How should camels be represented

[Force44]

I would like to continue this discussion in a seperate thread because it conflicts with the aims stated in the OP.

Camels are not food "staples". Yes, they do feed semi-nomadic peoples, but no, they are not the staple food of city dwellers (what Civ4 actually depicts). No one eats camel meat in urban centres in the Middle East (incl. North Africa). One food stand, does not a staple make (most likely the owner coming from rural Tunisia).

Production & Commerce make the most sense, as they were used as very cheap long distance transport, but also in urban transportation (moving goods for construction etc). If Horses provide production, Camels should do so just as much.

Also none of your arguments make sense for a health bonus. Camel urine, and other parts of a camel are used in medicine, but again this is restricted to semi/pastoral nomadic peoples, most of whom most likely don't have access to other food/medicine types, like urban city dwellers would.

TL;DR: Urban Dwellers & Agriculturalists (most of the population) =/= (Semi/Pastoral) Nomadic Peoples (not depicted in the game).

What it boils down to is that camels are an important food resource in an economy smaller than most other economies in civIV.

That they are smaller does not disqualify them to be represented.

~​

In the mod they are intended in their current incarnation as an alternative for sheep.

You have a really hard time making camels a strategic resource and cows and sheep not. (oxen were used in warfare, sheepskins were used in the greek galleys powered by oars)

Horses are a bit an anomaly as they share the characteristics of cows and sheep, but a lot of units are tied to them in game (what probably is why they are a strategic resource in the first place.)

~​

In civIV a resource appears to be a part of one of three categories.

food, provides
luxery, provides
strategic resource, provides the ability to build units.

I can understand if you want to see camels as a strategic resource (a prerequisite for a unit)

But how many different camel varieties do you want to introduce? There are a lot of horse varieties in the game. And what niche do you want them to fulfill? And do you feel comfortable with that niche being unfulfillable in areas without acces to camels?

My preference is still over and strategic resource.

 

[DarkLunaPhantom]

In civIV a resource appears to be a part of one of three categories.

food, provides
luxery, provides
strategic resource, provides the ability to build units.

Ivory is in more than 1 category.

 

[Force44]

Ivory is in more than 1 category.

Yes, I didn't think of that.

It gives if I recall correctly.

There are not a lot of different trunks you can build (yet) so I guess this supports the argument for camels yielding

(or probably even ? I bet someone could argue camels should yield
Eventually we'll just have to make a poll what would be the most appropriate (categorical) yield for Leoreth to ignore and just implement what he likes best. (<- as I personally think he should))

 

[wololo]

I think camels should give more commerce than production. Also it would be neat if they would give +1 trade route when worked by a city.

 

[Force44]

Did you post this idea before ? I imagine having read the suggestion before.

I like the idea.

something like

Camels

+1


camp

+1

+1
+1
+1

+1 traderoute within cityradius/when worked

(this is comparable to a pasture on sheep which gives one food more but one production less and ofc no trade route)

 

[Malchar]

Extra trade routes would be overpowered for Arabia. They're already a monster, and getting +commerce on each of their crappy desert cities would be exactly what they need to run away with the game.

Just give the improved camel tile +commerce instead of a trade route.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Camels need to do something besides boosting the local tile yield, because otherwise there is no point in adding them as a resource because Oasises achieve the same thing as they would. Neither happiness nor health makes much sense, which means it must be a strategic resource. As such it has to enable a unit of some kind. While that might be a military unit or several, I actually think it would make more sense to add a new Caravan unit that functions as a mini Great Merchant that requires the camel resource.

 

[Force44]

~​

Before continuing this discussion/conversation about what a camels resource should look like I'd like to state that I can't make any promises about what will turn up in the game.

I made this thread because there seemed to be a need for people to diverge off topic in the original thread.

It is up to Leoreth what he puts in the mod or not. He will probably read this thread once, but he never asked for this (kind of) input.

