Let's make iron relevant again

[kaspergm]

Civ V leans towards smaller armies anyway, so the question becomes, how much do you need? Personally, if I got a 6 spot, I'm good.

But if you only get a 2 spot, or two of those? But I agree, you rarely need massive amounts of iron, at least not in early game.

I'd like to see more synergies between the Honor sopol and the mining/bronze/iron branch myself, because they both miss something I think they could each provide. If you go look in the Ideas & Suggestions, I tossed some suggestions out.

Yeah, Honor needs a lot of love, and this would be an obvious synergy. Someone some time ago discussed this also, and mentioned that the Autocracy policy that gives double strategics might fit better in Honor, at least from gameplay purpose. I left some comments in your Honor thread btw.

 

[dowd001]

I think using resources (like iron) to limit production of units even more than now would solve the side effects of 1UPT that have destroyed the game. We could keep 1UPT but fix the rest. Here is how.

I would make all military units (other than warriors, triremes and archers) require some resource. Bring back gunpowder and copper, and other resources. Make steel producable with iron. Make the current no-resource military units require a resource (e.g. make pikemen require iron) Would require creating new units that rely on other resources (e.g. bring back axeman). Keep the unit limits based on one per resource, but expand the types of resources. Then spread out the tech tree to give various paths to the units that use these resources (more than just the horse/iron/archer paths). That makes your choices in the tech tree mean something and gives each empire on the map a unique feel.

All unit production would be resource limited, solving the main problem plaguing Civ V - namely, the need to limit unit production in order to make 1UPT work. You could then buff up tile yields a la Civ IV to increase production and food, allowing for more empire building and city management. If you buff up tile yields to increase building production, then you would want to switch back to the Civ IV expansion limitation mechanic by making cities cost $$ and buildings be free. That way, you could bring back cottages and make tile management fun again. Ditch global unhappiness and go back to health. Bring back in the health resources that created such variety. This would also allow them to slow down the tech tree, making iron and other resources playable for longer periods during the game.

The more I think about it, using resources as a way of limiting unit production, rather than limiting production itself in cities, is a good way to save 1UPT while at the same time bringing back the empire building of Civ IV.

Would then need to tweak the resources of city states so you dont just buy them to get around all of this. Also would need to make sure that each map had intelligently dispersed strategic resources in quantities correctly calculated to create the right military sizes.

 

[Nelsonius]

Make iron appear more frequently and have it used in the units that need it. I think it would add to gameplay and is obviously needed for cannons, modern ships. A few nuts and bolts missing from a cat I can believe, building ironworks or destroyers without it I cannot.

 

[killmeplease]

I think using resources (like iron) to limit production of units even more than now would solve the side effects of 1UPT that have destroyed the game. We could keep 1UPT but fix the rest. Here is how.

I would make all military units (other than warriors, triremes and archers) require some resource. Bring back gunpowder and copper, and other resources. Make steel producable with iron. Make the current no-resource military units require a resource (e.g. make pikemen require iron) Would require creating new units that rely on other resources (e.g. bring back axeman). Keep the unit limits based on one per resource, but expand the types of resources. Then spread out the tech tree to give various paths to the units that use these resources (more than just the horse/iron/archer paths). That makes your choices in the tech tree mean something and gives each empire on the map a unique feel.

All unit production would be resource limited, solving the main problem plaguing Civ V - namely, the need to limit unit production in order to make 1UPT work. You could then buff up tile yields a la Civ IV to increase production and food, allowing for more empire building and city management. If you buff up tile yields to increase building production, then you would want to switch back to the Civ IV expansion limitation mechanic by making cities cost $$ and buildings be free. That way, you could bring back cottages and make tile management fun again. Ditch global unhappiness and go back to health. Bring back in the health resources that created such variety. This would also allow them to slow down the tech tree, making iron and other resources playable for longer periods during the game.

The more I think about it, using resources as a way of limiting unit production, rather than limiting production itself in cities, is a good way to save 1UPT while at the same time bringing back the empire building of Civ IV.

Would then need to tweak the resources of city states so you dont just buy them to get around all of this. Also would need to make sure that each map had intelligently dispersed strategic resources in quantities correctly calculated to create the right military sizes.

it seems you just have to play civ 4

 

[kaspergm]

I think using resources (like iron) to limit production of units even more than now would solve the side effects of 1UPT that have destroyed the game. We could keep 1UPT but fix the rest. Here is how.

