New Resource System

[thungrim]

The more I think about this, the more I get my hopes up.

 

[GoSkins]

I think depletion could work depending on how it's implemented. Depletion, the way I think of it is not at all random. A certain source gives you certain amount of say Iron. Each source is different - so one may give 2 units of Iron while another gives 4 units of Iron. You can build as many military units you want as long as you have the resource. So say you build a bunch of swordsman that use the iron resource and they die. You dont get that Iron back later to build tanks. You are left with whatever Iron is left in your source. This could make things interesting if there are locations in the world that have massive reserves of a resource. You want to befriend or conquer the civ that controls that reserve. Diplomacy would inherently have more value. Of course it would have to balanced properly so that if you dont start out with a certain resource (like iron) then you can still build a formidable military.

I'm also not opposed to implementing a cap rather than depletion. But it would also have to be balanced to prevent the situation that septimusoctopus describes

 

[r_rolo1]

I already gave my opinion elsewhere in this forum about this.... but let me resume my position:

If all the units need resources, you are basically screwing people that had a bad start even more than they are because of the terrain. It will also make grabbing the early military resources even more important than it is in any of the previous civ games ...

If you try to avoid that by putting some resourceless units in the mix to give a fair chance to people that don't start with early military resources, you are diluting the whole concept: people will obviously try to shield the precious resource constricted units with resourceless units ( especially if there is not a strong enough upper limit for them ... but if you put one of this you are probably screwing smaller civs again ) and/or will be afraid of using them unless in fights with high odds ( like people do with Civ IV GG atached units )...

I have some hope that Firaxis get some middle ground that avoids most of the more extreme consequences of this two, but it will be probably hard to keep things minimally consistent, especially in settings/maps out of what the devs will consider standart.

 

[Big J Money]

I completely disagree, rolo. I think that the whole point of limiting what you get from a resource makes resources less of a game-breaking deal than they were before.

Recall: In previous Civs, if you don't have a resource, you can't build the unit at all. This is about as punishing as it gets. And we have seen in the evolution of the series, that they have moved more toward giving maps TONS of resources to avoid setting players up without having them. Well, that's just a band-aid, because now you are taking away the significance of having them at all (kind of like what you said).

But with this system, you are still making resources strategically useful, but now it's about quantities rather than a simple "have vs. have not" system. So now they can spread them around a lot, but you are going to have the few players who maybe get just a few more iron than the other guy. But hey, that's okay that he can build more swordsman because he doesn't maybe have as horses as the other guy. Or maybe he doesn't have horses at all and he really needs to trade his extra iron to the guy who has extra horses. I think it's a more elegant way of toning down the harshness of the pire "have vs have" not rather than what they did before.

I have hope it can be awesome.

 

[Ahriman]

I think depletion could work depending on how it's implemented

From your example: why do you think that losing your swordsmen unit is not punishment enough? Why must you also permanently lose the iron used to build the units? That doesn't sound fair, that sounds like a slippery slope mechanic, where the more you start losing, the worse it gets. How is this fun?

people will obviously try to shield the precious resource constricted units with resourceless units

Why is this a problem? Defending resources is good strategy.

and/or will be afraid of using them unless in fights with high odds ( like people do with Civ IV GG atached units )

As long as the resources aren't depletable, why would they be afraid of using them? If my Heavy Footman that uses Iron dies, I that frees up space for me to build another.

I completely disagree, rolo. I think that the whole point of limiting what you get from a resource makes resources <i>less</i> of a game-breaking deal than they were before.

Agreed. The cap system we are talking about *reduces* the advantage of someone with 1 copy of the resource over someone with zero copies. In civ4, the guy with 1 horse can build unlimited chariots, and the guy with 0 horses can build none. In Civ5 the guy with 1 horse can build only a limited number of chariots, whereas the guy with 0 can build none.

Clearly there would still need to be "core" units without a resource requirement, but thats how it works in Civ3 and Civ4 too.

I think it's a more elegant way of toning down the harshness of the pire "have vs have" not rather than what they did before.

Precisely.

 

[BSmith1068]

Some of you guys have already alluded to this, but I would prefer the relationship between resources and units to not be direct. Instead I prefer that a specific resource produces a set amount of that resource that your civ can then consume in many different ways. It also gets away from the unit being the smallest common denominator and ending up with a tank using the same amount of oil as a battleship.

