I miss the absolute need of strategic resources!

GrinningAlligator

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
9
I miss the absolute need of strategic resources. They led you to know where to settle cities. (I really need to corral those horses or I won't be able to make my cool Egyptian chariots!) Or you are rolling along just fine until you realize you don't have any oil in your empire and can't produce tanks. Let's cut off the Roman iron supply so they can't train Praetorians. They also help show you who to make friends with and trade for those precious minerals. I do realize the resouces are still powerful in there own right, but it's no dire emergercy if you lack one.
 
I was pretty shocked during my first play-through to discover that not having iron, oil, niter, coal, etc. was more "oh, well" than "oh, s--t." But I'm not sure I miss it. Having to track down that key resource was an incredibly huge part of previous Civ games, often so much so that it became the focal point rather than developing a city in the best spot on the map. I got used to doing it, but I'm not sure it was fun per se. It was often like, "Well, I'll need iron for sure, so I'd better put my next city on those jungle tiles north of me, and then once it hits 30 culture, I can build a third city near that iron deposit in the desert, even though neither of those cities is going to be worth much in terms of production, and there's no fresh water." And then do the same thing once you reveal oil, or even coal. It can almost control the game if you don't get good resource placement early on, and it's a big reason why I'd restart games after researching iron working, or even animal husbandry (horses).
 
I don't

Iron being rare strategic resource that can be cut off has always been ridiculously ahistorical notion, there has never been an Old World empire in history post iron age which couldn't build an army because of the iron deficit. Everybody and their gradmother had iron weaponry past certain point, no matter if you went to the most backwards area of pre-Roman Europe, to African areas freshly settled by Bantu peoples who brought iron weapons everywhere, or to the most remote Indonesian islands. Same with horses (except for tse tse fly areas and Americas), which was even dumber strategic resource because they could literally be bred anywhere, it's not like they were stationary minerals lol (Americas imported them and Mapuche and plains Indians rapidly became incredible horsemen). Don't even tell me about needing rare exotic "niter" to get guns to work, past certain point everybody and their cousin were armed with muskets if they could buy them or had half decent manufactures, tons of obscure African precolonial chiefdoms in the bush had decent supply of guns if global trade reached them.

But more importantly it was annoying for the human player and made AI even easier to defeat, so it brought little benefits to the enjoyment and the difficulty level of the game
 
Last edited:
Same with horses (except for tse tse fly areas and Americas), which was even dumber strategic resource because they could literally be bred anywhere, it's not like they were stationary minerals lol.
This always jumped out at me too. For the most part, if you want horses, you purchase or capture breedable horses and bring them to where you want them to be raised and stabled, and if they're wild, you domesticate them (if you can) and their issue. You don't just poach mustangs you find roaming the wilderness, and go back looking for more wild horses every year afterward. In my many, many solo games of Civ IV, I used the map editor more than once to move horses from point A to point B because I decided this was stupid, and I didn't want to restart the game over it. I made my own narrative! "The brave team of scouts captured several wild horses and brought them back to Itty Bitty City, where they were placed on a ranch."
 
Iron being rare strategic resource that can be cut off has always been ridiculously ahistorical notion, there has never been an Old World empire in history post iron age which couldn't build an army because of the iron deficit. Everybody and their gradmother had iron weaponry past certain point, no matter if you went to the most backwards area of pre-Roman Europe, to African areas freshly settled by Bantu peoples who brought iron weapons everywhere, or to the most remote Indonesian islands. Same with horses (except for tse tse fly areas and Americas), which was even dumber strategic resource because they could literally be bred anywhere, it's not like they were stationary minerals lol. Don't even tell about needing rare exotic "niter" to get guns to work, past certain point everybody and their cousin were armed with muskets if they could buy them or had half decent manufactures, tons of obscure African precolonial chiefdoms in the bush had decent supply of guns if global trade reached them.

From a historical perspective, that is true for iron because it's so widespread that you can basically find it everywhere in burning ground at a very high temperature in an oven, but that wasn't true for copper and tin during the bronze age. It wasn't true for obsidian even before that. The History of Civilization has been widely driven by the need to have access to always more resources, and that since Upper Paleolithic. It has lead to the rise and fall of civilizations, be that with spices, coal or even oil today.

Now from a Civilization gaming perspective, honestly, I don't know because it seems that people are looking for completely different things behind such a broad concept. It really entirely depends on what you want to focus on.
 
I prefer the new way. While yeah, the absolute desire is less, you don't desperately need to search out iron or else you miss your legions. And I think the bonuses do add up - having a couple sources handy can make some of your units pretty strong for their time.
 
New way is better from gameplay perspective (smaller punishment for not having a resource) and also pretty correct from historical point of view. I don't think there was any country unable to use iron weapons due to lack of iron or cavalry due to lack of horses. But sources of quality iron surely helped made better weapons. More recently, cutting Nazis from oil in Africa and Stalingrad clearly hindered their operations, but they still were able to fight with tanks, planes, ships and other machines requiring oil.
 
Last edited:
From a historical perspective, that is true for iron because it's so widespread that you can basically find it everywhere in burning ground at a very high temperature in an oven, but that wasn't true for copper and tin during the bronze age. It wasn't true for obsidian even before that. The History of Civilization has been widely driven by the need to have access to always more resources, and that since Upper Paleolithic. It has lead to the rise and fall of civilizations, be that with spices, coal or even oil today.

Now from a Civilization gaming perspective, honestly, I don't know because it seems that people are looking for completely different things behind such a broad concept. It really entirely depends on what you want to focus on.

You are absolutely correct regarding pre-iron metals, but well, in civ games it was always about iron, not copper and tin ;) I'd gladly play a game with hard ancient focus where things such as copper and tin are rare desirable resources, but obviously in civ pre-iron ages are too small part of the game to warrant that.

However, spices? Spices were a luxury trade good, it wasn't some engine of economic growth or military resource that decided the rise and fall of the medieval European kingdoms lol. People wanted spices because they make eating much more fun, not because they need it too fuel spice-powered knights and castles.

As for coal, oil and uranium etc (and steel, aluminium etc), well those are industrial resources, only relevant from the 19th century onwards. They make sense as they actually were the engines of the economic growth. So I can imagine modern age at some point incorporating them into the design - though I dread the impact it would have on the AI, with half of AI empires becoming crippled and impotent because of that design decision.
 
My initial reaction was the same as the OP. I missed razing somone's mine to stop them from building legions, etc.

After playing a few games, I no longer miss it. However, I do feel that resources in general feel too plentiful. Everywhere you go, you get something. It all just kind of blends together. This may change as I get more familiar with the game.

I also played a few games of Civ 4 prior to release of Civ 7 and missing a resource was painful. No copper? No axemen. No iron? No swordsmen. Several of the resources were absolutely critical. I like the way they were handled in Civ 5 and 6, where the AI would trade you what you needed if you had what they needed.
 
From a historical perspective, that is true for iron because it's so widespread that you can basically find it everywhere in burning ground at a very high temperature in an oven, but that wasn't true for copper and tin during the bronze age. It wasn't true for obsidian even before that. The History of Civilization has been widely driven by the need to have access to always more resources, and that since Upper Paleolithic. It has lead to the rise and fall of civilizations, be that with spices, coal or even oil today.

Now from a Civilization gaming perspective, honestly, I don't know because it seems that people are looking for completely different things behind such a broad concept. It really entirely depends on what you want to focus on.
From a historical perspective, before the Industrial Era anything you really wanted and were willing to pay for, somebody was willing to supply it. Don't have copper? The Phoenicians will haul all the copper you want from Cyprus and sell it to you - and you do not have to establish a trade route or build a boat or do anything except pay the price to get it. Don't have tin? Somebody will pack it in from Afghanistan or Cornwall as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Before the Industrial Era requirements, nobody needed iron, tin or copper in amounts greater than packloads - the amount of iron necessary to fully equip a Roman legionary with armor, weapons and equipment was less than 50 kg, even as raw ore, and that could be loaded onto any donkey - which had been domesticated by 3500 BCE largely for that reason: they made very efficient pack animals for long distance, overland trade (the camel was domesticated much, much later specifically for trans-desert trade routes). An entire Roman Legion could be equipped with less than 250 tons of iron ore, carried on 5000 donkeys or about 8 early cargo ships (30 tons/ship seems to have been fairly common, almost 'standard' since Minoan/Phoenician Bronze Age models).

The big change in trade goods came with Industrialization. A single ironclad required over 1000 tons of iron goods, A single kilometer of railroad track - without cars, locomotives, stations or any other infrastructure - required 100 tons of wrought iron or steel, and that's by mid-19th century - it at least doubles by the early 20th century, as rails almost double in weight and size.

Suddenly the amounts of raw materials needed to do anything meaningful increase by an order of magnitude, at least.

But here is the other point to Trade and raw materials: everything has a substitute. Can't get Tin for your Bronze? Arsenical ores can be used, or Zinc to make Brass as a substitute. Don't have enough petroleum? Coal can be processed into a substitute, and was in the 1940s in Germany. Niter was originally found in natural deposits, then manufactured in Nitraries, finally manufactured artificially using the Haber Process and other techniques for both fertilizer and munitions.

Civ VII's system is perfectly adequate for the first two Ages, when quantities required were small or moveable (like sheep, cattle and horses), but IMHO needs a revision for the Modern Age.

Modern Economic progress was and is dependent on getting massive quantities of certain materials, primarily Iron, Coal and Oil, but also including a multitude of other raw goods (The US Strategic Bombing Survey identified over 80 'necessary' materials needed by German industry in WWII), most prominently Rubber, Aluminum, and very specialized materials like Chromium, Molybdenum, Manganese, and Tungsten. The game does not need that level of detail, Thank Dog, but the contest for coal, iron and oil supplies was a major part of strategic thinking throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, or the majority of the Modern Age in the game.

Also, having an entirely 'new' system of raw materials supply for the economic base of the Modern Age would give gamers an entirely new set of Age-related problems to solve in that Age. Do you search out major iron, coal or oil supplies on the map and seize them? Or do you set up to manufacture Substitutes by, say, building a great network of Technical Schools and a very advanced Chemical Engineering establishment (the 'German model') to feed your industry and economy?
 
However, spices? Spices were a luxury trade good, it wasn't some engine of economic growth or military resource that decided the rise and fall of the medieval European kingdoms lol. People wanted spices because they make eating much more fun, not because they need it too fuel spice-powered knights and castles.

By spices I meant that Portugal spent 75 years stubbornly trying to circumnavigate Africa in order to get access to spices in bypassing the Arabs. And by the end of the 15th century when they eventualy succeeded, that basically triggered the exploration age.
 
I definitely don't miss having to scour all the earth to find enough aluminum nodes to build planes with.

I definitely don't miss not having niter and being unable to build ranged combat ships just because the random map generation didn't favor me.

I definitely don't miss being unable to upgrade to swords just because the area I started in was curiously absent of any iron.

:woohoo:

With that said, I still care about getting those resources now if I can (and I WILL forward settle for iron or niter). They give good yields, and I want every point of bonus combat strength I can get!
 
not because they need it too fuel spice-powered knights and castles
I guess you've never read about the Coriantercopole and Bergamotte and bailey.
 
Civ is not a history game, but a game based/inspired on history. Never was a game that aspired absolute realism or historical perfectionism. To some people, searching for a resource (especially in the map, but also trying to get it via diplomacy) that was crucial for the strategy was among the most fun things to do in the game since III. There are bigger historical innacuracies in the Civ series (including VII) than a mechanic in which the player must have certain resources to build specific military units.
 
It's the opposite for me. Strategics in civ 6 were an absolute slog by the time GS came out and there were even units that had strategic resource maintenance so you could have like 1-2 units on the map. Or you are just missing 1 of them (because anything other than horses could be absurdly rare in some map generations) and either you can't use military for an era and/or the AI is helpless against you.

I did not mind them in civ 5 but civ 6 really killed the system for me. I think their new system of just allowing stacking bonuses to those specific units is an elegant solution to reward strategic resource accumulation without locking entire civs out of competitive warfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom