Linkage between resources and units

[ForbiddenPalace]

Sorry if someone has mentioned this. I was hoping there is a tighter link between strategic resources and units.

First, when strategic resources first start to appear on the map, there should be a quantity associated with that resource. Take oil as an example, after refining is researched, if three oil deposits appear in your empire such that the quantities are 3000, 4000, 6000, your total oil amount will be 13000. Second, a resource quantity requirement for each unit should be specified. For example, battleship needs 200 oils. Also, nations with militaristic traits could have the advantages of smaller resources requirement over certain units, thus making this trait more useful. Third, when oil first start to appear on the map, even you have 13000 in deposit, it still takes time to get the oil out off ground. In other words, on the turn you have discovered refining, even if you have oil in your empire, you still cannot build battleships right away. Each turn, your empire will accumulate certain amount of oil say 100 based on the nations’ industry might (nations with industrious trait deserve a higher amount). Of course, there should be tech. later on such that you can upgrade this number. Forth, there should be a new structure that workers can build (like the airport) such that the oil can be deposited after taking out off the ground. Of course, the enemies should be allowed to destroy such structures.

In this way, there is only that many number of battleships you can build due to oil limitations, which requires you to doublethink about engaging wars with other nations.

Even though, more micromanagement will be created in the game play, but I consider these as the fun elements of the game, and willing to spend time on these sort of management.

 

[Hyronymus]

That is already the case, isn't it? Strategic Resources are the only Bonus Resources that can fade out. I don't know if there's a strong link between this fading out and the amount of units build but I recall running out of Iron a few times because I build a collection of Swordsman. If this strong link isn't there you might have a point.

On a sidenote: people tend to admire large numbers. 3000, 4000 and 6000; 13000; 200. If a Battleship costs 200 why not divide by 100 and say 30, 40 and 60; 130; 2?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, though there is a LINK between having a resource and building a unit (or improvement, for that matter) there is NO LINK between the number of units you can build and how much of a resource you possess.
At the end of the day, a single resource deposit is sufficient to supply your entire nation-no matter how large it is or how many units it pumps out every turn.
In Civ1 and Civ2, the Warmonger strategy was very effective because of a thing called the 'Snowball Effect'-namely that success breeds even GREATER success. In this case, building lots of cities=more units per turn=more cities conquered=EVEN MORE units per turn=you get the picture.
Now, Civ3 alleviated this, somewhat, by having a lot of the BEST units require a resource for construction. Unfortunately, though, once a player has said resource, then the Snowball Effect is in play once more. But, what happens if Cities and units can cause resource depletion?
(a) suddenly smaller civs are no longer automatically disadvantaged, as the demand for resources by the economy of a larger civ helps to limit the number of military forces it can build per turn (wheras the smaller civ is more free from such constraints).

(b) trade suddenly becomes MUCH more important, as it is highly likely that no nation will be able to survive the entire game on a single deposit of a resource.

(c) Warmongering becomes much less effective as a strategy, as more units per turn=more chance of resource depletion=end to current campaign!!!

That said, I think that large numbers, and exact usages would be very confusing for all but the most avid player (heck, it was the biggest turn off for me in Rise of Nations). I think that an abstract system based on the current Civ3 model-but where appearance and disappearance of a resource depending on size and 'scarcity' factors-would work best!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mhIdA]

ForbiddenPalace
Quantify resources and some resources quantity as a requirement to build units something I agree. But 2 questions:
1 - You say 3 oil deposits with 3 diferents quantities(3000, 4000, 6000), what basis to have that #? In terrain type, geology?
2 - A better technology exploitation should increase oil (resources) deposit (like mines could do to gold deposit or a plantation and sugar engine to sugar)?

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

1 - You say 3 oil deposits with 3 diferents quantities(3000, 4000, 6000), what basis to have that #? In terrain type, geology?

I am thinking about a fixed total global amount based on map sizes. Say for standard size map, the totall amout is 1M such that the total amount of oil on the map is 1M. Each deposit is some how different, and could be based on terrain type (for example, oil in desert tends to have larger quantity than that on tundra).