I would make all military units (other than warriors, triremes and archers) require some resource. Bring back gunpowder and copper, and other resources. Make steel producable with iron. Make the current no-resource military units require a resource (e.g. make pikemen require iron) Would require creating new units that rely on other resources (e.g. bring back axeman). Keep the unit limits based on one per resource, but expand the types of resources. Then spread out the tech tree to give various paths to the units that use these resources (more than just the horse/iron/archer paths). That makes your choices in the tech tree mean something and gives each empire on the map a unique feel.

All unit production would be resource limited, solving the main problem plaguing Civ V - namely, the need to limit unit production in order to make 1UPT work. You could then buff up tile yields a la Civ IV to increase production and food, allowing for more empire building and city management. If you buff up tile yields to increase building production, then you would want to switch back to the Civ IV expansion limitation mechanic by making cities cost $$ and buildings be free. That way, you could bring back cottages and make tile management fun again. Ditch global unhappiness and go back to health. Bring back in the health resources that created such variety. This would also allow them to slow down the tech tree, making iron and other resources playable for longer periods during the game.

The more I think about it, using resources as a way of limiting unit production, rather than limiting production itself in cities, is a good way to save 1UPT while at the same time bringing back the empire building of Civ IV.

Would then need to tweak the resources of city states so you dont just buy them to get around all of this. Also would need to make sure that each map had intelligently dispersed strategic resources in quantities correctly calculated to create the right military sizes.

I do agree with Killmeplease that you are going a bit overboard in bringing back CIV here, but I do agree on some of your initial points about having a wider application of strategic resources. Adding Iron to Pikemen and Cannons, later turning it into Steal and adding that to Gattling Guns, Artillery, etc. and possibly adding some sort of Salpeter that can also be produced in a chemical lab (available after Gunpowder) for Gunpowder units might not be a bad idea. On the downside, if every unit requires a strategic resource, it makes the fact that a unit does that less special, so it also levels the field (that should have been there) between the units - but then again, one of the problems currently is that the field is in fact very level.

 

[dowd001]

Fair point. I am plugging (a little too much) for the Civ IV mechanics. But I see the defense of Civ V as the flip side of the same coin. Resistance to the conclustion that Civ V messed up the empire management and city building aspects of the game.

Fact is, making iron (and copper, saltpeter, steel, etc.) relevant again can be used as a means to solve the primary problem (in my view) of Civ V. Namely, its a city building game that discourages building cities. I do not think that the designers intended that. I think 1UPT forced them into solutions that caused that problem because they needed to find a way to limit unit production. Making iron and other materials required for unit production can solve that problem. Now maybe adopting the Civ IV mechanics on health, city cost, etc., isn't needed. I would think that they can come up with even better ideas than what was in Civ IV. But before they do that, they actually have to FIX Civ V. The real benefit of making iron and other materials required for units is that it frees up the design team to refocus on city building and empire management by creating an alternative method for limiting unit production.

I think that change, more than any other change to the strategic/military balance that making iron relevant would bring, would be the change that really makes Civ V more dynamic (and fun).

Also, I disagree on the comment by kaspergm on leveling the field. If you make every unit resource dependent, allocate resources with some scarcity between empires, and then make units requiring different resources very different, it actually increases the diversity in the warfare. If you do not have iron, but do have copper, you may be able to defend very well but not take a city without real losses. And your opponent may have the opposite problem. Or even if you both have both resources, because you are limited in production by the amount of the resource, you would also need to have the right units in the right place to counter the right units of the AI. That creates new issues - imagine the AI overrunning your eastern flank because you did not have your (limited) defensive units on that side because they were garrisoned on the western flank against another neighbor. In current Civ V, just send them to both fronts. It also has the benefit of changing over time. Say you are stacked on iron and plugging away against a weak AI. And you both get gunpowder, but only he has saltpeter. The war just changed.

 

[nokmirt]

It's not a big enough deal to warrant its own rant, but recycling centers are incredibly obnoxious from a game design POV, for the very reasons I stated. I like having lots of units too, but if aluminum is supposed to be abundant to the point of ubiquity, then remove it as a resource.

Come to think of it, aluminum actually is highly abundant. A third of the earth's crust, or somesuch.

In my last game I actually had a shortage of aluminum, so recycling centers did help a bit. However, the question is do you really want to waste the money investing in recycling centers. If you happen to have enough aluminum you don't need too. In the real world aluminum and many metals are recycled, so having recycling centers in the game is realistic. Maybe they could nerf them to produce only 1 aluminum.

 

[steveg700]

It kind of feels like there are multiple issues of relevancy here:

1) Making iron a relevant strategic resource.
2) Making units that use iron (we've been knocked down to two) relevant.
3) Making the iron branch of the tech tree relevant.

