Always connected resources: good or bad?

Are instantly connected resources good or bad?

  • Good

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Bad

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Total voters
    17
Afaik we don‘t have any info yet if this is a possibility. We know that merchants and/or trade routes can be plundered. I‘m not even sure we know whether tiles can be pillaged.
They pillaged a tile in the live stream the other week.




On resources in general. I want to play it before i give a good/bad rating.

I am happy they removed needing X resource to make a unit. Not having the necessary resource could severely diminish the reason you are playing a Civ. Having everyone fight over the 3 oil on the entire map to make your 3 units that required it also sucked.(AI wasnt good at this either) Id rather they do what they do now, provide a boost to the troops/city/empire.
 
The way Civ handled Strategic Resources was always stupid, both from a historical roleplay and game mechanics standpoint, it’s why No Iron = Restart became a meme.

Prussia and then Germany are the best examples of how this is also a fail from a historical roleplay perspective. Prussia somehow managed to get through the 7 years war, the “Potatoe War” period and the Napoleonic wars period despite having in Civ terms no horses, iron, or nitre.

Germany is even worse. The only strategic resource they would have had is coal, and they somehow managed to wage war in the Combustion Era for 6 years while dramatically expanding the number of planes, tanks, Uboats engaged in combat.

When their wartime economy imploded and they started having serious issues with planes without fuel and Panzers with no lubricating oil it didn’t happen till basically the end of the war, and the biggest factor was remorseless American bombing that levelled their industrial base and transport infrastructure.

The Luftwaffe didn’t disappear from the skies for lack of fuel. It got remorselessly attritioned out of existence by the Americans. It’s the same story for their ground forces, they got beaten to death by a huge American army, and British and Russian armies underwritten by the Americans.
 
I don't particularly care about how realistic things can be especially for a game that is on a bigger scale, but more how it works in gameplay. For an game like Anno where it is all about production lines, carrying resources and it's logistics makes sense as a gameplay part (which also has it's fair share of non realistic things like resources on an island being teleported between warehouses).

So I like when civ does abstracts things like moving resources manually, transporters and other things like that.

My main concern with resources at the moment is the potential micro that they mentioned. I don't really want to manually move resources around at will, I hope there are some limitations.
What I think would be the ideal outcome of the resources management: Some type of basic automation (auto add new resources to a settlement you pick, to the city or settlement with less of the biggest yield the resource gives, to the closest city if a town, etc) you could set for when a new resource is available, with some manual management here and there when you want to boost an specific city for something you want to do there; with also the option to micro manage almost turn by turn as one could do with citizens in CiVI, but making the good outcome from it be minimal that the regular player may not be losing on a lot by not doing it (and maybe make it only really important on the hugest difficulties, where it would make sense you would need to play the game as well as you can to help you win).
 
The way Civ handled Strategic Resources was always stupid, both from a historical roleplay and game mechanics standpoint, it’s why No Iron = Restart became a meme.

Prussia and then Germany are the best examples of how this is also a fail from a historical roleplay perspective. Prussia somehow managed to get through the 7 years war, the “Potatoe War” period and the Napoleonic wars period despite having in Civ terms no horses, iron, or nitre.

Germany is even worse. The only strategic resource they would have had is coal, and they somehow managed to wage war in the Combustion Era for 6 years while dramatically expanding the number of planes, tanks, Uboats engaged in combat.

When their wartime economy imploded and they started having serious issues with planes without fuel and Panzers with no lubricating oil it didn’t happen till basically the end of the war, and the biggest factor was remorseless American bombing that levelled their industrial base and transport infrastructure.

The Luftwaffe didn’t disappear from the skies for lack of fuel. It got remorselessly attritioned out of existence by the Americans. It’s the same story for their ground forces, they got beaten to death by a huge American army, and British and Russian armies underwritten by the Americans.
Prussia and Germany in Civ VII's "Modern Age" are actually examples of insufficient in-game flexibility in Resource sources.

