balanced resources in civ 4

[Markus6]

Dearmad, there is no answer to your question so I assume this can't be the case.

I'm pretty sure that it'll be that every Civ has at least some resources near the starting location but not necessarily all of them. Hopefully then small civs who have had no resources throughout the game will then discover they are the only source of oil and get rich off it.

 

[Akka]

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)
...

Is this a joke ?

Non-binary ressources requires trade, and allows for in-depth and fun strategies (embargos have a meaning, you have to deal with limited input of some ressources, etc.).
Binary ressources creates an absurd situation where you can have a whole empire fueled by the same amount of ressources than a one small city one, where you are unable to trade with smaller nations (because they ask for both arms, both legs, the trunk and half of the head in exchange for one single ressource) and where there is only simplistic battles for ressources, as you only need to secure one for yourself (which make all the twelve others you have redundant and useless).

Non-binary ressources is a must-have, and this subject is one of the ones that could stop me from buying the game if they stuck to the previous flawed concept of "one ressource fits all".

 

[Desert-Fox]

I'm not sure how good would be the non-binary system, but I like the new way where the resources are better balanced, but It would be fun when one country has for example 3 irons and the other has 3 horses... so everyone can trade.
Now in Civ3 when AI exactly knows where are all strategic resources... I usually must live without saltpeter, coal, rubber... And it is annoying when every AI country has 0 extra, they never trade when they have no excess, I often trade my last iron when I get an economy boost. It only last 20 turns.

Without coal you can't make railroad... so you get food/shield penalty + movement is slow. Without rubber you can't make infantry so your defensive units are riflemen who easily can lose to Cavalry.

Also I hope that the resources are not soo needed...

 

[Texan General]

I agree that the binary resource system is flawed. The reasons have already been stated. I also would like to point one of the better ideas (in my opinion) in this thread. Someone stated earlier that it should be possible that ech civ (depending on its strategy) should look for specific resources. (i.e. - banking civs for gold, warrior civs for iron and oil, etc.) This would be very nice because it would encourage a more real world feel. Think about it. We all have applied specific labels to several world countries as banking, warriors, traders, technological, or diplomatic. (Think Switzerland and banking.) These types of system encourage interdependence between nations. For example, a warrior civ might make friends with a banking civ in order to finance its war efforts or a cultural civ might make friends with a trading civ to keep the price of luxuries down. This type of system would really add something to the game.

 

[Sickman]

as you only need to secure one for yourself (which make all the twelve others you have redundant and useless).

No they aren't useless, others won't have them then which is an advantage for you.
And you might want to trade them and gain extra advantage.

Apart from that I agree with what you said.

 

[ThERat]

Now in Civ3 when AI exactly knows where are all strategic resources... I usually must live without saltpeter, coal, rubber... And it is annoying when every AI country has 0 extra, they never trade when they have no excess, I often trade my last iron when I get an economy boost. It only last 20 turns.

Without coal you can't make railroad... so you get food/shield penalty + movement is slow. Without rubber you can't make infantry so your defensive units are riflemen who easily can lose to Cavalry.

Also I hope that the resources are not soo needed...

I don't want to be too harsh, but if that's the case for your games, something is amiss with your strategy. And I am repeating myself when I say resources and luxes are what makes this game less repetitive and more exciting. That said, i think if the resources are non-binary, no AI will ever trade them since this is a concept of the more the merrier. I think it won't work.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I have also frequently found that AI civs are incredibly loathe to trade either excess strategic or luxury resources-unless I am prepared to give them a ludicrous amount of cash, techs and/or resources in return.
I think what you are missing in a non-linear system, ThERat, is that its a double edged sword. Yes the AI could have more than it needs, and horde it because 'more the merrier', but by the same token they may end up with only a small deposit of a resource, meaning they will need to seek extra material through trade if they ever hope to expand beyond a few cities. This is very different from the situation of 'if you have 2 coal, and they have 1 coal, then you will never be able to trade that excess coal to them'.
Instead, you may have a situation of 'you have a size 4 coal deposit, but only a size 1 iron deposit. They have a size 1 coal deposit and a size 5 iron deposit. There is suddenly great benefit in you giving them 2 'units' of coal per turn in return for 2 units of iron'.
At least, that is how I see the non-binary system working-particularly if there is a good spread of both resource types and deposit sizes-not to mention an AI that sees the economic benefits of trading the resources that it currently isn't using.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.