2 - A better technology exploitation should increase oil (resources) deposit (like mines could do to gold deposit or a plantation and sugar engine to sugar)?

Actually I am referring to the structure that store the oil, which has already been digging out. You cannot even start to dig oil out without some structure to store it. Say if you build 10 such structures that holds 10000 oil (each stores 1000 oil), and you have already dig 10000 oil from the ground during the past 20 turns, you know you can build 50 battleships (200/ship). But if one of the structure is destroyed by an enemy (or earthquake), you lost 1000 right away.

 

[searcheagle]

I think bring storage into the game might be a little to complicated. The rest of the idea is good though.

It might also be a good idea to require resource for maintaince of some units. Ie- Oil for tanks, planes, etc.

 

[Commander Bello]

I like this idea. I like it even more as a important factor has been mentioned: storage!
To provide storage capacity, there would be city improvements - maybe small, standard, large, of course then at different costs.

One word to the large numbers:
The higher the number, the better. A lot of our problems and confusion in current Civ3 is caused by the insane use of the lowest integers possible. Everything sounds nice and understandable, it you talk about it late in the evening when having a beer.
But come on, you give a certain unit just 1 point more and you make it double as strong as the other unit? This is just crazy.

Larger numbers make for more graduation and by that, for better balancing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, let me rehash my model, if no-one objects !

My big problem with the civ3 resource model is twofold-(a) resources rarely-of ever-disappear and (b) when they do appear, it is WHOLLY unconnected to the player actions!! How do we rectify this?

(1) Give each resource TYPE a 'Scarcity Number'-or SN-this might range from around 2 (for horses), up to around 20 (for Uranium).

(2) Give each Resource Deposit a 'Size Number', this might range from 1 to 10.

So, the 'depletion factor' (DF) of any given resource is equal to its SN/Size.

But how, do you ask, does this depletion factor WORK?

Well, two ways come to mind: the first is that, the moment a resource is 'hooked up' into a civs trade system, then it has a chance of being depleted-this will depend on the # of cities the civ has, and the # of units/improvements he has which demand that resource.
So, lets say you have a size 5 iron deposit (and Iron has a scarcity of 5), which is connected up to a 10 city nation. The depletion factor is equal to 5 divided by 5-or 1. Thus this resource has a 10% chance of disappearing each turn (DF=1 multiplied by # of cities). If this nation were also building 5 swordsmen units as well, then the resource has a 15% chance of disappearing instead.
The second option is like the first, but you get a certain number of cities/units 'free of charge'-so to speak. So, to use the above example again:

Because the iron deposit is size 5, the nation gets 5 cities at 'no risk'. However, the remaining cities gives the iron a 5% chance of disappearing each turn. If the nation were building 5 swordsmen, then this would jump to 10%. If, however, the nation consisted of only 3 CITIES, then it could build 2 swordsmen per turn without any risk of the iron disappearing.

Now, certain mechanised units-such as tanks, mech infantry and modern air/naval vessels-and certain improvements, require a resource on an ONGOING basis, so the chance of the resource disappearing would be based-not on how many units you are building that turn-but on the number of units/improvements you have already 'in the field'.

If a resource is from size 6-10, then it won't completely disappear, but will halve in size, wheras a size 1-5 resource WILL disappear-though you WILL get a 1 turn warning in either case. Also, certain techs and improvements can alter both the 'size' and the 'scarcity number' of any given resource.

Lastly, what happens if you lose all sources of a resource? Well that depends:

(a) if a unit requires the resource on an ongoing basis, then its combat capacity drops markedly (it is assumed that you have small 'reserves' of the resource, but not enough for full effectiveness).

(b) if a unit/improvement requires the resource to be built, then the unit/improvement will disappear from the build queue AND any you are currently building will take longer (you can still rush, though). Also, said units/improvements-if they get damaged-take longer to repair/heal than normal.

