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

Of oil and coal

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by elprofesor, Oct 29, 2010.

  1. elprofesor

    elprofesor Pluri-editing poster

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    773
    Location:
    (hint: I can type "Ñ")
    Am I the only one feeling that oil has hardly any incidence on late game, compared to oil's importance on real life?

    I think oil should be needed for producing "aluminium units", for instance (armors, gunships, etc). That simple detail would already make extensive use of Rashid's UA, and give oil an actual lifespan. The other thing is that there should be at least a couple of buildings requiring oil. I mean, you don't need to be a warmonger to need oil, just watch your day to day life! What about a refinery, or whatever, something giving production or gold, I don't know.

    My complaint applies too for coal, which has a nonexistant lifespan too (oh, I've built a factory in my capital! What do I do now with the other 5 coal?), but that seems less likely to get changed. They could require coal to make railroads, but that wouldnt make sense in the XXIth century...
     
  2. mattcrwi

    mattcrwi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    147
    All resources are too plentiful IMO. They should cap the resources to 4 per tile. Right now if you fir a 6 or 7 resource like coal, that is enough for most of the game. If they made it so you only ever get a max of 4 and an average of 3, looking for more resources would be more important.
     
  3. GenericPlayer

    GenericPlayer Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    The way I see it, Coal and Oil should be important factors in the 'supply' calculation they do to determine the number of units you can field. Then this 'supply' number can be set to control the size of your army instead of the current lame inflation mechanic (yes I know I bring that up all the time - thats how much it annoys me).
     
  4. elprofesor

    elprofesor Pluri-editing poster

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    773
    Location:
    (hint: I can type "Ñ")
    I see your point, and completely agree with it, specially with horses: at the beginning of the game, 4 horses are waaaaaaaaay more than enough to clear your continent. Although here, I'm not complaining about having too much oil, but about having nothing to do with it.

    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please explain what is the "inflation mechanic", and how should oil be implemented in the supply?
     
  5. testdummy653

    testdummy653 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    324
    Location:
    Lab 653
    I think the resources are fine the way they are....

    When i was taking on the number one army in the game, who was out teching me, out creating me, beating me in every aspect. It was then did i use every single source of oil and aluminum to defeat him.
    Sure you could make it smaller resources all across the board, but you really can't build building that require those resources and the units. I know that you want to make the game, more complicated, but i rather not choose bwt making a modern armor, or building hydro power
     
  6. elprofesor

    elprofesor Pluri-editing poster

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    773
    Location:
    (hint: I can type "Ñ")
    It's not really about making it more complicated, it's about giving a reason for the non-warmongers to seek the ressources. As it is now, unless you're planning to take on that whole continent the AI has just for itself, there's no reason for oil, while if you are going for a scientific victory, for example, you need aluminium for the hydro plant and the spaceshift factory.
    Those buildings, specially the second one, don't make the game significantly more complicated, while giving a reason for a player that's not looking for total domination to get the ressources, other than selling them to another player. I'd like to have a couple of buildings that require oil too, and that benefit a victory path other than domination. Since those kind of victories usually don't require or produce a sprawling empire, I don't think that this inclusion would make the game significantly more difficult.
    And yes, if units that needed aluminium also needed oil, then there should be more oil than now.
     
  7. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    I agree the quantity of strategic resources feels absurd. Coal seems to be on the light side in most games, but it's not really vital, so I never notice.

    Especially in my conquest games, I often have an overabundance of Oil and Aluminum.

    Higher-tier units simply need multiple resource requirements and/or a higher amount per resource.

    For example, a Battleship or Modern Armor may be 2 Aluminum, 1 Oil.
     
  8. Lightzy

    Lightzy Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Israel
    Dig this idea!


    Also, a coal plant a-la civ4 makes much more sense than a 'factory' that mysteriously requires coal as it apparently comes with a built-in power plant that cannot be updated.
    stupid and gamey. artificial gamey crap to make a worthless resources slightly less worthless because they couldn't think of anything better. but then, what can you expect from a team that confirmed "people who like shiny things the most" ..........................

    Why not just make a factory that gives a production bonus according to the resource that you allocate to it? so you can allocate iron, horses (glue?), coal or whatever.

    Or SOMETHING that makes sense.
    I hate to say, but what can I do, these mechanics both worked better AND made more sense in civ4. why did they have to go and be so damn 'gamey' with civ5... anyway.
     
  9. GenericPlayer

    GenericPlayer Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    117
    If you go to the military overview window it shows you a calculation for something called 'Unit Supply' - basically the number of cities you have and your total population determine the maximum number of units you could support. The problem is that the devs also added a financial mechanic to limit army size. Each additional unit you add to the army costs more to maintain than the unit before it. In addition, there is also turn-based inflation which increases the maintenance cost (even without adding any new units) as the game moves forward. So those four units you had in 3000 BC may have cost you 6 gpt, but in 2010 AD they will cost you 150 (just as an example). Some may say this is normal inflation. It isn't real inflation because those three gold pieces you get at the TP river plot in 3000BC are still three gold pieces in 2010

    Short Version: The unit maintenance cost keeps going up with time even though you don't add new units. This is how Civ limits army sizes instead of looking at Oil and Coal. Its crap because there is no upper limit on how high and ridiculous it can get.

    My suggestion, for the modern age, to use number of cities, total population, Oil and Coal to calculate the max number of units a Civilization can support, and get rid of the inflation mechanic. In the earlier ages it could be Iron and Horses, Iron and Coal, maybe even include total excess food supply.

    Standing armies need oil, and lots of it. Those who don't have it buy it from someone who does. They could add a 'mothball' option where a unit you don't want to support anymore is left dormant in a tile, and does not require any Oil/Coal upkeep. If you need to activate him, the required Coal/Oil needs to be available and you need to wait 5 turns.

    I don't think they would ever implement something like this because the AI in Civ needs to be able to continue to operate while being bankrupt (Zero coins and negative GPT). And if the AI is bankrupt and doesn't have Coal/Oil and needs to buy it, well then he is in big trouble.
     
  10. Wombleburger

    Wombleburger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    67
    Reading these forums makes me sad. I see so many ideas in these threads that could have made Civ 5 awesome if they had been implemented instead of a lot of the, as I see them, immersion-breaking gamey mechanics.

    My number one issue with Civ 5 is the way I can't get immersed in it, because too many of the features make no sense to me, other than on a "game" level. For instance, in Civ 4 the AI didn't handle transporting troops for naval invasions very well, so in Civ 5 there are no transports. Instead, troops magically create their own boats from thin air whenever they need to cross water. A lame, gamey, mechanic that breaks my sense of immersion .
     
  11. Snapp

    Snapp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    90
    The issue I see with oil and coal is that they are used for such a short amount of time, you quickly out tech the units that need these resources.

    The resource I find to be limiting is aluminum, since almost ALL end game units take aluminum.

    IMO they should units like the Modern Armor and the Rocket Artillery use oil instead of aluminum. Leave aluminum for the science buildings and air planes.
     
  12. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    I concur. Oil is almost always a wasted resource in my games. I do like the idea of making modern ships cost 1 oil in addition to (this could be done for Ironclads-coal). That alone will make a difference. For the builders out there why not add a oil refinery (cost 1 oil) for maybe 10% boost to city gold output or something. Or what about Public Transportion (cost 1 oil) that gives 2 happiness. These ideas do not sound game breaking and might just give oil some needed importance. Could also make a 2nd oil tile improvement option. The Oil Well will give you the strategic resource but why not give the option of building an oil refinery instead? It can give a significantly higher hammer/coin output at the cost of the strategic resource itself. War breaks out you just need to take a worker and change it over to a well if needed. Just some brainstorming.
     
  13. Lightzy

    Lightzy Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Israel
    I like the idea that oil/aluminium/coal shortage in lategame should up inflation.
    With oil shortage every single thing in life gets more expensive. There's a rule of thumb you can check wherever u live over time --- if the bus ticket becomes a tiny bit more expensive, EVERYTHING gets a tiny bit more expensive.

    The amount of oil stockpiles that your civ needs to function without back breaking inflation should be dependent on the number of cities primarily (travel distances, logic!) and secondarily on the population size.

    Then you have a mechanic that makes sense, utilizes late game resources AND limits the strategic viability of ICS while also working as a 'rubber band' mechanic to help smaller nations compete in later eras.


    Also, if you look at history --- the main step any civ has taken to bolster its economy was to move population from the outlying countryside to central cities. why? travel time and the costs of maintaining these trade routes and protection.
     
  14. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    Please no references to "history" while discussing ciV or you'll make me laugh and cry at the same time...
     
  15. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    As soon as you play a limited sized nation, for a cultural victory perhaps, you'll notice the lack of oil and coal. Not being able to build a factory or hydro plant can set you back a long time when you're wanting to build the Utopia Project.

    Resources can also be clustered. I can remember one game with just two continents and almost all the resources were split entirely on one continent or the other.
     
  16. sesaMe

    sesaMe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    48
    inspired! perhaps all stratigic resources should increase your supply cap.. and units like horsemen, swordsmen, ironclads ect should have higher supply values
     
  17. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    I don't think the argument here is on too many resources on the map so much as can we have some realistic options in using them and in this case oil. Oil has a very limited use in the current state of the game. It is needed for only a few units of which are not game breaking if you do not produce (vs ai). The real question is do people use their oil resources during the course of the game. I agree with the OP in that we do not. There may be a rare exception every once in awhile but in general my oil is always just sitting around. Can we please create a building/new tile option/increase oil need for units.

    If you have a small empire and do not have oil these ideas will not hurt you. These ideas will only add more importance to a resource that should be one of the most sought after in the game. Large sprawling empires will really want more oil (to feed their war machine and/or economy/or happiness like I suggested). if the ideas raised in this thread are implamented.
     
  18. Lightzy

    Lightzy Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Israel

    Trying to properly simulate economic systems relies on WHAT exactly if not on history?
    The more closely you try to simulate reality, the better the game will be in this respect.
    This is because reality is actually complex and.. well.. is balanced for proper gameplay!


    Also the better the world will be, actually, because us civ players will probably find better ways to maximize economy than real world people if those problems were presented to us as a civ problem :)
     
  19. Banjo

    Banjo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    20
    I like this topic. It echoes of thoughts I've had about this game series for many years. The way rescources have been handled has been abstracted for simplicity. Take jet fighters in the game. They cost one aluminum to build. I have yet to see any machine that runs on aluminum. If the jet is lost you regain one aluminum point to build another. This is wrong. The same goes for most other resources, with the exception of perhaps horses. Horses grow old or die and need to be replaced in order to keep mounted units up to strength.

    We do have a supply mechanism in the game to handle supply, and it has been mentioned that resources should be factored into the amount of supply one has. This is a good idea.

    A thought came to me while reading this thread would be to have the amount of rescources one has accumulate over time to be used when a unit or building is built. Oil and to a much lesser extent coal would be consumed when a unit moves. Carriers would be built out of iron not oil. All modern units would cost oil to move even artillery and infantry. The exception would be for units on roads or rail in friendly or allied territory as long as they start and end their movement on the road or rail, unless they attack on that turn.

    My other concern was what about the rescource hexes and how do we accumulate whats in them? As long as the hex is being worked by an assigned worker, it produces the item in the hex, thats it. No extra hammers. It is producing the rescource instead. Civ4 had workshops one could build to gain extra hammers at a cost to the loss of one food. Bring the workshop back into this version to replace the loss of hammers to the iron mines. Another possibility would be to have an option when a population is put to work in a rescource hex to either produce the rescource, or produce hammers with the hammer bonus the hex produces.

    I have more to say about this, but don't want to be too long winded or go off topic.
     
  20. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    As soon as you leave Pangea maps and need to build a navy you need some oil. There's no point trying to get rid of an enemy battleship with frigates. There's no way you're going to invade an opponent overseas if you can't neutralize their navy, even with the stupid AI.

    It all depends on the game really. Horses are entirely irrelevant if you haven't got much land to ride around.
     

Share This Page