I miss the absolute need of strategic resources!

[thecrazyscot]

With the AI combat strength bonuses on higher difficulties strategic resources are actually hugely beneficial. AI elephants on Immortal/Deity are ... Terrifying.

 

[gdr_willter]

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.

AI nearly never shared strategic resources. There was no way to be the global power, even regional power without ownership of strategic resources. "City with no reason but only oil" was quite a bad experience in previous titles.

Finding resources is still a big part of fun in Civ 7, and it is strengthened with the resource-based trader system. I love it as the game mechanic. And you know, its historical accuracy is nice bonus to have.

 

[canadamufc]

Don’t remind me of that time I was playing Persia in Civ VI on Deity and had to reroll maybe 4-5 times after researching Bronze Working because it turns out there was absolutely 0 Iron for my immortals anywhere close to me.

I don’t miss it and I don’t think I ever will. This is a great change.

 

[Melkus]

Also think this is the best (global) resource system yet, especially with the subtle possibilities of trading.

And there's design space for asymmetry: certain civs making better use of certain resources or having a particular fondness for something. Declaring a resource sacred for your religion or more expensive to trade.

This would make diplomacy and trading more nuanced and strategic too, and even without requiring a lot of busywork.

 

[ezzlar]

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?

It seems the strategic resource aspect is rather an economic aspect. Oil is for industry, cars, trains etc and mainly an economic driver rather than an absolute war unit requirement then?

 

[King of Prussia]

The new system is way better than the old. Ive been wanting this change for years, and even advocated for it outside of Civ as well. As others said, no more having games ruined not having those resources. The player was far better than the AI at getting them if you lacked them, which made the AI even worse. Being limited to building a handful of units because the one resource you had gave you so little made modern era wars boring. If you are going to screw people over on map generation, then give people a way to make up for the deficit in other ways. Civ 5 did this with aluminum as an example.

Having them provide combat bonus + yields makes them worthwhile to nab. Being able to send merchants to get access to AI resources is pretty nice too. Overall the resource system is pretty good.

 

[DarthCycle]

I prefer the new system, simplier and elegant. Works gameplay wise

 

[wesplaysciv]

I don't miss it in antiquity, since it felt more RNG and less capability to mitigate as your empire is growing, but I did have one or two memorable wars in Civ 6 because I needed more oil. Never went to war for monopolies though that could have been worthwhile. Think adding something more significant so that war for resources can make sense would improve the game!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It seems the strategic resource aspect is rather an economic aspect. Oil is for industry, cars, trains etc and mainly an economic driver rather than an absolute war unit requirement then?

The entire 'Strategic' Resource system in Civ VII has been made as automated as possible: no more piling up enough to build anything, no more 'make or break' Civ Starts due to lack of resources. Both the importance and requirements for strategic resources have been largely 'nerfed'.

This is by no means wrong from a gaming perspective, as I think the comments on this Thread show. My point is that while it is both gaming good and historically arguable for the first two Ages, the advent of industrialization (start of the Modern Age) changes the equation dramatically, AND gives the game design a chance to change the gamer's problem array in regard to resources for that Age compared to the first two.

Given that they have tried to make each Age a separate set of problems to solve, that seems to me to be a potential win-win situation if they choose to tackle it.

Say, in an Industrialization DLC concentrated on a new set of mechanics for the Modern Age, perhaps a couple of Industrial Civs (Modern Age Great Britain, anyone?) and a new set of Exploration Age Crises based on the start or Industrialization and the unrest that came with it.

 

[bigjim1]

Looks as if I'm in a minority here, but I really miss the old system. I've had many great games where I was building up a nice little empire, made a discovery that revealed a vital new resource and then realised I didn't have any. Oh dear! That required new trade deals, conquests, colonising new lands, etc. Or you sometimes found you have almost ALL the oil, aluminium, etc., so others come knocking. It made the game less static. I've only completed 3 games of Civ VII, but my initial impression is that it's a bit too easy to just grab territory early and sit on it. For me the ideal would be to have a slightly greater penalty for lacking a key resource, plus a greater number of vital resources, and more ways to acquire them.

In one of the earlier versions of the game (might have been IV?) there was a specialist unit that could create colonies, which just let you grab a resource. They weren't cities or settlements and they didn't grow. You could plonk a defensive unit or two on or near them (they could only be on unclaimed territory), but you couldn't build fortifications, etc. Something like that might be a nice addition, but I would still like vital resources to be a bit more vital than in the current version.

 

[Jcturmer]

One way to deal with searching for and obtaining resources without drastically changing the game could be to tie them to economic victory and factories.

For example, make a factory require two or three resources. If you put iron, oil, and rubber into a factory, you create the strategic resource of "cars," which gives +1 movement to all units. This way, in the modern age, you can feel the absence of a resource, search for it on the map, and fight other leaders for it.

 

[CoconutTank]

Looks as if I'm in a minority here, but I really miss the old system. I've had many great games where I was building up a nice little empire, made a discovery that revealed a vital new resource and then realised I didn't have any. Oh dear! That required new trade deals, conquests, colonising new lands, etc. Or you sometimes found you have almost ALL the oil, aluminium, etc., so others come knocking. It made the game less static. I've only completed 3 games of Civ VII, but my initial impression is that it's a bit too easy to just grab territory early and sit on it. For me the ideal would be to have a slightly greater penalty for lacking a key resource, plus a greater number of vital resources, and more ways to acquire them.

In one of the earlier versions of the game (might have been IV?) there was a specialist unit that could create colonies, which just let you grab a resource. They weren't cities or settlements and they didn't grow. You could plonk a defensive unit or two on or near them (they could only be on unclaimed territory), but you couldn't build fortifications, etc. Something like that might be a nice addition, but I would still like vital resources to be a bit more vital than in the current version.

I can see how varied access to resources would give individual sessions more flavor and challenge, but I think I'd like there to be a bit more granularity than "feast or famine" with the way resources are parceled out and how necessary they are in Civ5/Civ6/HK. At least on the military aspect, I'm glad that my sessions aren't basically over if opposing civs have military leverage that I can't deal with (and being friendly with them only lasts for so long usually ime).

Nobody's really brought this up, but all resources being immediately visible at the start of each Era does cut down on some of the surprise factor in Civ. I think I like that a little more, but I can see how some folks might've preferred that surprise factor. I imagine this leads to folks beelining certain territory much more quickly than before, once folks are familiar enough with Legacy Paths and whatever other priorities they have.

 

[adrifranchise]

i like the new system but i don’t think it’s deep enough. the way it is now, i feel like the only strategy is what city or town you want to place the bonuses. you can get any resource you like (given you have the trade routes).

what i really miss is the feeling of having to wage war over resources. what’s the point of warring with someone for a resource when you can essentially send a merchant to whatever settlement and get the resources anyway

 

[KingLouisIV]

I did have one or two memorable wars in Civ 6 because I needed more oil.

Yeah!

I do agree with the general thought that the dynamics of the old system were weird. But I actually enjoyed rolling into oil and discovering I needed to launch a war to get some. It made late-game wars seem purposeful rather than just “because I could”.

And uh without getting too political, as a kid who had CNN covering invasions of the Middle East on in the background while playing Civ II, the dynamic is very real

 

[Leyrann]

With the AI combat strength bonuses on higher difficulties strategic resources are actually hugely beneficial. AI elephants on Immortal/Deity are ... Terrifying.

I feel like those combat bonuses have actually been set while keeping in mind that advanced players will be superior to the AI at securing combat bonuses, whether from resources or other sources (city states, abilities, etc). I like it.