By the 18th century Nobody relied on a natural 'Nitre' resource, the resource was manufactured in Nitraries and had been for several centuries throughout Europe.

Prussia at the beginning of the 18th century set up stud farms (subsidized) to 'produce' horses for the military, and was also able to buy horses in quantity from Poland and other states throughout the century. - And by the way, the greatest need for horses was not by the cavalry, but by the artillery, which required up to 8 horses to haul each gun plus another 18 - 24 horses to haul the ammunition caisson/wagons for each gun - and unlike light cavalry mounts, the 'artillery horses' had to be substantial beasts: in the twentieth century, the German military classified as Artillery Horses the heaviest horses they acquired - "riding horses" were lighter and 'cart horses' the lightest and smallest.

And note that for the 18th century at least, Prussia was not at war with Sweden, which was her prime source for iron ore - a situation which repeated itself in WWII, when protecting the 'trade route' for the ore from Narvik down the Norwegian coast was one of the primary reasons why Germany attacked and occupied Norway in 1940.

The requirement for almost all natural resources was never much of an impediment given the relatively small quantities required before Industrialization. Once Krupp was casting steel cannon and supplying armies of millions rather than 10s of thousands, the requirements for iron ore, coal and alloy metals (nickle, cadmium, chromium, etc) required for specialized steels (armor plate the prime example) were in the hundreds or thousands of tons and supply sources became critical.

The Death of the Luftwaffe, by the way, was both from attrition in campaigns like Big Week in early 1944 but also because fuel supplies got so critical that they didn't have enough to train new pilots. Replacing an experienced pilot shot down by swarms of P-51s or La-7s with a new pilot who got less than 100 hours' flying time before going into battle simply accelerated losses to the breaking point, and some aircraft in the end could not be flown because they required experienced pilots to handle them and those were no longer available - the majority of the famous Me-262 jet fighters produced never flew because there were not enough pilots left with the experience to handle them: the early jets were not easy to handle and because they were new, pilots were learning as they went, not something a green pilots could do and survive.
 
If a playthrough can end at any moment due to a player error, that's pretty harsh but I can see how some players like that kind of challenge.

But if a playthrough can end at any moment due to an event that's out of the player's control (like not having a key resource or suffering an unreasonably harsh random event), surely we can agree that's not good game design? Being denied a resource should be a challenge, not a game-ender. Whether it's "realistic" or not doesn't really enter into it.
 
If a playthrough can end at any moment due to a player error, that's pretty harsh but I can see how some players like that kind of challenge.

But if a playthrough can end at any moment due to an event that's out of the player's control (like not having a key resource or suffering an unreasonably harsh random event), surely we can agree that's not good game design? Being denied a resource should be a challenge, not a game-ender. Whether it's "realistic" or not doesn't really enter into it.
- And as I have repeatedly posted for some time, availability of Resources like tin or copper or iron changed the price of something, but never, as far as we know, made it impossible. If you had the knowledge/technology to build it, you could find the Resources - pay enough and Somebody would bring it to you.

So a complete prohibition on building something because the Resource is not within walking distance of your cities is, in fact, Unrealistic.

Furthermore, some remarkable 'alternatives' were explored when resources got too expensive: at least one Chinese city was burning Coal for heating and fuel centuries before anybody else was using it that way, because the Chinese city was in northern China where firewood was very scarce - and expensive. Centuries later, the same situation caused English cities to start burning coal because they had chopped and could not regrow forests fast enough within a reasonable distance from their cities to provide firewood for the cities.

The flat Go/No Go system for Resources in Civ has always been a Fantasy - easy to play with, easy to understand, but divorced from any historical reality and far too harsh in its requirements on the gamer.

Civ VII's reducing the requirement to Nice To Have for a Resource Bonus on a unit will be interesting to see in practice across the Ages and unit-types. Right now it seems to be pretty mild in Antiquity: I would not be surprised to see it become more important in later Ages, but We Shall See.
 
