[Pool] It seems strategic resources will no longer be needed to build specific military units. Would you approve this change?

[PauI]

According to the naval combat yt short, you still need resources to "fuel" units with in the modern age.

Can't really tell |rn if it is changed in previous eras. (can you build infinite knights without access to horses?)

 

[Black Gate]

There are tin mines in Cornwall that mined Europe's supply of the stuff for three thousand years, and some (scant) archaeological evidence suggesting that some of it made its way into the hand of Phoenician merchants that brought it to the Levant and Mesopotamia. Nearly all instances of lapis lazuli in pre-modern history can trace their source back to the mines of Afghanistan, with some of these mines being nearly ten thousand years old. The way the game has represented resources in the past was always very gamey and extremely annoying if you ran out of or never had access to the necessary materials for your uniques. It's a much better solution that can represent the ease of access and price of goods instead of whether or not you have them in the first place (because for strategically important materials, you do!).

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the advantage of the new system is that the benefit can be adjusted

If each oil resource increases combat power by a massive amount. then it is almost the same as before. (ie it’s “required”)

I do think the model will be different in Modern though.
(Maybe “Fuel” resources can either be assigned to a city Or to your empire, an the empire ones give the “fueled” bonus to your X closest units)

 

[gdr_willter]

Some countries got their niter from mines. They could utilize gunpowder for their weapon more effectively.
Some countries didn't have those mines. But they also got their niter anyway (even from toilets). They utilized gunpower too, but in limited amount.

 

[sTAPler27]

I think the advantage of the new system is that the benefit can be adjusted

If each oil resource increases combat power by a massive amount. then it is almost the same as before. (ie it’s “required”)

I do think the model will be different in Modern though.
(Maybe “Fuel” resources can either be assigned to a city Or to your empire, an the empire ones give the “fueled” bonus to your X closest units)

I really hope you're right because I liked the energy system of civ 6. You had to weigh either building military units or powering your cities, or if youd spec into science to find renewable fuel or if you'd conquer or trade with other nations to aquire fuel resources.

 

[chaosprophet]

IF any game was going to use a Resource limitation, it should start in the Industrial Era. A single kilometer of medium-weight railroad track (100 pound rails) uses more iron ore than that Legion, and that's not even counting more tons for wheels, locomotives, fittings, and eventually entire railroad trains. A single small ironclad squadron of 3 - 4 ships requires more iron ore to build than the entire Imperial Roman Army required to equip 50 Legions. The quantities go up by an order of magnitude or more, and suddenly resources do get scarce, and National strategies are built around acquiring them - as in the British Empire's careful sequestering of oil resources in the Middle East and Persia before and after WWI, as they decided to start fueling their navy with oil instead of coal: resource scarcity suddenly had Consequences, which was simply not generally true before.

As Paul mentioned, the naval battle short pointed that at least the powerful Modern naval units seems to have need resources to mantain them. Likely the same for some of the other units of the age. So it goes in line with what you said here.

 

[The Fanatical]

I like the new approach as well. The more Iron resources you possess, the stronger your Legions or Samurai will be. In the past, the system had flaws. It was required to improve an Iron resource in order to build Swordsmen, but the Spearmen that were unlocked earlier without a resource requirement carried iron weapons. The same goes for Horsemen and Chariots.

 

[pokiehl]

Locking availability of units behind resources felt very gamey and annoying to me. This new system seems a lot better.

 

[HktkNban]

Strategic resources are absolutely essential. It’s unrealistic to operate aircrafts without consuming oil.
However, Civ 6 has a problem where strategic resources are so scarce that it becomes impossible to produce units.

Therefore, a solution like the "Recycling Center" in Civ 5 should be introduced.
This would allow civilizations without resources to gain a minimum supply by constructing resource-providing facilities.

In reality, Germany during World War II, when oil resources were scarce, produced artificial oil in coal liquefaction plants to secure fuel.

 

[CivKirk64]

If it is gone I won't miss it. In VI Horses and Iron seemed plentiful enough and practically placed themselves in your cities, but all the mid and late game recourses seemed to be in the worst possible spots.
I like it to a degree but its always been a pain to make sure I have 15 oil or else I can't have more than 2 ships and some tanks, so I need to build a city on a 2 tile island just to get it (Towns shall help this)

A nice tweak could be that you receive a production boost depending on level of access. None at all 5% higher production cost, Global access 5% less, Local access (using up a slot, or its being generated there) 10% boost. Something like that.

 

[Krajzen]

Oh thank God they decided to remove strategic resource requirement for units, I learned to hate it in civ6. I even remember how years ago I have pondered on and posted about the complete ahistoric, unrealistic absurdity of empires lacking iron, or horses (except Americas), or especially niter. Zero history or realism here, just like Boris I don't know any example of any country in history willing to wage war but being unable to because of too little iron.

It was nonsensical, frustrating for the human player, and yet another of many, many, many design decisions of civ6 that helped to cripple the AI players and their attempts at conquests, rendering the entire world simulation so much more static, easy and boring.

I think strategic resources should maybe be one of the features reserved for the modern era - like Boris argued, only then they become the real deal, with countries seeking oil, coal, uranium, rubber, precious metals etc. But on the other hand when I think of the gameplay pain in the *** this has caused, I am not sure if I'd like them even in the era where it'd make historical sense.

It's funny how I have never seen many people complaining about strategic resources, and was afraid I am in some tiny minority, and now suddenly 80% of participants in this thread are enthusiastic about strategics' demise Maybe we just got so used to this endless source ff frustration, ever since video games starteddoing that since early 2000s, that we didn't believe in the possibility of change...

