A new resource system

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
I know very little of mathematical terms in English, but I try to sound understandable. I think you needn't use plots. The first percents are simple enough to count. If the disappearance probability is 1:200, then the odds for having atleast one disappearance would be the complement of having no disappearances whatsoever:
1 - (199/200)^200 = 39%. With the same calculations you would have 63% and 92 %.

I think you mean 1-(399/400)^200=39% the 1:200 gives the 63% of course. And for my median calculation, 1-(79/80)^55=50%.

The median it is, and that explains. But I still think there is something wrong there. With binomical probability/binome probability/I-have-no-idea-what-probability (I don't know if it's the proper term in english) the probs should be easy to calculate. With 1:80 prob of disappearance, the number of disappearances in 200 turns would be:
0: (79/80)^200 = 0,08
1: (200 nCr 1)(1/80)^1*(79/80)^199 = 0,20
2: (200 nCr 2)(1/80)^2*(79/80)^198 = 0,26
It is actually here where the 50% line is crossed. This would make the median disappearances 2, which would mean something like once in 100 turns.

Binomial, in English. Try the same calc for 55 turns:
0: (79/80)^55 = 0.50
1: (55 nCr 1)(1/80)^1*(79/80)^55 = 0.34
etc.
So after 55 turns, 50% chance that nothing has happened, 34% that one has disappeared, and 16% that more than one is gone.

Actually, come to think of it, if the probability is 1:80, shouldn't it simply occur once in 80 turns? That's what probabilities mean, isn't it?

Except that ignores the possibility of more than one occurence.

Congrats on the 100 post milestone by the way. We'd accumulate them a lot a faster if each post wasn't so long, you know

 

[pip8184]

you can't drive cars if your country has no petrol IMHO, so i suggest goin with Shyrramar :>

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
Yes the formula is in effect a parabola. I have of course thought of parabolas and exponential functions, but there are two reasons I had in making the formula as it is.

(1) The formula is based on a simple idea of how the cost would rise. The idea is easy to grasp even for those who aren't math-experts and the effects would be easy to calculate and to control... If the function was made parabolic, it would become abstract.

(2) The actual code is unimportant. The maths involved is relatively simple to coders, so it should not present a problem. There is no need to make the code any simpler. In effect it is a parabola, but with important differences caused by the integer-part of the formula. It could be turned into a parabola that followed along the lines of this function and then turned into integers, but I am not sure of this and will not pursue the matter for now. The integers might have an effect on the parabola so that it wouldn't actually work.

So the point here is simply this: It is not important if the actual formula is easy or not - both suggested are easy enough. What IS important is that players can easily calculate their losses. This is what my system allows.

i guess it jsut depends on how a person thinks, for me and people like me, it's easier to visualise in pseudocode, and as a parabola. but is still exactly the same function, the rounding to integent would hardly make a difference, for things like this in fact i'd prefer ther rounding right on the last step to reduce rounding errors, and my version does have a first degree term, right before the if() statment.

It is a good idea, but something I would rather avoid. I do not like the idea of being forced to "manage"

that was prety much my point, that if you want to use the stockpiling system then the way to avoid the problem of micromagement is to just have a constany multiplier for the ones you don't have the oil for since otherwise you'd have to micromanage like this to save money.

This change in probability should either be simply displayed somewhere or made simple enough for everybody to grasp - as I have tried to do with my resource-cost-model.

or, even if there is no stockpiling allowed (or maybe only in cities with a certian improvement (the 'oil' eqyuivalent of a grainary!: hybrid system!)) the game could keep track of the amount of oil left in the source, and maybe with an uncertianty factor, your surveyers could tell you how many more years of it you have left at your current rate of consumption. remember in the real world we can estimate these things they're never complete suprises,

probablilites: remember there is a big difference between a 10^-9 and a 10^-6 chance of getting hit by a car when you cross the street if you cross 10^5 streets in your lifetime! hahaha

 

[Shyrramar]

I think you mean 1-(399/400)^200=39% the 1:200 gives the 63% of course. And for my median calculation, 1-(79/80)^55=50%.

