I want Saltpeter back

[Henrik]

You do know that all that's needed to make saltpeter for gunpowder is horse ****?

Securing saltpeter has never been a military concern beyond the shoveling of dung in the stables...


EDIT: Well it needen't be from horses per se, so you needen't think about making horses a requirement for all gunpowder units

 

[.Shane.]

Yes, because most early rennaisance saltpeter was made from urine. Didnt exactly have to mine for that in most places...

hence the name "saltpeter"

Ba dum dum, thank you, I'll be here all week.

 

[Tavenier]

AfterShafter has definately a point in arguing about other ressources then.

A nation being able to get saltpeter or gunpowder in general shouldn't be able to get cows, pigs or whatever else? What about fish? Nations shouldn't be able to breed their own stock of horses? C'mon!
There would be really only 10 - 12 ressources of stone at the whole globe? What the heck are you people talking about?

The fish is there anyway. You get food from sea tiles. But in some area's in the world fish is more abundant then elsewhere so you get more food from it. Same goes for stone. You can build walls. Everywhere you can find stones. But in Switzerland are more suitable stones then in the Netherlands. So a place where usable stones are more abundant you can build the same walls twice as fast.

The pig farms aren't really static. It represents an entire state/province specialized in breeding cattle. And the entire civ benefits from it (+1 health), and even other civs, when you trade it. Not so unrealistic if you keep in mind that some countries only have one export product (bananas, oil, etc). And special resources being on the same spot for centuries is not so strange either. Marble was abundant in Italy, but still is today. My bathroom has a lot of Italian marble in it! And wine from France is also not something from the last century. The Romans build wineries millenia ago...

 

[AriochIV]

IMHO that should be the case with every strategic resource.
I.e. no hard requirement, meaning that you cannot build a unit without the resoruces,
but rather a soft requirement, meaning that without the resource it takes longer to build units that require this resource for example double the building times for every resource missen, which could lead to 4 times the building times for modern units that require 2 resources, where you don´t have both of them (perhaps with exception of nukes which you should only be able to build if you have uranium)

This is not a bad idea, but while I agree it's more realistic, I think the current play model works well as it is.

I think it's a good change that saltpeter is no longer a strategic resource... in addition to the fact that it historically wasn't scarce (every nation has access to some form of animal poop), it's nice to have gunpowder as that one "safe plateau" that you can try to make it to if you've been screwed out of copper, iron, or horses... to try to get back on your feet (before you get screwed later by not having oil or aluminum).

 

[Hadrean]

Can't someone just reskin one of the current resources and mod it into the game?

 

[AriochIV]

The Salt from the China Unification scenario would be a good candidate.

 

[Hadrean]

you guys were arguing about why and why not to have saltpeter back and now we are nominating resources to reskin.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just pointing out an option.

People can mod stuff to their hearts' delight, but that doesn't change the rest of us play the game.

 

[Bradlius]

The fish is there anyway. You get food from sea tiles. But in some area's in the world fish is more abundant then elsewhere so you get more food from it. Same goes for stone. You can build walls. Everywhere you can find stones. But in Switzerland are more suitable stones then in the Netherlands. So a place where usable stones are more abundant you can build the same walls twice as fast.

Agreed. I always understood the resources as representing really exceptional sources of something. For fish, I think of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland or those anchovy shoals off of South Africa. Real big sources of stuff that can not only be used by your civ but can be traded for export. Italian marble, Arabian horses, Saudi crude. It's true that some resources travel. California wines are now exported to other parts of the world, yet California didn't "start" with a Wine resource. Also the Plains Indians of the American West had no horses until they stole some from the Spanish. The whole New World was without horses till then, but the Indians certainly adapted to them once they became "available."
In terms of gameplay, I'm not sure how you could handle this. Maybe resources occasionally "pop up" in regions where they weren't before? Obviously wouldn't work for "geological" resources like coal or oil, but it sort of makes sense for some of the "food" resources.
Saltpeter seems more of a technological or manufacturing breakthrough than a true resource.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

Kind of off topic but why is oil needed for combustion? Engines can run on alternate sources i.e. ethanol. Just because i don't have oil that doesn't mean I can't build a tank that runs on ethanol. Anyway I guess it's just like the whole saltpeter argument.

Acquiring resources is in my view part of what makes civ 4 so fun. I'd leave it just the way it is.

 

[AriochIV]

Kind of off topic but why is oil needed for combustion? Engines can run on alternate sources i.e. ethanol. Just because i don't have oil that doesn't mean I can't build a tank that runs on ethanol.

Well, oil is used for a lot more than just fuel; it's also used for lubrication and as a source for synthetic materials like artificial rubber and plastic.

Which reminds me that rubber also used to be a strategic resource in Civ3. Unlike saltpeter, rubber really was a scarce resource, but it was only in heavy demand for a relatively short period of time before it was replaced by artifical petroleum-based plastics. So it's probably just as well that it was removed as a resource, because oil really should obsolete it.

Acquiring resources is in my view part of what makes civ 4 so fun. I'd leave it just the way it is.

Agreed!

 

[50_dollar_bag]

Well, oil is used for a lot more than just fuel; it's also used for lubrication and as a source for synthetic materials like artificial rubber and plastic.

There are probably viable alternatives for everything petroleum-based, discovered or as yet undiscovered.

I was going to go on to say that there could be a tech to remove the necessity for oil but that would negate my comment earlier about acquiring resources being a fun part of the game.

Anyway, Mechanized Infantry don't require oil so there you go.

 

[EntropyMu]

Yeah, saltpeter is really abundant, so it shouldn't be a resource. Now let me go try and find some aluminum, the most abundant metal we have.

 

[AriochIV]

Anyway, Mechanized Infantry don't require oil so there you go.

Right. Iron is "sort of" obsoleted in the same way, not being required by any modern units after Cannons & Ironclads, even though battleships and tanks are certainly made out of steel (which of course is made of iron). We assume at this point that the resource has become a commodity.

Now let me go try and find some aluminum, the most abundant metal we have.

I don't think that was always the case. According to the Wikipedia entry, it was "once considered a precious metal more valuable than gold." Though admittedly I think this had more to do with the difficulty of the refining process than with the availability of bauxite ore.

 

[Tavenier]

Agreed. I always understood the resources as representing really exceptional sources of something. For fish, I think of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland or those anchovy shoals off of South Africa. Real big sources of stuff that can not only be used by your civ but can be traded for export. Italian marble, Arabian horses, Saudi crude. It's true that some resources travel. California wines are now exported to other parts of the world, yet California didn't "start" with a Wine resource. Also the Plains Indians of the American West had no horses until they stole some from the Spanish. The whole New World was without horses till then, but the Indians certainly adapted to them once they became "available."
In terms of gameplay, I'm not sure how you could handle this. Maybe resources occasionally "pop up" in regions where they weren't before? Obviously wouldn't work for "geological" resources like coal or oil, but it sort of makes sense for some of the "food" resources.
Saltpeter seems more of a technological or manufacturing breakthrough than a true resource.

It already happens with resources like silver or iron. Sometimes I get a silver resource in an already existent mine. It would be a good idea to have that with cattle and horses too. If you don't have horses, but you get them from the Koreans in exchange for, say, Iron, then after hundreds of years why not get a horse resource yourself, somewhere on your map.

 

[Martinus]

Complicated, yes... But are you saying it's more realistic to be able to make gunpowder with no saltpeter at all?

As others pointed out, saltpeter is quite ubiquitous and easy to syntethise. Likewise, you don't need to have wood to build catapults, bows or ships in the game, but that doesn't mean you build them without wood. (Although perhaps it would be cool if you needed a "large timber" resource to build bigger wooden ships, such as frigates).

 

[kristopherb]

IMHO that should be the case with every strategic resource.
I.e. no hard requirement, meaning that you cannot build a unit without the resoruces,
but rather a soft requirement, meaning that without the resource it takes longer to build units that require this resource for example double the building times for every resource missen, which could lead to 4 times the building times for modern units that require 2 resources, where you don´t have both of them (perhaps with exception of nukes which you should only be able to build if you have uranium)

i was thinking the other day you chould build spear men with copper which would be weaker than spearmen built with iron(the iron spear whould be take longer to build)

 

[Bradlius]

Likewise, you don't need to have wood to build catapults, bows or ships in the game, but that doesn't mean you build them without wood. (Although perhaps it would be cool if you needed a "large timber" resource to build bigger wooden ships, such as frigates).

Good point. I might have read it but probably saw it on the History Channel or something that the English really struggled to maintain their domination of the seas because they had practically exhausted the forests of Merry Olde England by building their wooden ships. They had to expand to India and the Americas to acquire new sources of timber. (Then when the U.S. revolted, that set them back a bit!)

 

[dh_epic]

It's established that Saltpeter was super-abundant.

So what of the argument that cows, pigs, and (lime)stone?

AfterShafter has definately a point in arguing about other ressources then.

A nation being able to get saltpeter or gunpowder in general shouldn't be able to get cows, pigs or whatever else? What about fish? Nations shouldn't be able to breed their own stock of horses? C'mon!
There would be really only 10 - 12 ressources of stone at the whole globe? What the heck are you people talking about?

Without trying to compare Civ3 and Civ4, the necessity to collect saltpeter for sure added some strategic element to Civ3, which now is just missing.

Which leads me back to my MAIN point:

Realism is not the top priority. Nor should it be.

Strategy is the top concern. To repeat the strategic significance of saltpeter:

Resources tend to reward players with huge territories, and penalize those who have been relegated to a small chunk of land. Having gunpowder units require saltpeter would basically mean that the game would be over for most Civilizations before the end of the medieval era.

It's moderately fair to make resources important in the ancient era, since players have a great deal of control over when and how to access them. But, in game balance terms, Saltpeter always rewarded the big empire and penalized the small guy. With saltpeter in the game, it was easy for someone in the lead around 500 AD to cement their victory by 1200 AD because all the smaller nations would be less likely to possess gunpowder.

(Oil and aluminum aren't so bad since their function is mostly for naval units, and Tanks only appear in the modern era... although they tend to do the same thing too, hurting the smaller nations that are less likely to have access to key resources.)

 

[Commander Bello]

@dh_epic:
Well, first of all I am not so sure about whether saltpeter really has been that abundant as some people in this thread claim it has been.

There has been at least one war called the "saltpeter war" between Chile and another country.
Guano, as a source for nitrates (saltpeter is a form of nitrate, AFAIK - without being a chemist) was collected large scale by European nations up to the late 1800's.

Sure, you could get it as well from animal excrements and so on, but from what I've read about it, I got some doubts that you (prior to the establishment of large scale chemistry industries) could have got it in countable quantities at your local grocer.

However, this is not that much the point.
The arguments you brought in to justify not to need any ressource for building gunpowder based units could be used against making horses a ressource as well, couldn't they?
Up to and including cavalry and cossacks, the horse is THE one vital ressource to create fast and powerful units.
Now, this would make the big empire even more powerful, as you can expect the bigger empire to have higher chances to get those units. The smaller empire therefore has less chances to get them. Nobody seems to complain about this, no?

Once again, where is the point in having Stone as a ressource then? The bigger empire will have much bigger chances to have Stone as a ressource and therefore to get the World and National Wonders which are 50% off by having it.
The bigger empire therefore will be the one to build those wonders
- and some units to defend themselves
- and some other buildings to improve their science or their income and so on.

Yes, the bigger empire will have just better chances to get certain things - if compared to a equally well managed smaller empire.
This is just the nature of the game.

In Civ3 (once again, without any attempt to glorify this badly implemented game) the lack of saltpeter could offer you with some nice challenges.
As I see it, in Civ4 it is only bee-lining to the muskets and grenadiers and out of a sudden, you get a new deck - by the way, something which the AI is not very good at.
So, to abstain from needing ressources for a certain category of units just makes the game easier for the human, not for the cpu.

The arguments you've brought ultimately lead to the abolition of strategic ressources if not all other ressources as well, as far as I see it.
It is just the very nature of a ressource concept that they have to be scarce to a certain degree. If they were not, why have them at all?
Sure, I clearly see that there are some losers out there complaing about the mean game, not throwing each and everything at them when they want to have it. But, ultimately, this leads us to getting rid of ressources in the next sequel.

To be honest, to defend the abolition of saltpeter (or, rubber and so on) sounds just like some kind of short-term conservatism. Oh, this is the concept as was delivered. Just do not change it. Even don't think about other ways.

Yes, it is the concept as it was implemented in the game. Does that mean that it would be the only viable concept? I severely doubt that.