Linkage between resources and units

[yoshi]

Well, Yoshi, once again you do to others what you accuse others of doing to you-that is NOT reading the entirety of a post. If you had, you would notice that I suggested TWO models, one is an IMMEDIATE possibility of resource depletion, the other involved a risk of resource depletion only AFTER your combined # of cities/units passed a threshold determined by your resource size.

Okay, I missed that part. Sorry. (Assumed it was the same as before.)

Yes, that would work.

My second point is that NO, it is not TRULY random. Civ3's system WAS random, wheras I would describe my system as 'semi-random'-in that yes you have a randomizer, but the size of the randomizer is ultimately controlled by players actions...

There is no such thing as semi-random: it either is or isn't random. The difference between your model and the Civ3 model is that your model modifies the denominator (the divisor in the fraction) based on player actions whereas the Civ3 system has a fixed value for the denominator from the start.

That is to say, the civ that goes over by 100 units can lose the resource next turn just like the civ that goes over by 1 unit. It's just that the first civ as a 99% greater chance of losing the resource than the other civ. (The key term here is 'chance.')

For this I would keep the delayed disappearance feature just in case.

Yours is a good model for making the effect of resource depletion less unpredictable but it doesn't actually prevent you from building stuff.

A unit cap is more appropriate to that.

A unit cap is likewise also more appropriate to unit upkeep.

Both create a direct link between resource and unit.

In this regard, it is really no more random than most other parts of the game-such as combat.

The reason why randomness in combat is not a problem is because it is small-scale (i.e. losing in combat usually won't have a drastic result in the game). This means that playing well in the large-scale can make up for some bad luck in combat.

Losing a resource has a large-scale effect--it can literally mean the difference between victory and defeat. Way too much to base it purely on chance.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Yoshi, it seems we are getting SLIGHTLY closer to agreement now. So, the next point I should make is that I am FLEXIBLE when it comes to the # of turns between the 'depletion' event and the actual loss of resource. The way I would see it is that, if the RNG indicates a depletion event, then the resource will start flashing that turn-and your domestic advisor will indicate the resource deposit is nearly exhausted. You would then have until the end of that turn to either:
a) secure a new source of that resource.
b) reduce your usage of the resource by cancelling some of your unit/improvement builds, or disbanding/scrapping existing ones (if applicable).

Also, the point of my model was never to STOP people from building, but link building to a risk of losing a resource-thus forcing players to be more reserved in some of their building activities, ESPECIALLY new cities!!! Although it is RANDOM-I feel it is the ability for players to change the denominator of the equation that makes it semi-i.e. players are EMPOWERED. Yes good players, and planners, may OCCASIONALLY still end up worse off, but they have a MUCH better chance of coming back from the brink than a reckless 'churn and burn' style player-especially if a building threshold and 1-turn warning system is imposed as well!
Anyway, I hope that makes sense now !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Professor-Gamer]

What can I say? I love the idea of depletable resourses, but as I see, not everyone likes it. So why not make it OPTIONAL? Even if the creators will not make it, i'm sure alot of modders can do it, of course if they want (I hope the creators will do as they said and make modding simplier, and more flexible). It could simple be a little button on the World Setup Screen. GOSH, nothing to fight about!

About Silos. I wonder 1 thing: you want it on the adventure(forgot name) map, or on City Screen?

If first, then: the resourse silo is owned by whoever owns the current tile. Destroying of the silo can create a small source with that amount of resourses the silo had.

If second: again, the resourse silo will be "capturable" together with the city.

And about the use-up per turn: what if you have factories in 100 cities? And each uses enormous amounts of coal? That way the world coal will be depletedvery fast. Af course, it's realistic, but excuse me, many players will not play a game which is so stressing! At least, resource appearances should happen without relationship with the depletion. That way it would be fairer(IMHO).

That's all.

 

[troytheface]

i think plague and depletion and earthquakes ect would all make the game more interesting but i have noticed that most do not like the idea of suddenly losing production ect. to these factors. (there was a thread about civ3 players being control freaks and this resistance to random elements bears this assessment out)
Personally i think anything that stirs things up a bit is welcome. But as someone above wrote- instead of a number (100 units of oil=5 tanks and a ship) an abstract
system would be much ez'r where the resource simply dissappears after a time-
again taking control away a bit- and this i fear- most players abbhor.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But an abstract resource depletion system-where you know at what point you are facing increased risk, and where you get a fair warning of when you might lose the resource deposit in question-has got to be a million times better than keeping track of at least a half a dozen large numbers all at once-which is what the RTS style system would be like. Frankly, I think that if thats what they want, that they should go and play Rise of Nations instead!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[yoshi]

The way I would see it is that, if the RNG indicates a depletion event, then the resource will start flashing that turn-and your domestic advisor will indicate the resource deposit is nearly exhausted.

I was just think of something like that: give players a warning so disappearance isn't so sudden.

I was debating with myself whether to have a warning that indicates time-to-disappearance or whether to maintain uncertainty and jsut give the player a warning like, "Comrade, your Oil resource near Sverdlovsk is nearing depletion!" This means that the disappearance will trigger at some point before x turns from the turn on which you get the warning. Gives you time to do whatever you have to do but keeps the micromanagers from timing disappearance to their advantage.

Reducing usage is good; gives players the chance to recover (somewhat) from their mistakes. If applied to what I siad above, would nullify the trigger temporarily (i.e. unitl you hit red-line and get the warning again--only this time you will probably be unable to recover as you will have already cut-back on usage).

Either way, I'd keep the threshold pretty high so you don't have players complaining that they can't build all the units they wanted to without crossing the threshold.

Also, the point of my model was never to STOP people from building, but link building to a risk of losing a resource-thus forcing players to be more reserved in some of their building activities, ESPECIALLY new cities!!!

No arguement. I 'added' the cap to keep players from building/maintaining absurd numbers of units. (Note that the cap would be higher than resource disappearance trigger value--threshold--so you can still go past the threshold and risk resource disappearance but can't build too much either.

So why not make it OPTIONAL?

Because it's either in or it's not; there is little room for middle ground in this industry.

Af course, it's realistic, but excuse me, many players will not play a game which is so stressing!

Would probably have smaller or larger base amounts based on difficulty level. newbies could play at Chieftain and start with enough resources for them to play badly with.

At least, resource appearances should happen without relationship with the depletion. That way it would be fairer(IMHO).

Same applies to resources that appear during the game as those that are on the map from the start: use eventually triggers depletion.

i think plague and depletion and earthquakes ect would all make the game more interesting...

Same arguement applies to all: making everything certain gives advantages to micromanagers and making them completely uncertain penalized good players. This is Aussie's point (i.e. player actions trigger/affect chances of disappearance).


About the resource-storing 'silo' tile-improvement: NO. This is crossing over into RTS too much. Having a 'silo' city improvement should be enough to satisfy the strategic element involved in 'storing' resources on the map (i.e. they can be bombarded).