Indeed I calculated the result a long time ago, and just wrote it down...

Binomial, in English.

Except that ignores the possibility of more than one occurence.

Yes it does, doesn't it?

Congrats on the 100 post milestone by the way. We'd accumulate them a lot a faster if each post wasn't so long, you know

Yeah, we should try to stick to something like 5 sentences per post. I would be knocking on the 5000 milestone right now

I never really posted much until this cIV thread came along. Now I actually have some faith in that somebody well heed these suggestions and something could even happen. This is off topic, but you should check the "performant AI" in the next page. It's a real good idea and a shame people have missed it almost completely. It is the answer to many problems here. I tried to PM you, by the way, but you didn't allow, so I'll tell it here then

 

[Shyrramar]

i guess it jsut depends on how a person thinks, for me and people like me, it's easier to visualise in pseudocode, and as a parabola. but is still exactly the same function, the rounding to integent would hardly make a difference, for things like this in fact i'd prefer ther rounding right on the last step to reduce rounding errors, and my version does have a first degree term, right before the if() statment.

I think that people like you are a minority. Most people don't visualize in pseudocode! I understand that you may feel the parabola is better, but I think most people would disagree. Having a certain parabola calculating the cost would most like cause people struggling to find their calculators - if they would bother. The parabolic idea of growth is of course very easy to grasp - I am arguing about the exact calculations. Squaring is too hard for most people. It is much easier to calculate that my 13 excess units will cost 10*2 + 3*3 = 29 gpt than to use a parabolic formula.

I want to emphasize, that I myself have no problem with parabolas (they are my best friends! ), but I think many people would. But hey, perhaps "the some people" should comment on this too. Would they want to have a parabolic function representing the growth or this system based of sums that is in effect a parabola, but not in essence.

I must agree with you that integer should be taken as late as possible, but it does not apply to this case, because the units are (of course) counted as integers. There is no rounding involved - the integer is only used in the formula to separate the calculations for whole steps and partial steps. It is not necessary, of course, but makes the formula easier to handle. Now it has three parts. The first part is simply the units that are allowed (if no cost is implemented for those, it can be removed), the second part is for full steps (be the step-length 5,7 or 10) and the third for partial steps.

The exact calculations can be made by many different ways and I shall leave it to the developers to come up with the best suitable one. I would like to see, though, that the idea of the calculations are made clear for all: there is pretty much nothing simpler calculation here than what I have suggested that would still include exponential or parabolic growth. One must remember, that many players haven't even HEARD of parabolas, not to mention used them. And most who are familiar with them are unable to visualize it by staring at the function. Those who can are rarities and should be happy on the other hand and tolerant on the other.

probablilites: remember there is a big difference between a 10^-9 and a 10^-6 chance of getting hit by a car when you cross the street if you cross 10^5 streets in your lifetime! hahaha

This is something I always keep in mind while crossing streets This is of course the basic result of probabilities, something that people should seriously heed. My once noted that there was a dangerous junction in our home-street. He had once thought that even if the chance of getting into accident there is very small, he would be going through that junction hundreds of times a year: perhaps more than 20 years, which would sum up to 2000 crossings. It didn't have to be too big a chance to get into an accident so that it would be probable that he did. So he has followed that logic and always driven extra-carefully there. Most people just think that there's too small a risk to heed - and probably will have one accident in the 20 years! Ain't probabilities a *****?

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
Except that ignores the possibility of more than one occurence.

Thanks for the help in English language . After a good night sleep I must withraw my acceptance of this. Correct me if I am wrong.

Let's return to basic probabilities. In essence the situation is same as throwing a dice, only the odds are smaller. Now what I tried to say is that as the odds for getting a six is 1:6, this should happen once in six times, right? If it weren't so, it wouldn't be so for the odds of getting 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 either, as the odds are the same 1:6. Now is sixes occur MORE OFTEN than once in six times, then ones and twos and... would do the same thing - in effect causing us to have more occurances than throws! To put it in maths: the probability of getting 1 or 2 or ... or 6 > 1. Now this of course cannot be correct. Thus it cannot be so that the disappearances would occur more often than once in 80 times. Of course now we are facing a situation where the odds are either 1:80 or 79:80, not 1:80, 1:80, 1:80, ... This has does not affect the situation, because it is in essence binomial anyway. The same argument would go for dices: the odds would be 1:6 against 5:6. This way of thinking would of course not increase to probability of getting a six!

