Health and Resources

[cfusi49]

People have already talked and argued over relgion which was my biggest disapointment. But in Civ 5, I just can't understand why their is no health and why they took out certain resources. If anything it should seem that they should add resources, and I'm talking about luxery, bonus (health), and strategic resources. Like why is there no copper, corn, pigs, etc. If they added more resource much more of the game would become more tatical. Health was just an extra benifit of civ 4 but it made it much more interesting and allowed for more trading allowing for better dipomacy. It would seem though that someone would come up with a good idea for health and add more resources.

Also I think that certain units should cost more than one type of resource, such as the ironclad. The ironclad only requires coal, I think that is stupid, why doesn't it require iron it is literally in the name, IRONclad.

I'm not here to bash the game, because I think it is a great game, but i just have a few issues with it.

Anyone agree?

 

[woodshadows]

People have already talked and argued over relgion which was my biggest disapointment. But in Civ 5, I just can't understand why their is no health and why they took out certain resources. If anything it should seem that they should add resources, and I'm talking about luxery, bonus (health), and strategic resources. Like why is there no copper, corn, pigs, etc. If they added more resource much more of the game would become more tatical. Health was just an extra benifit of civ 4 but it made it much more interesting and allowed for more trading allowing for better dipomacy. It would seem though that someone would come up with a good idea for health and add more resources.

Also I think that certain units should cost more than one type of resource, such as the ironclad. The ironclad only requires coal, I think that is stupid, why doesn't it require iron it is literally in the name, IRONclad.

I'm not here to bash the game, because I think it is a great game, but i just have a few issues with it.

Anyone agree?

Or, you know, iron, being the 6th most abundant element in the universe, maybe shouldn't be a 'strategic resource' at all? I know this is supposed to facilitate strategic depth etc, but it's kind of ridiculous anyhow and makes things just that much easier for the human player to exploit. How fun is it to locate the iron deposits in your future enemies lands/city state allies lands, have a couple horsemen outside the borders ready to swoop in and pillage and suddenly their units suffer a 50% resource penalty strength modifier! I know this is just a game and it doesn't need to reflect accurately reality or anything, but there's also the contention made by many historians that bronze weapons were actually stronger than iron weapons.

On another note, someone please fix this 'bug' that lets me trade everything to the ai for all of their gold before declaring war. I feel so cheap doing it, yet I feel so foolish not to avail myself of it either.

 

[Junuxx]

I know this is just a game and it doesn't need to reflect accurately reality or anything, but there's also the contention made by many historians that bronze weapons were actually stronger than iron weapons.

I have never heard of this, can you give me a source?

As far as I know, iron weapons did require much more maintenance to keep sharp and rust-free, but a well-kept iron sword should literally destroy comparable bronze weapons and armor.

 

[woodshadows]

I have never heard of this, can you give me a source?

As far as I know, iron weapons did require much more maintenance to keep sharp and rust-free, but a well-kept iron sword should literally destroy comparable bronze weapons and armor.

I don't have books in front of me, but here is the watered down wikipedia version:

"Iron had a distinct advantage over bronze in warfare implements. It was much harder and more durable than bronze, although susceptible to rust. However, this is contested. Hittitologist Trevor Bryce argues that before advanced iron-working techniques were developed in Europe and India, cast-iron weapons used by early Mesopotamian armies had a tendency to shatter in combat, due to their high carbon content."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron

 

[CYZ]

I don't have books in front of me, but here is the watered down wikipedia version:

"Iron had a distinct advantage over bronze in warfare implements. It was much harder and more durable than bronze, although susceptible to rust. However, this is contested. Hittitologist Trevor Bryce argues that before advanced iron-working techniques were developed in Europe and India, cast-iron weapons used by early Mesopotamian armies had a tendency to shatter in combat, due to their high carbon content."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron

I would say those are some of the earliest iron weapons. Obviously the technique wasn't advanced far enough to compete with bronze weapons of the time.

I mean, the very first firearms didn't cut it against the more advanced crossbows (or even normal- or longbows) which had been developed and perfected for eras.

 

[Junuxx]

Hittitologist Trevor Bryce argues that before advanced iron-working techniques were developed in Europe and India, cast-iron weapons used by early Mesopotamian armies had a tendency to shatter in combat, due to their high carbon content."

Before iron weapons were any good, they were bad.

Begging the question?