Does iron ever become obsolete?

[God of Kings]

Horses could be used for a population boost. After all, there are plenty of people who eat horses to this day.

There can be the racetrack improvement that uses horse resources. After all, horseback racing is still popular in the age of smartphones and self-driving electric cars.

 

[UWHabs]

This is one of the items I missed most about corps from earlier games, gave a reason to stockpile resources that were otherwise obsolete. As it stands now, it's annoying how most resources only really matter for 2-3 units, and then don't count for anything after that. Especially with the new factories and power systems, having some sort of "ironworks" wonder to recycle your old iron into modern building materials would be a nice way to use them in the more modern times.

 

[Socrates99]

Didn't corporations in IV make obsolete resources worthwhile? Been a while since I played it. I just remember collecting certain resources to profit certain corporations.

Maybe a late game market project where you could trade resources for things like gold or something might be neat. I just downloaded a mod that adds a project to the IZ that consumes iron to produce a low cost builders. It's kind of neat. Something like that would be cool for other old resources. Niter and horses could be used for entertainment projects like bread and circuses to produce amenities and loyalty.

 

[TomKQT]

I think this is one of the systems where we shouldn't really go for a lot of realism. Some more of less serious posts in this thread show how absurd it could quickly become (cotton or silk to be able to make clothes - and thus ANY unit; to make steel you need not only iron but also coal etc.).
I'm completely fine with the principle that each resource is mostly tied to few eras - to those eras when that resource was used to make the most hi-tech stuff (when horse-riding was the most advanced thing you could do, when iron sword was the best weapon, when gunpowder allowed rifles etc.). Sure, iron has been a crucial part of almost anything since the beggining to these days - but for gameplay reasons I don't think it should be required in the later eras. What if you were not lucky and found no iron? You had a hard time in the classical eras, but why should you be punished till the end of the game?

Adding some different use to the obsolete strategic resources could be a good idea (like turning them into some kind of amenity etc.), but IMHO too complicated. I'm happy with the current state.

 

[criZp]

Some more of less serious posts in this thread show how absurd it could quickly become (cotton or silk to be able to make clothes - and thus ANY unit; to make steel you need not only iron but also coal etc.).

The stuff about making clothes was a joke, you are taking it wayyy too seriously.

As for steel, that doesn't have to be a new resource, just keep using iron for units that require steel.

 

[TomKQT]

The stuff about making clothes was a joke, you are taking it wayyy too seriously.

As for steel, that doesn't have to be a new resource, just keep using iron for units that require steel.

Of course I know it was a joke, that was obvious, as well as when somebody said that great artists should require tobacco... And I even said that those posts weren't 100 % serious.
I just used those examples to remind how this idea of analysing which Civ6 resource is in real life needed for which Civ6 building/unit could easily get out of control. Where would you want to draw the line? When does the joke turn into reality - because in fact the requirement is completely true (clothing).

As far as steel/iron is concerned: ok, so let's decide that it would be more realistic if everything in the game since the discovery of iron required iron (because in reality it really does). Reasoning for this decision - we already have iron in the game and it becomes obsolete later in the game. But don't we also have coal in the game? And does coal never get obsolete? And don't really the units that require iron in fact require also coal, because it is not iron but steel? You would not need to add steel as a new resource to the game.

I'm just saying that we should really stop before we get into too much trouble, it would be hard to draw the ending line. And don't think too much about realism, think about gameplay. What's the point of having a resource which is needed for everything? You don't find iron, rage-quit because you are done.

 

[Elhoim]

Adding steel as a resource produced from iron and coal or whatever doesn't make the game a one to one real life simulator.

Yeah, I gotta love the hyperbole. My point was to design a system that gives them a purpose for the late game. Even the assumption that you can obtain most things can be added and you actually obtain them and use them. In any case, it won't be done, the game design is not really keen on the slightest simulation, but on abstract rules even if they don't make much sense (oil to create and maintain infantry, because those are one of the resources you MUST use in this era, with the others being obsolete).

 

[criZp]

Where would you want to draw the line?

we have seven strategic resources, where three are late game (uranium, aluminum, oil), two are early game (iron, horses) and two are mid game (coal, niter)

and the idea was to do something with the early/mid game resources, to keep them relevant in the late game. a very simple thing, I really don't see why that should "easily get out of control"... as all you really have to du is to have late game units utilize the resources (iron and niter, at least).