Now there is another way of seeing this. The disappearance probability is binomial. As it is repeated many many times it begins to approximate normal distribution. The average of a normal distribution approximated by a binomial distribution is n times p, where n is the number of repeats and p is the chances of disappearing in one repetition. Now the point where the approximation is "good enough" is something like n*p*(1-p)>9. With 1000 tries that number is 12,3 with probability of 1:80. So we can approximate it to normal distribution and the average would then be 1000*(1/80) = 12,5. So the resource would disappear on average 12,5 times in 1000 turns. Now the distribution is symmetric (being a normal distribution), so this certainly would be the actual mean number. This of course returns us to 80 turns if we were to divide the 1000 with the said 12,5 to see how often the resource would run out.

What this shows is that we needn't not worry about multiple occurances (you are thinking too complexily), because we are talking about mean numbers here. And it wouldn't have any effect anyway, as the normal distribution is symmetric so the probability of getting more occurrances and less occurrances is the same!

This would even have the nice effect of bringing us down to earth. With 1:80 disappearance ratio the resource would disappear on average 2,5 times per 200 turns. Something you should indeed notice. Whereas 1:400 is rare enough to make many games without any disappearances. And as you pointed out, even we normal human beings spot the difference between something happening once in a few games than something occurring a few times a game!

I think this is a good idea, then. The probabilities should be a bit bigger perhaps, though. I would suggest bringing it down one step, so the beginning would be 1:200. But I am thinking about oil now, and I think oil does indeed have this disappearance ratio.

It occurs to me that your trade advisor could also be useful here. Rather than always giving you useless messages like "We should acquire more sources of oil!", the advisor could take into account the size of your empire and the number of sources you have, and say "We should acquire more..." only when the chance of disappearance was abnormally high. In fact, something like "our empire is growing, sire, we should seek more sources of oil" would be even more to the point. If you had plenty, and the chance of disappearance was low, the advice would switch to "We have plenty of oil, sire, lets see if anyone would like to buy some!"

This is certainly a good idea. The advisors should be more specific. Why they aren't already I have no idea - perhaps because they too have only a vague idea what should be done

And one final thing on this topic: if you had one oil and so did your friendly neighbor, you could contact them and offer to trade oil for oil.

This also is a fine idea. I wonder if it would tedious though to trade all your resources with everybody...

 

[Shyrramar]

This whole thread serves one purpose: to find an alternative to the current resource-system . The system is simple as a system can be, but will also occasionally ruin games. Oil is made essential in the game (as it should be), but often your civ is left lacking - an event that really breaks your game. Another problem with this system is that it is on-off: you either have infinite resources of oil, or none at all.

There have been in essence three suggested systems

(1) Each resource tile should allow a certain number of units. If one exceeded this number, a cost penalty would occur. The allowed units could cost 1gpt, the first 10 excess units 2gpt, next 10 3gpt and so on. This would cause a parabolic growth in upkeep. What is to be said about this?
+ It is easy to implement and easy to learn. The rising costs are easily calculatable by everyone and the whole system is understandable and realistic.
+ Essentially everyone would have oil, just perhaps not enough. This would allow small task forces to invade more oil - so you don't have to go against endless number of tanks with your cavalries to get it.
+ There would be a real reason to acquire more resources.
- It's not a good idea to link resources to upkeep and money in general. An argument against this is: wealthy nations should be better prepared to hang on even with very little resources than poor ones. Money would represent smuggling and black market-trading. A connection to money would not cause an immediate breakdown, but would demand actions taken soon.

(2) Resources should be harvested and stockpiled, much like gold now. This is quite similar to the first one, but would have a new aspect of having good reserves of resources and perhaps invading your enemies stockpiles.
+ No dubious link to money. Although it does in essence only create another kind of money .
+ Could allow oil pumps and other improvements to make the resource harvesting more efficient. IMO, this is a counter-argument as well.
- Problem with "what happens when I run out of oil". This of course could be dealt with by not having any upkeep. How realistic would this be then? With upkeep the system would become perhaps too complex.
- Too much micromanagement. This of course depends on the amount of additional improvements, the nature of the stockpiles and the way resources are handled in general. This is, I must say, probably the one with most possibilities of the three suggestions, but also the one that has most potential of becoming tedious, complex and filled with micromanagement.

(3) Resources would be infinite, but would disappear more likely when used more. You could trade your oil (even if you have only one) with other nations, but that would in effect double your chances of running out of it. So you should juggle between keeping the oil yourself and be relatively safe or trade it for other goods with increased risk.
+ This is by far the simplest of the three. It wouldn't bring any new concepts to the game and no relevant change to interface. Perhaps too simple, though?
+ It would introduce a new tactical aspect. You should carefully ponder the risks and benefits involved. One problem with this is how well people will understand the risks they are taking?
+ It would also make a use of additional resources. By acquiring more resources you would lessen the probability of your resources disappearing.
- This system would not take into account the number of units. It would, though, take into account the number of cities using the resource. This would anyway lose one aspect brought in by choices 1 and 2.

I would myself go for numbers 1 or 3, number 2 being too complex and bringing nothing relevant IMHO. All of these suggestions can be easily applied to luxuries also. If I forgot some important aspect of any of those or you have different views on how this summation should be done, please do bring it into my attention. This is supposed to be non-biased summation of pros and cons. It's hard for me, though, because of this simple fact: I happen to be biased

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
After a good night sleep I must withraw my acceptance of this...
Let's return to basic probabilities.

You're right, my mistake. The difference between 55 turns and 1:80 has nothing to do with multiple occurences, it is simply that 55 is the median number of turns until a disappearance, while 80 is the mean number of turns. In terms of six-sided dice, a result of 6 occurs an average of once every 6 rolls, but you usually have to roll less than six times before you get a 6 (in fact, half the time, you'll need 4 rolls or less). The average can still be 1:6 because on a few occasions, it takes much more than 6 rolls to get a 6, but it never takes less than 1 roll (the probability distribution is not symmetric). Sorry for the confusion!

The math isn't very relevent to the concept, anyway... the odds can always be adjusted to give a desirable result.

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
This whole thread serves one purpose: to find an alternative to the current resource-system.

(1) Each resource tile should allow a certain number of units.
(2) Resources should be harvested and stockpiled, much like gold now.
(3) Resources would be infinite, but would disappear more likely when used more.

I would myself go for numbers 1 or 3, number 2 being too complex and bringing nothing relevant IMHO... I happen to be biased

Naturally, I'd go for 2 or 3

One more thought I had about option 3: the disappearance chances could instead be linked to the number of times the resource was used, rather than the cities using it, i.e., you could link a rubber tile to all your cities, even trade it to everyone else, but if no one ever built any infantry, helicopters, etc, the rubber would never run out. This would make it much harder to predict the effects of trading it to rivals, since you wouldn't know how often they'd plan to use the resource. On the other hand, it'd make it more similar to option 1 and 2, since the number of units buildable from a single resource would be more of an issue.

In fact, if each tile allowed building a specific, finite number of units (but still as many as you want per turn; the number just determines how soon the tile runs out) then #3 would be even more similar to #1. The differences would just be that 3 wouldn't have resource-upkeep, or limit the number of units in any way other than by resource disappearance, as it is in Civ 3. In this case, however, not only would it be hard to value a resource when trying to decide whether to trade it, but it would be harder to connect disappearances and reappearances without just making them occur at the same time (like Civ 3). Perhaps new resource appearance could just be a random chance that was influenced by how many of that resource there were already on the map (rather than being directly influenced by the disappearance odds).

