I want Saltpeter back

[dh_epic]

Horses ARE vital for building a huge empire quickly. Which is exactly the reason that they needed to give smaller nations some kind of "resourceless" defence. With a saltpeter requirement, you'd have a HUGE snowball effect, with larger empires getting every military advantage and small nations stuck with archers. Without the saltpeter requirement, there's still horses, giving larger empires only get an aggressive advantage, not a defensive advantage.

There's no need to turn this into an all or nothing issue. Saying that you HAVE to put in saltpeter or else you are justifying the complete abolition of the resource system is to ignore the second word in the term "game balance".

There were probably other ways to give small nations a fighting chance and curtail the snowball effect. But this one works.

 

[apopholeus813]

I remember civ 3 games leading the whole way and being stuck without saltpeter, which the the production fo has already been discussed. Very lame. I'm also equally annoyed when i have 4-5 cities and no copper or iron, seeing how abundant these metals are. But I've noticed this only happens on higher levels so in a a game I like that if I want a challenge I get one. But with gunpowder I think it's more balancing to not need a resourse for it. I think you should need rubber for modern units until something obsoletes that req. It could be attached to a tech we that's already in the game, prolly plastics I would think. One idea mentioned here that I like is being able to build buildings that reaquire a resource that give you a hammer bonus when creating units that need that resource. Metal casting should be more powerfull, it's expensive as hell and in history persians, chinese and indians were casting steel swords when the west was still trying to figure out how to make grey iron. Something like levels of units like in Chinese Unification scenario. Also someone said iron created spermen should be more powerfull than copper, bronze makes better weapons then iron but tin is rare compared to iron, that's why iron age came after bronze age, widespread usage of metal tools, not b/c its stronger.

 

[The Navy Seal]

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!)

I like that idea, on easter Isle they used all the forest and couldn't complete those statues making forest an importain resouce I think.

 

[se7en]

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.

Even more than that, I hate when I'm researching future techs but just can't seem to get my railroads up and running because we can't seem to find any coal to run our nuclear powered electric railway system.

 

[Mr. Do]

I find the notion that because certain resources like horses and sheep are misrepresented in the game, that the same misrepresentation should be applied to other, even more important resources, to be quite bizarre...

 

[AfterShafter]

I find the notion that because certain resources like horses and sheep are misrepresented in the game, that the same misrepresentation should be applied to other, even more important resources, to be quite bizarre...

As it happens, saltpeter is also misrepresented in game - it just magically appears when you get the tech. No-one is suggesting its current accurate representation be traded for an inaccurate one... It was just pointed out that, if you're such a stickler for realism that you just can't stand saltpeter being a resource like horses, what's so great about the current system? *I* find the notion that one inaccurate representation is simply impermissible, but another is perfectly OK, quite bizarre - don't you?

 

[Commander Bello]

As it happens, saltpeter is also misrepresented in game - it just magically appears when you get the tech. No-one is suggesting its current accurate representation be traded for an inaccurate one... It was just pointed out that, if you're such a stickler for realism that you just can't stand saltpeter being a resource like horses, what's so great about the current system? *I* find the notion that one inaccurate representation is simply impermissible, but another is perfectly OK, quite bizarre - don't you?

Couldn't have it expressed in a better way!

 

[The Navy Seal]

Then if you don't want it to just pop up you could make a improvement on certain terrain which supplies saltpeter.

 

[AfterShafter]

Then if you don't want it to just pop up you could make a improvement on certain terrain which supplies saltpeter.

I don't care if the system is accurate or not, so long as it works. Just seems a bit inconsistent for those who do to be so dead set against it being a workable resource.

 

[Evie]

That's because those who think the current system does work are also those who put issues of game balance ahead of issues of realism.

And, as has been said already, a saltpeter strategic ressource would break balance by advantaging large empires far too much. The way it currently is, larger empire still have a ressource-based advantage (due to horses) but not nearly as big as it'd be if saltpeter was a resource as well.

Essentialy, a game where you absolutely HAD to find one specific resources, or be stuck with archers as your best unit, would be one of the most frustrating, poor game experience, and turn game balance into a joke. Once again, as it was in the older CIVs, you'd have no choice but to expand quickly, and try to grab as much territory as possible, or lose due to your inability to mount up a decent defense in the mid-game.

There are already enough advantages to large empires.

 

[dh_epic]

a game where you absolutely HAD to find one specific resources, or be stuck with archers as your best unit, would be one of the most frustrating, poor game experience, and turn game balance into a joke. Once again, as it was in the older CIVs, you'd have no choice but to expand quickly, and try to grab as much territory as possible, or lose due to your inability to mount up a decent defense in the mid-game.

Bingo.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4391601&postcount=42

You can talk about all the double standards in the world. But if the double standard leads to good game play, all other points are moot.

I remember when I started participating more avidly on these forums, there was a thread called Less Realism. The thread kind of pissed me off at the time. But now I totally understand where it came from. I'd hate to see a game designed by these realism mongers. (Especially since their idea of realism would be full of their own historical biases anyway.)

 

[Armorydave]

I agree that it would harm gameplay. As a relentless conquerer it would just make the game easier as I would frequently be stomping on a small nations longbowmen with my cavalry and muskets/riflemen. Under the current system they can rush to gunpowder and upgrade to muskets without having to worry about getting lucky on resource placement. I would add rubber back in before SP.

 

[Commander Bello]

Sorry, guys, but what really confuses me that the people which damn about the idea of having saltpeter as a ressource seem to face no problem with Bronze Working.

This is a completely misbalanced technology.
It reveals the strongest melee unit of its time, it allows for the counter of horses, it allows chopping (at least only of forests) and slavery... Under the assumption that you would have a deposit of copper, of course and as far as the units are concerned.

So, in general any assumed missing of copper harms you in the early game, when your economy is weak and you are assumed to not being able to build a considerable force in time to get some.
If you miss saltpeter though, you should be able to identify this in time and to do some thing against it. This chance you almost don't have as far as the copper is concerned.

And all about that talking that big empires will have advantages: yes, they will have. So what? Somebody who created a bigger empire should have some advantages from this.

As I have stated earlier: following your lines of thought to the very end, you are arguing to abolish ressources at all.

 

[Kissamies]

Some advantage, yes. Overwhelming advantage, no.

 

[Proteus]

I agree that it would harm gameplay. As a relentless conquerer it would just make the game easier as I would frequently be stomping on a small nations longbowmen with my cavalry and muskets/riflemen. Under the current system they can rush to gunpowder and upgrade to muskets without having to worry about getting lucky on resource placement. I would add rubber back in before SP.

This is the reason why it would be a good idea to make resources no hard requirement but just a soft one like stones/marmor for certain wonders.

"Just" doubling the building times of units for every required ressource missing would be:

1. better for gameplay, as even small states with certain resources missing could field modern equipment, making life for warmongers harder as denying your neighbours access to certain resoruces (like oil) wouldn´t mean that you fight with destroyers/battleships against his frigates/galleons, but jjust that he produces his battleships/destroiyers at a slower rate

2. realistic (at least for modern times, where, due to interconnected markets you could acquire almost every resource if you give it enough time, or at least be able to create a surrogate that works like the resource missing [oil from coal, for example])


Still better would be a mix of hard and soft requirements.
Perhaps with early units having hard requirements (for example iron for swordsmen) as in earlier times it was easier to control the flow of resources and with later units (destroyers for example) only having soft requirements.
Having hard requirements during earlier times would also preserve the difficulty of fighting against barbarians during the early eras of the game, whereas from renaissance upwards barbarians normally don´t play an imnportant role anymore (and fights between civs are commonplace, meaning that soft resource requirements would make the game more unpredictable and harder during the latter phases of the game [if you take into account that most people voted for modern as the most boring era, this would be a welcome effect, probably making modern times "more interesting"]).

 

[dh_epic]

I know we can debate the balance of the bronzeworking technology, but that's beside your point of "either include every resource or include none at all".

So, in general any assumed missing of copper harms you in the early game, when your economy is weak and you are assumed to not being able to build a considerable force in time to get some.

There are LIGHTYEARS of difference between copper and would-be saltpeter.

Without copper...

• You'd be able to build all kinds of wonders without worrying about defence.
• You'd be able to discover multiple religions without worrying about defence.
• You'd be able to settle all kinds of cities without worrying about defence.

By adding copper into the mix, you shift the weight away from purely peaceful strategies. Players have to either discover archers and catapults pretty quick, or prioritize unlocking copper. With copper unlocked, they need to make smart decisions about their city locations.

Copper prevents early peace from being too powerful. And players have LOTS of control over their access to copper.

The key difference is this is the early game, when there's already an extremely level playing field. You can theoretically find copper whenever you want, and do so peacefully or aggressively.

Saltpeter would do almost the exact opposite, because most of the cities would be founded and land already assigned. Saltpeter would not be in control of the player, but wherever it is lucky to appear. This would assign a random advantage to a player -- which is NOT strategic in the least. Moreover, your probability of gaining this huge random advantage would go up the more tiles you control. Meaning the person who spent their time making huge land grabs in the middle ages would be guaranteed to win... while the person trying to build those wonders gets the shaft.

Adding Saltpeter would make peace too WEAK. Players would have VERY little control over their access to Saltpeter

Civilization 4 is a success because they killed snowball effects like this. It used to be that if you discovered gunpowder first AND had it, you'd have won the game, rendering everything after 1000 AD moot. Now the game is actually competitive for much longer, with small nations able to hold out and make a real attempt at victory.

If you prefer the game where you open up a small advantage in 2000 BC which you ride all the way to a predictable victory, there's still Civ 3.

 

[Commander Bello]

dh_epic, it is clear that we have different opinions about the "usefulness" of saltpeter as a ressource.
This is fair, as I think it is based on different biases (spelling?).

However, you stated two things I would like to discuss:
1) The player with the bigger empire would have higher chances to have access to saltpeter ressources.
2) Saltpeter would make peace too weak.

ad 1) This is correct. So what? First of all, I think that a player who managed to get a bigger empire deserves to have some advantages from this.
Second, as far as I see it, you put in the assumed saltpeter ressource in the same game settings as we face right now.
I will agree that this could be unbalancing, but hey, this game is severely unbalanced already. One of the examples was Bronze Working, another is Calendar and so on.
If we would try to stay with somehow more "realistic" units, saltpeter could lead to early mortars in a first step, being slightly stronger than catapults or trebuchets (if we were thinking about WL).
In the next step we would gain gunpowder units. But why on earth do gunpowder units have to have all the flag for the neglection of building's defences? The musketman clearly shouldn't have this setting, anyway.
I live in an area of Germany with many ruins of old castles. They have blown up by French troops in the 17th and 18th century. Why? Because even at that time they served strategic purposes.
Just to make a long story short: one could have saltpeter in the game without making it unbalanced. It would just require some tweaks at the currently given units.

ad 2) Why would saltpeter make peace to weak? Obviously, because you believe it to release too strong units. Well, actually gunpowder units (in real life) have been proven to be stronger than non-gunpowder units. Otherwise, the Europeans wouldn't have got hold of almost the whole earth.
As I have said above, I think this depends very much upon the fact how those units are set up.
Sure, we would get to a certain point at which the one with gunpowder units would grow stronger than the one without. But hey, this just reflects history, doesn't it?
So, to give the peaceful player a chance to survive even without saltpeter and therefore, without gunpowder, why not allowing him to bribe enemy troops? Why not enabling him to get mercenaries? Why not having a concept which allows to get some ressources at the "black market"? Or why not enabling some kind of national wonder delivering that ressource?

I think, there would be many ways to balance the game even with saltpeter available as a ressource.
I do agree however, that just putting this ressource into the game as it currently is, won't work very well.

 

[Uiler]

If you don't get copper there's always the fallback option of iron (no copper? Immediate beeline to iron. Actually this happened in the game I just played). If you're unlucky enough not to get either of them, well, there's horses to go a-conquering and attempt to grab some (this happened to me once - I was stuck next to Monty too!!!!!!!! Who of course had the only sources of copper and iron on our little continent though of course he didn't need them. Fortunately I had horses and was a lot lot more desperate than Monty. It was truly do or die. It also helped I was Genghis Khan ). Of course in the meantime start building those archers and be nice to people...If you miss out on horses too, well, errr...

If you miss out on copper you have other resource options which are around the same era. If saltpeter is needed for gunpowder and you miss out on saltpeter, what other contemporary options are there?

 

[Henrik]

ad 1) This is correct. So what?

ad 2) Well, actually gunpowder units (in real life) have been proven to be stronger than non-gunpowder units. Otherwise, the Europeans wouldn't have got hold of almost the whole earth.

So you use gameplay to deflect point one and realism to deflect point two?
Brilliant.

Also, european domination had little to do with gunpowder weapons.

 

[Kissamies]

"Bigger empire deserves some advantage from being bigger." Well, doesn't bigger empire have an advantage then? It has more cities to produce stuff with and there is already plenty of resources it is more likely to have than the small guy. Sure, there's the bigger maintenance cost and it might be awkward for a widespread civ to gather all its forces to be marched against the little guy, but overall bigger one already has "some" advantage. Why would you need to increase it with saltpeter?