So, how does all this effect trade? Well, when you have multiple deposits of a resource, its combined size is used to determine its DF (not sure about this bit, might be better to keep each size seperate for purposes of calculation). This makes it FAR less likely to disappear (and, if it 'disappears' then only one deposit is depleted). This means that you have greater latitude to trade said resource (you could still trade the resource even IF you only had a single deposit-but its a LOT riskier). When you trade a resource, you trade a certain amount of the total SIZE of said resource. So, if you have a size 6 resource, you could trade 3 'sizes' of it-leaving 3 for domestic use. In this case you could say that you are trading 3 units per turn-for arguments sake.
Anyway, thats my model in a nutshell-what do people think?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

I don't like the idea of resources randomly disappearing.
This adds no fun to the game, just confusion and hassle. One hour ago everything was fine, and now, it has just disappeared? No way!

Instead, you should be informed about the size of your deposit:
Deposit A = 10,235 items
Deposit B = 25,695 items
Deposit C = 712 items

When your units AND your economy will use appr. 1,500 items per turn, you know that for the next 20 turns everything is allright. After that, you will have a problem. Maybe, you should just make friends with nation XY, who are reported to have spotted large deposits recently.

If you would be at war with XY, you would automatically know that your units should better be at home after turn 20....

THIS adds depth to the game - not a random based disappearing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But Bello, it isn't a TRULY random mechanism. Oh, sure, it is ultimately decided by an RNG-but the actual CHANCE of a resource disappearing will be decided by players in-game ACTIONS! By your argument, we should abadnon the current combat system because that, too, is based on a random number generator. My system, like combat, could be described best as 'semi-random' in that, though you don't have absolute control, you can definitely 'stack the odds in your favour'. Your storage idea is the path to Micromanagement, and I can already hear people groaning saying-'ugggh, storage, that sounds soooo like a Real Time Strategy Game-you can count me out!' Also, it isn't really very realistic because, lets face it, what country can HONESTLY tell us it knows EXACTLY how much of a resource they CURRENTLY HAVE and/or will EVER HAVE?
My system allows all the benefits of having a quantified resource system (i.e., you know quite well how far you can stretch your resources before you reach a possible breaking point) WITHOUT having to ask players to be amateur accountants.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

I think strategic resources should be modeleld similar to money and resources in certain RTS games. By keeping the player interface the same for each resource, you make it a lot simpler for people to understand.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I just feel that, once you get past 2 or 3 resources, a storage and allocation system for resources will simply become a MAJOR headache-no matter HOW you design the interface. It will also be a dream for Micromanagers, who will be able to Min/Max things far better than those who like to take more of a broad-brush approach.
As I said in my above post, my system is NOT completely random-not even close. It creates a certain level of risk which is not present in a storage system, whilst still leaving players with ultimate control over how long their resources will last-and how to further minimize the risk of resource depletion in the future.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

For once, Aussie Lurker and I actually agree.

Having more than 3/4 expendable ressources (ie, anything that work like gold in Civ) translates to too much stuff to keep track of.

 

[rhialto]

I just feel that, once you get past 2 or 3 resources, a storage and allocation system for resources will simply become a MAJOR headache-no matter HOW you design the interface. It will also be a dream for Micromanagers, who will be able to Min/Max things far better than those who like to take more of a broad-brush approach.

I agree having lots of spendable resources is a nightmare to manage. But if we consider that civ at present has 8 strategic resources, of which only 3 or 4 are of concern to a player at any given stage. I think 3-4 actively managed resources (plus the money resource) is quite manageable.

For the record, I don't want to have to build structures to store all these resources. That is too low level for me. We don't build money-storing structures in civ after all.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But you must admit Rhialto that, especially with the new modding powers of Civ4, there will be a HELL of a lot more resources in the game-in each age-once the modders get their hands on it (plus, we don't know exactly how many resources civ4 will have in vanilla form). Its at this point that a storage system may well become untenable.
As I said, under the system I have proposed, player actions would NOW play a much more vital role in both the APPEARANCE and DEPLETION of resources throughout the game-whilst still retaining a certain degree of suspense over exactly how long a resource will last.
Personally, I think that such a system would satisfy the RTS crowd who want 'resource quantification' whilst keeping the TBS people happy, by ensuring that they don't have to keep checking a table-every turn-listing the quantities and uses of half a dozen or so resources, all to find out what they can or cannot do with them.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mhIdA]