Not sure how much I like this idea, but I thought I'd point out the middle ground between #1 and #3.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has other ideas - either variations on the 3 ideas Shyrramar listed above, or totally distinct ideas.

 

[rcoutme]

I think that the system of allowing a certain number of units per icon and increasing the cost for additional units is the most feasable and (at least semi-) understandable. The only problem that I forsee with that system is the tile benefits associated with the extra sources (and yes, extra sources would be critical).

Instead, perhaps the icons for things such as oil, would have a value associated with them stating the number of "uses" available without a premium charge. I say "uses" because a coal plant has a requirement for coal just as ironclads and railroads (at least the early ones) do. Thus, each icon would have a use value (10, 15, 80 whatever). This concept is easy to understand. How that affects costs is really not as relevant as that it does affect costs.

This would also allow more interesting trades. The trade advisor could state, "Sire if we sell 40 oil to the Webloes then our own costs per turn will rise by 73". etc.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
Naturally, I'd go for 2 or 3

Yes, you would, now wouldn't you?

One more thought I had about option 3: the disappearance chances could instead be linked to the number of times the resource was used, rather than the cities using it, i.e., you could link a rubber tile to all your cities, even trade it to everyone else, but if no one ever built any infantry, helicopters, etc, the rubber would never run out. This would make it much harder to predict the effects of trading it to rivals, since you wouldn't know how often they'd plan to use the resource. On the other hand, it'd make it more similar to option 1 and 2, since the number of units buildable from a single resource would be more of an issue.

It is a good idea in that it does not make unused resources to dy out. But wouldn't limiting further the knowledge a player would have of the depletion-probabilites work against the understandability of the system? I don't think many would like to play a game that had too much based on probabilites that are out of player's hands. Your original system would not cross the line, IMO, but this would. Have I understood your suggestion correctly?

Not sure how much I like this idea, but I thought I'd point out the middle ground between #1 and #3.

It would IMO be not as good as #1 and #3 alone... Sorry

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has other ideas - either variations on the 3 ideas Shyrramar listed above, or totally distinct ideas.

I am totally with you in this mate! Opinions, anyone? Ah, rcoutme! I knew I could count on you Coming there in just a minute...

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by rcoutme
I think that the system of allowing a certain number of units per icon and increasing the cost for additional units is the most feasable and (at least semi-) understandable. The only problem that I forsee with that system is the tile benefits associated with the extra sources (and yes, extra sources would be critical).

Instead, perhaps the icons for things such as oil, would have a value associated with them stating the number of "uses" available without a premium charge. I say "uses" because a coal plant has a requirement for coal just as ironclads and railroads (at least the early ones) do. Thus, each icon would have a use value (10, 15, 80 whatever). This concept is easy to understand. How that affects costs is really not as relevant as that it does affect costs.

This would also allow more interesting trades. The trade advisor could state, "Sire if we sell 40 oil to the Webloes then our own costs per turn will rise by 73". etc.

I back this. I may have not made myself understandable, but this is what I had in mind - that each resource would have different amount of "uses" (as you put it) representing the difference in size. It would NOT make things more complicated: it is a simple number, nothing more.

This would also allow trading of exactly the amount you have excess units after your resource ran out/was captured if you didn't want to disband your units or pay the extra price.

It wouldn't be too much a stretch to have the advisor count the exact costs, now wouldn't it? Then you could actually strategically sell of your oil even though you would then pay more for supporting your units, if the recipient paid well enough. An example: I have 70 units and 80 resources. The French have just lost a resource and are down to 50 with 70 units. Their extra costs would then be (in the steps of 10) 30gpt. By selling 20 of my extra oil to them for the price of 25gpt would lower my resources to 60 - generating in effect an excess and a cost of 10gpt compared to having 80 resources. This would save the French 5gpt, so they would go for it. So this trade would bring me 15gpt and to the French 5gpt - and everyone would be happy.

Isn't it nice when everybody's happy? Vote for my suggestion and make everybody happy!

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
Yes, you would, now wouldn't you?

