How should resources work in Civ4?

[dexters]

I know it's not perfectly realistic, but it's simpler, and that's the point. Iron IS an ingredient in steel, but why measure your store of both iron and steel when you can measure both? Heck, have it evolve from Stone to Ore to Metals, for all I care. The point is to model a basic need -- it doesn't matter if those needs are highly simplified. (For example, can water be taken for granted? Or can it not? Civ assumes you CAN take it for granted, but it's not even remotely realistic.)

Or why not only have iron and abstract steel? You do realize civs with no iron could build units that technically require steel. The current model is simply enough and works.



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.

Very few buildings in Civ3, except for the Manhattan Project and the SS parts require a specific resource to build, so this analogy doesn't quite make the point that perhaps you want to make.

The point being resources make themselves obsolete because the units they are used for become obsolete. It's an obselesence that occurs naturally as the game progresses, rather than one that is imposed by the game.

It also has the benefit of being simple. The resource model in Civ3 doesn't change at all, you discover more resources throughout the game, and that's it. But the game itself will make resources increasingly less important just by the fact that they are no longer needed as much. It's simple and quite elegant IMHO.

It seems your only real objection to reducing the number of resources to 3 or 4 is realism. But the mechanics of it are still basically there -- we've just taken out detail, without taking out any of the actual mechanism.

Quite the contrary. My objection is not realism, if anything, the RTS model has an implied assumption that managing numbers and units of a resource is better because it is more realistic. I'm arguing for not reinventing what isn't broken.

The resource model was introduced to add a new dimension to Civ3 games and it has achieved that insofar as resources are sought after, fought over and traded.

With the mechanism still in place, but with fewer resources to oversee, you could make resources more interesting.

Why fewer? This is the problem with the RTS model, it is self defeating. In order to address criticism that it will grow too complicated, the solution was to limit the resources per age. Only, it is probably more interesting to have all the resources in play in the end game and never limit resources at all.

The original model is thus more elegant, and actually more complicated without being a micromanagement issue.

The problem in Civ 3 with resources disappearing wasn't as simple as "stop making them disappear"... the problem is you gave the player a problem, but very few tools to solve it. Trade wasn't necessary enough to the seller -- you could go the entire game without selling a resource -- so there was very little economic motivation to resource control. The alternative was war, but that's the solution to everything in Civ. We don't need another excuse to start wars.

You can, but that doesn't mean its the best way to play nor do I agree with your assesment. The Civ3 games I currently play have maps that intentionally seperate resources that forces trading. Short of playing well below your skill level and dominating the entire game, you'll have to trade, even if its just a play to lower costs on a tech you badly need.

As a general rule, I am a relentless trader. I trade everything and have discovered and done research into the the trading systems and how you can build an empire of influence in Civ through careful trades. The treatise is being worked on and is on my computer at the moment. I hope to publish it soon.

I guess the deeper question is how to make resources a more central part of the game without making the game lopsided to someone with the best geographical circumstances. It almost almost seems like these two propositions are diametrically opposed... and that's before we even ask if scarcity is the best way to make economics more interesting.

Resources doesn't need to play a more central role. This game is Civ, not resource tycoon. The model employed in Civ3 does what it is meant to do. Improving it is always welcome, but in this case, I'm opposed for improving it in the RTS direction for the reasons already stated, and IMHO, the proposed changes (limiting resources per era) in response to mine and a few other's concerns doesn't address the root of the problem, that is RTS quantity based resources, when dealing with the complexity of Civ is not designed to work.

If Civ was a science fiction Moo-eseque game, maybe we can have imaginary obiquitous mineral which can be mined and you could keep track of as a quantity, which is something that has actually been done in other TBS games. Unfortunatelly, Civ3 already set the precedent by introducing several resources, each with a shelf life where after a time they become increasingly obsolete. Reverting to a simple 1 resource universe would be seen by many, and I assume even you to be a regression. Either way, shoehorning RTS systems into the Civ3 model simply makes it more complicated with limited gains. I suggest we stay with the turn system.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think you are HALF right, Dexters. I oppose an RTS based resource system because, like you, I don't want the game to become 'resource tycoon' ! However, the practically infinite resource model of Civ3 is not the way to go either. If they simply had a concept of resource 'size', resource 'scarcity' and resource 'use', then tied all of these elements into a single 'disappearance' system, which is pseudo-abstract, then I think that would work quite perfectly. Makes the players have to think about their resource use (and future deposits of a resource) whilst not forcing the player to take on YET more Micromanagement!

