1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Impact of Strategic Resources on Victory

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by historix69, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,242
    For industrialized nations, strategic resources (in terms of Civ5) include
    - Food,
    - Iron,
    - Coal,
    - Oil,
    - Aluminium,
    etc.

    Population Growth in industrial age resulted in a situation where many well developed nations like England, Germany or also Japan needed to import large quantities of Food from abroad since the population had massively outgrown agricultural production in their homeland. Iron was needed for producing industrial tools and machines as well as weapons, ships, railroads and trains. Coal and Oil were sources of Energy which fueled steam machines and power plants for industrial production as well as combustion engines for transportation, modern warships and tanks and airplanes.

    History has shown that supply with ALL strategical resources in industrial era is necessary for a global player (industrial power) to stay in the game ... nations may be either self-supplying (like the wide empires of USA, Russia/Soviet Union, British Empire = "the Haves") or they may try to supply themselves via international trade, which includes dependance on economic crisis (less trade during depression) and possibility of embargo/blockade (blackmail), or they may try to conquer the missing resources (which makes them to "Aggressors").

    - Food embargos/blockades were used in WW1 and WW2 by the British against Germany, leading to german countermeasures (U-Boat-Blockade of British Isles) and the try to conquer eastern european (Ukrainian) agricultural regions to compensate. (In WW1 the british blockade caused a famine in Germany with ca. 700.000 civilian deaths.)
    - The need for Oil resources caused the (unsuccessful) German attack on the Caucasus region in 1942. Destruction of the german hydrogenation plants in 1944 virtually ended the war for Germany, since majority of tanks and planes were grounded.
    - The American and British (Oil) Embargo against Japan in 1941 triggered Japanese assault on the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor as well as american, british, dutch, australian colonial possessions in South-East-Asia to compensate Oil and other resources before the japanese industry and war machine (in China) would collapse. The destruction of Japanese navy/merchant navy (= strategic resources) in 1944/45 in combination with destruction of Japanese cities/factories made it impossible for Japan to continue the war offensively.

    Civ5 was not very consistent with strategic resources in almost every aspect, e.g.
    - making Coal (steam machine) a requirement for Factory, ignoring oil and other alternative sources of energy like power plants
    - making Oil a requirement for Tanks but not Iron
    - having no requirement for Mechanized Infantery
    etc.

    Strategic resources are not equally distributed on earth.
    Strategic resources are so important to industrial nations that a group of empires which controls the majority of strategic resources (like Food, Oil) can embargo the rest of the world and make them stop and starve, taking them out of the game ...

    I think Civ6 should respect historic realities and allow players who dominate in terms of controlled strategic resources as well as industrial capacity and military strength to win an early domination victory. (e.g. US would have won in 1945 if there would not have been the Soviet Union as counterweight.)

    The fact that resources are not spread equally should force all players to start in time (before 1900) on a wide empire to not loose the game due to lack of strategic resources.
     
  2. indradiva

    indradiva Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    170
    Civilization has never been historically realistic. Resource requirements are part of balance and have nothing to do with realism. Controlling strategical resources should not automatically lead to victory, because it's unfun.
     
  3. Primacide

    Primacide Settler

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    California
    That being said, I thought the limits it put on your forces was good. If you had six oil in CiV, you could get six bombers, but had to stop there. It was one of the few penalties of going tall. Unfortunately, the AI in V was way too willing to trade resources for cheap. There were many games where I would have gotten rolled if the AI had recognized how desperately I needed oil and withheld it. CS allies also let you bypass the bottleneck really easily. Nonetheless I thought it was a decent "realism" addition that was hiding behind a game mechanic.
     
  4. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    I think the problem with civ 5 was that there isnt enough unit types. Lets look at the ancient and clasical era. Theres spearman, archer, horseman, and swordsman. Both horseman and swordsman require strategic resources to have even one of them.

    Thus swordsman couldnt be too powerful over spearman because it had to be balanced for a civ that had no iron. I think ironically because iron and horses were too powerful, they had to nerf them. Cuz in the original civ 5 horseman and swordsman were pretty op.

    Perhaps they should allow stables to give one horse. And more resources like idk copper for axeman. Like more varied resources and more soft counters.



    Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
     
  5. Primacide

    Primacide Settler

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    California
    That's a good thought. Like if you were Shaka, you needed a certain resource that maybe other civs wouldn't prioritize much, but was essential to fielding impis. The small array of unit types was good in a way - it made for an easy to understand Rock-Paper-Scissors system. There were many uniques that were based on these core units, but most of them felt like they were just "one off" units though. I mean, nobody I played with really lost their mind because they could get kris swordsmen as Indonesia.
     
  6. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,958
    Location:
    Nehwon
    Lack of resources can be a really interesting dilemma (instead of a game-ender) if there are workable methods of acquiring more. Needing to go to war for resources can be great, unless the lack of those same resources mean that you can't possibly win said war.

    I loved the potential of the resource system in vanilla Civ V, and I hope Civ VI can work out the kinks in the system without nerfing it into uselessness the way the Civ V expansions did.

    I'd love the (historically accurate) pressure of a "I only have 20 turns of oil reserves to win this war and capture the enemy oil fields", but I don't see an easy way to do it without introducing an over-complicated logistical system.
     
  7. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,300
    Location:
    Canada
    Controlling land that equates to dominance is the truest expression of 4X there is. The problem is not resource-locked power levels, but pacing.

    Saying GG because you don't have metals for an Axeman , and these things being decided out of the gate (before expansion can realistically occur) is not any kind of good gameplay, although it is better than the game being over at that point and merely requiring you to wait 250 more turns to find out. The game must allow a fair contest for the prizes of the positional goods, and then reward your expansive hegemony, over the strategic resources, with dominance and oppressive abilities by all means.
     
  8. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,242
    I think the slingers and bowmen and spearman/pikeman are the historic alternative if you lack resources ...

    Resources in Civ5 were not a problem due to friendly play, but in Civ3 strategic resources like iron, gunpowder, oil were crucial since AI would use them against you with no mercy ...
     
  9. JtW

    JtW Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
    Easy: oil shouldn't be required to build modern armies - it should be required to move them. Let's say that you have 6 oil - it means you can only move 6 units that turn (or move them by 6 tiles - depending on how they balance the numbers.) If you run out of oil, your units are stuck.

    I think the bigger problem here would be getting the AI to understand it and use it.
     
  10. ShadowWarrior

    ShadowWarrior Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    Messages:
    349
    How about giving the allowance that each civ can build two of each resource dependent units without needing to have access to that resource.

    For example, each civ is allowed to build two tanks without having access to oil. But to build the third tank, one will need to have access to oil resources.
     

Share This Page