Naturally!

It is a good idea in that it does not make unused resources to dy out. But wouldn't limiting further the knowledge a player would have of the depletion-probabilites work against the understandability of the system? I don't think many would like to play a game that had too much based on probabilites that are out of player's hands. Your original system would not cross the line, IMO, but this would. Have I understood your suggestion correctly?

It would IMO be not as good as #1 and #3 alone... Sorry

Yes, I think you understand correctly, and yes, I think you're right, it wouldn't be as good as #1 or #3 alone. I'm just trying to explore all the options...

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
I'm just trying to explore all the options...

I have come to appreciate that, as you have many great ideas. Keep up the exploring, and we might just have a better cIV in the future!

 

[socralynnek]

I am in favor of #2. It would not mean directly that then the ressource is like a new kind of gold, its like gold that can be found on a map, so you still would have to go after the ressource. And you can simply have the concept of ressource cost when build and upkeep!
There are several ideas with what to do when a ressource runs out, it is compatible to all the other proposals!

 

[taltho]

I agree with shyrramar and his expanation of resource usages The storage of resource's is my main wish I was going to sugest that myself here tonight.

 

[Buana]

With option #1 you get very dependent on your trading partner. It would be a sweet method to wreck the AI. Give him your 100 oil, watch him build those 100 tanks, than, after 20 turns just cancel the deal and he has to either disband his brand-new army or he is ruined. Although you may want to be on another continent meanwhile.

 

[Jaca]

I think that the system of allowing a certain number of units per icon and increasing the cost for additional units is the most feasable and (at least semi-) understandable. The only problem that I forsee with that system is the tile benefits associated with the extra sources (and yes, extra sources would be critical).

Instead, perhaps the icons for things such as oil, would have a value associated with them stating the number of "uses" available without a premium charge. I say "uses" because a coal plant has a requirement for coal just as ironclads and railroads (at least the early ones) do. Thus, each icon would have a use value (10, 15, 80 whatever). This concept is easy to understand. How that affects costs is really not as relevant as that it does affect costs.

This would also allow more interesting trades. The trade advisor could state, "Sire if we sell 40 oil to the Webloes then our own costs per turn will rise by 73". etc.

I find this a close to excellent attempt to a full synthesis, rcoutme.

Apart from all what's been said, I also wondered that resource discovering techs mainly allow military improvement now, with the exception of Replacable Parts, where the speed of workers is doubled, and Steam Power, where you can build railroads improving production. Sure, some civil improvements need resources, but iron (apart from a factory), oil and aluminimum for example are military-only resources. Taking a look into history, we see that average energy consumption (i.e. per citizen) was about 5 units for the hunter-fisher societies, about 20 units for the agraric societies and about 75 for the industrial societies. And 1 unit is the basic demand for one human person (body, so to speak). This increased civil demand is not reflected in CIV's concept of resource consumption, and could, IMO, add some flavour to all possible strategies.

To get in more detail: Iron Working not only made better fighters, but in the first place, made better plows, and in general better farming and fishing tools, drastically increasing (food) production, allowing the agraric settlements to grow much faster, to real cities. A suggestion is making workers 25% faster, producing one more food per city after hooking up the first Iron resource, or allow growth at only 90% of normal max (18F io 20F).
The Wheel, as another example, allowed, apart from the chariots better transportation and so increased the network and commerce and production. Motorized Transportation is a third example: it allowed higher mobility of people and goods, increasing again commerce and production. Not just tanks.

So I would suggest a general empire-wise managment of the resources, instead of a (possibly tedious) micro-managment, with both civil and military consequences. I.e. use a resource slider and divide your effort in:
1. a more civil dedicated economy, mainly using your resources for maintaining a healthy growth of your civ (slider higer towards 100%);
2. a more military approach, where all the suggestions you guys did regarding the higher costs for more units could apply (slider in the low %-es);
3. Need for resources and their effects are indeed not all-or-nothing, but a weighted sum of civil (cheeper) and military (more expensive) demand;
4. Luxuries, as suggested earlier in this thread, can only make a certain amount of people happy. The bigger cities get the first amount. (e.g. 1 luxury can make 15 citizens happy, empire-wise. Having more cities will cut off the luxury from the smaller cities);

Penalties for getting short of resources are:
1. Decreased production in some empire-wide sense;
2. The suggested huge maintainance cost for military, so economic pressure;
3. Unhappiness.

