Improved Resource Rules

slashing

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
13
Location
England
I think that the addition of strategic resources has added an excellent new dimension to the Civilization series, but think it could be relatively easily improved.

At the moment, as soon as you lose access to a resource, you are completely prevented from building certain units or improvements. I think it would be better if the cost was modified. One of the other complaints I've seen is the low power of gunpowder units, as lack of saltpeter would be crippling.

How about if the cost of building units without the strategic resource was doubled. I think this would make for a better simulation - after all, some nations harvested their people's urine in order to extract saltpetre for gunpowder manufacture :eek: .

This way, riflemen can be given an attack rating higher than Knights, without unbalancing the game in favour of the lucky few saltpeter-rich nations.

If this would make too much of a fundamental change to the game's software mechanics, another way would be to introduce new units which are identical to the existing ones, but cost twice as much and don't have the resource dependence (Saltpeter-less mustketman or some such).
 

Cort Haus

Warlord
Joined
Apr 18, 2002
Messages
224
Location
London
Wouldn't that defeat the art of devising & deploying strategies to overcome resource-limitation?

I liked the 'urine' example though, if it's not BS :). I'm interested in 'minimalist' empires, but a more realistic approach to all resources might be a 'black market' where say, 5 turns of a resource are occasionally available at an inflated price. However, that would probably be beyond the scope of reasonable logic-change in Civ3.

It is sometimes possible to get by without a resource if you have no enemies, but it's tricky building a spaceship without aluminium. Time to sharpen those MA.
 

slashing

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
13
Location
England
It's not BS - just do a web search on "urine" and "gunpowder".

I still think that the balance would be preserved. I know I would be very keen to get hold of strategic resources to halve my production costs.

The whole idea came when my only source of iron ran out and I couldn't build any more railroad. Could you imagine a modern industrial nation having just 1 year's notice that it wouldn't be able to build anything with iron in it?
 

FredLC

A Lawyer as You Can See!
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,428
Location
Vitória, ES, Brazil
In a thread about "CIV4 Suggestions", i adressed the same theme, only with other suggestion. I think it's a good place to do that again.

I suggested that the resources should be much more abundant and have "quality values". This way, instead of all iron being "fine iron", there should be also "poor iron" (very abundant), "average iron" (harder to find, but still avaiable) and "fine iron" (very rare, and worth fighting for).

In my vision, having the resource would be necessary to even build the unit, however, each of those types would add different bonuses to them. Example, an pikeman made with average iron should be weaker than the one made with fine iron, while stronger then one made with poor iron. Outdated units made with quality resources would be matches against units a bit more updated, but made of bad resources.

Other example that i like is that a knight with fine horses should be as fast as a cavalry made with poor horses.

This would not take away the need to fight for the better resources, and at the same time would avoid that someone that had bad luck on the map gets totally defenseless.

Another addition that i think should be fine would be the ability to stockpile the resources. After all, if a nation knows that it lacks one of them, and it's vital, it should be able to buy from more than one source and get ready for the rainy days. Example on how this would work should be: if you buy from more than one source, you should be able to keep building that unit for as many turns as the "extra deal" have lasted, representing that you have saved reserves. Same thing when you loose access to your own various sources.

I think that both war and negociations would become more interesting, all the while preventing the simplistic strategy of destroying the road over a resource to make an enemy weak, and give a reason why to treasure multiple sources, even if your foes won't buy them (or you don't want to sell).

regards :) .
 

Cort Haus

Warlord
Joined
Apr 18, 2002
Messages
224
Location
London
Originally posted by slashing
The whole idea came when my only source of iron ran out and I couldn't build any more railroad. Could you imagine a modern industrial nation having just 1 year's notice that it wouldn't be able to build anything with iron in it?
I play every game with the assumption that my Iron will run out, and with the sub-goal of obtaining a backup supply, or surviving a disruption.

