balanced resources in civ 4

[Avayaman]

gamespot says that there will be more balanced distribution of resources. Although the old CIV 3 system was quirky, i sorta liked it because it forced me to trade and conquer cities, esp for resources which are essential, like coal, oil, etc.

Comments, anyone?

 

[Civrules]

I find the Civ III aspect more annoying than fun, in terms of trade and conquer for resources...

 

[Commander Bello]

As long as there is a binary system (you have it or you don't) in place for resources, there will always flaws to the system.
The logical way to change this would be a quantitive system, where one deposit of a given resource is just enough for a limited number of cities, improvements and units.

Unfortunately, I have the impression that they will stick to that binary system. What worries me even more is the fact that gunpowder units are told to be no longer dependant on saltpeter.

 

[ThERat]

I find the Civ III aspect more annoying than fun, in terms of trade and conquer for resources...

IMHO this is what made the game so replayble. If everyone was guaranteed to have all resources, what would the thrill be once you gain gunpowder, IW, the wheel and whatnot. And then it all depended on good strategy to still get them. Or acquire more and sell them.

My only Civ3 SG SID win was possible due to the fact that we traded luxes and resources and without, the game ain't fun. Of course, it also nofun if a huge continent does not have a single resource of let's say coal. that's truly unfun.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

A resource in Civ3 is basically a must-have. If you don't have it, you have no real choice but to go to war to get it, or be severely disadvantaged in terms of power. I think scaling back both the widely varying distribution of resources and their necessity is a good choice. Having to attack through half-way across my continent to get the nearest sources of Iron and Gunpowder (as was the case in one of my latest games) can just get rather annoying.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think there is an inherent misunderstanding at work here. They say 'Resources' will be more evenly spread, but they don't say each resource will be evenly spread. My feeling is that strategic resource-as a collective whole-will be spread evenly across the map. So that you will never have half a dozen strategic resource types in one half of the map, and none at all in the other half. As I said, though, it sounds like individual resources (iron, coal, copper etc) will still have the same 'uneven' spread as before. Hope that makes sense.
That said, Bello's comment is quite valid. The main problem isn't really the spread, its the Binary nature of resources in the game which cause the problems. It would be great, for instance, if I had coal, but not enough for my 20 cities. This might actually push me to the negotiating table to ask the civ with the worlds largest deposits of coal for a bit of theirs! I too, though, doubt that this will be implemented-which really sucks IMHO .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

That said, Bello's comment is quite valid. The main problem isn't really the spread, its the Binary nature of resources in the game which cause the problems. It would be great, for instance, if I had coal, but not enough for my 20 cities. This might actually push me to the negotiating table to ask the civ with the worlds largest deposits of coal for a bit of theirs! I too, though, doubt that this will be implemented-which really sucks IMHO

fully agreed

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I have noticed something interesting from the various Screenshots and demonstration videos of the game.
In one scene, we see two badgers representing the Fur resource. Then, in a screenshot, we see a single Horse representing the Horse resource. Then, in yet another screenshot, I have seen 3 horses representing the Horse resource.
Now, I confess that I may be totally offtrack in my assumptions, but couldn't it be possible that the number of icons that make up a resource might indicate the size of the resource-in the same way that the number of men in a unit represents its HP's? It would be brilliant if that proved to be the case.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jaca]

Fully agreeing with Aussie and Bello. Overall more evenly spread but individually still somewhat clustered resources may add more realism and dynamism. If the CIV IV system would be based on a quantitative supporting power, as Bello suggests, then it kills the binary nature without killing the strategic play for resources ThERat was fearing for. I would be happy to see this. And if Aussie's eagle-eye proves correct, it would add even a little more flavor to it: some tiles become strategically very important!

