Always connected resources: good or bad?

Are instantly connected resources good or bad?

  • Good

    Votes: 10 62.5%
  • Bad

    Votes: 6 37.5%

  • Total voters
    16

Lazy sweeper

Prince
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
457
The question is simple: are instantly - always accesible resources a good or a bad thing?

The downward spiral is getting tighter...

Initially resources had to be connected with a road, and had to be within your borders, BUT it was possible, to make colonies
on resources outside of your territory. There was a huge battle for these territorially unclaimed resources, which had to be militarly protected,
both on the site itself, and the road connection to your empire.

Later colonies were taken away, and only with some mods could be re-instated, but they had a mantainance cost that was ludicrous, and also
you needed to build a unique unit just for it. Workers were not able to build foreign colonies anymore. But the aspect of mantaining your empire
resources well connected AND protected at all times was still a huge endeavour, that both human players and CPU would have to spend a considerable
amount of tactics to protect its networks. Roads and military had a purpose.

With Civ VI finally we arrived at instantaneously connected resources, no roads network, and suddenly military units had only to camp on its more
valuable resources, and a city, even if completely under siege, with all roads burned to the ground, could still have access to all its resources and build
say a Tank, and strike at your besieging forces with impunity from the safety of its walls...

Now, it doesn't look like there was any change from Civ VI in this direction, other than that now resources has to be worked by the city zoomed in view...
Which doesn't say exactly how are these connected to your other cities in the empire if this is claimed by a town or outpost far beyond the horizon of your capital city,
maybe even on a remote island with no ports...

I think instantly connected resources are bad for the immersion, but without roads, or network, or with an instantaneous network established between
cities in your empire, which it isn't clear at all as a mechanic... how could a player sabotage an opponent vital resource???
 
The question is simple: are instantly - always accesible resources a good or a bad thing?

The downward spiral is getting tighter...

Initially resources had to be connected with a road, and had to be within your borders, BUT it was possible, to make colonies
on resources outside of your territory. There was a huge battle for these territorially unclaimed resources, which had to be militarly protected,
both on the site itself, and the road connection to your empire.

Later colonies were taken away, and only with some mods could be re-instated, but they had a mantainance cost that was ludicrous, and also
you needed to build a unique unit just for it. Workers were not able to build foreign colonies anymore. But the aspect of mantaining your empire
resources well connected AND protected at all times was still a huge endeavour, that both human players and CPU would have to spend a considerable
amount of tactics to protect its networks. Roads and military had a purpose.

With Civ VI finally we arrived at instantaneously connected resources, no roads network, and suddenly military units had only to camp on its more
valuable resources, and a city, even if completely under siege, with all roads burned to the ground, could still have access to all its resources and build
say a Tank, and strike at your besieging forces with impunity from the safety of its walls...

Now, it doesn't look like there was any change from Civ VI in this direction, other than that now resources has to be worked by the city zoomed in view...
Which doesn't say exactly how are these connected to your other cities in the empire if this is claimed by a town or outpost far beyond the horizon of your capital city,
maybe even on a remote island with no ports...

I think instantly connected resources are bad for the immersion, but without roads, or network, or with an instantaneous network established between
cities in your empire, which it isn't clear at all as a mechanic... how could a player sabotage an opponent vital resource???
Resources work different than VI, so I don’t see the poll as very useful. You assign them to cities once you have access. Shuffling them around optimally for each tasks was called out as something to do for people that look for micro in civilization games by the devs. Also resources can now be traded on the map! Before (except for CtP) they‘ve always been transported instantly off-screen. I think we need more info/experience to assess how good all these changes turn out.
 
Resources work different than VI, so I don’t see the poll as very useful. You assign them to cities once you have access. Shuffling them around optimally for each tasks was called out as something to do for people that look for micro in civilization games by the devs. Also resources can now be traded on the map! Before (except for CtP) they‘ve always been transported instantly off-screen. I think we need more info/experience to assess how good all these changes turn out.
So how do you implement a blockade? Foreign colonies could be replaced by towns or outposts, maybe, but the question remains... how do you stop a civ from obtaining its resources if they magically fly over the map with a magic carpet???

Except for CtP, roads has always been part of the equation, what you say it's just not true...
 
Last edited:
So how do you implement a blockade? Foreign colonies could be replaced by towns or outposts, maybe, but the question remains... how do you stop a civ from obtaining its resources if they magically fly over the map with a magic carpet???
Well they always flew over the map like a magic carpet if they were in your territory.

