Fun Civilization Speculation Time!

[Twahn]

It depends when the doubling occurs. Do the Russians actually have twice as many horses, or do they treat them as if they had twice as many?

It could go either way. It's not so much that that the trade partner receives half the horses it's just that they can only receive the actual horses.

Seems to me that it's a better system if they're treated as double, as the alternative creates inconsistencies and is open to abuse with the Russians essentially being able to confer their unique ability onto their trade partners...

Suppose we'll find out soon enough. Or NOT soon enough, especially for us non-Americans.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I get what you mean now. I don't think it works like that, yielding two resources out of a single plot. I think they yield one resource as everyone else, but for them it gives 10 unints/buildings instead of 5. The difference is when they have an odd number of resources, since they can't trade half a resource. Otherwise, just trade half the resources and the remaining 'make up' for them (if you compare to how other civs have it). And an even bigger advantage for the Russian, is that if they want more horses, they get twice as much bang for the buck for trading with others, since the other civs shouldn't really value a resource more just because Russians get more out of it.

Here's the quote:

Horse, Iron and Uranium Resources provide double quantity

It's not very clear (as many other descriptions), but still it can't be read as "Double amount of units per resource".

 

[Szpilman]

Here's the quote:
It's not very clear (as many other descriptions), but still it can't be read as "Double amount of units per resource".

Really, no? I read it precisely as "resources provide double quantity [of units]".
Of course, it's very weakly worded and we really can't know, but I think the way I see it is possible just as the way you see it, from the phrase you quoted.

Have you seen the unit limit numbers in the UI? It's akin to population/unit limts in RTS games. The way I see it, the easiest and most logical way to implement the Russian ability, is simply to double that quantity number in the UI. It's the easiest way to control it, and to ensure that Russians and only them get their bonus.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Really, no? I read it precisely as "resources provide double quantity [of units]".
Of course, it's very weakly worded and we really can't know, but I think the way I see it is possible just as the way you see it, from the phrase you quoted.

Have you seen the unit limit numbers in the UI? It's akin to population/unit limts in RTS games. The way I see it, the easiest and most logical way to implement the Russian ability, is simply to double that quantity number in the UI. It's the easiest way to control it, and to ensure that Russians and only them get their bonus.

By adding words any meaning could be created
No, the only logical reading is what resources provide double quantity of resources.
We know, what regular resources provide 2, 4 or 6 resources (weird phrase, I know), so for Russia they'll provide 4, 8 or 12 respectively.

 

[Szpilman]

By adding words any meaning could be created
No, the only logical reading is what resources provide double quantity of resources.
We know, what regular resources provide 2, 4 or 6 resources (weird phrase, I know), so for Russia they'll provide 4, 8 or 12 respectively.

You can phrase it better as "a plot provides X resources". These numbers, 2, 4 and 6, are you using as an example or have you read that somewhere? I thought that, for a non-russian, any strategic plot would only provide 1 resource. Is that not so?

 

[stealth_nsk]

You can phrase it better as "a plot provides X resources". These numbers, 2, 4 and 6, are you using as an example or have you read that somewhere? I thought that, for a non-russian, any strategic plot would only provide 1 resource. Is that not so?

These numbers are correct:

We can see in the cursor-rollover tooltips that pastures with 2 horses provide 2 points, and those with 4 horses provide 4 points.

Like Horses, Iron occurs in deposits of different sizes: some provide 2 points of the resource, and others 4 (and they are visually much larger).

Here: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_resources.html

And 6 was reported by one of playtesters recently. Probably they are 3 and 6 instead of 2 and 4 now.

 

[Thyrwyn]

You can phrase it better as "a plot provides X resources". These numbers, 2, 4 and 6, are you using as an example or have you read that somewhere? I thought that, for a non-russian, any strategic plot would only provide 1 resource. Is that not so?

That is not so. 2, 4, and 6 are the numbers we have seen

 

[Disgustipated]

We'll have to bump this thread in 6 months to a year and see how accurate any of this was. It might be fun.

I wonder if there are any old Civ4 threads before the game was released similar to this. I wonder just how wrong they were. Might be good for a chuckle.

 

[_hero_]

These numbers are correct:





Here: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_resources.html

And 6 was reported by one of playtesters recently. Probably they are 3 and 6 instead of 2 and 4 now.

I take "2 horses provide 2 points" and think points must be how many total you can use, whereas the 2 horses are how many resources you have. So for the Russians they would have 2 horses provide 4 points, rather than two points, however they still only have two horses which they can trade away rather than having 4 horse resources.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I take "2 horses provide 2 points" and think points must be how many total you can use, whereas the 2 horses are how many resources you have. So for the Russians they would have 2 horses provide 4 points, rather than two points, however they still only have two horses which they can trade away rather than having 4 horse resources.

That's even more insane
No, horses on tiles are just graphical representation, you can't actually trade them! You trade resources gathered from the tile

 

[_hero_]

France

The French seem to be one gigantic build-up to a Renaissance
military explosion. Beginning by building more cities to really
take advantage of the extra culture, and then putting more and
more of that culture into military policies seems to be the way
of things for the French player.

