How should resources work in Civ4?

[Aussie_Lurker]

That is pretty much where I am coming from, Oda. As for the trade issue. I admit that there is a chance of exploit, but two things limit that possibility. First, most-if not all-of these resources are required for civilian AS WELL as military use-therefore, if you use the resource to build tons of units-then run out-your people will become majorly peeved off at you (not ONLY do they lack the resource for their use, but you used it to fuel militarism!!)
The second thing which would help limit exploitation would be reputation. If you exploit other peoples resources in a haphazard and greedy fashion, then you will get a bad rep with other nations. At first they will simply react by charging you much higher prices for future (or even existing trades) then, if you keep doing it, they may well stop trading with you altogether-especially if you have a bad rep for other reasons too.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[yoshi]

Why don't you just apply resource size to trade (i.e. trading 1 'unit' of the resource allows an additional number of units for the importer and less for the exporter). I may be assuming this: there is a cap on the number of units that can be built per resource can't remember if that's part of your system or something I was thinking of recently.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well my assumption WAS that, under my system, you would now trade UNITS of a resource, rather than just a 'resource' and-though there would be a soft cap on unit production based on resource size (units)-you could exceed it at the risk of a heightened chance of disappearance. Consider this example:

You have just recieved the 'motorized transport' tech, but haven't got any oil sources of your own. Therefore, you seek trade with a nation who has been blessed with THREE deposits of oil-a size 4, a size 6 and even a size 9. He agrees to give you 5 units of oil for 20 turns. These 5 units will appear-in the trade screen-as a single 'oil' icon followed by a (5) in brackets, under Imports. This would mean that the imported oil might, for instance, have around a (1/5)/0.6=35% chance of disappearing each turn, and would allow the player to build 5 'oil-needing' units AND support five cities without increasing this disappearance risk.
As for the trading nation, the oil icon with the (5) will appear in their export screen, and each of their 'local' oil icons will have the numbers beside them in red-to indicate that they have been diminished by trade. The amount by which each icon is diminished would be decided by the exporter at the time of the trade. Therefore, the exporter may decide to source ALL of his export oil from the single size 9 deposit (thus almost doubling its disappearance chance), or may elect different combinations of 2-or all 3-of the deposits, to even out the risks.
Anyway, hope this example clarifies a few of the issues for you.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

How is this different from quantity besides the fact that quantities are invisible until you need to trade?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that the key difference, DH, is that-as the quantities involved are abstract, you have far less to have to keep track of. i.e. in the RTS system, you have to keep track of how much of a resource is coming in, how much are you using for trade, exactly how much are your cities consuming each turn, how much, eaxactly, are your units consuming each turn and, from that, how much of a stockpile have you accumulated. After trying to play Rise of Nations a few times (which only has a few key resources) I can assure you that it is REALLY TOUGH.
My abstract, 'semi-quantitative' system, is less work because most of it is 'intuitive' in nature. For instance, he knows that 20 'size' units of coal might sustain 60 pre-industrial cities without any strain, but that once he gets industrialisation, this might drop to only 40 cities-even fewer if he builds lots of power plants and factories. The thing is, though, that he doesn't know how much lead time he has before he has to start worrying about resource depletion-a fact faced constantly by most real-world leaders.
The key issues in my system are 'deposit size', 'relative scarcity' of resource (iron is more scarce than copper, coal is more scarce than iron, oil is more scarce than coal-that kind of thing) and overall usage-the rest is all about the RNG. It would simply be far less of a headache.

Oh, another possibility with my system might be the idea that, apart from increasing disappearance risk, exceeding the cap limit with units and/or improvements (and possibly even cities) is that it might make things less 'efficient'. For instance, lets say that your coal deposits are sufficient to fuel 5 coal plants without risk, well every coal plant you build over this 'soft cap' might reduce the efficiency of ALL of your coal plants by 1%-thus reducing their ability to increase shield output. With units, they may take longer to build and/or suffer attack/defense penalties-and cities might experience increased corruption and crime as people start trying to acquire this ever more scarce resource. Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

The only danger is that you trade the pitfall of micromanagement with the potential pitfall of vagueness. Not to praise micromanagement, but in a system with exact quantities, you know exactly how far away you are from being screwed.

