Are the Iroquois Cursed?

[Mesquite Thorn]

I still haven't played all the civ's, but I'm having fun with the Iroquois because of the challenge. I don't remember any other civ I've tried experience such a shortage of resources as the Iroquois. Especially saltpeter and coal. I've tried about a dozen different maps and three games into the Modern Age, and I struggle with this civ for lack of some early resource.

And, it doesn't seem to be just my civ...when I'm the Iroquois, the world seems to be short of saltpeter and coal. The other civ's may have one source, but usually not a second one to trade...and capturing them is problematic because their location is far away.

Has this experience been a fluke, or have other players commented on it before?

 

[gmaharriet]

I haven't noticed any special problem with the Iroquois, but what I HAVE noticed is that, if you play with fewer than the default number of opponents, you will also have fewer resources in the entire world. I play the default number now, but when I was learning I did not, and even with a huge land area for myself, I'd be missing one or more basic resources.

 

[thetrooper]

*Always* play with max number of opponents. As Harriet said you'll add more resources to the map that way.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

you also may be playing on tiny/small maps. It's not uncommon for tiny maps to have very small number of resources.

In general, resources are evenly-ish distributed.

You may need to work on your expansion skills. Both peaceful (settlers) and non-peaceful (Mounted Warriors)

 

[Mesquite Thorn]

Ah, there you have it. I've been using a large map with only 8-9 players. So, I'm starting with too few civ's.

 

[Aceman101]

*Always* play with max number of opponents. As Harriet said you'll add more resources to the map that way.

How can you conquer the world if there are so many civs . I like playing with 9 or ten but no more than that. But then again it doesn't always have to be conquest victory. But i always choose to win by conquest .

 

[Aceman101]

In general, resources are evenly-ish distributed.

Evenly-ish distributed. With all the games i've played I always seen large amounts of iron, saltpeter, coal oil and horses in one large amount in the same continent. That might just be a coincidence though .

 

[Aceman101]

I haven't noticed any special problem with the Iroquois, but what I HAVE noticed is that, if you play with fewer than the default number of opponents, you will also have fewer resources in the entire world.

I only figured that out a week ago and i've been playing for a year now, and i'm still playing chieftain .

I play the default number now, but when I was learning I did not, and even with a huge land area for myself, I'd be missing one or more basic resources.

I play huge map with 9-10 civs and a few times there was heaps of resources in the world but only horses and iron in my continent .

 

[Drakan]

I can tell you that in my current deity game against 15 opponents in huge 60% water pangaea I had no horses nor coal and I had to trade for both of them. That's the beauty of the game, you have to overcome these problems by ways of careful planning.

 

[nerovats]

If your playing 15 civs im not surprised you miss some resources. In 1 of my huge histo attempts I got the largest island must have been 25% of the world and it got just 1 lux, on the far side ofcourse. Had to abondon that game

 

[MAS]

If there are only 3 resources in the game, there is a much bigger chance that all 3 will be far away from you, than if there where 8 resources in the game and all 8 will be far away from you.

So more civs, means more resources, means bigger chance that at least one is within your reach.

 

[Virtual Alex]

I always thought there is 1 of each resource per civ. So 8 civs means 8 horses, 8 irons, ect...

It is not the same with lux though.

 

[Aceman101]

I always thought there is 1 of each resource per civ. So 8 civs means 8 horses, 8 irons, ect...

It is not the same with lux though.

No, I always find that with 8-9 civs there's something like 15 horses 10 iron etc... But it might have been a coincidence that you got the same number of horses and iron as the civs in the game.

 

[aluka]

Iroquois have the mounted warrior so they'll probably have 50% of the map under their control by the time saltpeter and coal are needed.

 

[drakdan]

yeah, with the Iroquis you should get those mounted warriors and leverage them. They come into the game within what, 2 techs, and aren't obsoleted until Gunpowder, at the earliest?

In my most recent game I had very little chance to expand and the #1 civ, Aztecs, were right next to me. I ended up ICS'ing, which I hate with a passion, and building a ton of Mounted Warriors, while keeping the Aztecs fighting the Sumerians on the other side of the continent. Despite the Aztecs having almost 3x as much land as I had, I reamed them, and completely destroyed them in a single war that I had hoped would get me only a little breathing room.

 

[Mesquite Thorn]

More than once my Iroquois had no horses and no coal. For them that makes for a serious disadvantage...and the the other significant civ on the continent was the Hittite (who early on eliminated the third civ)...and the Hittite had horses and coal deep in their territory. On the other continents, the civ's seem to have what they needed.

From now on, I'll just start with more civ's.

 

[Marsden]

Luck and RNG aside, I think the Iroquois have the best trait/UU combo in the game.

 

[Wardancer]

If you're playing with the Iroquois then who cares if you don't have saltpetre?

Mounties for the win

 

[Mesquite Thorn]

Well, without horses...no mounted warriors. No saltpeter--then even with horses...no cavalry. That means my mounted warriors (if I have any horses) are slaughtered by musketmen, and enemy cavalry kills my pikemen.

In my current game as Iroquois, I had to cross an ocean to capture saltpeter, rubber, and oil. I paid tribute to stronger neighbors until I had access to saltpeter. And, I saved a couple of mounted warriors to get a Golden Age when they finished off a bleeding unit.

Actually, I would give up saltpeter, if I had iron and I knew I would have coal and rubber revealed. I rely on a rail net to help in the defense of my territory.

 

[gunkulator]

More than once my Iroquois had no horses and no coal. For them that makes for a serious disadvantage

Actually, it's bad for any civ. All things considered, I'll take the Iroquois any day over any other civ. Even if you can't build the kickass UU, you still are agricultural and commercial - IMHO the two best traits in the game.