Copper- A strategic resource

[daft]

Copper should in my opinion be one of the strategic resources required to build Bronze age units, such as spearman or Hoplite.
Just like Iron is required to build Swordsman or Legion.

 

[Securion]

The whole Strategic vs Luxury system is obviously gimped and an afterthought. Frigates dont require Lumber Mills? Canons dont need Iron? Spearmen without Copper? City growth without Salt? Sell Gold for.... Gold?! ... etc...

Hopefully they fix this in Civ 6 as well. I've seen so many nice fixes from the community, so its not very hard to do.

 

[kaspergm]

While I do agree resource system leaves big room for improvement, I do understand why the developers left copper off as a strategic resource. A strategic resource that's only relevant for one or two ages which is before the game much less serious warfare has even started for real sort of seems pointless. When that's said, I wouldn't mind copper and iron working as alternative resources for strategic units, with iron giving an addition bonus to combat strength (like +10% or +15%) compared to the units "fueled" by copper.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Like Kasper said it's just too early for it to matter and would be useless so early it wouldn't even be worth settling a new city for.

Of course they could add a brewery building that uses copper later on. Couldn't build boil kettles without the copper.

Anyway in all seriousness the strategic resource system has gone down the tubes as the game has evolved. The strategic units don't offer any really tangible benefits until frigates. Nerfs to the iron and mounted lines and stronger pikes coupled with the addition of the comp. bow really made strategics unnecessary.

I can't see how adding a new one would improve things much. Kasper's buff idea could be cool though. Make it an "advanced arms" promotion or something.

 

[kaspergm]

Anyway in all seriousness the strategic resource system has gone down the tubes as the game has evolved. The strategic units don't offer any really tangible benefits until frigates. Nerfs to the iron and mounted lines and stronger pikes coupled with the addition of the comp. bow really made strategics unnecessary.

Imo. civ 5's strategic resource implementation is bad from a general design perspective. The idea that you need resource to sustain the unit permanently rather than an accumulation-and-consumption system (similar to how gold works) for me seriously flattens the game. It also means that strategic resources are very binary in the sense that either you got them or otherwise you don't (because generally one stack is sufficient to cover your needs) which was bad for balance in vanilla, because starting without Iron could seriously screw you over. So they nerfed the Swordsman, making the whole system redundant.

And accumulate-and-consume system would be better, because it makes it easier to graduate (everybody will have some iron, but the amount of resources will control your rate of accumulation and hence will impact your strategy). Such a system would also make it possible to have a much more widespread use of strategic resources - not only swordsmen would require iron, but also pikes, knight and cannons would need some iron to produce, although the amount might be variable. Imo. this would make for a much more interesting system, but I also realise it will make resource management considerably more complicated than is the case now.

 

[reddishrecue]

Copper used to be a strategic resource in civilization 4 bts. That changed in BNW where copper is now a luxurious resource. As for the future of civilization and civ 6, changing salt into a strategic resource could make sense to make the beginning gunpowder units I am supposing.

 

[daft]

and what about war elephant units not requiring ivory to produce them?

 

[dexters]

Imo. civ 5's strategic resource implementation is bad from a general design perspective. The idea that you need resource to sustain the unit permanently rather than an accumulation-and-consumption system (similar to how gold works) for me seriously flattens the game. It also means that strategic resources are very binary in the sense that either you got them or otherwise you don't (because generally one stack is sufficient to cover your needs) which was bad for balance in vanilla, because starting without Iron could seriously screw you over. So they nerfed the Swordsman, making the whole system redundant.

And accumulate-and-consume system would be better, because it makes it easier to graduate (everybody will have some iron, but the amount of resources will control your rate of accumulation and hence will impact your strategy). Such a system would also make it possible to have a much more widespread use of strategic resources - not only swordsmen would require iron, but also pikes, knight and cannons would need some iron to produce, although the amount might be variable. Imo. this would make for a much more interesting system, but I also realise it will make resource management considerably more complicated than is the case now.

This is I think where they should go next game. The idea of accumulate and consume was being suggested even before Civ5 came out.

To be fair to the designers, Civ5 is still the first game in the series to give unit level advantages for having more than 1 source of said strategic resources.

The system as first implemented in Civ3 was a single resource was all you needed to power all your units, which would be in the hundreds, and the strategy there was pure resource denial.

Civ4 was more of the same with several new strategic resources added such that it was generally not critical if you lacked one but had others.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The whole division of Resources into Luxury and Strategic is artificial and needs to go. Especially since it results in quantities of 'Strategic' resources being required to field units, while a single source of a 'Luxury' good is enough to satisfy a civilization Of Any Size. Totally senseless.
Resources should simply be labeled as Resources, with requirements applying to Happiness, technology and Units.