I think the problem here really is #3.

We need iron to reveal before 285 research has been sunk into its utilization. Reveal with Mining.

We need some infrastructure benefit. Move forges down to iron working. Workshops are a big-deal building. They can really stand alone if they have to. If necesary, stick another wonder in with Metal Casting. I'm sure we can think of one.

Speaking of wonders, it strikes me that the Colossus is probably not the wonder that suits the bent of that branch as a whole. I'd suggest its replacement (or at least supplementation) with a more martial-focused wonder.

 

[ahawk]

In G&K now, compare:

Aluminum is the most important resource in the game: it's used in Modern Armor, Jets, Stealth Bombers, Hydro-plants, Spaceship Parts, Helicopters, and Spaceship Factories. Hence, it gets both Recycling Centers, as well as larger standard yields (8 vs 7 coal, 8 vs 4 plutonium, etc.).

Coal is the least important. All you need it for is Ironclads and Factories, though factories can be especially important in a few cities

Plutonium is in the middle. Solar plants can now replace Nuclear Plants in some situations, or, more typically, just for a city or two. But nuclear weapons are very important, with the three of them (Atom Bomb, Nuke, and GDR) representing the most powerful units in the game.

Oil is also in the middle. While oil is not used in a single building, it is very important for those earlier air units, as well as landships, tanks, and battleships.

Now, compare Iron:

1) Iron is not used in a single building (although, improving an iron tile allows access to the Forge in that city)
2) Iron now only supports Swordsmen, Longswordsmen, and Frigates, with Swordsmen being nerfed in G&K compared to pikes. So, really, two viable units to build.
3) Iron tiles have quite low yields (if all you get is a 2 iron tile, and you're Japan or England, this actually is a problem, though)

In other words,

Iron is used in zero buildings, which is a trait shared only with Horses and Oil.
Iron only supports 2 standard units worth using, and longswords are now much more quickly obsoleted by muskets. Thus, Iron is the least useful resource for units across all resources.
Iron thus has a very small amount sprinkled across the map, often times.

This seems to me like trying to apply two fixes to one problem: in vanilla, Iron was far more useful for units (swordsmen were great, early siege units needed iron, and so forth), but now we have not only fewer units using iron, but also one of the primary reasons to rush Iron (swordsmen) being nerfed by a unit that appears in a better tech path (pikes + irrigation bonus = I'm going Civil Service most games now before touching the lower tech path).

Compared to the other resources, Iron went from being incredibly useful in vanilla, to being almost a throw-away in G&K. I could understand nerfing swordsmen, or reducing the number of early game units needing iron, but not both. And frigates needing iron is not good compromise. I mean, if I need iron for frigates, I'm usually at a point where back-tracking to get Iron is not a huge deal: in other words, if the best reason to rush Iron is for frigates, which appear a lot later, then there's no need to rush at all.

 

[PreLynMax]

Here's what I did to make iron relevant (G&K):

Boosted Swordsmen from 14 to 16 and Legions from 17 to 19. Yes, that makes Legions a godtier unit, but it would make iron more relevant, at least in Classical.

Edit: Making almost ALL units require iron is stupid, stupid, and stupid. Iron in this game was designed to be a bonus, not penalize those whom can't get it.

 

[civ54lyfe]

Coal may be least important, but relying on CS's or AI is not good, and I miss factories. Also I find oil to be important enough around tank time.

 

[Bechhold]

Coal may be least important, but relying on CS's or AI is not good, and I miss factories. Also I find oil to be important enough around tank time.

But then what are CS's good for? Firaxis has done nothing to make them anything more than suppliers of resources, , , or ...

 

[killmeplease]

i have an idea of iron Wonder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Lion_of_Cangzhou (reqs metal casting)
what bonuses could it provide?
maybe, plain 5 hammers for a city and +2 culture per worked iron?
(plus a free forge)

colossus may be moved to bronze and zeus to iron
forge to iron too, maybe should be given an engineer slot?
pikes to guilds.. that will make beelining education risky
swords may be given a bonus vs cities and/or a free drill promotion
or pikes given a city penalty so they wont be useful in offense

 

[Matthew.]

I don't see why swords/Lswords shouldn't be stronger. If you are lucky enough to get iron and choose to use it, regular swords should be on part with pikes. Agreed with ahawk above in that there were too many changes at one time. Between pikes and the new CB's, swords don't have a place in the game.

 

[kaspergm]

@steveg700 > I think your analysis is 100 % spot on.