~​

@ Malchar

I wonder Is 1 additional traderoute for 1 city (and tied to the locations and the amount of the camels) really that much stronger than 2 commerce?

But I do appreciate your concern for overpoweredness.


so something like

Camels

+1
+1

camp

+1

+1
+2
+1


sheep and oasis bonus under the spoiler for comparison

Spoiler :

sheep

+1

pasture

+1

+2
+1


oasis

+3
+1
+ ability to build cottages on the tile

@ ImpKnoedel

That is also a very nice idea.


Could you elaborate a bit on the features for the minimerchant you had in mind?

(I picture them (atm) as a way to turn production (and perhaps also food?) into a commerce/prodution/food boost for a later time and a city of your choice)



@ TheTurk

I forgot to mention, camels don't have to be a resource, they could also be a feature (like oases).

 

[The Turk]

Why are camels and sheep mutually exclusive? What people here need to understand is: Camels cannot be raised almost anywhere (like goats or sheep), they are very environment sensitive.

Camels can provide: 1) commerce 2) production 3) required for Silk Road.

There should only be a few camel resources in the game: North Arabia, Turkmenistan, Thar Desert, Tarim Basin, and potentially two in the Sahara littoral, which spawn post-632.

Camels are a unique resource like whales. They should not be attainable by everyone. They are NOT the sheep replacement of eastern Eurasia.

Again, I have yet to see a proper argument to make them a food type, other than the fact that semi-nomadic people's ate them. Well... People ate horses, elephants, whales etc. The argument is moot: it was not a staple food.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

@ ImpKnoedel

That is also a very nice idea.


Could you elaborate a bit on the features for the minimerchant you had in mind?

(I picture them (atm) as a way to turn production (and perhaps also food?) into a commerce/prodution/food boost for a later time and a city of your choice)

Caravan
Requires Currency, Camel
Upgrades to Truck (same effects but better, more expensive, requires Oil instead of Camel, unlockd with Combustion or something)
60 Production, maybe consumes food like workers and settlers
Base Cost increases by 50% for every unit of this type you already possess.
May conduct a trade mission (like Great Merchants, but with a base value of 60)
May "finish" production of a building or wonder (like Great Engineers, but with a base value of 40)
May add one time food bonus (like that Mayan unit I guess but without the fighting, base value of 20)

 

[hnrysml]

Nice Civ II homage, Knoedel!

 

[Force44]

Looks like an interesting unit to me.


Would cities require a camel in their radius to build the caravan?
(or can I send a caravan from Wladiwostok to St. Petersburg because I own a city in Kazachstan (with camels))


(I guess) To discourage stocking the caravans you made every subsequent caravan before the first one is spent more expensive.

I'm not sure about this solution. Personally I'd just put a hard limit of 3 caravans allowed (like missionaries).


Also upon arrival of the caravan I'd let it produce some great person points. (eg 1 great merchant point and one random great person point)


so my ideal caravan unit (based on yours) would look something like this:

Caravan

requires "some tech"
requires camels
requires camels in its cityradius to be built

cost 60 production consumes both and

movement 2 (land)

may conduct minor trade mission (yields 50 )
or may ferry resources (yields 25 )
or may ship food supplies (yields 20 )

ads 1 merchant gpp and 1 random gpp to the city that receivs the caravan.


I reduced the yield of (the gpp will make up for it) to reduce its popeness (potential overpowerd evilness)

I also reduced the yield of because 1.5 (production bonus caravan city) x 2/3 (return/investment) x 1.5 (production bonus receiving city) > 1
(that may still be too big because stone and marble tend to give another 100% bonus to the construction of wonders)

I tied it to the camels resource to make the camels more important/unique
(I'd also still prefer to have the camels yield

They may not provide to parts of the civilization that does not have direct access to them, but they (imo) most certainly do to the parts that do.

