Finite Resources - a question...?

[Ahriman]

It does seem that you have an overriding aversion to having to make city by city decisions such as "does City X get the Silk resource or not". Is that micro-management?

Yes, absolutely.

If you don't mind this level of micromanagement, that's fine as a preference. But I personally disagree, and think in general the game should be designed to minimize MM whenever possible.

If I hook up a resource, it should start giving me benefits; I shouldn't have to separately go into a new screen and start selecting check-boxes.
Suppose you have 10 cities and 8 different resources - the number of boxes you have to check or uncheck gets out of control pretty quickly.

Consider what happens if I have 10 cities, and 5 copies of a silk resource, currently allocated to cities 1-5.
a) Suppose that I decide I want to give city 7 the silk. I have to manually go and uncheck one of cities 1-5, and then check city 7.
b) Suppose someone blockades one of my trade routes, and I lose 2 silk. How does the game decide which cities lose it? Do I have to manually go through all the cities to check which ones still have silk or not? Does the game "uncheck" my boxes?

Choosing which unit or buildnig to construct is a lot of micromanagement, though its mitigated by abilities to queue. But its high-importantce, very strategic micromanagement, and it takes up a very large proportion of the player's playtime.
Moving units, and setting construction queues are what take up most of the player's time.

Adding another MM requirement which takes up a similar amount of time, but to a relatively low importance mechanic without really having any interesting strategic impacts, is not worth the player input time. Its unnecessary MM, whereas unit/building construction choices are necessary MM.

Choosing which units and structures to build is an interesting that is fun to make; choosing how to allocate my luxury resources throughout my empire is not.

 

[snowlyon]

No. We're going to a system where a single strategic resource on the map only gives you X copies of the resource. So for example one horse resource might give you 5 horses, so you can build 5 horsemen but to build a 6th you will need a second horse resource.

[5 is an invented arbitrary number for explanatory purposes only. The actual number will no doubt depend on game testing.]

errrmmm...so yes we are going back to a finite supply given your example. 1 Horse Resource = 5 units and then is no longer viable. a 2nd Horse Resource would provide and additional 5 units from it....and so on. or am I missing something?

personally, I like finite resources, adds more depth to game play~

 

[Ahriman]

errrmmm...so yes we are going back to a finite supply given your example. 1 Horse Resource = 5 units and then is no longer viable. a 2nd Horse Resource would provide and additional 5 units from it....and so on. or am I missing something?

The "No" was in response to "are we going to a disappearing resource system like in Civ3?".
Which we aren't.

Please read the posts in order.

We're going to a finite strategic resource system as you describe, and retaining an "infinite" luxury good resource system like in Civ4.

 

[snowlyon]

The "No" was in response to "are we going to a disappearing resource system like in Civ3?".
Which we aren't.

Please read the posts in order.

We're going to a finite strategic resource system as you describe, and retaining an "infinite" luxury good resource system like in Civ4.

lol...easy tex...it is why I asked. and yes, I did read. if you notice, I was refering to the strategic resources just as you showed in your example.

which means...the answer is yes and no. Yes for finite being applied to Strategic and No for Luxury.~

 

[Ahriman]

No. It means the answer to the question in post #78 *is* no.

I never said we weren't moving to a finite resource system. I said we are not moving to a disappearing resource system like Civ3 (where resources would be depleted and disappear from the main map) for either strategic or luxury resources.

"Disappearing resources" and "finite resources" are not the same thing.

 

[snowlyon]

....

can a strategic resource be used forever or is it offering only a set number? if the later than whether the icon dissappears or not, it is definately finite.... it become a matter of semantics otherwise.~

/edit

"Disappearing resources" and "finite resources" are not the same thing.

please define the difference between these two, other than the lil icon being removed from the map...~

 

[Ahriman]

can a strategic resource be used forever or is it offering only a set number? if the later than whether the icon dissappears or not, it is definately finite.... it become a matter of semantics otherwise.~

It can be used forever; the resource provides a "flow", not a "stock".

If I get 1 horse resource and build a pasture on it, that gives me 5 horses. So I will be consuming 0/5 horse units.
I can build up to 5 cavalry units, which will then take me up to 5/5.
If 2 of those units die, then I will be using only 3/5 of my horse resources. I can then rebuild another 2 cavalry units to get back up to 5/5.
But I can't go beyond 5 cavalry units unless I acquire more horses, either from a second horse resource or from trade.

If someone pillages the pasture on my horse resource, I will drop down to 5/0; my cavalry units won't die, but I won't be able to replace them until I rebuild the pasture, and I will suffer higher maintenance costs for these cavalry units.

"Finite resources" as they are implementing them in Civ5 are very different from "depletable resources" as they implemented them in Civ3.

In Civ3, there was a probability that any particular resource could just disappear. This wasn't based on how much you "used" it, or anything like that, it was just randomness. It was a terrible mechanic.

 

[snowlyon]

ah. thank you. hense why I asked.~