@killmeplease > Love the idea of the Iron Lion! Fits absolutely perfectly with Metal Casting. Perhaps we should try to convince Paokai to use his artwork skills to make some artwork for this for a mod?

I don't think we should have engineer slots before the Workshop, I tried that once in a mod, and I really felt it threw off balance. Ok admittedly that mod added an engineer slot to the Waterwheel which comes already at The Wheel, so maybe it could work with Iron Working which is after all somewhat deeper into the tree - but none-the-less, one should be aware that an early engineer slot makes it really easy to pump out a couple of Great Engineers and rush some wonders. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that actually producing wonders the normal way is not so relevant anymore, which is usually an important part of early game.

EDIT > Ok, I made an attempt at an icon for the Iron Lion myself:

And before anybody point out the obvious, yes I am aware that this is not the actual Iron Lion of Cangzhou in the icon - but I took the artistic liberty of taking an image of a statue that actually looked good in its current state in order to make it - well, look good.

 

[Deggial]

Here's what I did to make iron relevant (G&K):

Boosted Swordsmen from 14 to 16 and Legions from 17 to 19. Yes, that makes Legions a godtier unit, but it would make iron more relevant, at least in Classical.

Edit: Making almost ALL units require iron is stupid, stupid, and stupid. Iron in this game was designed to be a bonus, not penalize those whom can't get it.

In addition to something like this, I would propose to "sharpen" each unit's profile:
- lowering the spearman-line's general strength (and therefore more vulnerable agains other melee-units) but making them better against horses with additional promotions. (I proposed a new "break attack"-promotion that cancels the cavalry's "retreat after attack"-ability.)
- adding a new unit-line (parallel to swords- and longswordsman; they could be called "axeman" and "halberdman") with no special promotions and intermediate strength. This will allow players to upgrade their warriors without iron and prevent them from missing two entire eras. This line will blend into musketmen, just as their counterparts.
- raising swords- and longswordsman's strength a litle bit (maybe not as high as you propose, as the spearman-line's strength got lowered already in my proposal) AND giving them an additional promotion ("Siege").

The same could be done with early cavalry-units:
Adding a new "light knight" (or however you may want to name them...) with no special abilities and lower strength (but maybe one tile faster) and no iron requirement.
And let "heavy knigths" need iron but granting them an additional promotion. (This could be a brand new one, as "break enemy lines")

This should make the three iron-units desirable enough to build them without leaving players without iron in a vacuum.
What I like about this proposal is the fact that having iron and using it on those units with inheritable promotions will create sort of a "military tradition" and make those upgraded units just as precious as unique-unit successors!

 

[killmeplease]

@steveg700 > I think your analysis is 100 % spot on.

@killmeplease > Love the idea of the Iron Lion! Fits absolutely perfectly with Metal Casting. Perhaps we should try to convince Paokai to use his artwork skills to make some artwork for this for a mod?

EDIT > Ok, I made an attempt at an icon for the Iron Lion myself:

And before anybody point out the obvious, yes I am aware that this is not the actual Iron Lion of Cangzhou in the icon - but I took the artistic liberty of taking an image of a statue that actually looked good in its current state in order to make it - well, look good.

wow, looks amazing
can you create a dds for all the required sizes?
also we could think of more interesting effects which we can implement with lua

ps i have made a request in the more wonders thread

 

[kaspergm]

wow, looks amazing
can you create a dds for all the required sizes?
also we could think of more interesting effects which we can implement with lua

ps i have made a request in the more wonders thread

I can make the appropriate .dds files, that's not an issue. If we find a good image, I can also make the .dds for the splash screen. As for the effects, we'll have to brainstorm a bit on that I think. I'm not good with lua coding, only XCF.

 

[Sake]

In vanilla, without iron you were doomed. No sieges, no strong infrantly, so it was really difficult in early wars. However, now that sieges doesn't require iron, pikeman is stronger and ranged units are more powerful, iron's value has dropped. Not because infrantly are bad (i actually like building infrantly), but because other unit classes have been buffed.

Sieges are more important in G&K so siege weaponry should not require iron. I think, maybe muskets could require iron, it would make iron more useful, 'cause you wouldn't be able to have strong infrantly without iron until riflemen.

 

[killmeplease]

I can make the appropriate .dds files, that's not an issue. If we find a good image, I can also make the .dds for the splash screen. As for the effects, we'll have to brainstorm a bit on that I think. I'm not good with lua coding, only XCF.

i can do lua and all the xmls

Sieges are more important in G&K so siege weaponry should not require iron.

its possible to capture cities with cbs or even pikes only
yes its harder
but whats the point of having resource if it doesnt provide any advantage