Feelin bout the resources...

[killaer]

Is anyone else seeing the same thing as me? Strategic resources are WAY more plentiful. In Civ III I just hated the Strategic Resources....I WOULD NEVER HAVE IRON. At other times I wound never have horses...
In the end, My only army was spearmen..who got slaughtered all the time. Unlike that, Now I notice that there are WAY more supplies of Iron...and saltpeper dissapeared o.O
I sorta wanted saltpeper to be in.

 

[warpstorm]

Well, I've already had one game with no iron or copper anywhere near me (incidentally, I lost that one).

 

[suspendinlight]

I don't know. There may be slightly more resources than Civ III but I have had games where neither me nor any of my neighbors have had horses at all.

 

[killaer]

Yeah I agree with the horses part but Iron seems WAY more plentifull...to me in Civ III I lost whenever I had no Iron..

 

[Raskal]

I think horses are a bit too plentiful.

 

[Cironir]

I'd agree that horses are too plentiful. I have not a game so far where I or the AIs had no horses (about ten games)

 

[Dismal]

If you read over the way the game places starting units you'll see that every area around the first city has a number of strategic resources guaranteed. I don't know the specific resources you get (they span all the ages) but that is probably why you are seeing so much - each capital has the same resources (plus others) around it.

 

[Volstag]

Maybe this is simply a product of the wider variety of resources? I've found that unless you're really lucky, or expand a lot, you'll always be wanting something.

 

[Padmewan]

Yes, there's definitely a lot more types of resources which are more than just terrain features but actual tangible and tradable resources, so it "feels" different. In my current game copper is just outside my borders, but I've got iron coming on-line soon, and I'm beelining for Construction to get my elephants online before the AI starts thinking I'm a chump for only having skirmishers!

 

[duxup]

Maybe this is simply a product of the wider variety of resources? I've found that unless you're really lucky, or expand a lot, you'll always be wanting something.

I sounds about right to me and I like that change. You still need to obtain resources, but unlike Civ III you can likely trade for them, or have enough resources of your own to support military action to obtain what you want.

 

[Old Jubilee]

Heh, a semi-funny resource story..

In a hotseat game with my buddy, I found myself on the brink of the industrial age, with the wonderful tanks/aircraft/warships that come along with it, when suddenly I realize..

I have NO oil. Anywhere. I have a fairly good spread of land, 6 cities (I favor a smaller, tightly-connected empire) and there's none of that lovely bubbly black crap anywhere to be found. (I later have the same issue with aluminum, but that's another story). As far as I can see, there are exactly 3 oil sources on the entire standard-sized map, and 2 of them are in my buddy's territory.

We had previously agreed not to go to war with each other, so the only option left to me...culture-flipping the cities that were near the oil resources.


Made for a frustrating but funny game.

 

[TigrisJK]

I don't think resources are all that plentiful. Certainly an improvement over Civ III in certain aspects, but as Old Jubilee stated, sometimes there just isn't any oil.

Or uranium.

Or aluminum.

I've had all three of those problems, even with an expansive empire on a Terra-type map across most of what would be Southern Asia. Or Europe. Or wherever.

The only solution I see to that is a research and conquest to get what you need.

Trade is nice, but... when that country is pumping out tanks and they suddenly declare war on you, and you lose your source of oil...

Oops.

 

[Lord Chambers]

I like the resources availibility more than Civ3. In Civ3 the rarity of certain resources were a very artificial way to promote trade. Without one of those resources you would almost assuredly lose the game on higher difficulty. Not being able to field pikemen, musketmen, (I think riflemen were resource free right?), or Infantry meant you'd lose that war you were invaribly in.

In Civ4, the rock-paper-scissors defense actually would allow you to survive with a particular resource much longer. But regardless, it's better to not have to pay exhorbitant sums or go to war with a country because it has one of the few resources. Civ4 is better, because you usually start with either iron, copper, or horses within three spaces of your settler, and then the other two will be somewhere within the second city range and the third city range.

In my experience, at least one of these three beggining resources is in contested ground between me and another civ. I either have to go through them or cope, because resources aren't SO plentiful that you have an extra to trade.

 

[Old Jubilee]

I dunno. It seems pretty random to me, sometimes there is a painful lack of those critical early resources (iron, copper, horses) and you're often forced to go to war with a power that already HAS those resources..not a pretty picture, esp. at higher difficulty levels. Could possibly be because I favor archipeligo maps.

 

[ytsejam02]

I haven't played enough to know for certain, but it might have to do with difficulty level. Mines set on pretty easy for my first trip thru the game, and I have a ton of resources. I'm only assuming when I bump it to the next couple of levels, there'll be less resources, forcing you to rely on trade, politics, war, etc, etc.

Those tricky Firaxis people!

 

[Good Omens]

I just finished a game where I didn't get horses until 1983. Needless to say, they weren't very useful at that point. The year before, Roosevelt had offered to trade me his horses. For my uranium. After he had just finished the Manhatten Project. I declined politely.

I think it is nice that many units require you to have only one of two resources; for example, some early units require iron or copper. This allows for greater flexibility; if you don't have iron, maybe copper will do for a while.

 

[Khaim]

As far as I can see, there are exactly 3 oil sources on the entire standard-sized map, and 2 of them are in my buddy's territory.

We had previously agreed not to go to war with each other, so the only option left to me...culture-flipping the cities that were near the oil resources.

Er, why didn't you just trade them? If he had 2, he could afford to let you have one...

 

[XionNova]

probably because of the buggy multiplayer trading...?

 

[QuikPik]

I have only played two games thus far but in both there was no coal on the entire planet !! Ironically, in my second game I have 3 sources of oil.

I like the abundance of resources early in the game. In Civ3, you were crippled if you didn't have iron in the early game or saltpeter in the middle game.

 

[Innawerkz]

Just played my first REAL in-depth game last night (after 3 quick 'get the feel' games before) and I couldn't get Iron or Copper to save my life. I had the monopoly on horses, my friend (multiplayer) had 1 Iron for himself, and the AI (Aztecs) had copper.

Made for interesting wars. I had to make allies with my friend to bail me out from the onslaught of spearmen that were taking my horses out handily.

Granted I haven't played enough to learn the 'poor man's war' version in Civ 4 to figure what I could have done for myself, but if this is how it has to be fought at times, I am in love.

The variety of different nations with FORCED different units is great. Unfortunately I was Greek and couldn't build my Phalanx. This went on until they were just on the verge of being obsolete - finally secured the Aztec copper.