1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

No resources for your UU? Huh?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by .Shane., Oct 19, 2007.

  1. .Shane.

    .Shane. Take it like a voter Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,233
    Location:
    NorCal
    I'm sure this has emerged as a "pet peeve" of other players as well, but its not just that its frustating, rather it's not logical.

    What I'm referring to is that you're Civ X and your UU requires copper. But, as the game progresses you discover there is no copper anywhere reasonably near you. What gets me is that isn't the fact that your civ had copper what gave rise to their UU?

    I realize I could cheat w/ the editor, but I don't like doing that.... and its not like it happens that often. But it happens enough to pique me. AND I DON'T LIKE BEING PIQUED! ;)
     
    MAvL likes this.
  2. LiberiGlacialis

    LiberiGlacialis To the stars!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    360
    Location:
    Online, for crying out loud!
    So...roll with it. Does a near-by civ have the resource you need for the UU? Capture it from or trade with them.
     
  3. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    The game actually tries to avoid this a little more now than it did in the past...mostly because Khmer needs such a rare resource for their UU. But, if this really bugs you, play with "Balanced" resources over "Standard"--that'll insure all players have reasonable access to the early strategic resources.

    Personally, I like it when there is a challenge like that...so I tend to play those kinds of games.
     
    MAvL likes this.
  4. Dennis_Moore

    Dennis_Moore Unholy Roman

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Nerike

    Yes, but trying to capture the resource is a bit of a catch 22, since that's when you would probably need your UU the most.
     
  5. .Shane.

    .Shane. Take it like a voter Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,233
    Location:
    NorCal
    I understand that and I think, to a point, that's reasonable. But, for example, in one game I was the civ that needs ivory and there was no ivory on the continent I shared w/ 3 other civs.... so by the time I could get a galleon (transport over open sea) the usefulness of that particular UU was long gone.
     
  6. jimbob27

    jimbob27 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    London
    I guess you just have to look at it slightly differently.

    Instead of a certain resource giving rise to a UU, you could say it was the people themselves that gave rise to it.

    Maybe the Khmer people are genetically disposed to be better elephant riders than anybody else...... like they have wide legs and strong thighs or something.

    That way if they did get elephants, they'd kick arse with them.... but because of the way history works out in civ games..... they don't always have the chance to capitalise on their strong legs, because there aren't any elephants about.
     
  7. sydhe

    sydhe King of Kongs

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    2,426
    Location:
    Norman Oklahoma
    I've noticed that I often have trouble finding copper if my special unit requires it. Of course, every time I play the Maya, I find it by 3500 BC. Similarly, the Aztecs usually have iron nearby.
     
  8. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    That's the challenge in the game. It can't all be easy.
     
  9. AfterShafter

    AfterShafter Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    World's largest lentil producer
    I always took it as the Khmer were the only guys crazy enough to think of strapping a ballista to the back of the elephant.
     
  10. Merkinball

    Merkinball Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,980
    Location:
    Western New York
    I've had just one game in 3.13 thus far that has given me nearbye resources to use unique units.

    Every game I have played in BtS with Darius, (3 or 4 games) has had absolutely positively no horse anywhere near. I haven't made a single immortal in any BtS games.

    My current game with Ragnar will involve me taking out a neighbor...after I've already eliminated TWO to get to this neighbor to get iron.

    My previous last game with Augustus Caesar required removing two civs to get access to Iron.

    Sometimes it's not a tall order. If you have copper, it's not a big deal. But if you have no horse, no copper, or Iron, you are f--ked. Particularly if you're located to civs like Huana Cupac, Sitting Bull, or any other protective Civ. This has happened to me twice in BtS where I've pretty much been limited to 3 cities, surrounded by hill settling protective civs with no access to strategic resources.

    If this happens. Good luck.

    It's extremely irritating.
     
  11. Aneurism

    Aneurism Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    377
    Location:
    Canada
    Play as India... the fast worker destroys all other UU by being useful throughout the entire game not just one era, and they dont require a special resource either.
     
  12. .Shane.

    .Shane. Take it like a voter Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,233
    Location:
    NorCal
    Who said we want it to be easy. I can deal w/ all kinds of things that are difficult. One of my points is that this isn't logical. Its bad design. At a minimum, it should be a choice that can be enabled/disabled.
     