I disagree with your take on France. Yes they have a military advantage due to their UUs, but their UA allows them to pursue any victory depending on what social policy branch they pursue. France could very easily use their UA to get ahead in tech, culture, diplomacy, expansion, or economy simply by going down a different route than military policies. It wouldn't necessarily be a waste of their UUs to be more defensive. Getting that bonus outside of territory like the Foreign Legion does, also means they can keep their armies just outside their territory and prevent the enemy from ever getting in and pillaging and disrupting cities.

To paint France as a strictly military civ is misguided.

 

[_hero_]

That's even more insane
No, horses on tiles are just graphical representation, you can't actually trade them! You trade resources gathered from the tile

I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the number of horses you have reflects the diplomatic resource. The number of points reflects the consumable.

Going away from horses, perhaps one Uranium provides 5 points for a normal civ, but 10 points for Russia.

Say Russia had 3 Uranium, they would have 30 points with which to build units, whereas another civ would have 15. But Russia would still have 3 Uranium with which to trade just like all the other civs. That is not crazy to me it makes perfect sense from a programming and grammatical standpoint, otherwise why even mention how many "points" a resource provides rather than just mentioning that you have that resource?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the number of horses you have reflects the diplomatic resource. The number of points reflects the consumable.

So, actually if Russians sell 2 horses, the other party receives only 1?
I really don't think adding separate "diplomatic resource" has any reasons.

 

[_hero_]

So, actually if Russians sell 2 horses, the other party receives only 1?
I really don't think adding separate "diplomatic resource" has any reasons.

Well, if Russia sells 2 Horses, they'd lose 4 points, but the other Civ would gain 2 points, so the other civ would get the equivalent of the resource had they been harvesting it themselves and Russia would lose the equivalent of having it taken away from them. Makes sense to me.

And if resources provide more than one point, then it makes much sense to seperate it. Otherwise you mine one Iron and get 3 points, you can turn around and trade single points of Iron up between 2 civs and keep one for yourself. Then the other civ has 1/3 an Iron resource? That doesn't really make sense.

 

[Polobo]

From my understanding:
The number of horses havested equals the number available for consumption.

Consumption Includes:
Constructing a resource-linked building (i.e., barracks, armory)
Constructing a resource-linked unit (i.e., longswordsman)
Trading to another civ/city-state

I don't really see why you would not want to have consumption include "Trading"; or rather that you'd trade the "pre-harvested" resource. While it may confer the ability to others (indirectly) that is part of the advantage - you get to aid your allies with resources while not seriously hampering your own ability to produce buildings and units. The added gold that can be had by trading is a valuable benefit as well. With the various complaints I've been reading about the Russian UA I don't see why further hampering it would be considered a good thing.

 

[Polobo]

And if resources provide more than one point, then it makes much sense to seperate it. Otherwise you mine one Iron and get 3 points, you can turn around and trade single points of Iron up between 2 civs and keep one for yourself. Then the other civ has 1/3 an Iron resource? That doesn't really make sense.

You ARE mining more than one iron, it just happens they all exist within the same mine/tile.

Resources are non-exhaustable (for better and worse) so what is really being depicted is the volume of a resource that can be extracted over a given period of time.

Horses work well for an example.

If you have a herd of 1000 horses you could harvest 400 of them without causing a pemanent population decline.

If you have 2000 horses you can harvest 800, and so forth.

In the end it is a game mechanic and one that works fairly well; otherwise you would end up with almost every tile in the game having a special resource in order for all players to field decent militaries.

Another thought; a grassland tile can provide anywhere from 2-5 food without resources. This is due both to natural and technological consideration. What they are doing with strategic resources is simply an extension of this mechanic (same goes for gold - you get multiple individual units from the same tile that are independent of each other).

 

[Polobo]

"Siberian Riches" - the land the Russians inhabit magically seem to have a unusually abundant amout of (specific) resources; or maybe the Russians are naturally more productive at extracting resources since they are a "more hardy" people than other Civs and are willing to work harder/longer.

 

[SuperSmash5]

I dislike this notion of how the Greeks keep getting stereotyped as the "shoe-in" for the diplomatic victory and then completely forgotten about. The true power of Greece lies in it's ridiculous UUs. The Hoplite has a strength of 9 and can chew through any unit until swordsmen. They're don't need a resource and are only two techs away so they can easily be spammed all over the place to clobber any nearby opponents. After that there's the Companion Cavalry which has a strength of 14. The only classical unit that has favorable odds over it is the Persian Immortal with the Companion Cavalry being even stronger than the Roman Legion. Let's also not forget that one of the benefits of befriending city states includes free units during war time. The Greeks should not waste their military advantage consolidating borders or attacking barbarians to befriend city states. They're a rushing civ that is on par if not better than Rome or Egypt.

 

[globalempire]

what hero is saying makes sense to me

 

[Some guy]

If Songhai gets triple commerce benefit from razing cities, then it could be in strategic interest for Songhai players to befriend City-States and maybe even work for diplomatic victories b/c they can work to eliminate opposing voters and you can't raze City-States.