King of Town
Adventuring
Wouldn't an axeman without a bronze axe, or a swordsman without an sword just be a warrior? No need for a hardwood swordsman when we already have that in a warrior.
Do you think the resource system is sort of bunk?
- Thread starter Levgre
- Start date
magicalsushi
Prince
Sure, but this was in the context of having no access to metal. The claim being, essentially, "if you have no access to metal, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it". Researching Archery is a very obvious first step, and it's something you're never prevented from doing if you choose to do so. Sure, it needs to be balanced against the opportunity costs, but I thought that should be considered implicit. The only real opportunity cost of researching Arhcery is "will researching Archery delay my research path to Gunpowder more than my archers and longbowmen will help me in the meantime; would I be better off just using warriors?". Realistically, the answer is always going to be 'no'. Even when it's 'yes' (although I can't imagine such a situation), that doesn't mean archers aren't available to you, just that you've weighed the benefits and chosen not to use them.
Essentially, what I mean is that in your example, it was your choice not to research Archery (I'm guessing you had access to metal, and the comment of mine to which you replied assumed no access to metal). However, if you'd wanted Archery, I'm pretty sure you could have got it.
I think resources could be changed. Like America might have oil but it dosn't have enough oil so it imports. In civ America would not need to import as it would have a source.
I think that resources should either run out or that 1 resource supports so many units. It would be good if say you could only build so many tanks because you don't have enough oil, you would have to either import or go to war. It would be more realistic making an area in civ like the mid-east. They would either be powerful because of their resource or would have countries constantly tring to steal their resource.
I think that resources should either run out or that 1 resource supports so many units. It would be good if say you could only build so many tanks because you don't have enough oil, you would have to either import or go to war. It would be more realistic making an area in civ like the mid-east. They would either be powerful because of their resource or would have countries constantly tring to steal their resource.
magicalsushi
Prince
I like this idea, and I also quite like the idea of resources running out (this was used in an old strategy game called Mega-lo-Mania). I think Civ 4 could tolerate depletable resources, since the default game has a limited length so there's no danger of facing a long period of dull turns where no-one can build anything interesting anymore because the resources are gone - by the time this situation occurs, the time limit should nearly be up anyway.
However, for the idea of "you can only x units per instance of a resourcce", you'd need to have a lot more resource squares on the map - for example, for the unit limit to make a significant impact on anyone's forces, there'd need to be *loads* more oil, or otherwise the limit would have to so high that it hardly affected anyone. Maybe there could be "amounts" of a resource on a single square - one square might provide, say, three units of oil, rather than just one.
However, for the idea of "you can only x units per instance of a resourcce", you'd need to have a lot more resource squares on the map - for example, for the unit limit to make a significant impact on anyone's forces, there'd need to be *loads* more oil, or otherwise the limit would have to so high that it hardly affected anyone. Maybe there could be "amounts" of a resource on a single square - one square might provide, say, three units of oil, rather than just one.
Well that is kind of the idea. I was playing a modern day world scenario, I was mid-east. No-one but Europe wanted to buy my oil as everyone else had at least 1 source.
DigitalBoy
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,347
I think the resource system is fine as it stands. The number of games where I didn't end up having either horses, copper, or iron have been extremely rare. I can't say that I've ever played a single game where I didn't have some strategic resource somewhere within my immediate nation.
The christmas elf shock troops just could not resist the onslaught, thus santa with his mounted reindeer armies subjagated them for eternity.
Wenla
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
Essentially, what I mean is that in your example, it was your choice not to research Archery (I'm guessing you had access to metal, and the comment of mine to which you replied assumed no access to metal). However, if you'd wanted Archery, I'm pretty sure you could have got it.
actually i had no copper and no iron on my island at all, and none reachable by galley. i knew there was no copper before i started (was shadowing the first Gilga ALC). that's why i built the great wall! so literally all i could build was warriors/scouts/explorers/mounted troops until i finally got a culture bridge to an iron with copper on it. i had no neighbors and no barb issues, researching archery would have been quite a sidetrack and opportunity cost at the time
. but you know me, i specialize in oddball situations *giggle*.and yes i make weird choices all the time
Bradlius
Warlord
You might even say, in MOST cases, if not in ALL cases.
and yes i make weird choices all the time
Such as lookoing for copper on your iron?
It's really no big deal except for online games where you WILL be destroyed if you are unlucky with resources unless you decide to be an arse and tile deny all of your enemy's hills and forests with archer/holkan/dog warrior chokes. Offline just spam archers and the AI will not attack you, the AI only goes off of a power rating, not the fact that all you've got is archers and they have swordsmen axes and catas.
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
How to fix this... Step one, explore the map. Step two, rush to bronze working or animal husbandry. Step three, settle near the resource, no matter how far away it is.
I've never found not having a resource to be too hindering to me.
The problem with using stand-ins for resources (such as siberian reindeer cavalry) is that the stand-ins don't work like the things they replace. You can make a decent sword out of stone, but it is very difficult to make good armor out of stone. For that you really need metal. Although the axeman and swordsmen don't appear to be wearing armor, in real life these forces would have ring-mail or some such defense. Unarmored troops with stone swords would just be warriors.
The same thing is true with the aforementioned reindeer "cavalry". The laps and russians didn't use the reindeer for cavalry-style actions in battle. They were just used as fast moving beasts of burden that could tolerate cold weather. Llamas would be the same; they would work very well in aiding logistics, but would be worthless in an actual battle.
The same thing is true with the aforementioned reindeer "cavalry". The laps and russians didn't use the reindeer for cavalry-style actions in battle. They were just used as fast moving beasts of burden that could tolerate cold weather. Llamas would be the same; they would work very well in aiding logistics, but would be worthless in an actual battle.
Steve the Noble
Noble
I think the resource system (really introduced in Civ III) adds such a strategic element to the game. It's often the reason to expand or invade - just as in real world history.
Also, if all resources were distributed such that all players easily had access to all resources, then there's little point in having them in the first place.
Also, if all resources were distributed such that all players easily had access to all resources, then there's little point in having them in the first place.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
oops! that was supposed to say "an island with copper on it"
by weird choices i meant stuff like if i see pigs and iron close together, i simply must make a city there and call it PigIron. some games i end up with PigIron North and PigIron South. it's just too cute to resist!
Silence101
King
Yeah - I've rarely had a start where there was no copper, iron, or horses anywhere nearby. It seems that if you're going to persue any type of expansionist strategy, gathering stratigic resources should probably be one of your first priorities.
I do recall one game however where I did start without any stratigic resources - 18 Civ's on a standard map... so even though some stratigic resources were close, they magically happened to fall within the boarders of my neighbors. I had to research archery... something that I don't really like to do (I'd rather backfill it through trading), but it turned into one of the more memorable games I've played.