That said, it would be pretty easy for Civ7 to have a model where enemy units adjacent to the right urban districts could blockade a settlement… meaning it can’t send resources or receive resources

Also you could definitely blockade international trade giving resources to an empire.
 
Well they always flew over the map like a magic carpet if they were in your territory.

That said, it would be pretty easy for Civ7 to have a model where enemy units adjacent to the right urban districts could blockade a settlement… meaning it can’t send resources or receive resources

Also you could definitely blockade international trade giving resources to an empire.
Nope. No roads, no magical connection as far as Civ III and IV are concerned...

The last sentence seems paradoxical, unless your not trading venom or some other form of Espionage resource to me unknown...
 
Last edited:
So how do you implement a blockade?

I don't think you need to. That would imply that an empire with access to a critical resource didn't stockpile and maintain an adequate supply of that resource throughout their empire, or at least everywhere that the resource would be used. Sieging the original source of that resource shouldn't have an impact. From a gameplay perspective, maybe you want to model it in, but I think from a gameplay perspective it's also okay not to.

There's a lot of problems with using a one-size-fits-all "strategic resource" model. Horses shouldn't be tied to a single point of origin (although elephants can be, because historically military-grade elephants could not be bred in captivity). Units equipped with iron or bronze armour and weapons shouldn't ever lose the benefit of that equipment after they've been equipped - even replacement soldiers can be re-equipped with their fallen comrades' gear. Oil should ideally have a stockpile system, and the stockpile should not be used up by building new units, it should be used by moving and fighting with existing units. While I'd rather see these differences modelled in the game mechanics, I also get why Civ has chosen to abstract the system and use a single set of rules for each. It will be interesting, though, to see if there are any era differences this time around, since we know some rule systems change from one era to the next.
 
I don't think you need to. That would imply that an empire with access to a critical resource didn't stockpile and maintain an adequate supply of that resource throughout their empire, or at least everywhere that the resource would be used. Sieging the original source of that resource shouldn't have an impact. From a gameplay perspective, maybe you want to model it in, but I think from a gameplay perspective it's also okay not to.

There's a lot of problems with using a one-size-fits-all "strategic resource" model. Horses shouldn't be tied to a single point of origin (although elephants can be, because historically military-grade elephants could not be bred in captivity). Units equipped with iron or bronze armour and weapons shouldn't ever lose the benefit of that equipment after they've been equipped - even replacement soldiers can be re-equipped with their fallen comrades' gear. Oil should ideally have a stockpile system, and the stockpile should not be used up by building new units, it should be used by moving and fighting with existing units. While I'd rather see these differences modelled in the game mechanics, I also get why Civ has chosen to abstract the system and use a single set of rules for each. It will be interesting, though, to see if there are any era differences this time around, since we know some rule systems change from one era to the next.
Sure, I guess the USA would like to have a chat with you regarding a black sticky stuff... stockpile run out... units are lost in battle...
If a civs has no incentive in protecting a resource, it doesnt need to build military units! From a gameplay perspective it makes a lot of difference!
The three-four biggest Exploration age navies weren't built to just scout some settlers around the globe. When the Ottomans blockaded India, it was
mayhem on the seas! Ottomans and Arabs were losing the hundreds of years of Monopoly over the silk route goods... it was an Age changing event...
not some small skirmish.. In Antiquity Tin was either from Uk or from India also... access to that resource meant either life or death...
 
Last edited:
With the Civ7 model, blockades would work a lot better because resources don’t unlock units…instead they only give bonuses.
So, cut off a city…less production/happy gold culture food

Also in civ 7, most cities will be importing food…so it might be able to starve the city out.
 
I believe you can still pillage a resource improvement and deny that resource to the owner, though in VII that's just a +1 combat modifier that you're denying. I think clobbering trade routes will probably have more of an impact.

They're trying to reduce cases in which most players will simply quit the game in frustration, and not getting a key resource was a significant cause of this in earlier iterations. We'll have to wait and see how it plays.

I do kind of miss the fun feeling of creating resource outposts in Civ3, but I don't think I'll miss not being able to use any of my unique units because I'm Rome and have no Iron.
 
With the Civ7 model, blockades would work a lot better because resources don’t unlock units…instead they only give bonuses.
So, cut off a city…less production/happy gold culture food

Also in civ 7, most cities will be importing food…so it might be able to starve the city out.
OK, I don't know any of this, but is it relevant to the role matter of the initial question?
Always connected resources seems like a bad omen, if food runs out, and a city starve, it means
they are NOT always connected... so it is a good thing they are not, right?
 