To prevent overhealthyness (if that is considered a problem at all) I'd suggest capping the health bonus to a certian number of differen health types from a group.

eg. Cattle, Sheep, Deer and Camels all give +1 , but you can only receive a maximum of +3 (in stead of +4 ) from them in total.)

 

[Force44]

Why are camels and sheep mutually exclusive? What people here need to understand is: Camels cannot be raised almost anywhere (like goats or sheep), they are very environment sensitive.

Camels can provide: 1) commerce 2) production 3) required for Silk Road.

There should only be a few camel resources in the game: North Arabia, Turkmenistan, Thar Desert, Tarim Basin, and potentially two in the Sahara littoral, which spawn post-632.

Camels are a unique resource like whales. They should not be attainable by everyone. They are NOT the sheep replacement of eastern Eurasia.

Again, I have yet to see a proper argument to make them a food type, other than the fact that semi-nomadic people's ate them. Well... People ate horses, elephants, whales etc. The argument is moot: it was not a staple food.

I agree with your general idea (I think) but I have some issues with the bold parts.

The locations you cite are locations were the potential of camels was actualized. Not every location where the potential was available. If you only give the locations ingame where they were actualized in history you basically condemn the player to do worse than history and does not give him the ability to do better. That is both unrealistic and unfun.

I am a firm believer history did not turn out the best way possible.

That you do not see a proper argument does not mean it is not there. It means that you either do not understand the argument or are not convinced. (usually when you are not convinced you have a counterargument)

That people ate horses elephants and whales makes those resources good candidates for food resources to me. That they are not to me simply means that their current implementation is either accidental or that they have qualities that fits their current designation (gamewise) even better.

So if this (the second bold part) is a counterargument I don't understand it because it just supports my position that camels should be a food resource because you can eat them.

I really do agree with you on the part that camels can not survive almost everywhere (I have my doubts about sheep, but goats (with some adjustments, the dutch climate (without proper shelter) is really bad for them) seem to be pretty universal).

In the source I quoted for camels on the canary islands (I don't know how reliable the source really is, but I found no contradicting sources yet) they cited slavery as a direct result of the failure of camels to provide sugar related labour in the Americas (the camels imported along the with the first sugar canes died).

 

[Force44]

Why are camels and sheep mutually exclusive? What people here need to understand is: Camels cannot be raised almost anywhere (like goats or sheep), they are very environment sensitive.

Camels can provide: 1) commerce 2) production 3) required for Silk Road.

On a sidenote. In this day and age camels are kept on a camelfarm in the Netherlands to produce cheese.

 

[The Turk]

I am a firm believer history did not turn out the best way possible.

I'm a firm believer that the environment is the environment, and humans aren't stupid. Just like it is biologically impossible to have whales in the Mediterranean, it is biologically impossible to raise large herds of Dromedary or Bactrian camels in the Amazon rainforest.

The reason why THOSE places, is because those are areas where camels, which thrive in both intense cold and intense heat, can survive and thrive. Which means for humans, areas close to grazing plains and desert. No, Camels don't "work" everywhere, ESPECIALLY not for raising Camel herds.

Anyway, since when does Leoreth make up places to put resources?

On a sidenote. In this day and age camels are kept on a camelfarm in the Netherlands to produce cheese.

ok.... one farm, and your point is? I'm talking about raising LARGE quantity of camels for trade and logistics (I'm speaking thousands). This is what these regions I outlined below were used for. Not making expensive artisanal cheese for Dutch cafes.

 

[Leoreth]

In civIV a resource appears to be a part of one of three categories.

food, provides
luxery, provides
strategic resource, provides the ability to build units.

I can understand if you want to see camels as a strategic resource (a prerequisite for a unit)

I have read only half of the discussion so I'm not entirely sure what is going on in this thread, but for context let me just say that I agree with this point of view.

