GUNPOWDER doesn't require a resource???

[Ravinhood]

What's up with that? That's rediculous, a civ automatically gets gunpowder just because they researched it? hrmmmm I liked the other way, in fact I like all the things requiring some resource to be built, but, that's just my preference.

Something else the 9-1 gunpowder unit doesn't appear all that much better than the maceman 8-1 w/50% bonus to melee. It's definitely not the gunpowder unit it used to be, maybe that is for the good and why it requires no resource. I doubt I will build many of them vs the maceman anyways.

 

[narmox]

AGain, just looking at the #s, it would seem useles.. But think.. all your enemy's "50% bonus against melee units" of his macemen don't work at all against your musketmen

 

[CitizenCain]

What's up with that? That's rediculous, a civ automatically gets gunpowder just because they researched it? hrmmmm I liked the other way, in fact I like all the things requiring some resource to be built, but, that's just my preference.

Considering that in the European age of gunpowder, everyone had access to the means to make it (which included components as common as bird droppings, actually), it always struck me odd that it was a resource in Civ III. Black powder, quite literally, is something you can make out of s**t you pick up off the ground.

 

[Ravinhood]

AGain, just looking at the #s, it would seem useles.. But think.. all your enemy's "50% bonus against melee units" of his macemen don't work at all against your musketmen

EDIT NM I found out why. But, I can pick that +25% bonus vs gunpowder units now can't I?

 

[Jecrell]

EDIT NM I found out why. But, I can pick that +25% bonus vs gunpowder units now can't I?

Yep. They call it "Pinch"!

 

[lugersci]

hmm, i never knew that*(about gunpowder and what not*

 

[abbamouse]

Well all the European nations had gunpowder, but then again they also all had swords, axes, etc. That doesn't mean they didn't need resources to build them. European countries either colonized, conquered, or traded with locations that had tons of accumulated guano. Indeed these nitrate (saltpeter) deposits led to economic booms similar to gold rushes in intensity, which frequently generated international and civil conflict. So needing a resource is more "realistic," even though they may have eliminated this for gameplay purposes.

If you doubt the importance of guano as a resource, do a Google search for guano and war.

 

[CitizenCain]

But, by the same token, when Napoleon ran low on the raw materials to make black powder near the end of his reign... he sent soldiers onto the rooftops of Parisian cathedrals and other stone buildings to collect pigeon droppings. I just meant to say that in general, the components for making black powder were almost universally availiable (or substitutable), so it seems somewhat silly to be making it a resource on par with horses or oil or an important metal or uranium, etc. Granted, some animal droppings are much better than others for nitrate content (and powder quality... but that's true of every component - English black powder generally had a higher muzzle velocity because of the ash wood they used that no one else has access to), but when it comes right down to it, if you're desperate for that magical bullet propelling goodness, you're going to be able to find some large herd of animals whose droppings will do the trick.

And, on an entirely unrelated note... I think it seems somewhat undigified to have that gunpowder resource when I personally know that manufactiring black powder historically included the discovery, procurement, handling and transport of animal feces.

 

[lachiendupape]

and as for the macemen being as effective as musketmen lets face the weapons of those days were more than likely to blow up in your face if they fired at all. It shouldn't be assumed that gunpowder was always an advantage. To be fair there was a recent outcry regarding the British armies rifle not working properlly (M80?) so a maceman could probably do us guys now!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally, gunpowder unit didn't replace melee units like Pikemen, but archers and crossbowmen (thanks to greater penetrative power and less training required - effective range and accuracy was generally worse early on).

 

[CitizenCain]

and as for the macemen being as effective as musketmen lets face the weapons of those days were more than likely to blow up in your face if they fired at all. It shouldn't be assumed that gunpowder was always an advantage. To be fair there was a recent outcry regarding the British armies rifle not working properlly (M80?) so a maceman could probably do us guys now!

Yeah, if the bayonettes, or the sidearms, or the grenades, or 10,000 other automatic rifles that didn't jam miraculously disapeared. (Not really sure what your point was in suggesting a bunch of macemen might be able to take on a bunch of Brits with assault rifles...)

And the weapon that occasionally blew up in the user's face was not a rifle, nor a musket, but an arquebus... which was actually introduced into European warfare as early as the Middle ages, and would not have seen service among the musket and rfile armies that Civ IV represents.

 

[knord]

There is also the little 'bonus' when you attack cities.
Musketmen vs. Walls.

 

[lachiendupape]

Yeah, if the bayonettes, or the sidearms, or the grenades, or 10,000 other automatic rifles that didn't jam miraculously disapeared. (Not really sure what your point was in suggesting a bunch of macemen might be able to take on a bunch of Brits with assault rifles...)

It was kind of a joke, you know light hearted my point being that even the most modern weapons have problems...

And the weapon that occasionally blew up in the user's face was not a rifle, nor a musket, but an arquebus... which was actually introduced into European warfare as early as the Middle ages, and would not have seen service among the musket and rfile armies that Civ IV represents.

...so weapons developed hudreds of years ago would sometimes not have been as effective as their potential

 

[Cironir]

I'd prefer a resource for gunpowder, too. Realism aside, I feel it would add another strategic component to the game. Gunpowder is a pretty big discovery, similar to iron (in the game), so it almost seems like an oversight that you don't need any resources to build gunpowder units.

 

[sickre]

There are too few differences (ie. strength improvements overall) for each new unit.
And by the time you've produced say a musketman, a lot of the time you've already researched the next level of units anyway - on Epic speed.

 

[screwtype]

Something else the 9-1 gunpowder unit doesn't appear all that much better than the maceman 8-1 w/50% bonus to melee. It's definitely not the gunpowder unit it used to be, maybe that is for the good and why it requires no resource. I doubt I will build many of them vs the maceman anyways.

I might be wrong about this, but don't gunpowder units negate the defensive effect of walls and castles? So maybe they're more effective than they appear to be just from the stats.

 

[warpstorm]

Everything can be more effective than the stat number, but yes, they do negate wall bonuses (not cultural defense bonuses, though). This is a bit of a moot point since you are likely going to take down the walls before sending the boys in anyways (at least I do).

 

[Ravinhood]

Still think there should be a resource for musketmen though. Good ole salt peter. haha

 

[Saarud]

I think the balance for musketmen and earlier unit is quite good... maybe perfect. But another strategic resource would be good anyway... I like strategic resources.

The problem with strategic resources is that they are allmighty... if you don't have it or can trade for it you can't build the unit. I do understand why this is but still... I think everybody should be able to build units needing resources (except maybe uranium) but to a cost of 10 times the usual or whatever suits best for that actual resource, civic, religion or whatever.