Yours,
Aussie_Luker.

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

The system for food in the past 3 civ games has been abstract enough for this game and shouldn't be changed. However shields and trade I think could be improved apon.

There are several factors which have affected a government's ability to produce things throughout the ages, which need to be represented in a manner which is not annoyingly complex or boringly simple.

1: Communication.
2: Ease of Transportation.
3: Corruption.
4: Proportion of experienced craftsmen with free time on their hands.
5: Proportion of people in employment and their skills/education.
6: Industrial infrastructure.
7: Efficiency of methods used to persuade people to work.
8: Efficiency of materials acquisition.

For instance roads could improve productivity as it no longer takes 1000s of people to bring the materials to where they are needed. Some governments may be better at persuading people to put more effort into their work, but don't allow them much free time to improve the efficiency of their work.

What's the point of gaining trade from sea squares if there's nothing to transport?

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think you are HALF right, Dexters. I oppose an RTS based resource system because, like you, I don't want the game to become 'resource tycoon' ! However, the practically infinite resource model of Civ3 is not the way to go either. If they simply had a concept of resource 'size', resource 'scarcity' and resource 'use', then tied all of these elements into a single 'disappearance' system, which is pseudo-abstract, then I think that would work quite perfectly. Makes the players have to think about their resource use (and future deposits of a resource) whilst not forcing the player to take on YET more Micromanagement!

Yours,
Aussie_Luker.

I like this too. Resources should be depleted, but only at the rate you are actually using it. Technologies/City Improvements/etc. could be used to get more out of your limited resource. Additionally, Technologies/Geologists/etc. could help find new resources.

All in all this may be a more realistic model, but it's like a dog chasing it's tale. We would be doing all this extra building and researching to basically come up with the same outcome - a resource. I hated Call to Power because there was so many city improvements to build that it got tedious. Micromanagement is a good thing until it gets in the way of being fun. Some people's Micromanagement is another's headache.

 

[dh_epic]

The problem, Dexters, is that players often DON'T trade or fight over resources. You generally expand quite quickly, get a huge mass of land, and 9 times out of 10 have all the resources you'll ever need until the end of the game.

And reducing the number of resources would not change this in itself. Reducing the number of resources (through obsolescence) would make the game more simple without changing the ultimate importance of resources in Civ 3.

Although the deeper question remains unanswered. Assuming that you'd taken some detail out of Civ 3, would quantifying resources improve the importance of long term alliances, or would people still basically take isolationist, shortsighted strategies?

Even looking at Aussie's answer, where you don't necessarily assign a numeric value to each resource, but make the "disappearance" system from Civ 3 more meaningful and obvious to the user... would this really change the strategies involved in the game?

To focus on one tiny detail, the goal of overhauling economics/resources would be to make "Trade Embargos" mean something! And come to think of it, I'm not sure that scarcity is the answer, let alone quantification.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes but, in my system, there is at least a greater impetus to seek new deposits of a resource, whether by conquest or diplomacy. Of course, if you introduce limitations to Ancient and Classical age expansion (minor nations and difficult terrain), then the odds of covering a sufficient amount of ground to ensure your recieve ALL the resources in the game will be VERY much diminished. Add to this the difficulty of holding on to foreign 'provinces' for the long term, and embargoes which hurt happiness and wealth-as well as resource access-then you are putting MUCH greater emphasis on the diplomacy/trade end of the game. Also, through in the need to 'discover' the resources within your territory AND the ability to trade food and shields, then the game takes on a VERY different tack. I guess the point I am making is that ideas cannot be taken in isolation, but that ideas which can help to make the game more interesting-without adding uneccessary MM-should always be our preferred option!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

True. Combining SOME kind of resource scarcity with other additions would make some basic economic strategy possible.

But that's assuming you DO make it impossible to expand to 25% of the world by 0 AD. And DO make the luxury trade more important to making your civ happy and profitable.

