Effect of "negative" number of strategic resources

[LukaSlovenia29]

Hello.

I've been playing a very defensive game against the likes of Monty & Co., where I'm being really hampered by my horse&iron pillaged. This reminded me of Civ 3 (I think), where "negative" number of strategic resources didn't stop your units from healing, but for every lacking copy each of your affected units got a few percents off of its CS. I also think that's more realistic, because if I have 15 horsemen and my 2-horse pastures gets pillaged and I fall from +1 horses to -1 horses, it isn't really realistic that all 15 horsemen can't heal. That also means that the player with -4 horses is penalised to the same degree as the player with -1 or -12 horses. Even in wars there's a big difference between a very small shortage of, for example, oil vs. a very big one.

Do you like the current system? Would you prefer it to be changed? Would be hard to code?

Thanks for the replies!

 

[Gidoza]

Well spoken - the penalty doesn't suit the crime.

 

[vyyt]

Yes, lowering the CS relatively sounds good to me. I like it.

By the way, my units heal even if I go negative in the needed SR. Ilteroi was unable to replicate it, so I suppose it is caused by a mod conflict on my side, although I cannot imagine which of the (many) simple QOL mods could be causing it.

 

[tu_79]

I think current system is more logical. If you lack iron, you cannot produce more weapons, so when some of your swordsmen die, you cannot replace them with more swordsmen. Having a lowered CS is like saying that, because we can't make new weapons, your current sword is not sharp anymore, and because we can't capture more horses where the horse herd was, your current horse is sad and won't fight.

 

[pza]

I think current system is more logical. If you lack iron, you cannot produce more weapons, so when some of your swordsmen die, you cannot replace them with more swordsmen. Having a lowered CS is like saying that, because we can't make new weapons, your current sword is not sharp anymore, and because we can't capture more horses where the horse herd was, your current horse is sad and won't fight.

while that's true, planes wouldnt fly without oil, and tanks wouldnt roll. the ressource system is not a realistic system, it's a gameplay enhancing system that happens to have a theme. you can argue if it's more fun either way, but i'd never put realism over gameplay - in none of the cases.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the current system because it really makes me care about those negatives. Pillaging is powerful, and if you don’t protect yourself it’s going to Hurt.

In my current game Austria snuck in a pillage and suddenly my front line of horseman at her gate were in trouble. Had to play a real strategic game of motion while desperately repairing the pillage. Way more interesting than a few percentage points of cs loss

 

[Gazebo]

No new code.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Thanks for the replies.

 

[tu_79]

while that's true, planes wouldnt fly without oil, and tanks wouldnt roll. the ressource system is not a realistic system, it's a gameplay enhancing system that happens to have a theme. you can argue if it's more fun either way, but i'd never put realism over gameplay - in none of the cases.

To make it so realistic, planes should not be able to fly and tanks should not be able to move when oil is not available. But I guess a nation can have some stock.

 

[Gidoza]

I'm at least inclined to think that the "no healing" from the Horses could be replaced by one of the negatives of the other ones. It's one thing to have maintenance costs increased on your units (that makes sense), but to have ALL horses unable to heal because one is missing strikes me as problematic: one of these deficiencies is utterly deadly, but the other is a liability. The penalties are not balanced across strategic resources.

 

[tu_79]

I'm at least inclined to think that the "no healing" from the Horses could be replaced by one of the negatives of the other ones. It's one thing to have maintenance costs increased on your units (that makes sense), but to have ALL horses unable to heal because one is missing strikes me as problematic: one of these deficiencies is utterly deadly, but the other is a liability. The penalties are not balanced across strategic resources.

Once one of your horsemen is dead, you have this problem no longer.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm at least inclined to think that the "no healing" from the Horses could be replaced by one of the negatives of the other ones. It's one thing to have maintenance costs increased on your units (that makes sense), but to have ALL horses unable to heal because one is missing strikes me as problematic: one of these deficiencies is utterly deadly, but the other is a liability. The penalties are not balanced across strategic resources.

Realism < consistency in this case.

G

 

[Gidoza]

Realism < consistency in this case.

G

Why?

 

[Revolutionist_8]

Think about this way: the number of horses representing how many horses you can resupply your army with. If you have minus of that, that means you can't resupply your horse units with horses any further. Doesn't matter if you have -1 or -10, you can't "send" enough horses for your armies to replenish the fallen ones. Your already existing horse units can still do the damage they are supposed to, they "still have the horses under them" so to say.

I think in game terms the 'can't heal' is the closest to being realistic.

 

[Stalker0]

Honestly I feel we have both right now.

The mechanic works really well. And the notion that lack of resources = you can’t field new troops = the can’t heal, makes plenty of sense to me...at least in the limited economic scope civ offers.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Honestly I feel we have both right now.

The mechanic works really well. And the notion that lack of resources = you can’t field new troops = the can’t heal, makes plenty of sense to me...at least in the limited economic scope civ offers.

It works cause we have all adopted to it. Thats it.
In real, it doesnt really make that much sense. If you have only 9/10 of a ressource, this wouldnt ultimativly leed to a decrease of strenght of all troops. I could agree, if all maximum health would fall to that 9/10 value or the regeneration is decreased. But completly cut to zero? Thats illogical.

 

[Gazebo]

It works cause we have all adopted to it. Thats it.
In real, it doesnt really make that much sense. If you have only 9/10 of a ressource, this wouldnt ultimativly leed to a decrease of strenght of all troops. I could agree, if all maximum health would fall to that 9/10 value or the regeneration is decreased. But completly cut to zero? Thats illogical.

No, it works because it works well and is as effective an example of supply lines as we can have in civ. I’m not budging on this, it works well.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

How do you define

No, it works because it works well and is as effective an example of supply lines as we can have in civ. I’m not budging on this, it works well.

G

I think you cant define it as "working well". You made it this way and we all have resigned with it.
In the current system, if 10 factories need iron, but there are only 9, all 10 factories will stop working. Thats not how supply work.
I dont think you will change anything, I only want to say, its not really realistic.

 

[Stalker0]

How do you define

I think you cant define it as "working well". You made it this way and we all have resigned with it.
In the current system, if 10 factories need iron, but there are only 9, all 10 factories will stop working. Thats not how supply work.
I dont think you will change anything, I only want to say, its not really realistic.

Just as a note that’s not how it works for buildings. Their maintenance goes up but they don’t stop working.

And In the current system, the units don’t stop working. In fact they continue to use the current “supply” without issue. They just can’t get new supplies. That’s a reasonable approximation of things.

And of course you can disband a unit to get your supply right again, you aren’t forced to have all of your units affected if you don’t wish to

 

[Gazebo]

How do you define

I think you cant define it as "working well". You made it this way and we all have resigned with it.
In the current system, if 10 factories need iron, but there are only 9, all 10 factories will stop working. Thats not how supply work.
I dont think you will change anything, I only want to say, its not really realistic.

You have the building system wrong. If you lack horses, that does not make your existing horses cease to fight as well (someone above noted that horses do not get 'sad' if they lack reinforcements, I chuckled at this thought). The lack of horses means that, whenever you go to replenish lost forces, there is no supply. It does not affect the horses that have are already consumed by units on the field if they are at full supply. If supply is lacking, they cannot heal, thus their health and CS are hit as a result.

G