C2C- Resources Discussion and Ideas

there are things that bugged me about the resource system. For example in vanilla civilisation 4 cows give +1 :health: like in C2C. But why get you extra health from cows ? you can eat the cow drink its milk ore make clothes out of the leather ,thats the reason why. But this recources exist in C2C but don't give bonuses ( ecept the gold bonus from markets, shops etc.). The result is that cows as a resource are valuable while the manufactured recources which resulting out of cows havent any real worth. The smal gold bonus don't count for me. the question is now, why should i produce all the manufactured resources, when i already get their bonuses from cows itselves?
i suggest that we remove the +1 :health: from cows and give +1 :health: to milk and +1 :health: to raw meat and so on. the player would have more reasons to produce this resources and they would be more valuable for trade. So trade would have a bigger impact on the game. Fact is that with the bulk of recources we have in C2C, its unlikely to have more than one deposit of every one and you cant trade with just one deposit.

the second thing is, why provide the factories bonuses like health and happines while the products they produce don't provide this bonus? for example the perfume maker. this workshop gives you citty +1 :) and +:health:, while perfume itself dont give any bonuses. WTH i mean perfume smells good even if you havent the producing workshop next to you. My suggestion is to remove the bonus from the building and give it to the resource.

if we apply this sugestions to every resource we would have a more realistic resource system with real trade.
 
@Kreatur

It really depends upon what building is interacting with it. As you said the Cow leads to Milk, Leather and Raw Meat. Which can lead to Cheese, Rope and Sausage. Each as you said :gold: but also sometimes more :food:. or in some cases :culture:, :science: or even :hammers: depending upon the resource. note they can also transmute into bad things like disease, pollution or flammability.

Early in the "goods system" were we had a limited number or resources but could have unlimited buildings we had it where it gave a free building to every city and even a free building to every city in the trade route so it acted like a pseudo-resource. Each actually had effects like :heath:. We soon discovered that giving them those types of bonuses overloaded the system to where :health:, wealth and all the rest were trivial since once it was on your trade route your entire kingdom was instantly wealthy, healthy and happy.

Now that they re resources and we have other factors like crime, disease and pollution, not to mention more balanced gold, it might work, but I suspect it would very much tip the balance to where rich nations are super rich and poor nations are super poor.
 
i disagree here, because other nations can bye the products from you and get the bonuses too. And i want to take the health bonus away from the several animals and give them to the products, all in all you havent more health in the end but you have to pruduce the products first.
 
i disagree here, because other nations can bye the products from you and get the bonuses too. And i want to take the health bonus away from the several animals and give them to the products, all in all you havent more health in the end but you have to pruduce the products first.

I agree with Kreatur. Sure it may cause balancing issues, but it makes more sense. Cows give you +1:health: because it is assumed (pre-C2C) that those cows are being processed. But if you separate out the processes, it makes sense to separate out the benefits. If they are the same benefits, there shouldn't be any balancing issues, except you get them a few turns later.

After all, a cow (even a pasturized one :D) doesn't even give you milk (let alone anything else) without 'processing' - all it does is process grass into fertilizer/groundwater pollution and methane/air pollution...:scan:
 
I agree on both sides of the fence here cuz I can see both points. But if we're to go about it the way Kreatur is suggesting, its good to be very clear as to what is a source of health and what is not. Food is not a source of health in and of itself. It is food and a lot of food can also be rather unhealthy. When it is, it may be best to not have it give or take away health unless its clear its benefits are greater than its penalties or vice versa. Thus milk may give +1 food, +1 health but raw meat (particularly raw RED meat) +1 food and kinda iffy on health itself.
 
And milk's not that great either - it was great for spreading TB, even after Pasteur in most places.
 
I agree on both sides of the fence here cuz I can see both points. But if we're to go about it the way Kreatur is suggesting, its good to be very clear as to what is a source of health and what is not. Food is not a source of health in and of itself. It is food and a lot of food can also be rather unhealthy. When it is, it may be best to not have it give or take away health unless its clear its benefits are greater than its penalties or vice versa. Thus milk may give +1 food, +1 health but raw meat (particularly raw RED meat) +1 food and kinda iffy on health itself.

