Exploration & Discovery of Strategic Resources

[knowltok]

After the first time a rival built a city that wiped out my colony, I don;t build them anymore. They are not secure, and the land hungry AI will put a city next to them. I don't know whether this is a specific strategy or just the AI's tendancy to settle all of the open land. I think it is something that needs fixed in the patch, because it is a great concept. Maybe the colony could have a small radius itself. I also think that forts should have a radius. That or some way of claiming large chunks of land without settlers.

 

[Moeniir]

I had the same problem... my only source of iron was between two of my cities which were just far enough apart that after a couple of cultural expansions, there was still a narrow strip of 'unclaimed' land between them, containing my iron and therefore my colony. Because this was on a long, thin peninsula, I didn't want to drop a city in there (in retrospect, I should have).

At any rate, one of the AI players sailed a galley past, and then must've traded world maps with the other guys, because pretty soon, they're all sailing galleys to that spot. There were two squares on the coast where a unit could come ashore that were not inside my national borders... the colony square and another. Each time the 'invasion' was the same, regardless of civ, and regardless of whether we were at war. The galley sails up, and a spearman lands in the non-colony square (maybe you cant come ashore onto a colony, considered an amphibious assault?) and then a settler would come ashore in the same square.

If I was at war with the civ, I would march out an Immortals unit (playing as Persia) from the closest city and kill them before they could settle a city next turn. If not at war, I would bully them in diplomacy, trying to goad them into war (never worked, I always declared war) then kill the invaders (earning two workers each time from the captured settler) and then sue for peace. I had no choice... this was my only iron source, and no Iron = no Immortals, and no Immortals = no crushing the worthless Aztec Scum! Mwuhahahaha......!

Sorry. At any rate, I quickly learned to defend both the colony square and the other square, to totally prevent landings from sea. (Being on a long penisula, I had long ago sealed my borders to the south from the WORTHLESS AZTEC SCU....

Ahem, yes. As a general principal, in future games, any single-source strategic resource i have that is not well within my borders and highly defensible will not only have a defender in the colony square, but also a strong attack/defense unit (like immortal in ancient times) or combined arms pair (archer/spearman) on hand to chase away WORTHLESS AZTE.., i mean, potential squatters.

 

[knowltok]

What you are saying will work, but what about when you don't want to be at war with whoever lands? In you case you could station units in both squares, thus preventing landings, but in many cases the route will be more accessible, and forming a wall will not be cost effective. Better IMHO to build a city. Even if it will be in a spot that never gets above 2 pop., your resource is more secure, and occasionally the city can produce something.

 

[benn]

Originally posted by lkendter
Sorry for multiple post on this one. But this question keeps showing up all over the place.


When I played around with the map editor, ALL resources where placed initially. The map already had everything up to Uranium.

The only thing that isn't clear - If a resource is exhausted. I know it will show back up elsewhere. That may require the correction terrain.

If somebody saw rubber show up in a grasslands they cleared from jungle, this would clearly demonstrate your point.

 

[Spray]

If I find a really important resource (iron, saltpeter) in an area that might be in contention sooner or later I build the city directly on top of the resource - NOT next to it. Access to the resource is the most important thing, I am willing to give up some production. Since iron is mostly found on hills it also adds to the defense of the city.

 

[Gray]

I have gotten out of building colonies for both strat resources and luxuries. I just go in and build a city, no matter what the terrain type. Here is my line of thinking; basically no matter what type of tile you are on-you can support a size 1 or a size 2 city. In the city I build a temple, walls, and maybe a harbor if it is on the ocean. These cities do not need to be huge (bigger than 6) since you no longer lose a city to attack unless all you units are killed. So, you can station large numbers of troops in a size 1 city and they can heal there if attacked. Plus, if you have to build a colony overseas you need a city with a harbor or airport anyway to get that resource back to your empire—why not just build a darn city. I like the idea of a colony, it is quaint and it throws a little variety into the mix. But since the AI can assimilate your resources and your colony by building a city---forget it… I just make a city and keep them the heck out…

If you allow your colony cities to get larger than size one, then you may want to build a marketplace to take advantage of the happiness luxuries bring and maybe a courthouse as well. However, if you are far from your empire corruption will be a problem-so getting bigger than size 6 is probably worthless, the same applies to building a lot of stuff there that costs money (i.e. universities and factories and such…)

 

[Buecephalus]

I've posted several threads on this topic. People keep saying, it's because you aren't playing with enough civs!
Bull$@#*!
The game I'm playing right now has a total of 8 civs, there are two sources of oil on the "huge" map I'm playing and one source of coal, all of which are in enemy territory and yes I've explored all of the landmasses. The most frustrating thing is that no matter where you build, gambling on resources showing up, it never happens.

 

[R3dKnight]

Here's one tip: Play on small map...MUCH easier and less frustrating...

For starters and getting used to the mechanics, it's better to try Small maps rather than huge ones..why? Because it's hard to see whether you screw up overall in huge maps cuz it's hard to meet other civs early in the game and the map is SO BIG.

Let me remind you one factor that is crucial in this game: Expansion. Agressive but do not overstretch yourself.
These strategical resources gives a new dimension in the game...One that changes the rule entirely. You gotta be brave this time...Exploring around, and finding close patches of resources and settle down quickly. My tip: build warrior then a settler quickly but do not hurry the production unless necessary.

I recommend you take an Expansionist Civ so you can use the Scout to gain recon advantage. Basically you want to find best spots and usually they are located near rivers. If you can't find any strategic resources, don't worry. Horses and Iron are quite common and adequate for your offensive and defensive needs(Knights and Pikeman). You can use your money to trade with other Civs..Last time I played, I traded Money for Salpeter from the French and used those 20 turns to build up on Musketeers and Cavalry.

Don't rely too much on your neighbours...once you get the military units you need, go get a more stable source of Resources. Take out your neighbour's colony. (in my case, the British) Once done, you have the option to wipe out the enemy at your discretion or sue for peace and continue with your original plans. Don't worry about late game too much, the Middle Ages takes quite a while to pass.

I hope I don't get too off topic...enjoy the game! And remember: TRADE. Money plays a HUGE part in Civ III.