In the vague system, you're kind of left guessing. Even you say that real-world leaders have to deal with this kind of guesswork. At worst, you're resolving micromanagement by forcing the player to turn a blind eye to it.

Obviously the solution is to notify the player SOMEHOW what their vague limits are. But the question is how, without getting into exact quantities.

And this DOES get complicated when you get into trading portions, but not exact quantities. What does this even mean?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, DH_Epic, what I would call my system is 'semi-quantitative' in that, though it does not give EXACT amounts of a resource, it does give you an idea of the 'relative' quantity-in the form of SIZE. As I stated in my earlier post, the resource size-along with its scarcity-will give a relatively good idea of how much of the resource you can use before things might get dangerous. For instance a size 10 resource has a 1/10 (size of resource)=10% chance of disappearing, wheras a size 5 resource has a 1/5=20% chance of disappearing (obviously these numbers are for the purpose of example only). Beyond this, the resource size gives you a good idea of how much latitude you have in supporting cities and building units and improvements which depend on the resource. Beyond that point, things get increasingly hairy. As you yourself point out, this is a brilliant cure for MM-wheras a stockpile system is yet another boon for the obsessive compulsive out their in the Civ community-as it gives him yet another avenue for victory without real thought. This system forces you to adopt a more strategic approach. 'SURE you have that oil now, but do you REALLY wanna go and piss off that two-bit desert nation-JUST IN CASE?' Remember that, in MY model, the vagueness lies not just in when a resource might vanish, but whether you find the resources in the first place-again, this will force the player to adopt differing strategies for differing situations-do you invest large sums of money in exploration in order to turn up any resources lying within your, albiet small, borders? Or do you pump all your money and resources into building an army to conquer your neighbours-just on the offchance that they might have the resource you are after in THEIR borders? Or do you use honey-tongued diplomacy to gain resource maps, 'Rights of Passage' agreements and/or territorial exchanges as a means of obtaining resources from neighbouring nations? In the RTS system, it can easily devolve into a simple 'oh, I'm down to my last 20 units of oil. Looks like I will have to conquer all my neighbours oil-rich land-then spend the next 5 turns patching up my reputation.'
As for trade, it really is an abstraction, and I gladly admit that. Essentially, you are giving up one UNIT of your resources SIZE. So, if you have a size 6 resource, and you trade 2 'UNITS' to a neighbour, then you now effectively have a size 4 resource (and a higher chance of the resource disappearing).
Anyway, DH, I hope this all makes sense-as I would REALLY like to win you over to my model !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[V. Soma]

A quiet question - do you think any of this will be seen in a way in Civ IV?

for example I like the idea of "resource map" as a separate thing from "normal map"

I haven't read all Aussie's idea but so far it seems really interesting...

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie, you'd already won me over It was a matter of some finer details.

I think I understand. Rather than looking at it in terms of a stockpile that grows and shrinks, you look at it as an overall "revenue / expenses" model. Your extra revenue buys you the security of knowing that your revenue will continue to be there in the future, and the ability to trade it. The closer your revenue comes to your expenses, the greater the likelihood of shrinking. But you cannot save your revenue until later.

That's my way of finding a different way of saying what I think you're saying. Am I way off?

 

[Knowltok]

For consideration, I'd toss out there that resource pools don't have to be that big in the micro-management sphere. Limit storage capacity, and hide or abstract the capacitiy of the source. Since we aren't building parts of parts of finished goods like in Vicky, I don't think it will be too complex. Take Oil as an example:

A source has a stockpile of 100,000 units, but that is a hidden number, and is random for each source (perhaps the player can know 'small', 'medium', and 'large'.

A nation has a small amount of storage capacity, which it can build. Technology determines resource recovery rates. The player can set the production level of each source. Then it is simply a matter of supply and demand with a small storage cushion.

I think the thing to be able to simulate is the US when it comes to oil. At one point it had all it could use and more. Now demand has outstripped supply, and it must import. Above all else, this kind of thing must be modeled.