  13. SpiderMinky

    SpiderMinky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    In my own Mind
    Which as was pointed out you can do if you start a custom game and under the resources you select balanced.
    This is not a garuntee it will be right there but then every civ will by an large have the same resources.

    Frankly the lack of resources works just as much for you as it does against you.
    Rome with no Iron is really shall we say Impotent:D
    As is Persia with no Horses.

    But if you want it balanced then choose that option. It is not the way I play but to each their own.
     
  14. Compertz

    Compertz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    I think if Civ is trying to tie in with history - which I have noticed is a feature of this game - then the appropriate resource was in the vicinity of the civ historically. Of course this means that whenever you play a civ with a resource dependent unit you would 'know' that the required resource would be nearby.
    So its either be historically true and create a small game advantage (intel about local resources) or stick with 'maybe I'll get lucky' with the resource I really need to make my UU work and not get PIQUED!

    Whichever way this goes someone is going to get PIQUED. I'm PIQUED now at knowing about this - stupid PEQUING game.
     
  15. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    Actually, it is. I know I'm echoing another poster above, but it's worth repeating. If you play with Balanced resources, there will be all the early strategic resources (copper, iron, and horses) within a short range of your capital. I'm not sure how the game handles Ivory with balanced resources, but I don't play with that setting, so I don't care. In any case, that's about as "fair" as the maps get.

    Now, I'll stick with a more standard distribution, and if I don't have iron and then need it...well I'll figure out some way to get it.

    I also don't get why you think every Civ should have their UU if it is resource dependent. Not every Civ gets all the strategic resources, especially early in the game, and so not every civ has access to all the resource-dependent normal units. Why is it bad design to not have access to a particular resource-dependent UU if ordinarily and with any other Civ, you wouldn't have access to the resource-dependent normal units anyway?
     
  16. Silence101

    Silence101 King

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    745
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I have a lot of trouble understanding your logic here. How is it bad design? There are plenty of historical examples of a given civilization not having access to a given resource. It adds flavor and demension to the game - and to the other Civ's. It creates obstacles and challenges and promotes active expansion. I would call it good game design. Besides... how boring would it be if you were gauranteed all of the stratigic resources you need in every game? Why stop there? The random map generator should never place any desert or tundra or ice anywhere within your empire. All conditions should be ideal.

    I've played more than a handfull of games where I had to do without copper/iron/horses. Was it more difficult? It sure was... but that's half the fun for me. I have to figure out how to either make due without them or how I can get access to them. Sometimes it requires delclaring war in less than ideal circumstances. That's history, folks. Not all territory is created equal.
     
  17. Peepers

    Peepers On the road again

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Dover, NH USA
    Additionally, it gives value to the UUs that require no StratRes.

    This is, after all, a competition for resources, and it would take some of the risk (thus the thrill) out of the game to have some guarantee that you will have everything you need to kick a**.

    There's no point having units that require strategics if you will always have them nearby. Of course, this does nothing to answer the question as to why a people would develop an innate skill with horses even though they've never seen any.
     
  18. .Shane.

    .Shane. Take it like a voter Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,233
    Location:
    NorCal
    Some good points, but some over-reaction as well. I'm not asking for EVERY resource. Simply put, if you're playing a civ who's UU requires ivory and there's no ivory, not even on your continent... that's not logical in terms of the idea that UU's represent some kind of historical tie-in for a given civ.

    Some of you are acting as if I'm asking for the whole entire game to be dumbed down.... please...
    EXACTLY. That is all I'm saying.
     
  19. lutzj

    lutzj The Last Thing You See

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    New England
    you forget that except for fast workers all the UUs that dont need StratRes suck
     
  20. Molybdeus

    Molybdeus Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    528
    Oromo Warrior, Cho-Ko-Nu, Redcoats and Quechua don't suck.

    To the OP: most of resource craving units are high risk/high reward. Not having iron is the risk you run for playing Caesar and planning on a praetorian rush. If you aren't willing to risk not having that resource, play a civ with a resourceless unique unit. IE, instead of playing as the Romans for a swordsman rush you can play as the Aztecs or Celts.
     

Share This Page