For instance, Copper is required to form early military units - Spearmen and Triremes (bronze rams - they did Not fight primarily by shooting arrows or boarding, regardless of what the latest '300' fantasy movie shows!) BUT it can be replaced by Iron for any unit, and Iron is required for later units.
Still later, Copper is required to build Mass Transit and Electricity in your cities (copper wire) - a 'technological' resource.
Gold and Silver are not only 'luxuries', they are required for Coinage/Money until the invention of Bank Notes in the Renaissance - you literally cannot have a functioning economy in your cities in the Classical/Medieval Eras based on barter, it requires the precious metals - in considerable quantities. Later on, Gold is required for Solid State and high level electronics, while still retaining its usage as a Luxury good, in jewelry and decoration.

In addition, the quantity of a resource required changes dramatically throughout the ages. The iron required to arm and armor a Roman legion amounts to about 100 tons. The Iron required to build 1 mile of railroad is about 300 tons, and that's not counting the requirements for locomotives and rolling stock. Industrial Era and later quantities are an Order of Magnitude greater than earlier - and cannot be moved/traded without a water route (river/sea) or a railroad or a modern Highway System with heavy trucks (and that last is really, really inefficient for moving 1000s of tons of Resources)

Finally, not all sources for a Resource should be revealed at once. Ever heard of a Gold Rush? That's because we keep finding more sources of Gold - and Oil, and Iron, and every other raw material, or new Technology makes it possible to exploit more of an older source of the resource. The Resources on the map needs to be a lot more dynamic, with new ones popping up, or revealing themselves with later technology (How is it possible in the game to find every off-shore oil patch when I don't have the technology to drill offshore yet?)

If we have a dynamic source system, combined with no artificial division of resources by 'use', combined with a real Accumulate and Consume system, combined with a division of resources into Simple (small) quantities and Industrial Quantities requirements, we will have a much better depiction of the historical resource systems and, I think, a much more interesting game

 

[JeszKar]

I wanted to say the same thing. Some of the resources are strategical and luxury at the same time (the other exampke would the elephants).
Anyway, should the iron be a rare resource? I mean iron is very common.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I wanted to say the same thing. Some of the resources are strategical and luxury at the same time (the other exampke would the elephants).
Anyway, should the iron be a rare resource? I mean iron is very common.

Iron is extremely common, but Industrial Quantities of iron less so. In other words, there would be plenty of iron for Classical/Medieval/Renaissance units, it would be harder to find for the late-Renaissance (Enlightenment) Era ships (the guns alone on a single frigate would take 60 - 100 tons of wrought or cast iron, almost twice as much as to outfit an entire Legion) and several countries might find themselves short of Industrial Deposits of Iron in the Industrial era - but better technology might allow them to access more later. The point is that it would be a dynamic system: the fact that in 1500 BC you only can access one lousy little iron deposit doesn't mean that with deep mining techniques of the 18th century AD that deposit doesn't prove much bigger than you thought (just in time to build those Frigates), or that you can't find more within your own territory.

The comment on Ivory/elephants brings up another point: elephants are not easy to raise in captivity (elephants are Trained, not Domesticated) but horses, cattle, sheep, etc are domesticated, and have been domesticated (in some parts of the world) long before the game nominally starts in 4000 BC. That means these Resources can Move. Once I've discovered how to domesticate (Animal Husbandry) I can establish herds anywhere I have decent pasturage. The idea that I cannot form a cavalry unit in the Renaissance Era because I am Missing Horses is ludicrous: I can always build more pastures (perhaps to do so would require building a specialized Stud Farm building for each new Pasture established?) and raise more horses. Heck, I can even take horses to an entirely new continent and set up pasturage there (and Hello, Commanche Riders).
Again, the idea is to have a much more dynamic Resource System covering all the resources available in the game.

 

[JeszKar]

This is similar to the food resources problem. I actually suggested in a different topic that the food resources should go. Wheat doesn't require a very specific region to cultivate. But the horse and the elephant are in a different category. I could image an raw resource/product system where you can trade both with the raw resource and product (for example iron and iron weaponms.) With this system you can have horse and warhorses but it wouldn't help spreading the raw resources to another territory. So I have no idea whta they should do with this.

 

[Kurtbob]

I'm all for a "accumulate and consume" resource system. Here is a way to implement the system, though it may be a bit too complicated or not entirely thought through.