 

[Amitourlo]

I'm against any inclusion of resource stockpiles, as this would make wars even less tactical as stopping your opponent from using a resource probably wouldn't affect them until after the actual conflict.

yes, except if you destroy (for example if you bomb) the buildings affected to the sockage of these resources. (such buildings must be incorporated before)

 

[Khan Quest]

Another way to abstract the use rate vs. quantity would be to use a health bar. When you start going into the red, its time to make choices.

Discovery of techs/worker actions could lead to a bigger number on your resource tile, or revive a dead one. Steam injection into oil fields comes to mind.

 

[morbror_sven]

Are you gonna remove the turn-based system too? How far is too far? No "RTS" influences! Thanks.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Are you gonna remove the turn-based system too? How far is too far? No "RTS" influences! Thanks.

Go away intolerant purist!

 

[yoshi]

I knew I shouldn't have used "RTS" in the poll--forgot it's a taboo for some people.

(Not sure what to call it so it sounds more Civ-like. Perhaps, 'Resource System that Functions like System of Gold-Collection in Treasury'...doesn't have quite the same ring to it...and terms like 'quantitative,' 'quantifiable' and 'stockpiling' are just too vague.)

The arguements against stockpiling are not entriely convincing to me: too much MM is certainly debatable (especially considering that a specific 'RTS' system has not been established--my version is only one example) and the then there is Firaxis' emphasis on maintaining the format pretty much as it is in Civ3--thus killing practically every idea in these forums. All other arguments are subjective to the preference of some--not necessarily a majority--of players.

Firaxis simply not being willing to go as far as stockpiling is really what makes me think in terms of what Aussie is proposing. The MM arguement seems to be subject to player preference (as the poll sort of indicates--assuming that number of votes are any indication at all).

I think a stockpiing system solution could be reached that would satisfy pretty much all players but I'll get to that later. Instead I want to see what I can do with the system as it is, taking Aussie's and others' comments into account.

 

[yoshi]

Vote thus far (out of 49 votes):

A. 11
B. 10
C. 27
D. 1 (I was wondering how long it would take...)

Resources are about giving players a need. And to me, it's not too objectionable if you're scrounging for uranium to build a Nuclear Power Plant that you take the ability to produce Cathedrals and Temples for granted. Whereas in the early game, Cathedrals and Temples hinge on your supply of building materials.

Yes, Civ3 does that to a degree but it's missing a few things that would otherwise add some balance to the game. (Personally, I think more improvements should have resource requirements in the vanilla game; I'm working on a scen that has improvements not only dependent on resources but on the resources in the area (i.e. resource must be within city radius), thus you get the effect of unique improvements being built acording to geaographical circumstances.)


RTS aside, I was thinking about faults in Civ3's resource system and how to remedy them without changing the format and made the following list:

1. No resource limitations (1 source fills requirment for all items).
2. No storage element (when civ loses control of last resource, effects are immediate).
3. No limit on use (1 resource allows any number of items to be built simultaneously).
4. Random appearance/disappearance irrespective of player actions.
5. Trade too limiting (resource con only be used by 1 civ).
6. No effect on items once they are built (items are resource-independent).
7. Resources are all automatically visible once prerequisite discovered.
8. No way of connecting sea-based resources.
9. Resource trade routes cannot be blocked mid-route.
10. Organic resources can't be reproduced in other parts of the map.
11. Does not take into account different sized deposits.
12. Additional Luxury resources of a type have no additional effect on owner.
13. No cost associated with the process of extraction.
14. No variations on duration of trade.


Solutions:

(1) No adequate solution without resorting to something quantifiable so refer to the solution for (3). I guess this and (3) would fall under 'scarcity.'



(2) 'Storage' improvement ability allows city to function fo x number of turns as though it were still connected to resource that is no longer available to it. (Implies delay modifier for each additional resource type that resets when city is reconnected to a resource.)

Essentially the effect of a Granary only storing resources instead of food.

Could double the effect for each previously controlled resource of a type (a bit more complicated to program but adds yet another incentive to aquiring additional resources).

If (6) is implemented, then this feature would be essential for civs that are dependent on imported resources.



(3) Number of buildable items limited to number of resources of one type controled by civ (e.g. x number of items buildable with 1 resource, 2 resources doubles the number; this logically implies that only x number of cities may only build x number of items requiring x resource simultaneously).

Addition of modifier (tech?) that increases number (e.g. more efficient extraction techniques allow more of resource to be used at one time).



(4) Disappearance based on number of items built (i.e. each additonal item built--irrespective of whether it is disbanded* or sold/made obsolete afterwards--increases chances by x amount).

If resource-based upkeep is a factor: disappearance denominator also decreased per turn of unit maintenance.

Additionally (and most importantly), add a 'Minimum Time to Disappearance' feature that determines number of turns that must pass before resource can disappear (i.e. disappearance will not trigger before then). This ensures that the resource will not disappear before it is able to be properly exploited. (In addition to that, you could possibly add a requirement that the resource be connected to at least one city before the timer is triggered.)

Optionally, you could just simplify all this and have chances of disapearance increase for each turn under a civ's control. (This would not be very effective at making rate of disappearance dependent on player action though.)

[I'm thinking that it would have to be item-based as just making it based on having access to the resource woudl allow players to pillage the connection when they don't need the resource,w hereas the AI wouldn't do this and it would look stupid to make this a standard tactic in the game.]



(5) First resource of a type can be used by owner AND traded to one other civ. All additional trades require additional sources of the resource. Doing both causes the chances of the resource disappearing to increase by 2 instead of 1.

(This eliminates the problem of having only one available resource square--a frequent occurance on small maps--and having to decide whether to trade (all of) it or trade (all of) it, but still limiting it to 1 civ.)



(6) Units and buildings have additional optional 'Upkeep Resource.'

If a city containing buildings requiring a resource is disconnected from that resource, all buildings requiring resource for upkeep cease to function (i.e. have any effects) until city is reconnected to resource.

If a civ loses control of all sources of a resource type required for upkeep by any units, those units lose 50% of their movement and combat factors until civ regains control of the resource. (In order to prevent this effect weakening a civ too much, perhaps units in friendly cities should not be affected. Problem is, this is one more hting the program ahs to check for--would have to have cities have a pre-set effect, like giving a 50% defense bonus to all units when resource unavailable...but that's up to programmers to figure out. )

A more strategic version for land units would be: if units are not within borders that contain at least one city connected to required resource (i.e. units are within borders--same portion of friendly territory--that only contain cities that are not connected to required resource), those units lose 50% of their movement and combat factors until at least one city within that territory is connected to required resource. [It makes resource dependence territory-based.]



(7) All resources gradually (i.e randomly) become visible** once prerequisite discovered. Resources within borders become visible immediately.



(8) Resources that are not land-based that fall within borders are automamtically connected (i.e. trade route created) to any city with a Harbor. Can be disconnected by placing an enemy unit on the sea square containing the resource or blocking the trade route.


(9) Trade routes visible as lines connecting ports of trading civs. (This also applies to regular trade routes for single civ.) If enemy unit placed on a trade route tile, trade route is blocked.

A possible fun addition could be piracy: blocking civ recieves any resources 'travelling' along that trade route for each turn that route is pirated. (Alternatively, you could just have gold be removed from treasury of route owner and gold added to trasury of civ doing the pirating; x gold per turn.)

Would have to add 'Can Pirate' ability and give it only to certain units like Privateer (or whatever Civ4 equivilant) in order to avoid Axis U-Boats 'pirating' Allied trade routes.



(10) This one isn't particularly important IMO but some peopel think so: a simple way of doing it would be to have new sources appear in friendly territory only once a resource is first traded from a civ that had initial access to the resource (i.e. a pre-placed resource). Would require a flag to distinguish this type of resource from mineral resources--so you don't get Oil suddenly popping up once you import Oil from another civ).



(11) This is basically a further simplification Aussie's idea: resources function the same only have an optional 'Large Deposit' flag that when checked for a specific resource square, acts as a multiplier thus counting as 2 resources (i.e. civ functions as though it had access to 2 resource squares). These resource squares take twice as as long to deplete (i.e. minimum time to disappearance is higher--random disappearance remains the same?).



