there are a lot of other resources that i could think of that could go in the resouce thing. I saw tobbaco somewhere in the forums i'm (guessin a 1 happyness and 1commerce). Wood would be good too but you get forests for that any posts would be appreciated
New resources
- Thread starter s.c.dude
- Start date
lost_civantares
[Insert Title]
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,803
The problem is that more does not automatically = better. If you have too many resources then they will become much less valueable. If you only have a few resources they will be fought over and become much more a stratiegic goal, which is a good thing to game desiginers. The same goes for bonus resources, the more there are, the less a particular city site will be valuable, and so will not become so much of a stratigic goal to work to defend/attack successfully.
lost_civantares said:
I don't agree. The more different types of resources there are the better. While keeping the same number of resources in a generated world.
This would be better because when playing there would be more resources to obtain to boost your cities. It is quite easy to get all the resources through conquest or trade at the moment, with more different types but not increasing the total amount on the map - each resource would be more scarce and thus would make the game more interesting.
I would also like to see more requirement for different resources to produce both units and buildings. eg can't build a granary without grain, corn or rice. Or how about you can't build a forge without access to iron or copper.
Potential resources
Saltpeter
Olives
Lemons
Pearls
Tin
Salt
Potatoes
Flax
Opium
Rubber
Slaves
lost_civantares
[Insert Title]
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,803
You need grain to put a grainery together? 
The problem with that is that it means that if you miss a needed resource because of some random fluke, and so are prevented from building a needed building (like a grainery) which will really help you in your game it will only frustrate the gamer, not add to the experience.
As for luxuries, the problem with having much more of them is that if you have 10 luxuries/health resources already, what need is there to limit your growth to capture more through force of arms, or accelerate your enemies growth by trading for them? There is no stratiegical drive to get more, there is a difference when having 2-5 of 8 types of luxuries, and have 1-2 of 14 types. At first it may be neat, but it will louse its attraction much easier than with a more complex (but not too complex which could happen with your limited building approach also).
The problem with that is that it means that if you miss a needed resource because of some random fluke, and so are prevented from building a needed building (like a grainery) which will really help you in your game it will only frustrate the gamer, not add to the experience.
As for luxuries, the problem with having much more of them is that if you have 10 luxuries/health resources already, what need is there to limit your growth to capture more through force of arms, or accelerate your enemies growth by trading for them? There is no stratiegical drive to get more, there is a difference when having 2-5 of 8 types of luxuries, and have 1-2 of 14 types. At first it may be neat, but it will louse its attraction much easier than with a more complex (but not too complex which could happen with your limited building approach also).
s.c.dude said:
You mean like the one found in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176653
DaviddesJ
Deity
More different resources in one game would be bad. But more different resources, with only some present on each generated map (with the total number of distinct resources similar to that we have now) would add variety. Especially if different resources were unlocked by different techs.
Leatherneck
Drive-by poster.
Well my 5 cents would be you could have more resources and less at the same time. More varity but less quanity. With the exception of common resources like grain, stone, fish ... not to hard to find them anywhere, whereas items like gold or gem (say diamonds in addition to gems), oil and or natural gas would be a little harder to get and therefore you'd either have to pay out the wahzoo for it or trade at a loss OR go to WAR and take it. I see why some say more is bad but I can see where less of more would be better. Could be a option or a mod if you like it play it if not then don't ... I play a mod with more resources and other stuff call CivMore and enjoy it quit a bit. But then again it's nice to change up.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
CF4L said:
SPAM as a strategic map resource? What tiles would produce it? Fallout?
Leatherneck
Drive-by poster.
Mewtarthio said:
SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, Baked Beans and SPAM.
But I don't like SPAM!
DaviddesJ
Deity
s.c.dude said:
And -6 Health?
Leatherneck
Drive-by poster.
s.c.dude said:
It is an oil (petro) based product, so expect to see and increase in the price of everything plastic.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Whilst on the topic of how many new resources would be good, perhaps its worth considering the idea of making multiples of the same resource worth having too. I can see several quite easy ways of doing this
(1) The first version of a resource you gain access to (like Iron, for instance) gives all cities connected to the trade network a +2 bonus (food, production, commerce, happiness, health). So, for instance, the source of iron might give you +2 production. The next 2-4 sources (map size dependant perhaps) of the same resource gives you a +1 bonus, wheras all sources after 5 gives you no further benefit (thus still encouraging you to seek out NEW resources).
(2) If you have X deposits of a single resource, and Y cities, then your city maintainance costs are divided by X/Y. Additionally, any units or improvements that depend on said resource have their maintainance costs divided by X/Y(units).
(3) Similar to (2). All build times for units and improvements, in your cities, are multiplied by Y/X. For both (2) and (3), this would of course be cumulative for ALL resources you currently have access to.
Now, I personally support a combination of (1) and (2), but am curious what the rest of you think? I reckon it would make trade and warfare a darn sight more interesting, and also means that you COULD have more resource types in the game, without diluting the value of resources overall, IMO.
Aussie_Lurker.
(1) The first version of a resource you gain access to (like Iron, for instance) gives all cities connected to the trade network a +2 bonus (food, production, commerce, happiness, health). So, for instance, the source of iron might give you +2 production. The next 2-4 sources (map size dependant perhaps) of the same resource gives you a +1 bonus, wheras all sources after 5 gives you no further benefit (thus still encouraging you to seek out NEW resources).
(2) If you have X deposits of a single resource, and Y cities, then your city maintainance costs are divided by X/Y. Additionally, any units or improvements that depend on said resource have their maintainance costs divided by X/Y(units).
(3) Similar to (2). All build times for units and improvements, in your cities, are multiplied by Y/X. For both (2) and (3), this would of course be cumulative for ALL resources you currently have access to.
Now, I personally support a combination of (1) and (2), but am curious what the rest of you think? I reckon it would make trade and warfare a darn sight more interesting, and also means that you COULD have more resource types in the game, without diluting the value of resources overall, IMO.
Aussie_Lurker.
timerover51
Deity
Probably the resource that I would most like to see is copper, both for the Bronze Age and then you have to have it to research Electronics, Robotics, etc. No copper, then you would need Aluminum, which is not as good, or use gold.
As for resources that are being missed, some of the world maps that I have looked at completely lack any spices coming from the Central America area, where you get Vanilla, Chocolate, and Hot Peppers, to say nothing of Allspice.
Also, during Carthage's heyday, the Carthigians tamed the forest elephant subspecies that lived in North Africa at that timed, and used them against Rome. Hannibal started his march over the Alps with the 37 that has survived the march from Spain. By the time of Cannae, he had one left. The Romans exterminated the North Africa elephants for use in the Roman games. So, if you are making an Ancient World map, put elephants into North Africa.
For you guys looking for ideas on resources, that a look at some of the scenarios that come with Civ3Complete, as there are a bunch of good ideas in there. There is also one set of scenarios, the Test of Time series, where you have varying yields from the same resource, which really makes for an interesting game. You might ignor the spot that has only one fish for a food resource in a bunch of mountains and desert, and find out later that the fish was worth 25 food. He does the same thing with cattle, and has added sheep. The varying resource value is something that I am going to play around with.
As for resources that are being missed, some of the world maps that I have looked at completely lack any spices coming from the Central America area, where you get Vanilla, Chocolate, and Hot Peppers, to say nothing of Allspice.
Also, during Carthage's heyday, the Carthigians tamed the forest elephant subspecies that lived in North Africa at that timed, and used them against Rome. Hannibal started his march over the Alps with the 37 that has survived the march from Spain. By the time of Cannae, he had one left. The Romans exterminated the North Africa elephants for use in the Roman games. So, if you are making an Ancient World map, put elephants into North Africa.
For you guys looking for ideas on resources, that a look at some of the scenarios that come with Civ3Complete, as there are a bunch of good ideas in there. There is also one set of scenarios, the Test of Time series, where you have varying yields from the same resource, which really makes for an interesting game. You might ignor the spot that has only one fish for a food resource in a bunch of mountains and desert, and find out later that the fish was worth 25 food. He does the same thing with cattle, and has added sheep. The varying resource value is something that I am going to play around with.
Similar threads