This is a question that is disconnected from the tile and improvement yield of the resource. As far as the Camel vs. Sheep comparison goes, I suspect this is a line of discussion that spawned off my suggestion to replace Sheep resources with Camels. This was not meant to be taken as equating the two in terms of their use. It's mostly my attempt to limit the overall number of tiles occupied by resources, as well as my assumption that some of these sheep were placed to represent camels (which may be wrong).

I am also not interested in creating special units and effects just for this one resource. It's supposed to be a non-invasive change.

Of course don't let that stop you from coming up with and discussing your ideas.

 

[merijn_v1]

Would cities require a camel in their radius to build the caravan?
(or can I send a caravan from Wladiwostok to St. Petersburg because I own a city in Kazachstan (with camels))

I think you should be able to build it in all cities. I mean, all resources work this way. (1 copy is enough to produce units all over the world) I don't think we should make an exception for camels.

Caravan

requires "some tech"
requires camels
requires camels in its cityradius to be built

cost 60 production consumes both and

movement 2 (land)

may conduct minor trade mission (yields 50 )
or may ferry resources (yields 25 )
or may ship food supplies (yields 20 )

ads 1 merchant gpp and 1 random gpp to the city that receivs the caravan.

One thing to consider is the option to build wealth. You can turn 100% of your production into gold by just building wealth. If the income from Caravans is lower, it's much more efficient to build wealth. And you have no risk of your Caravan being destroyed by barbs or enemies.

BTW, both caravans and the additional trade route some people suggest both represent the same thing. I don't think both should be included.


----

I do get the feeling that people trying to bring up new exotic features for the camel to have, just to make it an unique resource. IMO, this isn't really necessary. I think giving it a treatment like all other resources would do the job just fine.

So my suggestion is:
Camels:
Unimproved: +1
Improved (pasture/camp, which one is more accurate): +1 , +3

If caravans are included it could enable those as well.
But nothing more. That would (IMO) just be giving it special abilities just to make it special.


EDIT:

It's supposed to be a non-invasive change.

This is what I tried to say by not giving it a special treatment.

 

[The Turk]

I am also not interested in creating special units and effects just for this one resource. It's supposed to be a non-invasive change.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying it COULD be used as a prerequisite for Silk Road, which historically it absolutely was.

Commerce and Production make the most sense for it. I still don't see why Sheep and Camels have to be mutually exclusive. But like whales, there should be only a few Camel resources around the map.

I pointed them out below earlier, here they are again:

North Arabia, Turkmenistan, Thar Desert, Tarim Basin, and potentially two in the Sahara littoral, which spawn post-632.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Nice Civ II homage, Knoedel!

Actually I got the idea from Civ5.

Would cities require a camel in their radius to build the caravan?

No, because that would defeat the entire point! The Camel resource must do something that is independent of its location on the map or there is no point in adding a Camel resource at all as the Oasis feature would then be sufficient representation for them.

I am also not interested in creating special units and effects just for this one resource.

So you want to add a completely new resource, but you have no interest in making the benefit it provides both realistic and interesting for gameplay? Happiness doesn't make sense. Health doesn't make sense. Unlocking new units kind of maybe makes a bit of sense, but doesn't represent the main use of camels in history. These are the three possible uses for a resource.

Well actually there is a fourth use, but it is currently very niche: Boosting yield output with certain buildings, i.e. Iron and Coal with Ironworks, indirectly Coal with Factories through power. It would make sense to have a building boost commerce and maybe production with camels, and that is the first thing I would do with them in my modmod where I am already using that effect for a number of different resources, but I don't know how willing you are to go for that solution.

Again, I have to emphasize the following point because it is literally the most important thing to consider when adding a new resource: A resource must provide some sort of benefit that is independent from its location on the map, otherwise its effect is better represented by a terrain feature.

 

[Leoreth]

Again, I have to emphasize the following point because it is literally the most important thing to consider when adding a new resource: A resource must provide some sort of benefit that is independent from its location on the map, otherwise its effect is better represented by a terrain feature.

I disagree completely. Empire wide benefits are problematic because they mostly lead to power stacking.