Here is how I would ideally see it working:

Each resource would produce a set number of &#8220;resource units&#8221; like barrels (oil), ingots (metal), etc. per turn. The total amount of &#8220;resource units&#8221; available to you would then be used to maintain your units and, potentially, buildings.

In the case of oil, a battleship would use 3 barrels per turn, while a destroyer would use 2. Note that the numbers are just for explanation purposes, not suggestions on what a battle ship should &#8220;cost&#8221; relative to a destroyer.

A typical oil well would produce 10 barrels per turn allowing you to build and maintain 3 battleships or 5 destroyers (or some combination of the two).

The more wells you have, the more barrels you have at your disposal to build units or other items that require that resource.

This would then open up additional possibilities in diplomacy because you would be able to trade X number of barrels to another civ for something in return. It doesn&#8217;t have to be the whole resource.

It would also be cool if all resources were not created equal. Some iron resources might produce 10 ingots of iron per turn, while another might produce 15. This would add a whole new element to the strategic game play over which resources are really important, and which may be less so.

Additionally, it would be nice if as you advance technologically, you could upgrade your mines or wells to have them produce more per turn.

 

[r_rolo1]

I completely disagree, rolo. I think that the whole point of limiting what you get from a resource makes resources less of a game-breaking deal than they were before.

Recall: In previous Civs, if you don't have a resource, you can't build the unit at all. This is about as punishing as it gets. And we have seen in the evolution of the series, that they have moved more toward giving maps TONS of resources to avoid setting players up without having them. Well, that's just a band-aid, because now you are taking away the significance of having them at all (kind of like what you said).

But with this system, you are still making resources strategically useful, but now it's about quantities rather than a simple "have vs. have not" system. So now they can spread them around a lot, but you are going to have the few players who maybe get just a few more iron than the other guy. But hey, that's okay that he can build more swordsman because he doesn't maybe have as horses as the other guy. Or maybe he doesn't have horses at all and he really needs to trade his extra iron to the guy who has extra horses. I think it's a more elegant way of toning down the harshness of the pire "have vs have" not rather than what they did before.

I have hope it can be awesome.

I also hope ( better, ) that it can be awesome But...

My problem is that spreading the resources will not make much of diference in this regard. It will be simply a change between having 4 units vs 0 units of the bad lucked civ to having 32 units vs having 12. The bad luck civ will still get pwned, especially if we are talking of the earliest resources ( say, the equivalent to copper and horses in Civ IV ).

I think this will also create a run for those early resources just to avoid the other civs of creating those units in threathning numbers ( even if you don't have the means of using the whole plafond of units , that will be most likely the way the civ devs will try to control this ). Pretty much like those big teams go get good players to weaker teams just to put them on the bench carrying the water bottles ...

The only ways of avoiding that run would be a drastic increase of the equivalent of civ IV civic maintenance or carpeting the map with city-states ( said in other way, making early grab of military resources expensive ) and both would force a OCC for quite a while ( not mentioning that this would still not help that poor guy that started with little military resources ) and the devs have little to none reason for that and some reasons to not do that or alternatively, make the units that need resources not-so-hot in terms of warfare ability for being less rewarding pursuing those units, hence less rewarding getting the resource sources ( that would be equivalent to :suicide: the concept )

To be honest, I don't see a way of this working in a solid fashion ... hopefully the devs can see better than me

 

[BSmith1068]

TBH &#8211; I don&#8217;t really see the problem with some civs being in a poorer position than others as it relates to geography/resources. That is a completely realistic situation.

 

[r_rolo1]

TBH – I don’t really see the problem with some civs being in a poorer position than others as it relates to geography/resources. That is a completely realistic situation.

True, but it there is no need to make a bad position ( poor terrain/ starting on a position that doesn't allow expansion ) even worse my putting a unit cap for resource that it will resume to coumpound the initial disavantage even further...

 

[BSmith1068]

Would a system like I outlined above make it easier for a civ in a crappy position to make due?

Maybe the strategy for a player that is in that position is to think differently. Lack of resources would make military expansion/protection much harder, so diplomacy may be much more important (or technological advancement).

 

[mr.pimm]

Tanks stalling from no oil would indeed be an interesting sight.

i wonder if they have a tech which will let your vehicle run on biofuels?so you would not need to invade another state to get your oil.

 

[largedarryl]

I like the gameplay elements that would come up with a supply capped resource system. With a limit of resources (or excess) you could have a sudo-economic model that could be created.

Although the one thing with making resources limited (either finite or supply limited), there may be the need to increase the amount of resources present on the map. This may also increase the frustration level of playing a game through and discovering every useful resource isn't present in your area, only giving the impression that the game was more of a diceroll than player skill determined.

 

[thungrim]

A potential solution to the "no resource access = no units of type X" problem would be to make unit cost (rather than availability) a function of resource access. So if you have no linkages to coal in your empire, it doesn't mean you won't be making steel. It just means your coal will be WAY more expensive because you're buying it on the black market.

So you can make the same Y number of X unit as another Civ, but at 5 times the cost.

This still makes it suck to start off with poor resource positioning (as it should) but doesn't completely take you out of the game.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Ahriman ( sorry I missed your post completely )

My point in the parts you quoted from me was between the balance between resource-less and resource-enabled units ( suposing the existance of both and resources number capping the numbers of units you can make from them ). If the resource-enabled units are good compared with the resource-less ones, you will surely want to protect them the most, because they are rare and you can't summon them at will, atleast compared with some more less constricted resourceless units ( and this even if you can replace them: a lost armoured swordsman would need to be created in a city of yours and transported to the front, most likely with some cover of other units ( created for that propose in most of the cases ). In between you would definitely be in a disavantage, so you would want to avoid that if possible ). That is a similar situation to what happens to the Civ IV GG attached units, that a lot of people shun to use in direct battle exactly because of their comparative rarety ...

@BSmith1068

I had proposed something in similar, but not equal lines elsewhere, because i would also give the player the choice between making units with a good resource backup and fully operational or more units with little resource backup ( worse quality metal/ less metal in the weapons, oil rationing and/or worse quality fuels ( like Germany in the end of WW II ) ... ) and decreased efficiency. I think that is a aceptable compromise between the two aproaches on capping the units per resource and is more realistical than both

 

[JBConquests]

This is whole concept is a great idea. I really hope this is the direction. Having limited units really makes military tactics more important.

Having wars over resources would now be very fun and realistic. Indeed, I hope the AI becomes smart enough to target a resource they want to "acquire" and go to war to get it.

It would also be cool if all resources were not created equal. Some iron resources might produce 10 ingots of iron per turn, while another might produce 15. This would add a whole new element to the strategic game play over which resources are really important, and which may be less so.

I sure hope they do this. If not, somebody will have to mod it.

I'm ok with a resources suddently being depleted via minor random chance. And no, it should not magically appear somewhere else on the map - It just goes away. It would be fun because the player would then be required to rethink their entire strategy for the game. This should imply though that resources could also be "discovered". Perhaps a later technology could raise the change of this occuring - something like "deep mining".

Also, I would not pursue a model where a resource can build only X number of units then the resource is depleted. This would not be fun.

 

[Thormodr]

No resource depletion. It not a fun concept just like dark ages which were considered for Civ 3 but canned because they weren't fun at all. Perhaps a random event that occurs every once in a blue moon would be acceptable.

If a nation is resource deprived to an extent then they will have all the more reason to ally with other players. If they can gain a tech advantage through joint research then they could potentially overcome this problem.

I am liking the idea. I just hope they have a wide variety of resources. Did I mention I would like Peat to make a comeback?

 

[Thormodr]

Another thing that I have though of for while would be forest conservation. There should be more bigger penalties and much harsher consequences for chopping down all of your forests.

Studies have shown that if you chop down all the forests near the ocean then the number of fish dramatically reduces. Also, with no forests nearby, soil erosion happens much more quickly as there are no windbreaks.

Ever since Civ 1 where you got penalized for actually having forests (forests gave 2 production and more production meant more pollution) , they've never really got it right. National parks were a step in the right direction but the bonuses just weren't good enough.

It'd be nice to be able to replant forests as well.

I did see that perhaps tiles will be partly forested. That could be a step in the right direction as you could farm part of the hex and leave the rest forested.

Anyway, I hope they finally do the right thing.

 

[Ahriman]

That is a similar situation to what happens to the Civ IV GG attached units, that a lot of people shun to use in direct battle exactly because of their comparative rarety ...

The analogy doesn't work. GG generals are precious because they're rare, if you lose it then you can't replace it, because you have a finite supply of great generals. Under my interpretation of the resource design, if you lose a Heavy Footman unit, that just frees up some iron for you so you can immediately replace it with another.