Red meat isn't unhealthy of it's own, it's more the antibiotics and other stuff you gave the animals. If you would eat natural red meat it would be healthy (due to food variation). Also, "Health" and "Unhealtiness" isn't just about illness in this mod, isn't it? I also includes grow and death in your population by other things. Or was the planned unhealthiness mod already included?
 
milk is healthy. The fact that most african, european and middle east persons arent lactose intolerant proves this. Normaly every mature mammal is lactose intolerant, including humans. But the persons who were able to drink milk were healthier and got more children (survival of the fittest) . If drinking milk would be a disadvantage the abbility to drink milk would be extinct long time ago
 
milk is healthy. The fact that most african, european and middle east persons arent lactose intolerant proves this. Normaly every mature mammal is lactose intolerant, including humans. But the persons who were able to drink milk were healthier and got more children (survival of the fittest) . If drinking milk would be a disadvantage the abbility to drink milk would be extinct long time ago

Yeah Milk and the gene for adult Lactose tolerance had a profound affect on human civilization.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...unit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Supplements and Cow's Milk Play Biggest Roles in Determining Vitamin D Levels in Children
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114172104.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1787-genetic-basis-for-lactose-intolerance-revealed.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?_r=0

These articles provide a good summary as what happened, (and why you should drink milk if you can, and have your children keep drinking it into adulthood).
Also sets the time period when cow herding became a big deal for humans.

Ever notice how resources and technologies enter different degrees of importance? This is how things should be modeled in C2C.
Discovery, Hype, Adoption of usefulness(take advantage before the trend), Point of major adoption, Maturity plateau(could be because of resources (demand/supply) reasons), fade or maintain to obsolescence.
 
Problem: if cow resource don't give health then a farm is better on that plot so the AI will not put a pasture there. The decision on what to build on a plot should not depend on what buildings it may allow to be built in a city. That way means longer turn times as the A needs to look at the whole set of building chains, what each buildings produces and what buildings those resources open up and so on.

IMO The +1 health on each food resource should stand, just because having a wide source of food is healthier, not just for a balanced diet, but also because different foods can be harvested/slaughtered at different times reducing the periods of starvation.
 
And milk's not that great either - it was great for spreading TB, even after Pasteur in most places.
Spreading me? How is that unhealthy? lol

Perhaps so and it should be considered in the design of the Tuberculosis disease rather than being represented as unhealth. More on why below.

Red meat isn't unhealthy of it's own, it's more the antibiotics and other stuff you gave the animals. If you would eat natural red meat it would be healthy (due to food variation). Also, "Health" and "Unhealtiness" isn't just about illness in this mod, isn't it? I also includes grow and death in your population by other things. Or was the planned unhealthiness mod already included?

According to some modern scientists, dietary studies can now link most forms of cancer to the toxicity that the consumption of most kinds of meat will cause the body. This is particularly aggravated with Beef and Pork products. I'll still defend my hamburgers, but more because I feel its more important to live to the fullest than it is to live to the healthiest. Clearly, based on these findings, red meat is NOT a good source of food in general (though it does offer a lot of protein the body craves but can get through healthier sources.)


milk is healthy. The fact that most african, european and middle east persons arent lactose intolerant proves this. Normaly every mature mammal is lactose intolerant, including humans. But the persons who were able to drink milk were healthier and got more children (survival of the fittest) . If drinking milk would be a disadvantage the abbility to drink milk would be extinct long time ago

Again, there are some good arguments out there that state milk has some health risks associated with it BUT I would agree on the overall principle that the calcium/potassium balance in milk is the chief cause for milk being generally a healthy food for human consumption. Those Humans that show a lactose intolerance are usually simply those who failed to consume milk throughout the whole of their upbringing which led to the body abandoning the production of the enzymes necessary to digest dairy products. Thus its most commonly just cultural rather than flatly biological by heritage.


Problem: if cow resource don't give health then a farm is better on that plot so the AI will not put a pasture there. The decision on what to build on a plot should not depend on what buildings it may allow to be built in a city. That way means longer turn times as the A needs to look at the whole set of building chains, what each buildings produces and what buildings those resources open up and so on.

IMO The +1 health on each food resource should stand, just because having a wide source of food is healthier, not just for a balanced diet, but also because different foods can be harvested/slaughtered at different times reducing the periods of starvation.
The question is whether the health on a food source should stem from its derivative products or on the base resource alone. I'm thinking it simply makes more sense to be on the derivatives (which may not all be healthy, nor even all be food (leather?)) On derivative products, you'd still have the representation of variety, which indeed is a factor we should seek to express in that.

Are you saying that the ai isn't set to value a resource if that resource doesn't provide a health/happy or yield of its own? That wouldn't seem quite right in and of itself I think. And usually the improvements like pens and such are simply better than the farms (at least I feel so because production to me is more important than food... but I think the AI considers all yields roughly equal doesn't it?) and if they aren't I don't think we have it right what those improvements are providing!
 
Problem: if cow resource don't give health then a farm is better on that plot so the AI will not put a pasture there. The decision on what to build on a plot should not depend on what buildings it may allow to be built in a city. That way means longer turn times as the A needs to look at the whole set of building chains, what each buildings produces and what buildings those resources open up and so on.

IMO The +1 health on each food resource should stand, just because having a wide source of food is healthier, not just for a balanced diet, but also because different foods can be harvested/slaughtered at different times reducing the periods of starvation.

I have to agree with you on this one, all food resources should give a health. It makes it more worthwhile to expand and collect more food resources in the early game. Even if it's not necessarily the most realistic option your point about having a balanced diet also stands.
 
Problem: if cow resource don't give health then a farm is better on that plot so the AI will not put a pasture there. The decision on what to build on a plot should not depend on what buildings it may allow to be built in a city. That way means longer turn times as the A needs to look at the whole set of building chains, what each buildings produces and what buildings those resources open up and so on.

I take your point re building chains, but this is three one-link chains - to 'Milking Shed', 'Slaughterhouse' and 'Tannery', rather than some immense web of recursion.

Come to think of it, if you have an improvable resource, wouldn't you always improve it?

Also, this decision will likely always be made by early Ancient, when processing speed is far less of an issue.

IMO The +1 health on each food resource should stand, just because having a wide source of food is healthier, not just for a balanced diet, but also because different foods can be harvested/slaughtered at different times reducing the periods of starvation.

But an unprocessed cow is not food (even after pasturization). Beyond being eye-candy (if you like that sort of thing), it is nothing more than a ready source of (albeit potentially useful) solid and gaseous pollution, (oh yes and it's also a lawnmower).
 
Come to think of it, if you have an improvable resource, wouldn't you always improve it?

I used to do so, but (at least in V27) some normal improvements gae bigger benefits than the improvement for the ressource (For Example, Farm on a Cow)

Is this still the same? If yes, Pastures and such should get more benefits from techs so they are always the best choice to build on a ressource.
 
I would say that that is a tough decision to make. If you have more than one Cow in City Vicinity then building a Farm or Cottage on one is probably better, but with just one I would still build the Pasture.
The Pasture itself might not give more than a regular Improvement but it does allow for City Vicinity Buildings due to Cow Resource now in City Vicinity.
With those it should be that a Pasture could be as valuable, or even more so. If not then the yields from those should possibly be increased. Not the buildings a single Cow resource anywhere allows but the City Vicinity Buildings you get access to from Cow Resource in City Vicinity.

Cheers
 
But an unprocessed cow is not food (even after pasturization). Beyond being eye-candy (if you like that sort of thing), it is nothing more than a ready source of (albeit potentially useful) solid and gaseous pollution, (oh yes and it's also a lawnmower).

Except of course for blood, which is drunk from the bowl used to catch it from the living animal. Oh and then there are those people who like their meat raw.

As to the rest, it turns out that whole system calculations (not just tail pipe) indicate that cattle are not that polluting and grass feed cattle are almost pollution neutral while turning inedible, to humans, grass into a very good source or protein (and iron). BTW I am under Doctor (and Dentist) orders to eat more red meat.
 
@Hydro, I have been thinking about the bead Maker building and the beads resource. It does not make sense that the bead resource go obsolete but we don't have a way of reducing the effect of a resource on a building by tech. I have come up with the following partial solution (ie it still needs work).
Bead maker also gets extra income from jade and amber

Bead Maker I - auto replaces Bead Maker makes less money and gets money from fewer bonuses

Bead Maker II - auto replaces Bead Maker I with a further reduction in income and income from fewer resources again.​

If you like it merge it into your craft mod. As I said it does need some work on prerequisite buildings and I made it a free auto build building because it is less good than the buildings it replaces.
 
Back
Top Bottom