Balanced ideas to solve the problem of resources?

[marioflag]

The problem about management of resources is among the worst that civ series suffers.Having 1,2,3 iron is just the same except for the fact that you can simply trade the resources in excess.The management of resources in this way take away a lot of strategic depth to the game.
I would like to discuss with other people about their ideas on how this system can be changed, just to give to the game a better strategic depth without unbalancing it.
Any idea is welcome!

 

[plesniak]

if you have more than one resource, like your example, perhaps it could cost you less to produce units requiring that resource...as long as you hadn't traded it away...it would cost you maybe 5% LESS PER RESOURCE you owned(maybe just 1% percent per).

Perhaps, the cities that the resource resides in would be able to build iron requiring units for 10% less unless traded away.

I agree though some sort of small benefit wouold defenitely make sense.

 

[Phrederick]

I would love a system where each resource lets a couple cities build things that require it. So if you have 1 iron you can build up to 3 swordsmen at a time, 2 would let you build 6, etc. That would give a better reason to have several of the same resource, and if implemented correctly wouldn't be game-breaking. Perhaps make the number of builds per instance of the resource depend on the map size, perhaps on the tech level too.

 

[SLM]

I disagree that there's a problem with resource management. Giving boni to civ's that have more than 1 of a certain resource would kill the game I think, especially (or better only) if they are strategic resources.

I think the Mystery of the Disappearing Resources is a more accute problem. I hate to lose a resource just to chance and I hate it even more when I only get to know about it when I see 1 of 1 (in stead of 1 of 2) in the trade table. If by any chance it stands for depletion of resources, fine but give me a counter then.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't see any reason why there should be a problem giving boni to civs with multiple copies of a single resource. If anything it gives rise to greater strategic choice. Yes I get this nice bonus because I have half a dozen irons, but that guy has 3 or 4 silks which I would like to get my hands on. So do I (a) go to war with the guy (even though I might already have some silk); (b) do I trade him some iron for some of his silk (again, even though I have some already) or (c) do I give him some gold per turn in return for some of his silk (again....well, you get the idea).
One issue, though, is that there shouldn't be a flat bonus. Instead it should be a ratio between the number of resources vs the number of cities you have (with a flat multiplier based on map size). So, as an example, on a Standard map 1 resource 'deposit' might support 4 cities without a net bonus or penalty. However, if you have 4 cities but 2 resource deposits, then you get a bonus (to, say, your city maintainance costs or production speeds etc). By the same token, if you have 5 cities but only 1 resource then you incur a penalty, as there simply isn't enough to go around. Suddenly you get closer to a true 'supply and demand' model which would add greatly to diplomacy and help reduce the 'bigger is better' factor even more.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[SLM]

If you really want a better supply and demand model then there should be a fixed amount of non replenishable resources and fixed costs to certain types of buildings, units and infrastructure. Also, the ratio shouldn't be totally based on number of cities but (also) on the total number of citizens, the number of units and the size of your infrastructure.

In that case, when you have 1 source of iron you get to build a maximum of x swordsmen before the source is depleted. With coal you get to build x squares of railroads plus you have to pay the maintenance costs each year to repair them.

This way, if you have more iron, coal, oil etc, you get to build more units, infrastructure etc. Or you could choose to trade the redundant resource to another civ (also considering depletion). When the source is depleted it's gone for good leaving waste to clean up.

I imagine though that this is a lot of work to program into the game and I'd much rather have better/more listings (trade routes, military, buildings, resources) and better predictions on (net) income and science before you change civic before the whole supply and demand model is redone.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

SLM, it is essential that a balance is struck between realism and simplicity. The current system is too unrealistic and simplistic, wheras your idea is much to real and complex. The idea I have put forward strikes a reasonable balance between realism and simplicity-allowing for more stategic options without turning players into book keepers.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[SLM]

My idea is -although somewhat simplified- already incorporated into a few games. Like for example Warcraft where units and buildings cost wood and gold and those resources deplete after you use it all up. In Civ all units and buildings only cost (inexhaustable) hammers unless you pop/chop rush them. If you'd skip the silk/wine/dye etc and only change the way the strategic resources are expended, it can be done. Still will take a lot of programming but not unreasonably so, I think.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would love a system where each resource lets a couple cities build things that require it. So if you have 1 iron you can build up to 3 swordsmen at a time, 2 would let you build 6, etc. That would give a better reason to have several of the same resource, and if implemented correctly wouldn't be game-breaking. Perhaps make the number of builds per instance of the resource depend on the map size, perhaps on the tech level too.

This is what I would prefer, also. It would also make international trade more interesting - you would trade "x" city's worth of a resource, rather than the whole lot. The more of that resource you controlled, the more cities you would be able to supply, whether they be domestic or foreign.

Trading would be much more dynamic.

 

[Andorim]

Horses are the resource that is most bothersome to me. If another civ will trade horses to you, you can make an unlimited number of mounted units. You can also keep these units forever, even after the trade agreement has ended. However, try as you might, there are never ever any baby horses! What's with that?

 

[Thjof]

Horses are the resource that is most bothersome to me. If another civ will trade horses to you, you can make an unlimited number of mounted units. You can also keep these units forever, even after the trade agreement has ended. However, try as you might, there are never ever any baby horses! What's with that?

In theory you need just two horses to breed baby horses forever However, creating Elephants from ivory would be much harder.

 

[Technocactus]

I'd prefer it if a resource counted for a certain number of cities. So you'd need multiples if you had a huge empire.

 

[mjs0]

Horses are the resource that is most bothersome to me. If another civ will trade horses to you, you can make an unlimited number of mounted units. You can also keep these units forever, even after the trade agreement has ended. However, try as you might, there are never ever any baby horses! What's with that?

Maybe you got 100% mares, tough to breed baby horses without any stallions!

 

[mjs0]

SLM, it is essential that a balance is struck between realism and simplicity. The current system is too unrealistic and simplistic, wheras your idea is much to real and complex. The idea I have put forward strikes a reasonable balance between realism and simplicity-allowing for more stategic options without turning players into book keepers.

Aussie_Lurker.

I agree with this in principle, I think exposing a complex model to the player is going to confuse some people and drive the compulsive micromanagers crazy as they try to optimize everything.
What is needed is a simple model that encapsulates a complex real world idea. Trade routes are actually a pretty good example of this in Civ4. You really don't need to know how how they work, they just sit there providing a feeling that trade is in the game but you don't (indeed can't) micromanage them. Some people would prefer more control I am sure and may disagree with some of the details of the implementation but overall they seem a pretty elegant solution for pre-industrial trade.
I think the model you proposed for resources would work pretty well in the early eras, but I would like to see something more in the industrial and later eras.

Actually, my main issues with the current resource model are...

1. The complete lack of a model for large scale strategic deposits of resources that are critical to the modern world.
2. The lack of a global commodities market.
3. The fact that the resource model (especially luxuries) doesn't evolve enough as both technology and your peoples aspirations progress. +1 happiness from dyes in 1600AD? maybe, +1 happiness from dyes in 2006AD? Unlikely.
4. The lack of a good model for food production in later eras. There should be a transition from the traditional feudal/agrarian sociiety where a market town/city relied on the surrounding environs for food to the post-industrial world where certain regions become the bulk producers of food and growth of cities is no longer constrained by local food production but by infrastructure and desirability (health/happiness). For example, this is how deserts and other poor terrain should become viable, not through terraforming.

My sig includes a link to some far more extensive analysis and possible solutions for the first three of these issues and I would hate to clutter this thread with the same lengthy post. Still I would love to get some feedback on these ideas from anyone inclined to read them.

 

[spiralx]

As long as we don't have expiring resources a la Civ III I'm happy... that was one of my main bugbears with the game.

 

[HUSch]

I would like, that the strict permission (to build some units) is soften; like the wonder.
Example: you can build swordsman with the correct tech without iron and with 1*iron you get a production bonus for 1 swordsman at time.

Sry I hope you can understand my meaning, my knowledge of your language is not so well.

 

[Psyringe]

I'd also like to see a system where any resource only affects a set number of cities (modified by map size of course). Currently, if you have a large empire, you have many more resources than a small empire, but still need only one resource each. This puts you in a powerful situation to either trade your huge resource surplus for other resources or money, or to use them in diplomacy to butter someone up, or to deny somebody else a crucial resource.

Limiting the usability of resources would add some welcome strategic choice in this area.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I used to support the 'resource disappearance' model in the Civ3 days, but have now decided that this is bad for gameplay. Like mjs0, I think that technology should have a greater impact on luxuries/resources. My feeling is that the food resources give you a % food bonus to all cities that have access to it. The Luxury resources give you a % bonus to your city maintainance costs and Strategic resources give you a % bonus to hammers (above and beyond what they already give). However, with acquisition of certain techs, this % might go up or down-depending on the tech obtained and/or the resource in question.

I guess a good working example might be: you get iron working and manage to hook up 2 sources of iron. You currently have 5 cities (on a standard map), so all cities with access to both sources of iron gain an (8/5)*5= 8% boost to their hammers. Later in the game, the number of cities grows to 7, which drops the boost from 8% to (8/7)*5=6%. Later in the game, though, you gain the Steel technology, which boosts the existing bonus by 25%, thus lifting it back to a 7.5% boost. (Obviously these numbers are for illustrative purposes only).
Anyway, hope that better explains my model.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[abuaftab]

Can resources run out? I've never seen it happen.

 

[Psyringe]

Can resources run out? I've never seen it happen.

They could (and did) in Civ3. I don't think they can run out in Civ4, or if they can, then it must be an infinitesimally small chance. I haven't seen it happening in Civ4 either.