Side effect: smaller civs need less resources and could go for a minimal (defensive) military, putting more effort in their growth and economy. Larger civs will need to more energy in finding more and more resources, as their cities and military grow, effectively slowing them down or come to a critical point. Furthermore, their edge cities tend to be very small with high corruption and lower luxury effect, possibly increasing a flip.

The effects should not be drastic, though, not to unbalance the general strategy of the game. I mean, don't make 5 times more resources apear then now. But there should be, IMO, a depency of civil and military activity.

What do people think?

Regards,
Jaca

 

[rcoutme]

Jaca, that more or less works for me.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am bumping this old thread because gaskyes was nice enough to link it in another thread. Also, in general there are too many repeat threads so here goes. It is my basic ideas, with examples, on quantifiable resources that are easy to understand and lead to real decisions on when to use.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Non-Renewable Resource Quantity:

The number on a resource basically lists how plentiful it seems. Each application(some domestic from cities, some for units, some misc) would tax 'x' number of resource points as evenly as possibly from avaliable resources. The amount of taxation on a resource determines the probability that the resource number will decrease. This goes for non-renewable luxury and bonus resources as well as strategic resources.

Spoiler EXAMPLE A :

Suppose you have an Oil field with quantity 20.

Right now it is not being used in any significance because of technology. That means 0 units are taxed a turn. The probability of the Oil field reducing in quantity is 0/20 or 0%.

You discover a couple applications and now 2 units of Oil are taxed each turn from the Oil field. The probability of the Oil field reducing in quantity is 2/20 or 10%.

Some turn later you hit that 10% on the dice roll and now you have a size 19 Oil field. You are still taxing the same 2 units of Oil each turn. Now the probability of reducing the Oil field in quantity is 2/19 or 11%.

Your society starts driving a lot and now taxes 10 units each turn. The probability of the Oil field reducing in quantity is 10/19 or 50%.

Pretty soon your Oil field is now only size 18. The same 10 units each turn is taxed and the probability of field reduction is 10/18 or 55%.

Your consumption doubles so you now tax this site 20 units a turn. It has also reduced to size 17 because of heavy use. Now the probability of reduction is 20/17 or 117%. This means that the first unit is automatically lost. There is a 3/17 or 117% chance of a second unit of quantity being lost.

Several turns later the overtaxed Oil field has reduced down to size 10 while consumption remains at size 20. Now the chance of reduction is 20/10 or 200%. THis means the Oil field will automatically fall two units in quantity. Also, no resource can be more than double taxed its current quantity.

A turn later the Oil field has reduced down to size 8 and only 16 units of consumption can occur.

Four turns after that the Oil field has dried up and now has 0 quantity.

A technology that can uncover 'deep deposits' comes about. Some squares have one or two levels of 'deep deposits' which are accessible after certain technology. This Oil field had that and now gets an addtional 30 units of Oil.

This whole cycle starts over, but hopefully your nation has found other Oil sources so this one is not so heavily taxed.

Renewable Resources:

Renewable resources are usually more certain than non-renewable resources in quantity. They also regrow and replenish themselves, meaning slightly different mechanics are at work. The renewable resources you tax from a tile are gone when you tax them. However the tiles generates new resources of the same kind based on the number of untaxed resources. Also, whenever the density of renewable resources is too high in one square, it will put the excess in another square.

Spoiler EXAMPLE B :

Horses generate 1 new Horse for every 4(rounded up) untaxed Horse in the tile.
The maximum number of Horses in any square is 30.

A tile starts with 2 horses.

After the fifth turn of uninhibited growth there are 9 Horses in the tile. Then the capitol city draws off 2 Horses for agricultural needs. This leaves 7 Horses in the tile.

