[GS] Chop the bloody horses

[Ewsforos]

currently playing a game. As Mapuche empire, Lautaro, even if i dont like his face, i do randoms lately. anyways
having a nice Capital.
the 6 surrounding tiles are:
*mountain
*Pyramids
*mine
*Industrial zone (IZ is surrounded by mines/Quarry)
*mine
*HORSES

now i want to build apadana (have to be build adjacent to capital).
the game now forces me to ruin my good looking IZ with 5 adjacent bonus because i cant kill the horses eating grass in the other area.
i get the whole strategic resource and all, BUT they are JUST horses and i want to kill them all lol.
It should be my choice to chop them away, even providing food and production to city, and then use the space to build something else. i don't know about other strategic resources , but they are animals on a field, is should be as easy as 1 builders charge

 

[Sostratus]

I think the dev's fear was that essentially, you could deny your opponent resources. Scythia invading? Send all the horses to the glue factory. Now no one can use horses. Same reason with luxuries. You could actively starve out amenities by deleting all but 1 copy for yourself, making a lot of conquering lose value.

It's also sticky because you can't put districts over them; it might make some kinds of placement too easy if we could build over luxuries or strategics.

I feel the pain. I'm just happy we can chop out bonus resources.

 

[Ewsforos]

I so miss the aspect of actually managing your empire. how cool it would be to make your own horse pastures wherever u like for example , provided u have horses somewhere , to start breeding.
anyways i ultimately destroyed a 5 production mine for Apadana, oh well..

btw, i now see the hole in the system it would create if they allowed us to chop str resources. ty

 

[Jarms48]

I think the dev's fear was that essentially, you could deny your opponent resources. Scythia invading? Send all the horses to the glue factory. Now no one can use horses. Same reason with luxuries. You could actively starve out amenities by deleting all but 1 copy for yourself, making a lot of conquering lose value.

It's also sticky because you can't put districts over them; it might make some kinds of placement too easy if we could build over luxuries or strategics.

I feel the pain. I'm just happy we can chop out bonus resources.

I think you’re right. I would at least like the option to place districts and wonders on top of resources. I can have resources pop up under my buildings but I can’t do vice-versa.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think the dev's fear was that essentially, you could deny your opponent resources. Scythia invading? Send all the horses to the glue factory. Now no one can use horses. Same reason with luxuries. You could actively starve out amenities by deleting all but 1 copy for yourself, making a lot of conquering lose value.

It's also sticky because you can't put districts over them; it might make some kinds of placement too easy if we could build over luxuries or strategics.

I feel the pain. I'm just happy we can chop out bonus resources.

I mean, now that we have the stockpile system, and especially if they implemented a similar luxury stockpile system in an expansion, then I think that would positively impact strategy.

On the one hand, it would force you to weigh your immediate vs. long-term strategic needs in much the same way that you do bonus resources and food/production. And the benefit would be that you aren't forced to use/acquire strategic resources if you think your overall strategy can do without; whereas now you are kind of required to passively take in whatever strategic resources your empire encompasses.

On the other hand, I think the denial of resources is brilliant, because it allows another line of defense for players smart enough to recognize and defuel invasions before they happen. If you are a religious or cultural civ, you could do that without a second thought and it might ultimately save you enough time to come back from behind.

Idunno, I think the argument is kind of weak given VI's goals. If the aim is to allow more versatility in goals and playstyle, where domination isn't the only way to victory, then it seems logical that being able to completely sabotage another player's victory condition, particularly domination, should be fair game. ESPECIALLY since the reverse is already too true in the game, where it doesn't matter what victory you were pursuing when Scythia decides to wreck you.