Being denied a resource should be a challenge, not a game-ender. Whether it's "realistic" or not doesn't really enter into it.

From that perspective, the Civ 7 approach may work fine. Having a resource boosts the combat ability of certain units, so you fight at a disadvantage if you don't have it, but that doesn't mean you automatically lose.

Civ VII's reducing the requirement to Nice To Have for a Resource Bonus on a unit will be interesting to see in practice across the Ages and unit-types. Right now it seems to be pretty mild in Antiquity: I would not be surprised to see it become more important in later Ages, but We Shall See.

I could see that working well. Oil could give a relatively larger boost to armour and aircraft, reflecting the challenge of relying on oil-from-coal or other substitutes. Alternatively (or in combination), they may provide buildings (factories?) that can manufacture alternatives for some strategic resources.
 
From that perspective, the Civ 7 approach may work fine. Having a resource boosts the combat ability of certain units, so you fight at a disadvantage if you don't have it, but that doesn't mean you automatically lose.



I could see that working well. Oil could give a relatively larger boost to armour and aircraft, reflecting the challenge of relying on oil-from-coal or other substitutes. Alternatively (or in combination), they may provide buildings (factories?) that can manufacture alternatives for some strategic resources.
One reason Resources may work very differently in, say, the Modern Age is that the number and availability of substitutes becomes enormous.

The German chemical and chemical engineering industry in WWII managed to produce Oil from Coal and synthetic Rubber from Oil - thus keeping their military going for much longer than their lack of resources would have suggested was possible. Today, everything from combat ships to aircraft to fuel for them can be manufactured from Alternative Resources and materials - synthetics and composites, 'Bio-Fuels' whose raw material is almost any grain or agricultural product, etc.

That could make the Modern Age have an entirely different relationship to Resources of all kinds, with massively increased 'substitutions' and more or all of your Resources coming from specialized Manufacturing Districts/Buildings rather than directly from on-map natural 'deposits'.

Backing up, a similar Singularity Change in regard to Resources could take place in the Exploration Age, which start appears to coincide with Industrialization possibilities. That could mean that the Iron that was merely 'Nice To Have' to boost your basic infantry types in the Antiquity Age is now Required to build those shiny new Ironclads (since the average Ironclad circa 1860 required 5 - 10 times more Iron than was required to equip an entire Roman Legion!) and more than a kilometer of Railroad.

Each Age could see a Major Shift in how you have to handle Resources and how they affect almost everything else you are trying to do - as they have hinted at already.
 
Yes, scarcity was always built into the resource model -- a tank or battleship doesn't require Iron even though it's mostly made out of steel... industrial processes have made iron production trivial.

(Though I don't think the supply of iron was historically ever very limited, in the way that tin was -- it's a very common element. The limitation was the technology of accessing and working it.)
 
Yeah, it's worth noting that the reason you may hear about the US waging war and/or staging a coup in an oil-rich country, is not because the US supposedly has a shortage on oil; that country is swimming in the stuff, if anything. No, more often than not, resource wars have been about gaining monopoly over the resource, not access to the resource, as controlling the supplies of the resources every single nation needs to sustain a modern society, is an efficient method in asserting dominance over any would-be competition.

I think one game who pulled this off at least halfway decent was Europa Universalis IV, where every single tile on the map has a resource associated to it, and each resource is trivially accessed through trade networks, but again, it's those who own the mines/plantations/etc and those who steer the trade who make the money. I would really like to see a 4X game that implements a similar resource density, and while at it, solves ICS problem by making it literally be the name of the game, having each tile be its own settlement
 
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.
source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Cultures_from_Pyramids_to_Circumpolar_Stars

Screenshot 2024-09-23 at 13.18.50.png
 
Thanks for providing the source, always appreciated, even if the citation chain is dodgy

As @N35t0r said, that's ~1400 BC, a full millennia from the Roman republic. It has as much to do with the Romans or the wider classical world as William the Conqueror has to WW2. It says nothing about the value of iron in cultures were iron was mined, smelted, and forged. In the Late Bronze age the odd meteoric iron artefact were used as status symbols - iron was akin to a (semi)-precious jewel. If they'd stubbled upon a rod of aluminium they'd have considered it even more valuable for their inability to produce it!
Tut's iron dagger was identified as meteoric iron long time ago. I have tracked the major iron-bearing meteoritic sites in a database, and such materials were exploited by people as different as Chinese, Native American, Middle Eastern and African.

However, this is entirely different from the cost or expense of iron versus other metals when all of them are being exploited industrially. One estimate from 1st century CE (Pliny the Elder's original figures, I believe, extrapolated by later economic historians) is that the Roman Empire produced 82,000 tons of iron a year, 84,000 tons of lead, 15,000 tons of copper, and about 9 tons of gold. At that scale, the figure I quoted earlier of an iron sword costing 60 denarius while the same weight of gold was 72,000 starts to make sense: by then iron had become relatively cheap simply because it was both readily available and the techniques of working it were well-established.
 
Last edited:
Never liked how in civ you could instantly send resources across the map - especially when the only known way to that empire is directly through your enemy's territory.
 
Only Civ 3 and Civ 4 required roads to connect resources. Civ 1 and Civ 2 didn't and I can't remember for CTP1 or 2 but I'm pretty sure they didn't require it either. Col did I'm pretty sure.

Also only Civ 3 had colonies. Civ 4 allowed you to create a colonial country but that wasn't the same. It did allow you to use a fort like a civ 3 resource colony though.
 
Only Civ 3 and Civ 4 required roads to connect resources. Civ 1 and Civ 2 didn't and I can't remember for CTP1 or 2 but I'm pretty sure they didn't require it either. Col did I'm pretty sure.

Also only Civ 3 had colonies. Civ 4 allowed you to create a colonial country but that wasn't the same. It did allow you to use a fort like a civ 3 resource colony though.
Civ 1 and 2 didn't have resources in their current meaning. The didn't provide happiness or better armies, just improved output if worked.
 
Civ 1 and 2 didn't have resources in their current meaning. The didn't provide happiness or better armies, just improved output if worked.
I'm well aware. I'm pointing out that the core premise of OP is incorrect. Roads mattering for connecting a resource to a city and the larger empire has only been a thing for a couple of Civ games. Most of them did not have roads mattering for resources either because they didn't have resources or because the roads had other purposes. Workers improving resources took time but players generally stacked workers to minimize the time required prior to Civ5 which eliminated stacking. Should we have been upset that Civ5 generally increased the time to work a resource?
 
My main concern with resources at the moment is the potential micro that they mentioned. I don't really want to manually move resources around at will, I hope there are some limitations.
Ara has been negatively reviewed exactly on this aspect.

Now let's say you have 5 cities each with 3 farms, and you have 15 plows to place in them. To do this, you have to click on City 1, switch the city menu to display all Harvester buildings, find Farm 1 (which could be somewhere on a long list), click on Farm 1, click on Slot 1 (if you remember that Slot 1 is for plows), click on Plow 1, close the Farm 1 menu, repeat for each farm in City 1, close City 1 menu, repeat for each City. This is just one example, but these issues are present in every aspect of the UI. The game also does not display important reminders and does a poor job of letting you know that entire windows (such as trade) exist.

The incorporation of resources in a city list, and eviction of the OG workers, sweat, pebbles and roads from the alchemy, will bring this terrible consequences I'm afraid.
It's not just a question of military overview of all the networks in the game, which SIMPLIFIES the oprganization for any player
that approach the game. That anyone can interact with what is on the map. Each level of QUANTIZATION of the OG process, like making the resources always connected, and then remove the workers,
does indeed the opposite effect in practice. The Steps are bigger, you have less steps, so it feels like it's easier tasking. But Its not. Its an Illusion.
 
Top Bottom