(12) I was thinking of using the same solution as (3) (i.e. 1 resource effects x number of cities) but (3) was based on items, not cities. If you use cities, how do you decide which cities get the effects without resorting to further MM? Could always make it so cities with unhappiness are effected first but what if the player doesn't want it that way? I think this one's dead.



(13)

Alternative 1: x gold per turn per each connected resource square.

Alternative 2: x gold removed from treasury the first time a resource is connected (this is more complicated than it seems at first glance because a resource requires an additonal flag that is checked when resource is first connected and since there is nothing to build, the removal of gold has to be triggered AFTER the resource is connected which creates the problem of there being no gold in the treasury, thus requiring the program to remember that the resource has been extracted and to remove gold from treasury when the amount becomes available AND prevent the resource from being used only until then).

Alternative 3: Tile improvements cost gold to build; if certain resources require special improvements (e.g. Oil = Rig), then make these more expensive then the norm.

(This adds an additonal economic element to the game--whcih lags in terms of economics, as been noted elsewhere in this thread.)



(14) Add 2-3 options in the diplomacy screen (e.g. Long-Term Trade = 5 turns, Short-Term Trade = 20 turns--and proportional costs of course).



* I was thinking of the concept of materials recycling that plays a big role in vehicle manufacturing industry (i.e. parts from old vehicles melted down and used in new vehicles; e.g. old bombers used to make new bombers). Why not have a feature where units disbanded in a city can only contribute shields when disbanded if they they require (i.e. are made of) the same resource as the item being built?

** Note that this is not the same as random appearance; the resource is there (i.e. has either been pre-placed or placed randomly when game loaded) but is simply not visible to the player and cannot be used. This is also to prevent other resources from appearing in the same sqaure.


[To give you an example of what you could do were (6) to be part of the game: in a WW2 mod, you could have Artillery units require 'Munitions' as an upkeep resource instead of Oil and add a 'Munitions Factory' improvment type; if the Munitions Factory is disconnected (by bombarding the sqaure and destroyingthe connecting Road/RR for instance), the owner civ's Artillery units have their bombard strength halved.]


The above seems more in line with the "simplicity" Firaxis is going for (although the resource upkeep thing seems like wishing for the moon considering Firaxis' history with that sort of thing).

[Note that I still prefer stockpiling but I figure this has a better chance and I don't want to end up with no change at all when the game gets released.]

 

[dh_epic]

Seriously. It could come from a board game or a golf game for all I care -- if it's a neat feature, it should be adapted in some way shape or form. That is if it's fun, and fits into the context of Civ.

Be that as it may, I think exact quantities are a bad idea. But the inexact system from Aussie is more suitable, if resources are an important thing to change at all.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wow, Yoshi, that is a HELL of a lot of info to pour over . As it happens, I have given my own ideas some more thought, and realised that the one glaring flaw is the ability for a resource to disappear IRRESPECTIVE of player actions (albiet a small chance). That said, here is my alternative proposal.

1) Every resource deposit on the map has a 'Size' number, from 1-10 (say), which gives a rough idea of the quantity of said resource.

2) The 'Size' number indicates the number of cities you can support and/or Units/Improvements you can build without significant risk of LOSING the resource (i.e. risk of less than 20%).

2a) The actual 'risk' involved in supporting 'free' cities a single deposit can support would also depend on both the 'resource scarcity', the city population AND certain tech level 'issues' (sorry to be vague on this last point).

2b) The more cities you support off a resource of a given size, then the fewer 'free' units/improvements you can build in a given turn.

3) Once you exceed your 'free cap', the chance of resource disappearance would rise fairly sharply-though by how much would depend on the resource size AND its scarcity.

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. Lets see if I can take it a bit further with an example.

