case for many resources. It's just part of the process of identifying a potentially useful material, finding a civ-tranforming use for that material, and then getting further benefits from the material as it's potential uses are further developed (greater yields).

 

[pineappledan]

What specifically is your objection to revealing a resource before it can be used?

In game terms, it's like giving player ammo at an earlier stage than when the gun that shoots that ammo appears. Unless you have a specific story purpose for doing it, then it's a waste.
re: coal (and iron), unless you have a 'story reason', ie. a strong thematic link between the resource and the technology, then it makes the most sense to unlock things when they can be used.

 

[CppMaster]

In game terms, it's like giving player ammo at an earlier stage than when the gun that shoots that ammo appears. Unless you have a specific story purpose for doing it, then it's a waste.
re: coal (and iron), unless you have a 'story reason', ie. a strong thematic link between the resource and the technology, then it makes the most sense to unlock things when they can be used.

Except, yields and more information about potential expansion is not waste, so it doesn't apply here. Also, there is still argument that it takes time to do improvements.

 

[pineappledan]

Except, yields and more information about potential expansion is not waste, so it doesn't apply here. Also, there is still argument that it takes time to do improvements.

Such pedantic reasoning. None of that is material. None of that makes a lick of difference when considered against the historical irrelevance of coal prior to the industrial age and the uselessness of the resource outside of yields.

The Sumerians used bitumen for fuel and as building material. Do you want us to unlock oil early too? Why are you content with only bringing coal forward a whole era when you could just have every strategic unlocked at the same time as horses? You are already proposing to dislocate 1 resource from its historic use and from its game components, and using another dislocated resource to justify it. Using nonsense to justify further nonsense. So why not just burn the whole thing down while you’re at it?

I’m done. This is embarrassing. I guess this is the Congress I start rolling back changes via modmods in earnest.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Such pedantic reasoning. None of that is material. None of that makes a lick of difference when considered against the historical irrelevance of coal prior to the industrial age and the uselessness of the resource outside of yields.

The Sumerians used bitumen for fuel and as building material. Do you want us to unlock oil early too? Why are you content with only bringing coal forward a whole era when you could just have every strategic unlocked at the same time as horses? You are already proposing to dislocate 1 resource from its historic use and from its game components, and using another dislocated resource to justify it. Using nonsense to justify further nonsense. So why not just burn the whole thing down while you’re at it?

I’m done. This is embarrassing. I guess this is the Congress I start rolling back changes in earnest.

Another thing to modmod.

 

[CppMaster]

I’m done. This is embarrassing.

Using nonsense to justify further nonsense.

"Bad", "dumb", "embarrassing", "nonsense"...
Do you really think that using such terms will help your case? Those are without any substance. In every case when you used such term it was only *your opinion*. Don't state it as a fact that you use as your argument. Calm down.

Imagine an argument: "We cannot remove 1 production yield from mines, because it's bad/dump/embarrassing/nonsense". That's not even a weak argument, that's not an argument at all, lol.

 

[gwennog]

"Bad", "dumb", "embarrassing", "nonsense"...
Do you really think that using such terms will help your case? Those are without any substance. In every case when you used such term it was only *your opinion*. Don't state it as a fact that you use as your argument. Calm down.

Imagine an argument: "We cannot remove 1 production yield from mines, because it's bad/dump/embarrassing/nonsense". That's not even a weak argument, that's not an argument at all, lol.

What @pinappledan says, even if several words used can be hurtful, is well contained in his argument and it is important. We MUST respect a historical structure in VP, even if in the opinion of some it undermines the gameplay.
An Aztec building donated by a Mayan wonder is already plenty enough.
I really think that any historically flawed proposal should be discussed before it is even proposed. Maybe at the magi level?

 

[CppMaster]

What @pinappledan says, even if several words used can be hurtful, is well contained in his argument and it is important. We MUST respect a historical structure in VP, even if in the opinion of some it undermines the gameplay.
An Aztec building donated by a Mayan wonder is already plenty enough.
I really think that any historically flawed proposal should be discussed before it is even proposed. Maybe at the magi level?

Are actually saying that historical flavor is more important than gameplay/balance? That's a bold assumption, definitely not everyone thinks the same.

 

[gwennog]

Are actually saying that historical flavor is more important than gameplay/balance? That's a bold assumption, definitely not everyone thinks the same.

I'm well aware of this, but we're playing Civilization. There are plenty of other games where historical coherence is not an important criterion, so we might as well go for those. But I agree that gameplay/balance is important (although very subjective in my opinion) so it must be thought about but to serve the History, not the opposite.There are certainly plenty of solutions to “balance”, if one is historically questionable, we must find another.

 

[CppMaster]

I wouldn't treat is as a historical game. Age of Empire 2 is better suited for that. Civilization is like making your own history in the same universe. Although, I would agree that if we can keep historical flavor then we may try to preserve it.

 

[Anarcomu]

One argument that @pineappledan use (and I agree with him there) is that the technological capability to use a resource is not historically linked to its use. There are a lot to be used in nature, the revealing of a resource is like going from "we have found some useless materials" to "actually, this is very useful because we found a use for it". I remember (can't give source) that oil, or petroleum, was already used before its actual use, just for other things, like culture or medicine (not sure for that part).

As a modern civilization, we know what is useful and what is not, but simulating an evolving civilization, they probably see resources without thinking it warrant notice (like a billion other things in their environment).