The problem isn't just that of scarcity, but of making resources more valuable and harder to get.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The point I was trying to make, though, is that I admit that my idea on its own probably WON'T make a difference, any more than Yoshi's system would. In order for the game to go to 'the next level' (i.e. beyond a glorified war game) it will need to encompass ideas of scarcity AND other economic and geographic issues. I, for one, don't really want to focus too much on one issue in isolation, but how these single issues can be incorporated into other 'revolutionary' ideas to create a much better game experience-without a MM headache.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, ain't that the truth. To make a much bigger experience than a race to settle the continent, and a race to get up the tech tree... there needs to be a number of "killer features" and a lot of pollish.

There's no magic bullet. Or if there is, then it's probably not resource-scarcity. Although it could be part of the recipe.

 

[dexters]

The problem, Dexters, is that players often DON'T trade or fight over resources. You generally expand quite quickly, get a huge mass of land, and 9 times out of 10 have all the resources you'll ever need until the end of the game.

I'm not sure what kind of difficulty or, the patch level, but that's impossible without playing a map that you've run through the editor and identified all the resources.

My best games, which seems to be every new start for me, has me fighting tooth and nail for some resource. My last game shortchanged me on rubber and I fought and played politics and secured enough of it to build an army strong enough to fight a war and win it for myself. And this was a pangea map too. If you play continents, forget it, you're most certainly going to have resources show up in a clump on the other end of the world.

I will concede one point however. MOST resources can generally fall within your borders with reasonable expansion and war through the ages. But I don't see a problem with this. Making a resource too scarce is punishing the AI more than anyone. And there's also a distinction between having one resource and having several. I usually aim to secure more than one to deny another Civ of their resource and then open the trading.

And reducing the number of resources would not change this in itself.

The type and kind of resources can be played with, but 8-ish is a nice number. Maybe they can take out Uranium and put in something else. But overall, the current resource model has more depth than a 4 resource model, because you just have more combinations to work with and more resources to spread around in each age.

And here's the main advantage, you'll eventually have access to all 8 without the game telling you that since you're in the modern age, it'll take out saltpeter and horses for you. The game developers simply cannot forsee all the strategic implications of such decisions, and in this specific case I can very easily see why cavalry units could be a viable unit in the modern era in Civ3. And it goes back to resources, and a lack of either rubber or oil preventing the human player to build enough tanks or modern armor.

Even looking at Aussie's answer, where you don't necessarily assign a numeric value to each resource, but make the "disappearance" system from Civ 3 more meaningful and obvious to the user... would this really change the strategies involved in the game?

A disappearance system is just annoying and is more like a lottery than a game of strategy. Granted in real life, things may work out like you suggest, but in a game, and yes, Civ4 is a game, it does more harm than good.

You can create scarcity without punishing players who have secured a resource by making it run out (randomly as the current system) or disappear after the 'quantitative supply' is exhausted, only for the discovery of a new source somewhere deep in enemy territory.

It's just bad gaming, and a bad idea generally.

To focus on one tiny detail, the goal of overhauling economics/resources would be to make "Trade Embargos" mean something!

But they do! Granted I have to admit I never use it enough in my games, since manipulating the AI to declare war is just as good as signing a trade embargo.

Trade embargo would become much more effective and important part of diplomacy if more things traded falls into its jurisdiction and the aggreements made more in a geopolitical context by allowing a multi-party aggreement. But that's another wishlist item for diplomacy.

Oddly enough, the trade embargo issue is not a very good argument for supporting the resource system.

 

[dh_epic]

A disappearance system could make all the sense in the world. So could a quantification system. That's where I disagree with you. It wouldn't be random. If a player thinks hard about what to build and prioritizes, resources would never run out, and they'd have exactly what they need. A player who does what currently goes on in Civ -- build as much as you can as fast as you can -- might find themselves hitting a dead end. This would be incredibly strategic, and add LOTS to the game.

But there's one place where we do agree -- you're absolutely right, Dexters. Adding scarcity would end up punishing the AI more than anyone. Moreoever, someone who used the "mongol strategy" (take as much land as possible) would end up with all the resources they need, no matter how you modelled the supply. Disappearance or quantities would not change that advantage, and thus the game's strategy wouldn't change.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but trade embargos don't matter in Civ 3. Still, if they came up with a few features that made trade embargos important, I'm also confident that those features would be a step in the right direction for other strategies:

- be the richest country without being the biggest country
- leverage your wealth to strangle the strongest military superpower, without firing a single gunshot
- win the game through economic victory
- increase your importance by becoming the world's trading hub

 

[dexters]

A disappearance system could make all the sense in the world. So could a quantification system. That's where I disagree with you. It wouldn't be random. If a player thinks hard about what to build and prioritizes, resources would never run out, and they'd have exactly what they need. A player who does what currently goes on in Civ -- build as much as you can as fast as you can -- might find themselves hitting a dead end. This would be incredibly strategic, and add LOTS to the game.

Or you may hit a point where you don't build enough of what you need and the game has artificially restricted you in some ungoldy fashion. Civ has always been in some sense about placing the right kind of restrictions on players. You could limit army size by other means outside of resources.

But there's one place where we do agree -- you're absolutely right, Dexters. Adding scarcity would end up punishing the AI more than anyone. Moreoever, someone who used the "mongol strategy" (take as much land as possible) would end up with all the resources they need, no matter how you modelled the supply. Disappearance or quantities would not change that advantage, and thus the game's strategy wouldn't change.

The mongol strategy falls apart in the higher levels when the AI can outexpand you and have a decivise military edge so that only in the luckiest of starts and combinations of circumstances can a player accumulate a massive starting empire.

And since many higher level players intentionally split up the AI by playing continents and or archipelago maps where the humans get more of a breathing room, chances of all the resources occuring within your territory grows dimmer.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but trade embargos don't matter in Civ 3. Still, if they came up with a few features that made trade embargos important, I'm also confident that those features would be a step in the right direction for other strategies:

Trade embargos work in Civ3. The issue isn't even related to resources because in Civ3, trade embargos cover resources.

As I've noted, making this diplomatic option more useful is to expand its scope and its usage, and it is really outside of the realm of the qauntitative resource discussion and is a poor argument for it.

- be the richest country without being the biggest country
- leverage your wealth to strangle the strongest military superpower, without firing a single gunshot
- win the game through economic victory
- increase your importance by becoming the world's trading hub

Economic victory - we agree here because the current Civ3 scoring system does a bad job of scoring anything outside territory size and specialists, essentially rewarding warmongering.

Everything else can be done in Civ3 but I hope would be made more prominent in Civ4. And let me say again, all these items have nothing to do with an RTS quantitative resource model and would work just as well if Soren kept the current model unchanged in Civ4. These points are largely an economic issue and not a resource one.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think it's an unfair position to be in where you find you didn't build enough of one thing or another. I remember way back more than ten years ago, I couldn't seem to turn a profit in my first few Civ games, and had to gradually lower my research amount, and thus find myself falling further and further behind. I wouldn't say that this made Civ 1, 2, or 3 a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.

IF you could tweak resources in order to make force you into dilemmas with what you build -- you don't build everything, but build what you need in certain cities -- the game would become more strategic. Rather than making the game a race to build everything, the game becomes filled with choices. Forced to choose between a religious improvement and a military improvement, what do I really need? Conflict just happens to make for good games.

Of course Trade Embargos "work". Of course they "cover" resources. The problem is they're useless. The problem is getting a trade embargo against you doesn't really strangle you. Nor does it stangle your enemies. It's an inconvenience at best, or otherwise a signal that somebody doesn't like you.

All those problems considered, I'm not sure the quantification or scarcity things solve anything. That much I'll agree with you. But I don't deny the existance of those problems. You're the first person I've talked to who thinks you can strangle the biggest millitary superpower's economy and punish them without war. Although, in your defence, there'd be no reason to, since you could only make someone else lose, and it wouldn't help you win.

 

[dexters]

IF you could tweak resources in order to make force you into dilemmas with what you build -- you don't build everything, but build what you need in certain cities -- the game would become more strategic. Rather than making the game a race to build everything, the game becomes filled with choices. Forced to choose between a religious improvement and a military improvement, what do I really need? Conflict just happens to make for good games.

That's not even a resource issue, and the builder/warpath tensions have always existed. People have tended to ignore it based on their predisposition or exploited ( i use this term loosely) the game mechanics so that they can have both. But there's always that question of do i build barracks or a temple for most players, unless you play Japan who happen to get both cheap.

Again, this is something Firaxis could tweak in terms of building costs, game emphasis (how much warmongering? how hard ? how are players rewarded for it?) and you could detach the resource model from it and it would sitll be a viable quesiton that can be answered without it.

Of course Trade Embargos "work". Of course they "cover" resources. The problem is they're useless. The problem is getting a trade embargo against you doesn't really strangle you. Nor does it stangle your enemies. It's an inconvenience at best, or otherwise a signal that somebody doesn't like you.

It doesn't strangle the human player as much because we find ways around it, but a trade embargo can strangle an AI.

The current mechanics is such that if the AI is in a trading relationship with another AI, they are usually reluctant to break it, which means you have to find other ways to break that trading relationship then moving quickly to sign an embargo with the AI before they can re-establish trade. This is a CHALLENGE for the machiavellian player. It's all about positioning, global politics and manipulation of treaties and alliances. And yes, all of that is possible under the Civ3 framework.

Oh and here's another problem. If you truly believe trade embargos cannot strangle either human or AI players, which I disagree, then having a quantitative resource system would make it even more difficult to do so. You'd want to remove any system of resource reserves to make resources more scarce, not less. Oh, do I have to mention reserves + human player = massive advantage?

All those problems considered, I'm not sure the quantification or scarcity things solve anything. That much I'll agree with you.

Then why are we even discussing this? Seems like we are in agreement here. It's a bad idea, and I'm surprised it got so many votes. I'm all for making Civ4 more accessible to a new generation who may have grown up with RTS games, but changing the resource system is doing it for the wrong reasons and it actually complicates the game and makes it less accessible to Firaxis' implied new target audience.

As I've said many times, quantities and management of supplies of a resource works in RTS because the best RTS games have you managing very few resources. The WarCraft and StarCraft series only has 2! And the depth of their economies is all about the rate of resource gathering and securing new bases to continue the momentum. Applying the idea to a game of Civ's complexity makes it more complex and not less. And all the patchwork of 'fixes' suggested to allay those concerns only make the system even more complex, with rigid rules and timed forced obsolesence of a resource. I suppose it CAN work as suggested, but why go through all that trouble if the current Civ3 model achieves most of the same effects, minus the quantity part. All that complexity so people can read numbers and have reserves of a resource is not worth it, not to mention highly overpowering to the human player who I guarantee you would manage their resources 10 times better than the AI.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You see, the way I would see it working-in VERY rough terms, might be that the chance of a resource disappearing-given no other factors-might be equal to 1/the total size of the resource. So, for instance, if you only had a single size 2 deposit of a resource, then there would be a 50% chance of it disappearing. If, OTOH, you had a size 8 resource, then it would only have a 1/8=12.5% chance of disappearing (and, even then, it would drop to a size 4 resource first). Of course, the more of the resource you trade, and the more cities and units you build, the higher this chance gets. It is also multiplied/divided by the 'relative' scarcity of the resource. Multiple resource deposits would increase the 'size' of the resource for disappearance purposes. So, say you had 3 size 8 deposits, then you would have a size 24 resource for disappearance purposes (i.e. a 1/24=4% chance of disappearance). These numbers would be made quite clear in the rules, but the player wouldn't know EXACTLY what % risk he had at a given time. This encourages players to tread carefully with resource usage, and really think about HOW and WHEN he uses his resource, without forcing the player to become a book-keeper. It also places greater emphasis on trade a means of obtaining more of a resource, in order to push down the disappearance chance. Base appearance chance would work in reverse, so that a size 6 resource deposit would have a (100-(1/6)=83%) chance of discovery-all other things being equal. Anyway, I confess that the system is VERY rough around the edges, but I hope it makes more sense now.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Dexters, I think you confused my talks of the problems with talks of the solution.

I do think there are problems -- sincere lacks of choice in playing Civ since there are ways to "have it all". Not that having it all makes Civ a bad game, but just emphasizes "racing" elements over strategy elements. Civ becomes more about cracking the pattern of balances you need to achieve the reliable path to victory. Kind of like mastering a certain car, so you can optimally handle the finite variety of turns you might encounter. There aren't the same kinds of choices in a racing game as, say, Deus Ex, where you can beat the same level in multiple different ways (with stealth, with brute force, with gadgets and tools...)

I'm more and more skeptical, of course, that quantifying resources or modelling scarcity with more aggressiveness is one of the "killer features" that would push Civ to a whole new level of "pick your strategy". You're right -- tweaking the buildings would have just as much impact if not more on what your overall building focus. (Not to say that's the killer feature either.)

Although if you were to model scarcity, I would probably go with Aussie's model than a quantified RTS style.

I've obviously dragged this one off topic. But I hope you understand where I'm coming from, now.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Lets take things a bit further. Lets say that you discover a size 2 oil deposit within your own borders. At first, this is sufficient for your needs, and the chance of the resource disappearing will be fairly low (around 50%). However, as your nation becomes more energy dependant, the chance of this single oil deposit rises to over 80%-VERY RISKY. Plus, you have YET to find another deposit either within or near your borders. However, you have become aware of a sizeable deposit within the desert border of a less advanced nation than you. Now, you have 3 options at this point.

1) Try and lay claim to the territory containing the deposit by FORCE-this could be risky, as you might have to rely on your less oil dependant units until you can get hold of it.

2) Give the other nation an accurate resource map of his neck of the woods, so that he is aware of this deposit. Then encourage him diplomatically to 'tap' the resource so that you can trade with him for it (or offer to tap it for him using a modified 'R of P' agreement.

3) Assist the nation-either financially and/or technologically-in order to assist them in 'discovering' the resource-then encourage him to Tap this resource as in (2).

4) Use diplomacy to acquire the land, without letting on its TRUE value (relies on a NON-OMNISCIENT AI!!!) Then tap the resource for yourself.

Later in the game, through diplomacy, you have acquired a total of 12 size 'units' of oil, thus giving you only an 8-10% base chance of running out of the resource. However, due to you invading a smaller neighbour for his spices, several nations have declared an embargo on your nation-aside from the direct financial costs of this embargo, you are forced, once more, to depend on your original size 2 resource, which might not last for more than a few turns before your luck runs out. Your options are either to fast track an alternative energy policy-thus reducing your dependance on oil domestically-or going to these nations, cap in hand, and surrendering to their terms in return for the blockade being lifted.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

Along the idea of Aussie Lurker, for the scarcity model (and apologies if this was already discussed).

Say we have three ressource deposit (for strategic ressources, luxuries I envision working differently) - 2, 4 and 8 units worth (or 1-2-4).

Each turn, you cannot produce more items (improvements, units) requiring a specific ressource than the total amount of units of that ressource all your deposites connected to your capital produces. There is no stockpiling there ; if you have two medium and one small iron deposit connected, you can produce 10 units requiring Iron each turn. If you chose to produce 5 on turn 10, then you can't produce 15 on turn 11 ; 10 is a fixed hard cap to how many iron-requiring units you may have in production at any given time.

When making trade deals with other nations, you can then chose exactly how many units of the ressource to trade away ; this lower your cap by that amount for the duration of the deal, and increase theirs by the same.

Luxuries would probably be something along these lines too, except the effect would be with happiness. Instead of Marketplace pumping the third lux and up to give +2 happy face, the fifth to +3 and etc, marketplace would pump any luxury you have more than X supply off to +2 happy faces, any you have more than Y supply off to +3. (no +4, I think).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I like your ideas, Oda, but I am not a huge fan of hard-coded limits. What I think is a better idea is that the size of a resource you have determines the # of units you can build in a turn WITHOUT an increased risk of the resource disappearing. It could also determine the # of cities you can have without an increased risk of resource disappearance. Obviously, though, the exact numbers will depend on the unit and/or the tech development of the cities in question.
I DO think that you should be able to select the number of units of a resource that you can trade-or which can be traded to you.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

So would the chances of disappearance be calculated something like X/Y, X being the number of units requiring that ressource ABOVE your ressource cap you are producting this turn, and Y being the total number of units of that ressource you have? (ie, say I have 5 units of oil and am currently building 7 oil-requiring units, 2/5 or 40% chance of the unit disappearing?)

I could see that, but there IS a problem - trade. What happens if ALL your units of a ressource come from foreign trade? Can you go crazy without risk and build as much as you want (because whatever you do, you're not LOSING anything yourself), and if so, is there NO penalty, or does another player get penalized for your going crazy?

I think a hard cap, while not as open, is fairer and easier to work out.