Its the Classical age, and your miners have discovered a size 6 deposit of iron in the hills. Now, at its most basic level, this iron deposit can fairly easily sustain the domestic needs of 6 cities (with only a 17% chance of resource disappearance). Your nation has only 3 cities, therefore it can also support the construction of 3 units OR Improvements each turn-which depend on iron-without an increase in risk. If this number of cities remains the same, but their population increases, then there will be a minimal rise in the disappearance chance of, say, 0.5% for each population point above 3. If the number of cities increase, then the number of 'free' units/improvements per turn will also drop.
So, later in the Classical age, your city numbers have increased to 8, and you are building 5 swordsmen in your cities-what happens now? Well first, you have exceeded your 'free' city cap by 2, which means that the chance of resource disappearance would rise by 10%. On top of this, the 5 units you are building would increase the disappearance chance by a further 12.5%. At the same time, the productivity of your cities would drop by 10%, and the build time of your 5 swordsmen would increase by 12.5%-as you start to strain your increasingly limited iron resources.
Please note, of course, that all the numbers quoted above are for illustrative purposes, and would clearly change according to gameplay balance.

The key issues here is that most of the system is 'intuitive' meaning that the player has a fairly good idea of what he can get away with WITHOUT increasing MM or giving players ABSOLUTE certainty. Secondly, it also discourages rampant expansion, as the cost of supporting more cities is less than supporting fewer cities of larger population. Thirdly, it makes it less likely for a civ to truly prosper if he isolates himself throughout the game. Lastly, it retains enough of the elements of civ3 resources to appeal to those who enjoyed that part of the civ3 experience.
So, that is my idea at its most 'bare-bones', what do you think?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[dexters]

1. No resource limitations (1 source fills requirment for all items).

2. No storage element (when civ loses control of last resource, effects are immediate).
(2) 'Storage' improvement ability allows city to function fo x number of turns as though it were still connected to resource that is no longer available to it. (Implies delay modifier for each additional resource type that resets when city is reconnected to a resource.)

Civ3's resource model is quite generous in that in most games, assuming you play a difficulty that is reasonable challenging, you'll be short 1 or 2 resources and 3-4 luxuries. With strategic wars of expansion and opportunisitc land grabs, a Civ3 Empire can become a truly self sufficient Empire by the late game. The concept is largely a mercantile concept of self sufficiency.

For your resource model to make any sense at all, you'll need TRUE SCARCITY. That is, only 1 or 2 of 8 Civs will have sufficient access to one resource and they become the primary suppliers and taking it from them won't be very easy, which means trading would be absolutely crucial (DH might like this) for the majority of the game.

The only problem with this is that it is fundamentally biased in favour of human players. Given the current Civ3 AI's myopia, and its inability to behave as if it has a foresight and plan long term, any AI algorithm that will be managing the AI storage system would be fundamentally weak. At best, it will just store average stockpiles based on some assumed optimal quantity.

This is where the RTS analogy falls apart. RTS AI are pretty good at resource gathering because all the AI needs to know is to build lots of workers, send them to the resource spot and keep gathering resources.

In Civ, you have several resources, multiple resource requirements for units and a dynamic political landscape that requires a much more dynamic AI that can spot a true weakness in its resource reserves, stockpile enough and have reserves large enough to hold in times of war. I can imagine AI empires just crumbling under pressure from a superior human brain because the AI didn't stockpile enough of a crucial resource whereas the human has spent the last 50 turns stockpiling only those resources.

It's messy, its complicated and its too much work for all involved. I still say its a bad idea, despite being partial to the idea myself. Looking at it objectively, I'm increasingly convinced the proposal of a 'storage' system is not what we need for Civ4.

3. No limit on use (1 resource allows any number of items to be built simultaneously).
(3) Number of buildable items limited to number of resources of one type controled by civ (e.g. x number of items buildable with 1 resource, 2 resources doubles the number; this logically implies that only x number of cities may only build x number of items requiring x resource simultaneously).

I don't see this as a problem. The only reason to limit the amount of a resource is to create pressures on empires to seek out new sources. This has already been modeled with the resource disappearance model in Civ3 and people hated it. And if you were to have TRUE SCARCITY, you wouldn't want to have numerical limits or the whole balance of power will just be constantly out of whack. I dislike modeling reality in many aspects of Civ, and this is another such case. The Civ AI and human players need resource stability to make a game of it. Too much lottery elements of 'oh, i found iron, but only 500 units, looks like i'm still screwed in 5 turns' is not very useful.