The map doesn't reveal single resources (such as gold, iron, copper, etc). Exploring reveals the potential yield of tiles. When terrain is prospected, through the use of special units such as a scout, explorer, or prospector, or a mine is built on the terrain, you discover its true 'yield' of SEVEN resources;

Ferrous Metals (Iron),
Non-Ferrous Metals (Copper, Tin, Lead),
Precious Metals (Gold, Silver, Platinum),
Precious Stones (Gems, Diamonds, Rubies),
Dimension Stones (Granite, Marble, Limestone), - quarries?
Fossil Fuels (Coal) - Oil and Natural gas would require a well?
Fissionable Elements (Uranium)

Mines accumulate all, some, or none of the seven above resources. Early in the game these resource yields will be low, but new technology will allow higher yields. These accumulated resources can then be used to create units, buildings, wonders, great works, and even new resources. Buildings would be the logical instruments for converting resources into trade-able goods (for example, a Jeweler could convert precious metals and stones into luxury goods).

 

[Redaxe]

I'm all for a "accumulate and consume" resource system. Here is a way to implement the system, though it may be a bit too complicated or not entirely thought through.

The map doesn't reveal single resources (such as gold, iron, copper, etc). Exploring reveals the potential yield of tiles. When terrain is prospected, through the use of special units such as a scout, explorer, or prospector, or a mine is built on the terrain, you discover its true 'yield' of SEVEN resources;

Ferrous Metals (Iron),
Non-Ferrous Metals (Copper, Tin, Lead),
Precious Metals (Gold, Silver, Platinum),
Precious Stones (Gems, Diamonds, Rubies),
Dimension Stones (Granite, Marble, Limestone), - quarries?
Fossil Fuels (Coal) - Oil and Natural gas would require a well?
Fissionable Elements (Uranium)

Mines accumulate all, some, or none of the seven above resources. Early in the game these resource yields will be low, but new technology will allow higher yields. These accumulated resources can then be used to create units, buildings, wonders, great works, and even new resources. Buildings would be the logical instruments for converting resources into trade-able goods (for example, a Jeweler could convert precious metals and stones into luxury goods).

Having to manually prospect every tile is too much of a distraction and micromanagement problem. Resources are certainly an intriguing problem though. For instance some resources like horses, and wine can be taken & successfully produced nearly anywhere on the Earth so long as selective breeding is used to get a variety of plant or animal that is genetically suited to any particular hazards of that environment. Others however like minerals must either be recycled or explored through better technology as others have said.

I would say that the distinction between strategic, luxury and bonus should probably go.
It should be the case that once you have access to horses you should be able to build a pasture or city stables to grow stock that can be used in war. And this shouldn't be limited by the city either. Not quite sure how this would work but horses have been a mainstay of warfare for thousands of years from charioteers to knights & cataphracts to cavalry used as late as WW2, particularly by Poland. So horses really are a mainstay resource & should be valuable for a good-portion of the game.
Iron I guess can be a common resource to mine (it is I think one of the most abundant elements in the Earths crust) but I'm not sure about copper. The question becomes, where should the search for resources end?
It's impossible to have to manage every single resource on the periodic table. But for gameplay lets say you open Greece and want to Hoplite invade your neighbours, there simply isn't time to search around and find copper for your spearman UU replacement. If you had to settle a 2nd city to get access to copper, use workers to build mines etc that will already probably lock you out of using your UU until everyone is probably half-way through the classical era.
The whole point of ancient UUs is for rush early-wars. Its also the reason why Rome should continue to have the ballista despite a lot of people wanting it replaced for a UB - if you remove it and your Rome start has no iron then you are locked out of your early war advantage which is Rome's signature advantage.

Requiring resources like Copper would lock early warmongers out of fighting and I don't think anyone would agree that this should be the direction the game should go in. But then if you make copper so common its everywhere then what is the point of having it as a resource in the first place?
The implication already from the Bronze Working technology is the fact that your workers get the tools to chop jungles automatically from whatever copper is available.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Regardless of how resources are handled, there has to be an option for the player/civ that has none of a particular Required For Unit resource. The game simply does a lousy, lousy job of balancing resources, or for that matter giving any Civ a Starting Position that matches its UU, UA, or UB. Rome without Iron, or Mongolia without Horses, or Morocco without a Desert - none of those are fun to play, unless you have serious Masochistic tendencies.

Luckily, just about every Era or period has some unit/units that are good candidates for 0 Resource requirements. Spearmen, for instance, require very little bronze/copper: a 2 - 3 pound spearpoint, since (despite what people think they know) most of the spearman's 'armor' was leather or canvas behind a stout wooden shield (even the classical Hoplite dropped the bronze cuirass or body armor after the Persian Wars, and Alexander's pezhetairoi, or pike phalanx, wore canvas armor until after he'd conquered Persia). The amount of metal required by arrow points is even smaller, so warriors, spearmen, pikemen, and archers of all kinds are pretty resource-independent.

Later on it gets tricky. All firearms require iron, all cannon require bronze/copper or iron, and everything with an engine is going to require oil. The answer here, I think, is to change the Quantity requirement. At the beginning of the game, in Ancient through early Renaissance periods, you are outfitting individual troops with personal weapons. The amount of resource required per soldier ranges from 1 - 3 pounds (insignificant) to maybe 100 lbs for a fully equipped Roman legionnaire or medieval mail-armored knight (significant, and they should require Resources).
Later on, a rifleman may require 10 - 20 lbs of metal for his weapon and equipment, but it is insignificant compared to 2000 - 5000 TONS of iron for an Ironclad, or 3 - 5 tons of iron/bronze for a single cannon battery, both of the same period/era.

And, if we're going to require Resources to build the unit, the amount required will go up dramatically - although, we don't have to require, say, 1 pt of Iron for a Legion, and 50 pts for an Ironclad, we should use a 'sliding scale' or the later requirements are going to be astronomical! BUT some units are going to require more than one resource: Knights require both Horses and Iron, Tanks and Landships require both Iron to build AND oil to run each turn. In fact, having enough oil to run almost every flying and motorized unit in the Industrial and later eras is going to be critical.
AND it should be a limiting resource: Germany's WWII effort was strangled for lack of oil more than any other resource (except maybe Manpower and Rationality) and the Italian Fleet was virtually land-locked after 1942 for lack of fuel. You should have to gamble on fighting a war to get Oil in the twentieth century period of the game.
And there should always be the possibility of finding and losing resources. certain technologies will make any Resource 'plot' more productive. We already have Technologies and Buildings and Improvements that increases the value of Food, but Deep Mining or Steam Engine Pumps should increase the output from mineral mines, and Open Pit/Hydraulic mining will increase the output even more (with Environmental consequences, if we want to bring back Pollution Effects). Some sources of ore will 'play out' although I think, for sheer play balance, this might have to be limited. Gold and Silver should 'dry up' most often, because it is so common in history. Finding new plots of Gold or Silver should also be pretty common, especially once they become common monetary metals (look at the number of Gold/Silver strikes just in one country, the US, in one century, the 19th - I count at least 6 major ones, several of which had a major effect on the population of the nearest city or region)

While other minerals do get worked out, better technology also allows a lot of mines to be reopened, better refining allows mine debris to be reworked, and in general I don't think the player should be required to constantly worry about losing access to all of his coal, iron, oil, aluminum or cubit zirconium.

 

[civfanchambers]

Civilization 3 introduced the concept of luxury / strategic resources. Saltpeter was needed for building gunpowder units. In a thread I started on the civ4 side of the forum I wrote about how the resources gave a realistic need for going to war. Before civ3 wars were trivial unless you wanted more land or were trying for a victory. Adding strat resources forced players to war to acquire what they needed for the benefit from their nation. This was made more relevant with civ4. As for resources in a new game " civilization 6", I like the idea that most ancient units don't need resources but gain an added benefit from them. Metal is not necessary to make spears. All you need is a long straight stick with a point. A power boost is given by combining copper / iron to a spear. Iron isn't needed to make swords, they can be made with copper, though they are weak compared to iron swords. Many native American north and south cultures made swords by placing sharp stone into sticks. I believe ancient units should have upgrades from primitive to copper to bronze to iron. Once the late classical / middle ages are reach more specialized units become available. Units built in the ancient era should evolve as new techs / resources are acquired receiving newer promos and boost to their attack power. Instead of just paying gold to update units you can retrain them with more modern weapons and tactics. Would that not add a new dimension to the game franchise? The ability to retrain existing units being upgraded might help revolutionize the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civilization 3 introduced the concept of luxury / strategic resources. Saltpeter was needed for building gunpowder units. In a thread I started on the civ4 side of the forum I wrote about how the resources gave a realistic need for going to war. Before civ3 wars were trivial unless you wanted more land or were trying for a victory. Adding strat resources forced players to war to acquire what they needed for the benefit from their nation.

The problem in Civ5 is that luxury resources are trivial (not overcoming the cost of a conquered city), and the strategic resources you desperatly need can't be catched due to... lack of those strategic resources. (because cities are so much hard to take)

 

[jlim201]

The issue with having less luxury and more strategic is happiness. Then that needs balancing, and then something else, and a whole chain reaction because happiness is key.