The only randomize feature here is the resource deposit size, and to that I agree With Commander Bello, large numbers are the best way. An example:
- Suppose an iron deposit sized 100,000 shields/items.
- The deposit appear on map once we discover Iron Work as now.
- There are not resource deposit, as now.
- In a city sized 1 with a poulation of 10,000 citizens, 1,000 popunits are assign to mining.
- Given technology, this 1,000 miners produce 1,000 shields of iron per turn. If iron deposit have a mine it produce 2,000 shields of iron per turn.
- Each miner produce 1 shield of iron per turn (without mine) or 2 shield of iron per turn (with mine). And deposit will disappear between 50 and 100 turns.
- We can assign iron shield production to pikeman or swordsman in a % decided by player.
- Selling shields of iron production to buy food or mining tools this generate commerce.
- The pikeman, swordsman costs a specific quantity of shields of iron.
- For graphical aspect 4 or 5 miners working on a tile each turn gives the deposit exploitation idea.
- This eliminate the worker action mining.

 

[searcheagle]

I agree there should be a limit on the amount of a resource that can be mined. However, I think factoring in all the production factors MhiDA suggested is too complex for this type of game.

I can see resource depletition working 2 ways:
1. a certain amount for any unit that needs a resource
2. a differring number of resource based on the unit.

-Unit upkeep could also require resources. Such as everything with a gas/diesel engine would cost 1 gas unit/turn

 

[yoshi]

This thread reminds me of something.

I'd normally start my saying that the quantitative model (stockpiling) would have units consuming resource points per turn, but the main arguement against stockpiling is MM, as has been pointed out. Not much can be done to steamline stockpiling since it is what it is: units of resource (or resource points or whatever RTS equivilant you prefer). As a result, stockpiling--though quite a few players want it in--doesn't seem like a realistic option for the Civ franchise.

You can go with Aussie's model but it leaves in random disappearance which is already not a much-loved feature by players and doesn't actually prevent players from building more units (i.e. increases the chances that the resource will disappear based on usage).

So, I'd go with something far, far simpler that, as far as I can see, actually has a good chance at making it into Civ4:

UNIT CAP:

(Only x number of units requiring x resource can be built per resource.)

This effectively deals with 'snow-balling' (e.g.--note this is an example--a civ can be as massive as it likes but if it only controls 1 Oil resource square, then it can only build 30 number of Tanks and no more; likewise, a tiny civ that controls 1 Oil resource can also build up to 30 Tanks).

Makes things a little more fair and makes the aquisition of additional resources relevant to more than just inter-civ trading without resorting to random disappearance.

UNIT UPKEEP CAP:

Same solution only apply per turn (i.e. 1 resource maintains--fuels--x number of units per turn).

What happens if civ loses control of a resource or gains control of--as opposed to building--more units than resource can maintain? Units disband?

No. Too drastic (I doubt most players would want to see their Tanks disappear just because the 'clever' AI managed to pillage that precious Oil tile).

Solution: units lose 50% effectiveness (i.e. combat/movement) when owner loses control of required resource. (Represents resource shortage without resorting to a 'have it all or lose it all' type of gameplay.)

[Off topic: apply this to building upkeep as well; would make resources more economically relevant--esp. in the Modern Age where your productive potential would depend on resources.]

[Nothing new about this: losing a city containing Military Academy in Civ3 causes your armies to no longer give a combat bonus to loaded units, thus making Armies less effective (to those who don't recognize this feature, I think it was added in C3C).]

Don't think it can get much simpler than that.

 

[Evie]

Problem with the second option Yoshi is that it runs afoul of the wee little fact that it is effectivey NOT effective at all until the industrial revolution, and then only with coal, uranium (kind of) and oil. Units which require iron, etc require it to BUILD the unit, not (much) to operate it afterward.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I would like this. Maybe you could capture other people's oil reserves to strike a very significant blow to them, while bolstering yourself.