4. Random appearance/disappearance irrespective of player actions.

(4) Disappearance based on number of items built (i.e. each additonal item built--irrespective of whether it is disbanded* or sold/made obsolete afterwards--increases chances by x amount).

People hated this with a vengeance. It adds nothing to the game is almost as bad as the volcanos in Civ3 randomly exploding. The solution is to remove the random element and create more stability and the current C3C build has resources disappearing A LOT less.

5. Trade too limiting (resource con only be used by 1 civ).

This is largely based on the context. If you have three Civs being able to share 1 resource because you count in quantities and not in 'instances' it has the same effect as having 3 units of the same resource. This is the same idea approached from a different perspective and I still think the current model is much better and more elegant. Its an on off digital switch as opposed to the analog mess of a quantitative resource model.

6. No effect on items once they are built (items are resource-independent).
(6) Units and buildings have additional optional 'Upkeep Resource.'

If a city containing buildings requiring a resource is disconnected from that resource, all buildings requiring resource for upkeep cease to function (i.e. have any effects) until city is reconnected to resource.

Exploit anyone? sounds like the new way to bankrupt the AI.

8. No way of connecting sea-based resources.

Granted there are currently no sea based strategic resources, but yes, having them would be interesting.

9. Resource trade routes cannot be blocked mid-route.
(9) Trade routes visible as lines connecting ports of trading civs. (This also applies to regular trade routes for single civ.) If enemy unit placed on a trade route tile, trade route is blocked.

Interesting idea. But you know this doesn't need an RTS model to work. And there are trade routes in Civ3, you just don't see them. That's why archipelago maps and continents map slow down in the late game because the game has to calculate all the potential routes.

10. Organic resources can't be reproduced in other parts of the map.

11. Does not take into account different sized deposits.

This is not a problem. In fact, the proposed solution solves this problem but presents several problems of its own, which requires increasingly complicated rules to solve. I say, leave it as is. The current 'instance' based system is simple and elegant.

12. Additional Luxury resources of a type have no additional effect on owner.

That's because you trade the additional resource away. Again, you want a model where if you have 20000 units of incense your empire would be happier than if you have 19999. That's splitting hairs and micromanaging happiness a bit too much. And given the AI's trackrecord with managing happiness and luxuries under the Civ3 model, I doubt it can do better with a system where AI empires will have to secure each of every resource but now, also ENOUGH units of a resource.

Be that as it may, I think exact quantities are a bad idea. But the inexact system from Aussie is more suitable, if resources are an important thing to change at all.

I would put forth the premise that the model doesn't need changing. This entire discussion grew out of a desire mainly to 'store resources' which in practice is more of a fantasy than a need. Applying the generous Civ3 resource model, storage only makes resources less important. For a storage system to work, you need true scarcity as I noted, but that changes to tenor of the game and if Yoshi and Aussie's idea are to be taken and you not only have units tied to resources but happiness, unit and building upkeep, it's just extra layers of uncessary complexity designed mostly to benefit the human player.

There's nothing simple or elegant about the proposed modification to the resource model and I continue to see a lot of problems. I started this discussion being open to the idea of a turn based resource storage system and now, I'm not even sure if I want that. I think this is the case of reinventing the round wheel into a Square.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I would put forth the premise that the model doesn't need changing. This entire discussion grew out of a desire mainly to 'store resources' which in practice is more of a fantasy than a need. Applying the generous Civ3 resource model, storage only makes resources less important. For a storage system to work, you need true scarcity as I noted, but that changes to tenor of the game and if Yoshi and Aussie's idea are to be taken and you not only have units tied to resources but happiness, unit and building upkeep, it's just extra layers of uncessary complexity designed mostly to benefit the human player.

This is what I was saying...it would be a giant complex circle. This might make another good game or a much more resource-based add-on for Civ4, but not be good for the main game. I hope they just update it a little bit.