Kind regards,
JaCa

 

[Himalia]

Ive always thought that some tiles could have more than one type of resource allocated to them. These would indeed be valued by any empire. Imagine getting Coal and Iron together. Or prehaps Wheat & Cows what a food bonus that would have. Ive also thinking that in the real would we build farms , ok we irrigate in the Civilizations but the point im making is why cant we plant more wheat in the game and start adding more of certain resources in the game like that. Ok cant do that with iron, coal and other mineable resources but you certainly should be able to set something up like that with some of them.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Why do you want ressources to be non binary, when to have a non equal repartition of them would lead to the same result? (trade, war)
...

 

[Jaca]

Ive always thought that some tiles could have more than one type of resource allocated to them.

Apart maybe from immediate surveyability of the tile (in CIV3) I can't instantly think of a reason that this would not be possible in CIv IV.

why cant we plant more wheat in the game and start adding more of certain resources in the game like that.

Building improvements - such as Windmills - to increase the benefit of resources simulate this a bit, I guess.

 

[Himalia]

Yes i guess they do but they add to production not the amount of food that the city in question produces. I also feel that excess food should be tradabl with other nations who may have a food shortage or even use it to help out some of your cities that are less fertile. Afterall in the real world is your town or city surrounded by farms , yes in somecases but it gets imported from all over the world and some from other places in your country.

 

[Jaca]

Himalaia, "All resources, including food ones will be tradable. Food resources will help your city's health status." was stated in the Landscape paragraph of Civilization IV: Pre-release Information by Civrules (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/#Landscape). So I guess this will answer your suggestions.

Kind regards,
JaCa

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

A balanced diet makes your people healthy, thus the varied food resources. This has historical validity. It wasn't until people began eating a diet of largely wheat that many health problems cropped up (pun intended, twice) in early populations in the middle east. Man is an omnivore and requires plants, meat, starch, etc. to be a healthy critter.

I prefer a quantative vs binary system for strategic resources any day. As noted, you HAVE to go to war in civ3 to get stuff. This should not be necessary. You should be able to choose between 3-4 paths towards victory, each requiring a different chain of resources. Maybe a tech/scientific civ, moving toward the goal of interplanetary travel? You'll need lots of metals- copper, titanium, etc. Economic powerhouse? You'll need gold, silver and platinum to be able to build those all important monetary systems. Warmonger? You'll need iron, coal for making steel, lots of copper for electric components for your weapons systems - and of course, oil. You would always have some of all of these in your empire - but never enough. Then you are faced with interesting decisions. How should I treat my neighbor? Will he have stuff to trade for later? Can I actually get in there and conquer those resources, being a peaceful civ? Hmm, those desert mountains in Mongolia look interesting. Will Khan have copper and titanuim to trade a couple centuries down the road?

 

[alireza1354]

Man I cant wait to have this game and set my workers to work the landdddd aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh You just wait people, u just wait, The_Conqueror needs fresh blood

 

[Dearmad]

Resources should be clumpy- after all there were no horses at all in the Americas.

And such things as the wheel? Not used AT ALL in the americas... maybe cause no horses? maybe not- whatever. I don't want resources spread evenly, that's stupid and no fun.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, evenly spread resources are necessary for a balanced game because if you noticed, in the real world the situation was Totally unbalanced, The Americas not only had no Horses, but no Wheat or Cattle, crucial early food bonuses which is why they were still at the beginning of the Ancient Era when the highest points of technology were in the mid-late Mideval Era.

In any case a quantitative system would probably be better
something like
1 in a square=enough for 10 uses (units/improvements that require it before you can't build those improvements/units anymore)
2 in a square=enough for 50 uses
3 in a square=enough for 200 uses

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Good idea in principle, Krikkitone, but I would also tie the number of icons in the squares to the # of cities as well. Though how many would depend on Gameplay balance.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dearmad]

If they're spread evenly, can you answer: What is the POINT of having them at all!?!?!

As long as its modifiable to be clumpy, I'll be hap[py- but if this isn't changeable, that'll be pointless.