Options for this include

1) Aggressive early land-grab for secondary Iron
2) Aggressive culture-bombing for iron just beyond borders
3) Aggressive conquest
4) Peacefully develop good trading relations with a Civ with spare Iron
5) Peacefully wait for new Iron to appear within your borders (or re-appear in the same square)
6) Peacefully expand overseas (see my Lighthouse Strategy) )

Other tactics :

1. Disconnect iron (pillage) when not using it. Reconnect for building swordmen, cavalry etc.
2. Pre-build loads of workers before discovering Steam Engine. Industrial Civs in a Democracy with a mass of navvies can get RR'd in no time. I've RR's most of my civ within the 20 turns of traded iron/coal.

On your second point, I can think of at least two small, modern industrial nations who have been unable to build anything for a decade because of war-damage and trade embargos, and there must be dozens of small, pre-industrial nations unable to develop because of conflicts and unfavourable trade conditions. The black market is their only way out.
 

andyo

Prince
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
336
Other tactics :

1. Disconnect iron (pillage) when not using it. Reconnect for building swordmen, cavalry etc.



i don't think this works - i'm pretty sure the resources deplete at the same rate whether you use them or not
 

Chaz200

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Messages
8
My suggestion would be a resource store. In other words for each turn you control a resource a value is added to your store. And for each improvement or unit that requires that resource an amount is deducted. Luxuries can also be depleted depending on the population amount as well as the happiness of the population. Happier citizens use less, unhappy citizens use more.

Thus if you enter into a trade agreement and that trade ends the benefits of that resource could continue until reserves are depleted.

One other aspect would be to change the way the resources are traded. Instead of trading an extra resource you would trade an amount per turn. Theoretically if you have only one source of iron you could still trade it.

Example, For each turn you control iron 100 would be added to your store. If you build a swordsman 10 is deducted. If you build a railroad section 1 is deducted. You could also trade 2 per turn to another civ. Of course these numbers are purely arbitrary.

It would also give you an idea of how long you have until a resource is depleted. You would also gain benefit from controling a rival civs resource for a period of time. It would make rival cities that control a resource more desirable and the effects can last even if the captured city reverts back or is recaptured.

I would not like to see anything like mining or collecting a resource by a worker because that would just add to the micromanagment. Although ensuring that a citizen works that square may be an element. In other words you would only get a minimal benefit from the resource if it exists in the city limits but you would get more benefit if the square was worked.

Anyway, just my thoughts.
 

Dralix

Killer of threads
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Messages
2,407
Originally posted by andyo
Other tactics :

1. Disconnect iron (pillage) when not using it. Reconnect for building swordmen, cavalry etc.



i don't think this works - i'm pretty sure the resources deplete at the same rate whether you use them or not

Resources are only depleted if they are connected to your trade network. So if you have more than one source, it's wise to keep one disconnected, just in case.
 

benjdm

Warlord
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
154
Location
Upstate NY
"Other tactics :

1. Disconnect iron (pillage) when not using it. Reconnect for building swordmen, cavalry etc.



i don't think this works - i'm pretty sure the resources deplete at the same rate whether you use them or not"

It depends on what you mean by use. If their is no road connected to the resource then it will not deplete. But if there is a road then it may deplete whether or not you build anything that needs the resource.
 

Padma

the Absent Admin
Administrator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
14,466
Location
Omaha, Nebraska USA
Originally posted by andyo
Other tactics :

1. Disconnect iron (pillage) when not using it. Reconnect for building swordmen, cavalry etc.

i don't think this works - i'm pretty sure the resources deplete at the same rate whether you use them or not
Resource depletion is very simplistic. Every turn that a resource is connected to a road, the computer throws its electronic 'dice'. If the result is unfavorable to you, the resource disappears. Otherwise it stays. You can change the probability of depletion in the editor.
 

Grey Knight

Old hacker
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Messages
281
Location
On the road in Chicago IL
1) You can already do this by adding a unit "before" in the upgrade chain. For instance, to build a saltpeter-less musketman (normally 60 shields), add a Musketman(R). Remove the saltpeter requirement, and increase the cost by 25%

2) The real issue is only having one path for unit progression. If the tech tree had a non-resource driven path (as it does in the ancient era) throughout the eras it would smooth out gameplay.

Cheers,
Shawn
 
Top Bottom