Does Anyone Ever Choose "Scarce" Resources?

[pxpdoo]

Seriously, why is that even an option?

 

[Glassmage]

agree!! Even Standard is kinda weak.....

 

[Tabarnak]

Someone had set this option in a multiplayer game. Most boring game ever. Nobody had enough iron or horses to attack plus the crappy land.

 

[Teagen]

I don't know how anyone could tolerate it. I have enough games where I only have 3, maybe 4, luxuries in any reasonably close location to me and a lot of games where I struggle for Iron....I play on standard usually.

 

[Xichael]

I've done it before, pair it with ice age and you feel like playing on a post-apocolyptic world. But yeah it's a once in a while thing as it can be pretty dry.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Someone had set this option in a multiplayer game. Most boring game ever. Nobody had enough iron or horses to attack plus the crappy land.

An exploit... set up "scarce resources" and play Iriquois...

 

[General Awesome]

Meh even on standard there is only 1 or 2 uranium deposit on standard maps.

 

[Tabarnak]

An exploit... set up "scarce resources" and play Iriquois...

Gotcha! Problem is my game played was on archipelago map

 

[GrumpyFlumps]

Scarce Resources => yes!

Why? Because the games aren't dry as described but much more strategic. Instead of having everything at hand and the same old rush for nukes instead you are forced to think and plan... feels more like a good game of chess.

I like to have scarce resources and vary the map type, this makes for a really great challenge!

 

[Glassmage]

you are as crazy as the people who play on marathon. lol

 

[CYZ]

I really love variation and usually go nuts with randomness and weird settings.

But I must agree, scarce really means scarce. If you enjoy playing on something of a lunar landscape, that's what you'll want.

Then again, scarce resources and halving the amount of civs and CS makes for a totally different game. Slower and more diplomatic but certainly strategic. It also really combines well with some map types, like sandstorm!

 

[Xichael]

I just played a scarce/ice age/duel since I brought it up earlier. I ended up with like 8 uranium, 10 aluminum, 5 coal and 14 oil. Only things that were "scarce" were Iron (4) and horses (4). I started in a region with 4 silver sources :O

 

[00konichiwa00]

I always play with scarce resources. makes it a little bit more fun

 

[Hustapha Thool]

Scarce resources from my limited experience also means 1 unit per strategic resource, see iron, that is 1 iron.

 

[Arilian]

I play scarce resources about 75%, normal 20% stategic and legendary 5%

scarce resources makes every bit of iron valuable and also it indirectly buffs units like musket/pike.

 

[Cheeseisgood]

Almost always, I find it makes the idea of happiness a bit more interesting, and you have to rely upon non standard units in the early ages.

Just seems more fun to me. I vary it.

 

[G Viceroy]

I like to pair this with the Sandstorm map. You really cherish your one-spot of iron. ;p

 

[TPQ]

I usually play with scarce resources on as I hate the late game nuke-fest. With scarce resources, the AIs propensity for nukes is ameliorated a little and it makes Russia a slightly less apocalypse inducing competitor.

As soon as atomic bombs are actually able to be intercepted by fighters (as they supposedly should be by design) and the nuclear missiles have some kind of SDI-eske defense like in Civ4, I will be happy for the AI to have lots of uranium, but until then, "scarce" makes the game much better imo.

Also, as said above by GrumpyFlumps, scarce makes the game more strategic.

 

[OverWind]

As a response to the "must be insane, like those who play Marathon":
I have to say. I play on Marathon almost exclusively (except multiplayer). I thought it would be boring as hell, but I found out that it actually improves the game VERY much (at least I think so). It doesn't feel like all the eras are just blurred together and suddenly you're in the future. It feels like you actually play through history, and you have to be more strategic. I love it.

Regarding resources, I can't imagine myself play on scarce. But I could see why people would do it. It could be interesting, instead of just taking it for granted that you'll be able to find iron and horses.

 

[binhthuy71]

Scarce Resources => yes!

Why? Because the games aren't dry as described but much more strategic. Instead of having everything at hand and the same old rush for nukes instead you are forced to think and plan... feels more like a good game of chess.

I like to have scarce resources and vary the map type, this makes for a really great challenge!

Great points. I have the sense that, on King and below, Scarce Resources hurts the AI more than it does the human player. For even more Strategic fun, enable Scarce Resources, Raging Barbs, and turn off Ruins.