G&K: My main impressions

[mystikx21]

Just as an input to the strategic resource spreads, wasn't one reason to do this to improve the possible quality and/or number of strategic resource dependent buildings (eg, more useful stables/forges available). That is: if you have a call for 2 iron, and put it on two different squares instead of just one, you have an extra production point available from the forge(s). Ditto for horses and stables (or an extra circus here or there). Now there are other changes to make those more useful in vem, such as stables and forges apply to other resources, but an added bonus was that there were more useful squares as a consequence thus making the building(s) a little more valuable or commonly built.

What can be done differently is imbalancing who gets what type elements such that one civ might have 10 horses and 2 iron and another 10 iron and no horses, or similar scenarios (the oil/alum strike described above). That can be accomplished while also lowering the raw amounts available. I've always had stupid high amounts of resources in vanilla and have no problem with decreasing the counts overall by say 20-25%.

Given that VEM also preferenced the discovery of these resources with the actual usefulness of them in game, I think we could quickly adapt to the knowledge that the nearest oil or iron is somewhere over there and not (yet) in our borders. (Presumably the AI knows how to do this also, as it seems to like attacking cities that I might later discover have iron laying around.)

I'm not sure if there should be some siting preferences for UUs. But it would not be fun to play the Mongols without horses or Rome without iron after all.

 

[Txurce]

What can be done differently is imbalancing who gets what type elements such that one civ might have 10 horses and 2 iron and another 10 iron and no horses, or similar scenarios (the oil/alum strike described above). That can be accomplished while also lowering the raw amounts available.

Given that VEM also preferenced the discovery of these resources with the actual usefulness of them in game, I think we could quickly adapt to the knowledge that the nearest oil or iron is somewhere over there and not (yet) in our borders.

I'm not sure if there should be some siting preferences for UUs. But it would not be fun to play the Mongols without horses or Rome without iron after all.

Your first paragraph seems like a reasonable alternative.

I felt that knowing about deposits for undiscovered resources was an exploit properly reserved for the AI.

I think G&K gives some precedence to siting... but I would have no problem dealing with the challenge of playing Rome and having to go just with ballistas once in a while, or to have to obtain horses before I hit Chivalry with the Mongols. I would also enjoy occasionally rolling though my opponents with a swarm of Legions. Obviously this is strictly personal preference, no matter what side of the divide you fall on.

 

[rhammer640]

I agree that having unpredictable strategic resources would make the game more unpredictable and more fun. Instead of getting bronze working and animal husbandry and being like 'hmmm ok there my iron, theres my horses' it would be more like 'Do I have any iron....Yes!....but no horses, damn.' Makes the game more interested and changes the game every time.

Ideally i would like to see something like

1. no (insert SR here): 10% of starts
2. small amount of SR where you still have to use it sparingly:85%
3. rare large deposit, maybe with requirements to be in really crappy areas so your getting the city maybe mostly just for the depsit: 5%

This would make most games where you would have to use the SR sparingly but also add unpredictability to the start and also the occasional !!!!! moment where you get a bad start but end up with a large deposit.

 

[mystikx21]

Ideally i would like to see something like

1. no (insert SR here): 10% of starts
2. small amount of SR where you still have to use it sparingly:85%
3. rare large deposit, maybe with requirements to be in really crappy areas so your getting the city maybe mostly just for the depsit: 5%

I might disagree with the ratios in here, or the necessity of parking resources in crappy places (doesn't oil or alum already kind of do that? or the coaling stations in VEM?), but I think that overall idea is sound. Sometimes you would get nothing, sometimes you'd get a few, and sometimes you'd have a lot. You would not go into a game more or less knowing I've got about 4-5 strategic iron and horse units each for the early-mid game (or whatever the figures are).

...or to have to obtain horses before I hit Chivalry with the Mongols. I would also enjoy occasionally rolling though my opponents with a swarm of Legions. Obviously this is strictly personal preference, no matter what side of the divide you fall on.

