Gamespot Update

[Tatran]

I like their idea with the artillery damaging all units in the stack.

Maybe artillery will be too devastating this way.
In Call to Power 2 you could lose 2 or 3 stacks within
a few turns because the artillery units.
(Off topic) In Warcraft 3,I'm already avoiding units like
the Bloodmage with Flamestrike by simply building air units.
Losing a whole army,while the opponent's army survives,
means in a lot of games a defeat.
Hopefully there is a target selection,so the artillery units can
be taken out first.

 

[bkwrm79]

It sounds like they're using the SMAC artillery model. I'm glad; it works really well in that game. It's a good compromise between Civ II and III, as far as the advantages/disadvantages of stacking.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, been a while since I played SMAC-can you remind us of how artillery worked in that game Bkwrm? It might help to allay some people's concerns.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

What is the point of having "strategic resources" if they appear close to you? It would be same as having them not at all.

completely agree with you here. I hope the statement is simply wrong.

as for SoD and artillery, if people do not know the might of arty, then they simply don't know how to use them (in Civ3 that is). If artillery would be able to damage a whole stack in Civ4, that would make them even more powerful. Hope they told that the AI as well, since in Civ3, AI never understood the power of it.

 

[Tatran]

It sounds like they're using the SMAC artillery model. I'm glad; it works really well in that game. It's a good compromise between Civ II and III, as far as the advantages/disadvantages of stacking.

The AIs used it more in SMAC then I did.
I'm not sure,but didn't get the artillery units a bonus on higher
ground?(+25%).

 

[Ramalhão]

What is the point of having "strategic resources" if they appear close to you? It would be same as having them not at all.

As far as I understood, resources will be spread better than it was in Civ3.

Example: last game I finished, all rubber was in only one continent and I only had it because I destroyed Bizantines (which had 3 sources). Korea, the "survivor", had another 2 sources, while the other continent, with 5 countries had only 1. Even having 35% of the whole world, I didn't have any supply of oil, which I had to trade for tech . Korea had 2 sources of oil while all other sources were in the other continent. I also had 2 sources of coal, while Korea had 1 and other continent 2 or 3. I also had 4 sources of iron and 3 sources of horses, most of them somewhat near where I began. The resources were not spread very well, as you can see.

Most games I have there's always the same problem. In Civ3 forum, people complain about it, so I think this issue is what will be corrected. Surely you'll have to fight/trade for some resources, but at least one of each resource will appear near to start locations.

If your thought is correct, we'll just have to get enemy capitals to get their resources . I doubt it will happen.

 

[Victus]

While I think starting points should have a slightly higher chance of having resources near them (to avoid being stuck in the middle of nowhere with nothing), as I understand it starting locations are being used as resource magnets.

Doesn't work for me since about 50% of my CivIII wars were over expansion to acquire more resources.

My major consern with CivIV is that they will dumb it down to a point where it will just be another RTS game, in which case there are others I would buy.

 

[ogmoir]

I hope we will be able to distribute resources as unevenly as in CivIII if we wish to. Most of my games have been mostly peaceful (and there have been a lot of them ), as I like to concentrate on culture, peaceful expansion and all that wussy stuff, but I like to wage wars to get hold of a resource that I don't have a source of in my territory. If all resources would be available to me through fast early expansion, that would take much out of the thrill of the military aspect of the game for me.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Having re-read the section on Strategic Resources again, it really does read like they mean that no Civ will start the game without at least one Strategic Resource near them!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

Having re-read the section on Strategic Resources again, it really does read like they mean that no Civ will start the game without at least one Strategic Resource near them!!

and do you agree with me that this takes out a lot of fun?

last game I finished, all rubber was in only one continent and I only had it because I destroyed Bizantines (which had 3 sources). Korea, the "survivor", had another 2 sources, while the other continent, with 5 countries had only 1. Even having 35% of the whole world, I didn't have any supply of oil, which I had to trade for tech . Korea had 2 sources of oil while all other sources were in the other continent. I also had 2 sources of coal, while Korea had 1 and other continent 2 or 3. I also had 4 sources of iron and 3 sources of horses, most of them somewhat near where I began. The resources were not spread very well, as you can see.

well, to me that sound like the real world.
horses were unknown in southern central america, oil is really NOT evenly spread on our planet and this is the BIGGEST issue these days, causing war, tensions and tremendous wealth (for those who have it). Germany was more or less deprived of natural resources and that shifted the balance in WW2. tell me which resource is actually evenly spread on this planet. And even, if it wasn't, the game wouldn't be fun if the resource element is eliminated.
For me, the thrill far exceeds the frustration over resources. Without them, games will be far more repetitive I do fear.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, you tell me ThERat. If you played an entire game of CivIII, and found that you had no iron, saltpetre, coal, oil, horses, rubber or uranium would you be happy about that? It sounds to me as though, in Civ4, a civ will have at least ONE of these resources at some point in the game, but not all. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if a nation who got horses and iron at the start of the game found himself with no source of oil or uranium in the modern age.
Also, remember that, just because you might start with a resource close by, does not mean that the player will have access to it without the proper tech (in fact, I feel certain that we won't). Lastly, we still don't know nearly enough about how resources will work in Civ4-in terms of supply vs demand. I want to find out more before I make a final judgement on this matter.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

@TheRat and co.: No, I think with strategic resources, they are ensuring that each civ always starts with one of any kind. So one civ starts near oil whilst another near horses. They've said absolutely nothing about the spread of individual resources across the world, or even how resources work in Civ 4. At least get all the facts before making your decision.

 

[Willem]

How many of you consider this new element that means each have their resources "close by" instead of spreading them like they are in real world, fun?

It all depends on how "close by" they are. If they're sitting right next to your Palace, then sure it will take some of the strategy away from the game. But if you have to spend 10-20 turns building a colony to a crucial resource, then it will still add something. In my Civ 3 mod I have fairly abundant resources, more so than the default. And it can still be a challenge connecting that Iron resource so that I can build Swordsman to repel an attack from some other civ. And there will still be the option of cutting off a resource of a civ that you're at war with, crippling his military ability. I think this option is better than having no resources at all in a large area, while someone else has tons.

 

[ThERat]

Well, you tell me ThERat. If you played an entire game of CivIII, and found that you had no iron, saltpetre, coal, oil, horses, rubber or uranium would you be happy about that?

now, tell me, how often does that happen on a continent or normal archipelago in Civ3? extremely rare. Sometimes, you can judge the terrain (hilly or desert/plains) where the resources 'could' be.
Thats said, we had one game (Goz8 - silence is golden), where we did not have iron and salt and we had a very tough time due to our variant. Negotiation would have gotten us some.
But we had rubber, that others didn't have. So, I for myself have not have had any normal game without ANY one resource. Did you guys?

Ok, let me check the original statement:

All civilizations will start with strategic resources close by

this doesn't tell us whether it means ALL or SOME, but honestly, I does not sound like 1 either.

 

[mudblood]

I agree with Aussie Lurker here. Why would they have a feature like strategic resources which one has to fight for, and then set the game up to completely defeat that purpose? And I have definitely played games, especially on huge maps, where there were no resources within a two city radius of my capital. It happens. I think the minimal explanation is the logical explanation: they're making sure each civ has at least one stragetic resource.

On another topic. They say they've removed the feature that allowed a civ that converts another civ's city to have sight lines from that city. Which is cool, because I really didn't like that. But they didn't mention Holy Cities. Think they left LOS in for them?

 

[warpstorm]

For MP games a fair distribution would alleviate the frustration of knowing you are going to lose and not being able to do much about it when your fledgling empire has no strategics in it and your opponent does.

In SP, I think it just adds to the challenge and am happy witht eh current 'clumping' of strategics.

 

[Commander Bello]

For MP games a fair distribution would alleviate the frustration of knowing you are going to lose and not being able to do much about it when your fledgling empire has no strategics in it and your opponent does.

In SP, I think it just adds to the challenge and am happy witht eh current 'clumping' of strategics.

As there is now the "alliance" victory condition, the "clumping" seems to be less a concern even in MP games.
Just an assumption....

 

[ThERat]

And I have definitely played games, especially on huge maps, where there were no resources within a two city radius of my capital.

I mean, it's a huge map, do you expect a resource so close? I am telling you, the fun part of Civ is to ensure to get those resources (at least for me) and the joy of having secured it.

But well, let's all just wait for more clarification about it, maybe their PR guy just didn't really think much about his comment.

 

[warpstorm]

That could be. Jesse isn't the technical guy.

 

[Ramalhão]

and do you agree with me that this takes out a lot of fun?

It takes some part of fun. It's very unfun to start in a location without one at least one resource, mainly in the beginning. It unbalances the whole game in favor of some civilizations, while the resourceless is destined to extinction.

well, to me that sound like the real world.
horses were unknown in southern central america, oil is really NOT evenly spread on our planet and this is the BIGGEST issue these days, causing war, tensions and tremendous wealth (for those who have it). Germany was more or less deprived of natural resources and that shifted the balance in WW2. tell me which resource is actually evenly spread on this planet. And even, if it wasn't, the game wouldn't be fun if the resource element is eliminated.
For me, the thrill far exceeds the frustration over resources. Without them, games will be far more repetitive I do fear.

Horses didn't exist in whole America. Spanish conquerors had to get space in their ships (to put the gold/silver they got) and left horses behind. That's how indians got horse here. Oil is spread on whole planet, but in some places it's easier to get. I'm not sure about Europe, but you can find oil in all other continents. Rubber really just existed in one continent, in American jungles, but english smuggled it to Asia.

On the other side, saltpeter, coal and iron are very common, but these resources are "uncommon" to balance the game, due their power.

I know some part of the fun is really to get the strategic resources you don't have, but it's very unfun to have almost none of them. But even the luxury resources are unfun when you don't have at least one: unhappiness will domain your civ in this case when you couldn't trade any luxury resource. And unhappiness is greater at harder levels.