Optimum Appearance Ratio for resources?

Fergei

Warlord
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
255
I somehow missed this entire issue until this week. As described in the link below, C3C reduced the appearance rate of both by 33% compared to PTW.


When I moved over to Conquests after a lot of games on PTW I just thought I was being really unlucky with the amount of games where I could not make horsemen, pikemen, musketeers, railroads or tanks and quit in disgust. So finding this out is a godsend to me - hence the thread incase anyone else missed it. I would note that the Civ description of appearance ratio appears to be wrong in saying an AR of 160 in an 8 player game brings 2x of that resource per player (so 16). In reality it appears to be 12 in PtW and 9 in C3C (was it 16 in vanilla Civ3?).

I switched back to the PTW settings and found it too generous. If everyone can access all resources then that is an invitation to turtle indefinitely. So I am starting down the road of going halfway between PtW & Conquests. If to match PtW I need to raise horses from 120 to 160, I will put it at 140 etc. Now Civs can actually make their UU with more regularity.

Early signs are positive, although I tend to cram about 50% more AIs onto a map than the default setting, which creates more resources. So the above suggestion might be poor for those who like 8x Civs on a standard map.

- Does anyone have any alternative suggestions?
- Is it possible to win on default settings (at a challenging difficulty) without horses, iron, saltpeter or rubber so you miss all the best offensive units?
- do you think the developer did this to encourage more combat generally? Or to increase challenge by denying the human player resources or by having AI with no resources be steamrolled by other AI? Or what?
- are there strong arguments for the change being a good thing?
 
- are there strong arguments for the change being a good thing?
Well, since even after the change there tend to be more resources than tribes, it seems like a change in the right direction. But perhaps not much enough.

If you use more than 8 tribes, then there is an abundance of strategic resources and luxuries. Keep in mind that some tribes are exterminated before salpeter or even uranium are discovered. So the amount of resources per tribe remains very roughly the same. More likely is that it increases as more tribes are exterminated.

Some scarcity increases the relevance of trades. It is an important tool to shape the diplomatic landscape. You donnot want an AI to be knocked out? Then make sure it has to needed resources and techs to stay competive.

Does a scarcity of say strategic resources encourage AI to start wars? Maybe. But is that a relevant change? Doubtful. AI is eager to start wars in either case.
 
Its strange, but after elevating the resource ratio and cramming in more AIs onto the map I have been happy with resource levels but unhappy with luxury levels (unchanged ratio but far too many with say 10x Civs on a small map). This is the problem with me stupidly changing two variables at the same time.

I think your arguments are particularly valid for later game resources (say everything after saltpeter) when some Civs have died. So I think I will reduce the luxury ratio if this abundance of luxuries continues and reduce the resource ratio for everything after saltpeter back towards Conquests levels.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Well, since even after the change there tend to be more resources than tribes, it seems like a change in the right direction. But perhaps not much enough.

If you use more than 8 tribes, then there is an abundance of strategic resources and luxuries. Keep in mind that some tribes are exterminated before salpeter or even uranium are discovered. So the amount of resources per tribe remains very roughly the same. More likely is that it increases as more tribes are exterminated.

Some scarcity increases the relevance of trades. It is an important tool to shape the diplomatic landscape. You donnot want an AI to be knocked out? Then make sure it has to needed resources and techs to stay competive.

Does a scarcity of say strategic resources encourage AI to start wars? Maybe. But is that a relevant change? Doubtful. AI is eager to start wars in either case.
Resources are not "exterminated:" they are moved elsewhere on the map - You know, all those migrating herds of coal (@Fergei: See? I do still keep an occasional "weather eye" out for you.) - And, yes, the AI Civs will start wars over limited Strategic Resources.

:D
 
No, Resources aren't exterminated, but the number of each Resource generated on the map at game-start is directly proportional to its Appearance Ratio, multiplied by the number of tribes selected to appear on that map (and +/- a pRNG'd fudge-factor).

But as the unluckier tribes get wiped, the number of Resources doesn't decrease -- leaving proportionally more for the survivors...
 
Yes, i read it already ;)
 
No, Resources aren't exterminated, but the number of each Resource generated on the map at game-start is directly proportional to its Appearance Ratio, multiplied by the number of tribes selected to appear on that map (and +/- a pRNG'd fudge-factor).

But as the unluckier tribes get wiped, the number of Resources doesn't decrease -- leaving proportionally more for the survivors...
It is a shame that when a resource is depleted and respawns, that wasn't taken as an opportunity to re-apply the appearance ratio based on the number of remaining Civs (rather than the number of starting Civs).

I don't know why luxuries have the default AR of 0, essentially randomising their appearance level. It can lead to games where there are far too many, especially late game. I have set it to 60 and so far, so good.

In theory I really like concealing different luxuries until a different AA tech is acquired, but in reality I assume the AI will abuse this just like they do with strategic resources. Not something I want to encourage.

As an aside I had my first game where I saw luxuries on a continent where no AI spawned (furs on a huge frozen uninhabited supercontinent, weird map!). I had read that this did not occur, but perhaps that was prior to C3C. I can 100% confirm they were there.
 
Top Bottom