I believe you can still pillage a resource improvement and deny that resource to the owner, though in VII that's just a +1 combat modifier that you're denying. I think clobbering trade routes will probably have more of an impact.

They're trying to reduce cases in which most players will simply quit the game in frustration, and not getting a key resource was a significant cause of this in earlier iterations. We'll have to wait and see how it plays.

I do kind of miss the fun feeling of creating resource outposts in Civ3, but I don't think I'll miss not being able to use any of my unique units because I'm Rome and have no Iron.
The Sky metal? Just send a meteorite on those losers of the Romans so they'll be happy. In any case they also needed Tin, in a much more considerable quantity than Iron for most of their existance. Iron ore smelting was quite a rarity even for the Romans. Only few Elite units had access to Iron weapons. For the most parts they still used a lot of other metals. Lead, Tin, Copper, etc. Iron was just a minuscule part. Maybe it should be the Legionaires that could be nerfed to inferior weapons, and do not nerf the entire gameplay because of some weiner. Playing with Rome was particularly satisfying exactly for that reason. You had to have Iron. Same for the Celts, Persian. Japan... You take the logistical part away, and it become an empty shell... In Civ IV without Stone or Marble, some wonders construction cost would quadruple... Sky metal... there can be workarounds without dismantling the core of Civ...
 
Last edited:
Sure, I guess the USA would like to have a chat with you regarding a black sticky stuff... stockpile run out... units are lost in battle...
If a civs has no incentive in protecting a resource, it doesnt need to build military units! From a gameplay perspective it makes a lot of difference!
The three-four biggest Exploration age navies weren't built to just scout some settlers around the globe. When the Ottomans blockaded India, it was
mayhem on the seas! Ottomans and Arabs were losing the hundreds of years of Monopoly over the silk route goods... it was an Age changing event...
not some small skirmish.. In Antiquity Tin was either from Uk or from India also... access to that resource meant either life or death...
The USA in fact has never had a problem with access to black stcky stuff. Germany and Japan, on the other hand, ended World War Two with thousands of aircraft built and sitting on the ground because they never had enough fuel to get them airborne - 2/3 of the recruited pilots in the Kamikaze program survived because they could never get into the air!

The Ottomans were too interested in trade to blockade anybody. The problem was that Venice and Genoa dominated trade from the Ottomans to the rest of Europe and powers like Spain and Portugal wanted in on the action, so went looking for ways 'around' the eastern Mediterranean, and found them.

Tin to the ancient and classical Middle East and Mediterranean basin came from Cornwall or Afghanistan BUT there is no record of anybody who knew how to combine copper and tin or copper and arsenical ores to make Bronze ever having any problem getting enough of the raw materials. Hauling them in was expensive, and so bronze was far more expensive than single-material Iron, but actually having enough if you were willing to pay for it wasn't a problem.
In fact, there is no example I know of when a group had the knowledge that they had any problem finding the materials - if they could pay for it, Someone was going to bring it to them, which is why the Civ VII system that makes Antiquity Age (at least) resources merely Bonus instead of Requirement so much better.

BUT I hope that changes by the Modern Age, because Industrial Quantities of raw materials did become critical then: those without native massive deposits of coal and iron could not develop heavy industry, and so countries like Italy were terribly handicapped compared to France, Germany or Britain, all of which had massive quantities of coal and iron available to fight World War One. And World War Two could be called "The Oil War" because, in the end, them that had it won and them that didn't lost, regardless of how good they were at tactics or operations. Lack of enough fuel to maneuver or use tanks and aircraft in the end trumped every bit of expertise on the battlefield.

But that kind of criticality in Resources should be strictly a Modern Age problem.

We shall see.
 