So there's no reason not to use your resource-units; in fact there's (at the margin) *more* of a reason to use them. If I use my Heavy Footman and lose him, that frees up an iron slot for me, and the next unit I build can be an iron-requiring unit. If I use my resourceless unit and lose it, then I gain nothing, and the next unit I build cannot be an iron-requiring unit (assuming I was at cap).

Resource units would be replaceable, great generals are not.

* * *

Another thing that I have though of for while would be forest conservation. There should be more bigger penalties and much harsher consequences for chopping down all of your forests.

This is a history game, not an ecology sim. Throughout history, the developing powers chopped all their forests down. We want to encourage players to do this in Civ too. Conservation is a very recent phenomenon.

IMO Civ4 got it about right on this.

 

[Thormodr]

The analogy doesn't work. GG generals are precious because they're rare, if you lose it then you can't replace it, because you have a finite supply of great generals. Under my interpretation of the resource design, if you lose a Heavy Footman unit, that just frees up some iron for you so you can immediately replace it with another.

So there's no reason not to use your resource-units; in fact there's (at the margin) *more* of a reason to use them. If I use my Heavy Footman and lose him, that frees up an iron slot for me, and the next unit I build can be an iron-requiring unit. If I use my resourceless unit and lose it, then I gain nothing, and the next unit I build cannot be an iron-requiring unit (assuming I was at cap).

Resource units would be replaceable, great generals are not.

* * *


This is a history game, not an ecology sim. Throughout history, the developing powers chopped all their forests down. We want to encourage players to do this in Civ too. Conservation is a very recent phenomenon.

IMO Civ4 got it about right on this.

It has nothing to do with being an ecology sim. It would actually make the map look a lot more realistic to see some forests, marshes and jungles still left. Perhaps more positive events happening if you left them undisturbed. Leaving a marsh would mean there was more waterfowl or leaving a jungle would mean that you had a greater chance of discovering a rare medicinal plant.

At the very worst, give bonuses to leaving these areas untouched in order to make the choices less obvious to just chop all the forests down and drain every swamp or slash and burn down every jungle.

The Japanese started practicing forest conservation around 1700 as they started to notice what a negative impact it was having on their environment.

An excellent book to read on the subject would be Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

In the prologue, Diamond summarizes Collapse in one paragraph, as follows.
&#8220; This book employs the comparative method to understand societal collapses to which environmental problems contribute. My previous book (Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies), had applied the comparative method to the opposite problem: the differing rates of buildup of human societies on different continents over the last 13,000 years. In the present book focusing on collapses rather than buildups, I compare many past and present societies that differed with respect to environmental fragility, relations with neighbors, political institutions, and other "input" variables postulated to influence a society's stability. The "output" variables that I examine are collapse or survival, and form of the collapse if collapse does occur. By relating output variables to input variables, I aim to tease out the influence of possible input variables on collapses. &#8221;

&#8212;page 18

Diamond lists eight factors which have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies:

1. Deforestation and habitat destruction
2. Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)
3. Water management problems
4. Overhunting
5. Overfishing
6. Effects of introduced species on native species
7. Overpopulation
8. Increased per-capita impact of people

Further, he says four new factors may contribute to the weakening and collapse of present and future societies:

1. Human-caused climate change
2. Buildup of toxins in the environment
3. Energy shortages
4. Full human utilization of the Earth&#8217;s photosynthetic capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29

 

[Ahriman]

It would actually make the map look a lot more realistic to see some forests left

Realistic? Hardly. How much forest cover is left in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, easern seaboard USA, China, India?
Very little - and nearly all in inaccessible hilly regions. Flatland forests are just *gone*, except for small stands, the densest jungles (Amazon, Congo, Indonesia) and those in the arctic taiga.

The Japanese started practicing forest conservation around 1700 as they started to notice what a negative impact it was having on their environment.

Yes, and Japan is literally the only exception. Every other country has massively depleted their forest resources.

An excellent book to read on the subject would be Jared Diamond's Collapse

I've read it.

I don't disagree that resource exploitation and deforestation have negative environmental consequences. I'm an environmental economist...

I'm saying that, throughout history, people have ignored this (or not known) and gone ahead and chopped anyway.
The game should have incentives that drive you that way. The short-term economic benefits of chopping the trees down far exceeded the long-term costs in nearly every case.

We want a history-flavored game, not a modern-environmentalist game. They did that, its SMAC.