The next turn there are once again 9 Horses, but the capitol simply takes two. Eventually the capitol will need more and the tile will run out of Horses. Leaders in the capitol manage to get a source of cheap foreign Horses for five turns.

Now there are 24 Horses in the tile and the capital needs them again. It now taxes 4 Horses a turn for agricultural needs. This reduces the Horse population to 20 Horses.

The next turn there are 25 Horses in the tile and the capital only takes 4, leaving 21 Horses.

The next turn there are 27 Horses and the capitol taxes 4, leaving 23 Horses.

The next turn there are 29 Horses and the capitol takes 4, leaving 25 Horses.

Next Turn:
The capitol now taxes 4 Horses total
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 2 Horses
Taxes - 4 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 26 Horses - 2 Horses

Next Turn:
The capitol now taxes 4 Horses total
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses
Taxes - 4 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 26 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses

Next Turn:
The capitol now taxes 5 Horses total
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 4 Horses - 4 Horses - 3 Horses
Taxes - 5 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 25 Horses - 4 Horses - 4 Horses - 3 Horses

Next Turn:
The capitol now taxes 5 Horses total
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 5 Horses - 5 Horses - 4 Horses - 2 Horses
Taxes - 5 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 25 Horses - 5 Horses - 5 Horses - 4 Horses - 2 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 2, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 5 Horses total
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 7 Horses - 7 Horses - 5 Horses - 3 Horses
Taxes - 3 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 0 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 27 Horses - 6 Horses - 6 Horses - 5 Horses - 3 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 4, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 10 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 30 Horses - 8 Horses - 8 Horses - 7 Horses - 4 Horses
Taxes - 7 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 23 Horses - 7 Horses - 7 Horses - 6 Horses - 4 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 29 Horses - 9 Horses - 9 Horses - 8 Horses - 5 Horses
Taxes - 9 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 0 Horses
Finish Horses - 20 Horses - 8 Horses - 8 Horses - 7 Horses - 5 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 25 Horses - 10 Horses - 10 Horses - 9 Horses - 7 Horses
Taxes - 8 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses
Finish Horses - 17 Horses - 9 Horses - 9 Horses - 8 Horses - 6 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 22 Horses - 12 Horses - 12 Horses - 10 Horses - 8 Horses
Taxes - 6 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 1 Horses - 1 Horses
Finish Horses - 16 Horses - 10 Horses - 10 Horses - 9 Horses - 7 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 20 Horses - 13 Horses - 13 Horses - 12 Horses - 9 Horses
Taxes - 5 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 1 Horses
Finish Horses - 15 Horses - 11 Horses - 11 Horses - 10 Horses - 8 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 19 Horses - 14 Horses - 14 Horses - 13 Horses - 10 Horses
Taxes - 5 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 1 Horses
Finish Horses - 14 Horses - 12 Horses - 12 Horses - 11 Horses - 9 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 12 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 18 Horses - 15 Horses - 15 Horses - 14 Horses - 12 Horses
Taxes - 4 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses
Finish Horses - 14 Horses - 13 Horses - 13 Horses - 12 Horses - 10 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 13 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 18 Horses - 17 Horses - 17 Horses - 15 Horses - 13 Horses
Taxes - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 2 Horses - 2 Horses
Finish Horses - 15 Horses - 14 Horses - 14 Horses - 13 Horses - 11 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 13 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 19 Horses - 18 Horses - 18 Horses - 17 Horses - 14 Horses
Taxes - 2 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 2 Horses
Finish Horses - 17 Horses - 15 Horses - 15 Horses - 14 Horses - 12 Horses

Next Turn:
The excess from the original square equal 0, but cannot be accessed.
The capitol now taxes 13 Horses total because of military and new city.
Starting Horses - 22 Horses - 19 Horses - 19 Horses - 18 Horses - 15 Horses
Taxes - 2 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 3 Horses - 2 Horses
Finish Horses - 20 Horses - 16 Horses - 16 Horses - 15 Horses - 13 Horses