Mongols UA in VEM has some pop for horsemen too with extra movement, so it's not just the Keshiks at Chivalry but any horses. If GK does give some UU preferences, then that would probably satisfy complaints. I would assume that's built in for MP more. I think I would agree it adds some challenge to the game. You'd have a very heavy vanguard Mongol army in GEM trying to get some horses, and once in a while you'd see a swarm of horsemen coming over the hills at you, and so on.

In general
1) anything which reduces the number of strategic resources available increases the number of actual choices needed and the need for decision making. If you've got 20-30 horses by mid-game and 30-40 aluminum in the late game, those are not choices. (now if you've got that much and little to no iron or oil, things could be interesting in other parts of the game). That issue could be ameliorated by changing the upkeep and build costs for units within eras such that there's more imbalances. But the general problem of a perceived resource glut is still there.

2) things that increased the utility of a building that was often useless adds a choice, and the idea of spreading around the number of tiles seems like it did improve these buildings. I think that at least should be preserved if not the balanced starts.

 

[jacktannery]

The problem with strategic resources is that as you expand (which in my case is through war) you quickly reach a point where you have more resources than you will ever need. The only time I think about strategic resources is when I have 4-ish cities in the earlier game; by the mid-game strategic resources are not an issue unless I am playing OCC.

I suspect this is the same for pretty much everyone.

For me, the 'sweet spot' for strategic resources is when finding that first or second horse and iron deposit to build my 3rd or fourth city. I agonise over it. By the time coal/oil appears there are usually 10+ deposits of it instantly in may borders, ditto later strategic resources.

I would love to see an optional element to allow strategic resources to be diminished over time for players with large armies/large empires/high score, so that people like me who know where their 'sweet spot' lies (early classical period) get to retain that feeling throughout the game; this might also act as a 'rubber-band' mechanic helping those at the bottom of the score-chart to claw their way up.

I'd love if there was a tickable option in the 'set-up-a-game' menu for 'late-game strategic resource special', which did the following:
-when its time for coal to be revealed, all coal deposits within the top half of the leading players (in score) is removed.
-ditto oil.
Now that would be a LOT of fun for me.

 

[Ahriman]

The VEM resource placement worked really well; it made things available if you wanted to focus on acquiring them (eg because you had a UU that needed a particular resource), but made them much less abundant in general, which made them more valuable. I'm really surprised to see people wanting to revisit that. To me, this was a settled issue, and nothing in G&K seems to provide a reason to change what worked in VEM.

 

[jacktannery]

Fair enough Ahriman, but let me throw out just one more idea:

Have longswordmen and knights (and all other medieval and later horse units) require 2X horses/steel per unit.

 

[Txurce]

My guess is that it is a settled issue, because that's how Thal likes it. But there was never consensus on it - some people prefer more variety in their games. As some people mentioned recently, playing G&K only reminded us of it. I find VEM's resource placement leads to stale play, because I follow the same approach with a certain civ pretty much every single game; you may feel occasionally not having access to iron leads to stale play. It's personal preference.

 

[Gamewizard]

I too like the randomness of vanilla's resource placement over VEM's. However I think the quantity of everything needs to be reduced. Like jacktannery said, I often reach a point where I have atleast 10 of everything and can field whatever unit I want. So keep it random but no more 7 deposits of coal/oil/aluminum.

 

[Zaldron]

The VEM resource placement worked really well; it made things available if you wanted to focus on acquiring them (eg because you had a UU that needed a particular resource), but made them much less abundant in general, which made them more valuable. I'm really surprised to see people wanting to revisit that. To me, this was a settled issue, and nothing in G&K seems to provide a reason to change what worked in VEM.

I'll second this. The only thing I would even consider changing is adding +1 coal per region.

 

[mystikx21]

The VEM resource placement worked really well; it made things available if you wanted to focus on acquiring them (eg because you had a UU that needed a particular resource), but made them much less abundant in general, which made them more valuable. I'm really surprised to see people wanting to revisit that. To me, this was a settled issue, and nothing in G&K seems to provide a reason to change what worked in VEM.

My suspicion is that some players might want the mechanics for spread/abundance to be separated from balancing resources per region such that one could be removed more so than overhauling the entire structure. (Naturally if that is an overhaul, that's not my priority either. But it could add something to the game here and there).

The only thing I would even consider changing is adding +1 coal per region.

Coal could probably be a little more frequent or random-ish. Picking up those "coaling stations" off continent isn't a terrible way to get more factories up, but it's a tad predictable.

 

[mitsho]

I agree coal can be a pain in the ass to acquire yourself, but often you can get it by trade or city states.

The problem with not having to worry about strategic ressources is mostly a problem of the snowball effect. You are conquering one city after the other, but due to civ5's mechanisms (1 unit per tile + no revolution possible so no need to secure your new lands), you don't need a larger army, mostly. Maybe a second one to fight on two fronts.

So if we need a new use for strategic ressources, it needs to be one that only/mostly is encountered by conquest empires, not?

 

[Tarquelne]

The VEM resource placement worked really well; it made things available if you wanted to focus on acquiring them (eg because you had a UU that needed a particular resource),

Personal play-style is probably involved: How much you emphasize not just the military, but the resource-requiring units. Or how often you "go wide" and have enough territory to ensure something more than your fair share.

I like the way VEM scatters resources and having fewer resources overall. And if I had to chose which to be trapped on a desert island with I'd probably choose VEM's model. However, with VEM I've rarely felt a significant pinch on resources. Especially since I'll usually have alternatives. "I may be low on Iron but of course I've also got Horses..."

CSs are a bit of a confounding factor: I generally seek them for the Luxuries, but the Strategic Resources tend to trickle in too. And they act something like a market for resources, too.

I wonder how the CSs interact with VEM's distribution. Scattering the resources more make them easier to get via CSs.

If I had my druthers - and someone else doing the modding work - I'd look to resource producing buildings to enable a minimum SR level for each civ rather than a non-random map distribution. Perhaps as a national wonder (everyone can get some) or a world wonder. At least past the Ren.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm agnostic on the amount of coal, though I lean towards boosting factories rather than making coal more common. You shouldn't be able to build factories everywhere, but they should be really cost-effective, because they consume the coal resource.
The fact that people say they want more coal makes it sounds like it is working as intended; the resource restriction is binding, you would like to have more factories than you can get coal.

I don't see why we would need a new use for strategic resources; they're for building elite units or high-power buildings (factory, nuclear power plant).

I like the way VEM scatters resources and having fewer resources overall

Right. It seems far superior to be only getting 2 resource copies per tile.

However, with VEM I've rarely felt a significant pinch on resources.

I haven't has as much of a particular resource as I wanted very often in VEM. Particularly for oil (VEM tended a bit too heavily to focus on offshore oil vs onshore oil IMO) but also for others.

I also still find a degree of randomness; there is non-randomness per region, but very often some of a particular resource are off in some space that would make a terrible city site, so it isn't accessible.

 

[Tarquelne]

I haven't has as much of a particular resource as I wanted very often in VEM.

I have that most of the time, even discounting being greedy. While at war I may go after city A rather than city B to get city B's oil, for example. What I'd prefer is more often starting a war to get some desperately needed resources, settling a city, or stealing a CS Ally I'd otherwise ignore.

I wouldn't argue, btw, that getting away from what VEM does is more historical or makes for better gameplay. But the occasional "Oh god, oh god, I don't even see any Iron" is something I enjoy.

I've been playing Fractal for quite awhile. I might try one of the maps that allows you to set resource levels (Continent's Plus?) and select lower resources. (Though I'd rather not have fewer bonus resources.)

I wonder how hard it'd be to mod GEM to drop the code that distributes SRs somewhat evenly while keeping the more-tiles/fewer-on-each feature...

 

[Stalker0]

I too like the randomness of vanilla's resource placement over VEM's. However I think the quantity of everything needs to be reduced.

This is my thought as well.

I like having to trade or go to war to pick up key resources, but having 30+ of another resource is not ideal either.