The Sky metal? Just send a meteorite on those losers of the Romans so they'll be happy. In any case they also needed Tin, in a much more considerable quantity than Iron for most of their existance. Iron ore smelting was quite a rarity even for the Romans. Only few Elite units had access to Iron weapons. For the most parts they still used a lot of other metals. Lead, Tin, Copper, etc. Iron was just a minuscule part. Maybe it should be the Legionaires that could be nerfed to inferior weapons, and do not nerf the entire gameplay because of some weiner. Playing with Rome was particularly satisfying exactly for that reason. You had to have Iron. Same for the Celts, Persian. Japan... You take the logistical part away, and it become an empty shell...
Iron is cheaper than bronze; it simply has a much higher melting point. Tin, arsenic, and copper are all considerably rarer than iron, more hazardous to the health of the smelter, and more difficult to work with once you have the means necessary to smelt iron. Once iron working was developed, bronze became a rarity used primarily ornamentally or for purposes for which cast iron is too brittle (until cheap steel was developed in the 19th century) or too heavy. Bronze is particularly hard to come by in the Mediterranean because the best sources of tin in the ancient world were in Cornwall and in Afghanistan. Either way, that's a long way to haul one of bronze's essential ingredients. (Copper was much easier, with major sources in Cyprus and Anatolia, among other places.) I'm speaking specifically of the Mediterranean; I'm less familiar with East Asia, which I believe continued to use bronze a little longer.
 
Iron is cheaper than bronze; it simply has a much higher melting point. Tin, arsenic, and copper are all considerably rarer than iron, more hazardous to the health of the smelter, and more difficult to work with once you have the means necessary to smelt iron. Once iron working was developed, bronze became a rarity used primarily ornamentally or for purposes for which cast iron is too brittle (until cheap steel was developed in the 19th century) or too heavy. Bronze is particularly hard to come by in the Mediterranean because the best sources of tin in the ancient world were in Cornwall and in Afghanistan. Either way, that's a long way to haul one of bronze's essential ingredients. (Copper was much easier, with major sources in Cyprus and Anatolia, among other places.) I'm speaking specifically of the Mediterranean; I'm less familiar with East Asia, which I believe continued to use bronze a little longer.
Except that Iron would literally cost four time its value in gold by Antiquity, price went down at one point, I'm not exactly sure when. Republican period probably.
 
Except for CtP, roads has always been part of the equation, what you say it's just not true...
Sorry, my phrasing might have been off. What I meant to say was that CtP (and now VII) are the only civ games that simulated trade on the map. It's true that 4 required road connections, but there was no simulation of trade. If two empires were connected by 20 roads, you had to pillage all 20 connections to stop the trade. You couldn't stop/pillage the trade route directly, because it wasn't taking place on the map. One of the many downgrades the main civ line has compared to CtP. I'm very happy that, by the looks of it, VII will have a similar system again.
 
Except that Iron would literally cost four time its value in gold by Antiquity, price went down at one point, I'm not exactly sure when. Republican period probably.
Worth remembering that the iron age came late to Europe and virtually everything the Romans knew about iron working they learned from the Celts (specifically the Celtiberians). Roman iron was of very inferior quality until their conquest of Iberia.
 
Except that Iron would literally cost four time its value in gold by Antiquity, price went down at one point, I'm not exactly sure when. Republican period probably.
IF Iron really was worth that much, very few iron objects would have survived to be found later: they all would have been melted down and the metal re-used.

As, for example, when the Romans sacked Corinth in 146 BCE they took over 3000 bronze statues of all sizes out of the city. Not one has survived: the metal was so precious every one of them was melted down and the metal reused for other things. In fact, most of the bronze objects from Antiquity that have survived did so because they were buried or underwater in wrecks recovered centuries later.

By contrast, numerous hordes of iron objects have been found, ranging from swords of the Hallstadt culture (800 BCE) to 10 tons of iron nails buried by a Roman force under an abandoned fort in northern Britain (1st century CE). - And this despite that fact that nails had to be handmade at the time and so were relatively expensive, but they still weren't dear enough to be worth hauling away.

Prices changed, but even though early iron objects would have been more valuable because of the different techniques required to work the metal (among other things, much hotter furnaces fired by charcoal and using a bellows) that cost would have been based on labor and production costs, not metal/resource cost. And that labor/production cost dropped dramatically. By the early Roman Empire an issue army sword (gladius) was priced at 60 denari whereas the same amount of gold as a raw material was 72,000 denari - later than your quote, but showing how volatile 'prices' and 'values' are even in the ancient world.
 
Except that Iron would literally cost four time its value in gold by Antiquity, price went down at one point, I'm not exactly sure when. Republican period probably.

Source please: incredible claims require incredible evidence.

What you're saying might hold true for the Bronze age when only native iron was used (almost always meteoric, so very rare), but I very strongly doubt that's true after ~1000 BC, and I'm absolutely certain it's not true after ~500 BC.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom