Idea for bonus resources: quantity

[CYZ]

Every deposit of bonus resources gets a certain amount. You use up one of the resource every turn you work it. Obviously the amounts should be in the hundreds, depending on game speed. Basicly enough to last you anywhere from medieval to modern.

For example you found a city near a cow resource of 200. The city starts working it right away. 200 turns later it is used up and the resource is gone from the map.

I think it would add alot more depth in choosing where to settle.

 

[insaneweasel]

Every deposit of bonus resources gets a certain amount. You use up one of the resource every turn you work it. Obviously the amounts should be in the hundreds, depending on game speed. Basicly enough to last you anywhere from medieval to modern.

For example you found a city near a cow resource of 200. The city starts working it right away. 200 turns later it is used up and the resource is gone from the map.

I think it would add alot more depth in choosing where to settle.

I like the gist of this idea, however it would need some more realistic parameters.
A large pasture could be used indefinitely so long as there is enough land so livestock don't overgraze. In order to work, it could be so that bonus resources have a set value (like between 5 and 10). Each turn you work it depletes the resource, and each turn you don't work refreshes it. In order to be fun, bonus resources would have to be very useful (not like they are now) AND made so that switching from them every turn wouldn't cause starvation.

 

[Kurtbob]

Every deposit of bonus resources gets a certain amount. You use up one of the resource every turn you work it. Obviously the amounts should be in the hundreds, depending on game speed. Basicly enough to last you anywhere from medieval to modern.

For example you found a city near a cow resource of 200. The city starts working it right away. 200 turns later it is used up and the resource is gone from the map.

I think it would add alot more depth in choosing where to settle.

Not a fan of limited resources (one of my big pet peeves about games like Age of Empires). I really like the idea of accumulating resources over time and units/city improvements requiring a payout of these resources for construction/per turn cost.

 

[CYZ]

I like the gist of this idea, however it would need some more realistic parameters.
A large pasture could be used indefinitely so long as there is enough land so livestock don't overgraze. In order to work, it could be so that bonus resources have a set value (like between 5 and 10). Each turn you work it depletes the resource, and each turn you don't work refreshes it. In order to be fun, bonus resources would have to be very useful (not like they are now) AND made so that switching from them every turn wouldn't cause starvation.

Good points but seems a bit complicated.

Basicly if it refreshes with 1 per turn it will never run out in the first place. Even if it did, you'd end up working it every other turn which would be silly.

I think they are more or less usefull already. There's the special buildings (better build them before the resource runs out and dissapears). But if you have 3 cow, and they run out, that's alot of tile yield you lose.

What I like about this idea is that settling spots will vary more. Am I going to take the spot with two cow that will last me all game or the spot with two cow and two stone that won't last me nearly as long?

Some spots will not be so good but will stay the same more or less all game. Other spots might be amazing but will run out quickly, so you'll need to use the resources to grow quickly.

 

[Camikaze]

In one of my favourite Ideas & Suggestions threads ever, I posted the following, and I think it still applies (even if the numbers could do with some tweaking):

I'd say a way to fix this would be to attach value to having multiple of a particular resource. This way, it could be represented that they are not as rare and precious as, say, iron and oil, but would mean that there would be the added value of having more and more of them, making each individual resource more important.

Time for some mathematics!

Resource depletion:
Every tile with a resource is assigned a value (v) of that resource, which is depleted by a certain amount (n) each turn it is used. 0≤v≤100. The cumulative number of turns it has been used will be t. This amount would be some function of t, multiplied by the number of population points connected to the resource (p), divided by the number of tiles that are producing that resource (m). So, n = pc/m, where c is some constant. 0≤pc/m≤0.008v, so that the resource would at least last 125 turns of use. So, the amount depleted would be ptc/m, whereby t≥125. Now, let y = the amount of resource left. So, y=v, when t=0. Then, after t turns, y=v-(ptc/m).

This would ensure that resource depletion takes into account the number of people using the resource, and the number of turns it is being used for. pc/m would be variable for the duration of the game, with the number of cities using the resource, and the number of resource tiles being worked, changing over time.

It really would add another dimension to the game, I think, both in terms of economic management and strategic planning.

 

[CYZ]

In one of my favourite Ideas & Suggestions threads ever, I posted the following, and I think it still applies (even if the numbers could do with some tweaking):



It really would add another dimension to the game, I think, both in terms of economic management and strategic planning.

Nice!

I don't understand the formula though. What's the basic idea behind it?

My idea would be to give every bonus resource deposit an amount, just like strategic deposits. The difference would be that a bonus deposit decreases by 1 every turn it is worked, with no way to get it back. So if you have a cow resource of 100: work it for 100 turns and it is gone.

So Camikaze, can you explain your idea without difficult formulas

 

[Camikaze]

My idea is essentially the same. Each resource deposit has a certain value (could be 100, could be 150, etc.). It's used up, but perhaps in a more dynamic way; it's a long time ago, but I think the formula involved population. So the more population you have connected to the resource, the faster it depletes. There's been more recent versions of this idea (or threads in which I've found an opportunity to spout it ) and I think I've moved more to it also being dependent on buildings. At the moment, buildings require maintenance. What if, instead of this gold maintenance, you had a resource maintenance (or you could have a combination of the two)?

So, to take a really simply example, if you made a barracks require iron, and you had one city with a barracks and a population of 2, and one source of iron linked up with an initial value of, say, 200. The barracks might use 1 iron per turn, and the population an extra 1 between them. So the resource would run out in 100 turns. If you add, say, an armory, then you might be using 3 iron per turn, and the resource would run out quicker.

It sounds quite complex, but then it's just the same as gold. You have a total amount of gold coming in, and a total amount going out, and you can see the balance between the two, and how much of a surplus you have. You could do the same with resources. How much do you have available, and how much as you using per turn?

You could also add in some cool mechanics with renewable resources (like fish), whereby you'd have to engage in sustainable practices or risk completely exhausting your supply.

What you're suggesting is essentially exactly the same as this, but maybe without some of the added complicated bits. But I don't think making it more dynamic, with more variables, would make it worse; I think it'd make it better.

 

[CYZ]

What you're suggesting is essentially exactly the same as this, but maybe without some of the added complicated bits. But I don't think making it more dynamic, with more variables, would make it worse; I think it'd make it better.

I totally agree it would be better. Although I doubt it has a high chance of being accepted when complicated. Such resource micro-management seems more appropiate for a game such as Settlers.

Still, it's a good idea and I would love it if either were implemented. But I'm very big on idea simplicity so am in favour of my version (and I'm totally unbiased ofcourse)

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I know what you mean. My idea is inevitably but a pipe dream. What you suggest has much more a chance of being implemented, though with proper streamlining/automation both should be essentially as easy to use as each other.

 

[CYZ]

Yeah, I know what you mean. My idea is inevitably but a pipe dream. What you suggest has much more a chance of being implemented, though with proper streamlining/automation both should be essentially as easy to use as each other.

Sure, but mine is more practical

Still, in actual gameplay I'd prefer yours.