I still haven't played Civ 4, but i agree with you, Danicela... There's a missing high-value resources for middle-game as you've pointed out that there's a lot of resources for opening a finishing.
Yes, there are many beginning ressources : Copper, Iron, Horses...
Many end ressources : Tank thing, Oil, Uranium...
But nothing for middle game.
I'm chilean myself... and the life of salpeter wealth was too short, about fifty years. Well, maybe that's almost one-fourth of chilean independent history... from middle ninetieth century to early twentieth century, when germans developed sintetic salpeter.
Ok, but I mean that for the game, gunpowder/sulphur/salpeter ressource should be used and needed only in Renaissance, for the first gunpowder units, and not after for the high level infantries and marines and tanks.
The ressource won't be so obsolete because, even if you won't need it strategically to build specific units, it can give good bonuses to the square it is in, and other good ressource bonuses when you make a mine or something like that for gunpowder on it, and having another ressource for these bonuses is interesting. (Having Iron mines is always good, because it gives +2 prod, to the square.)
Saltpeter value in such time was not only about gunpowder-making, also about crop fields fertilizers.
This can explain what i said, like Iron, you'll need this ressource for the first gunpowder units, but not for high level units, but the ressource, like Iron, will be good to harvest because it gives bonuses, with his installation that is built on, to the square.
Sintetic salpeter proved be somewhat toxic by the end of eighties... but there where many other subtitutes for saltpeter as fertilizer that had been developed.
Huh, is there any inconvenients/disadvantages to the uranium ?
In reality, it is also very dangerous, i don't know if uranium is dangerous in the game.
If there isn't any means currently to give "toxic" sides to dangerous ressources like Uranium, i don't think there will be "toxic" sides for Salpetre too, but this is an interesting idea to add to the game.
Maybe saltpeter should give a growth advantage to the civilization that posses it, by increasing the fertility of its soils...
In addition to the ability to make the first gunpowder units, the strategic ressource Salpetra (like Iron, copper etc.) will give food/prod/gold bonus to the square, and the building that is built on will give a bigger bonus too, so when you'll put a citizen on the square to gather these ressources, a bonus will be received.
The units, tech tree, andfighting system have changed enough that importing an idea straight from Civ III is ill advised.
Yes, some things have changed, to make the game BETTER.
But how cutting out a good ressource, that was a part of the game, can be good?
The ressource system has been kept, but the salpetre was banned, there is no reasons because salpeter was good.
So what exactly do you want? Civs with Saltpeter producing Riflemen and Cavalry while Civs without Saltpeter are forced to rely on Macemen and Longbowmen?
There are not powerful units that haven't gunpowder weapons which have the same power in the same period ?
If there is not, i can bring this suggestion : Make an unit that is different, and a little less powerful, but that can fight gunpowder units but that don't need gunpowder because he doesn't fight with gunpowder weapons.
If not, i'll say yes, we have to put a limit in the game, if you are weak, and that your kingdom is tiny, bad, and weak, you'll lose, that is the jungle rule, the rule of the strongest, if you want to survive to go further in the game, you'll have to get Salpetre, Renaissance is a good limit to eradicate the weakest players, the game doesn't need to last 3 years, that is the same for Iron copper and horses, you have it, you survive, you don't have it, you lose.
My example with Copper, Iron, and Horses was to show that one does not need all three resources to compete militarily. Even in the absence of all three, there are still alternatives (Archers, Longbowmen) that, while inferior, can at least serve to defend your cities and resources.
Once the age of gunpowder units arrive, there are no such alternatives.
Maybe we'll have to make these alternatives to balance the game, if you want ... in making new units.
But maybe it should have not other alternatives, to make a selection, and kill the weakest players ?
will simply kill the game.
No ...
You exaggerate.
It won't kill the game, it will make the game better, with an interesting choice brought from Civ3 to make the game realistic and the gunpowder units need gunpowder ressource.
It will maybe kill the weakest players, yes.
But that is normal, for this late time of the game, some players have to go out of the game...
Just like it killed Civ 3
No ....
Gunpowder was a good point in Civ3, not a bad one.
Civ3 wasn't killed.
Civ4 has replaced the 3.
The bad things in Civ3 was the absent multiplayer in the stand alone, and the impossibility to save in the expansions' multiplayers.