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

CIV 7 has the good idea to have mechanisms linked to the eras. So you could have strategic ressources such as iron or niter just giving combat boosts during antiquity or exploration age, and during modern age have the ressources (oil, coal and uranium) sustaining a set number of units (elites units).

Because, as said previously, there was never really scarcity of iron or niter, you could make do with commercial exchanges or substitute (such are bronze, less effective than steel but still good enough for grunts).

But it is far less plausible for coal, oil and uranium. When you look at history, most african colonies in the XIX centuries were about ressources, including oil and coal. So it is difficult to envision having a huge marine or air force without the means to produce enough fuel. So it is definitevely possible they put strategic ressources in the modern era, with, I hope, some infrastructure that can produce a minimum of them without access to deposits so that you can build a minimum of units (for example, the 3rd reich developped the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce artificial fuels from coal).

 

[CivKirk64]

There are tin mines in Cornwall that mined Europe's supply of the stuff for three thousand years, and some (scant) archaeological evidence suggesting that some of it made its way into the hand of Phoenician merchants that brought it to the Levant and Mesopotamia. Nearly all instances of lapis lazuli in pre-modern history can trace their source back to the mines of Afghanistan, with some of these mines being nearly ten thousand years old. The way the game has represented resources in the past was always very gamey and extremely annoying if you ran out of or never had access to the necessary materials for your uniques. It's a much better solution that can represent the ease of access and price of goods instead of whether or not you have them in the first place (because for strategically important materials, you do!).

I really like this, so sorry to double post here, but I'd like a system where, certain recourses would be scarce , one or two in a specific area. You aren't trading for copies of it, merely you get access by building up your trade network, each trading link extends the various resources across a region. just having a road isn't enough you'll need your trader units, and negotiations for open boarders, and security from hostile powers, to keep trade routes active, wars breaking out would force alternate routes to target required settlements. Each specific route could have a cost the further away it is, but can compound their benefits by accumulating luxuries, strategic and food resources along the way. This 5 city ,continent spanning route costs us 20 gold, but accumulated recourses gets us 5 happiness , 6 science, 7 culture, 3 production, 5 food, 12 gold worth for resource bonuses returning that I can spread around internally however I want.

 

[UWHabs]

As a game mechanic, I didn't mind locking the units behind the resources. It added another level of management, another limiting factor beyond money (which frankly in civ 6 was never a problem by the time you got units that needed resources). It really increases the need to fight and find a resource, to absolutely make sure you settle that tundra city to get some oil or aluminum, etc...

But yeah, I don't think it's the only way to handle it, and I'm curious how the new system will feel. I know in 6 while it was good in some cases, there were plenty of ways to abuse the system (using policy cards, explicitly selling off resources to build an earlier era unit, etc..) If they can avoid those flaws with how they handle the new system, all the better.

 

[Acepox]

Not at all. What made the original mechanic silly was that in the quantities required for military units, a resource requirement made no sense at all until the Industrial Era. An entire Roman Legion could be equipped with weapons and armor using less than 200 tons of iron, in manageable 50 - 75 pound increments. If you didn't have a vein of iron handy, somebody was always ready to bring it to you for a price. Nitre could be manufactured in whatever quantity desired in Nitraries, so having all requirements me only from 'natural' resources was just flat Wrong.

What makes the 'increased combat power' work generally from having resources In Hand is that you have no limitations. If all your iron is right down the valley, it's relatively cheap and everybody gets an iron weapon or hauberk or helmet. If it has to be imported, somebody (probably in the back rank) can't afford it and is standing there in a felt cap with a wooden spear and shield instead of an iron sword and helmet.

IF any game was going to use a Resource limitation, it should start in the Industrial Era. A single kilometer of medium-weight railroad track (100 pound rails) uses more iron ore than that Legion, and that's not even counting more tons for wheels, locomotives, fittings, and eventually entire railroad trains. A single small ironclad squadron of 3 - 4 ships requires more iron ore to build than the entire Imperial Roman Army required to equip 50 Legions. The quantities go up by an order of magnitude or more, and suddenly resources do get scarce, and National strategies are built around acquiring them - as in the British Empire's careful sequestering of oil resources in the Middle East and Persia before and after WWI, as they decided to start fueling their navy with oil instead of coal: resource scarcity suddenly had Consequences, which was simply not generally true before.

That's an interesting assertion.

I, for one, actually loved the gameplay that results from the struggle to access resources.

But I realize that, despite wanting that feel throughout the eras, it's mostly based on my knowledge of WW2 and modern supply chain economics.

I suppose gameplay effects such as lower prices and higher efficacy are a good proxy representation of microeconomic trade.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Another poll that doesn't stop at "Yes" or "No" and editorializes the author's opinion of why you should say "Yes" or "No".

To be clear, its your poll, write it however you want. Be aware, though, (if you care), that you are tilting the responses with the editorializing and, at least in my case, reducing engagement.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's an interesting assertion.

I, for one, actually loved the gameplay that results from the struggle to access resources.

But I realize that, despite wanting that feel throughout the eras, it's mostly based on my knowledge of WW2 and modern supply chain economics.

I suppose gameplay effects such as lower prices and higher efficacy are a good proxy representation of microeconomic trade.

WWII and the post-Industrial Era are entirely different situations from Antiquity or anything before the Industrial Era..

For example, although the Roman Empire had major arms and armor workshops in northern Italy manufacturing the weapons and equipment for most of the Imperial Army, 20th century Italy's iron and steel production was simply pitiful compared to Germany, Britain, USSR or the USA, and they had virtually no oil at all - what they got they had to get from Germany (who controlled the Romanian oil fields that were the major source in continental Europe outside the USSR) and when they didn't get supplies from their 'ally' the Italian fleet was left in harbor for lack of fuel to go anywhere.

Since we haven't seen anything of the modern Age in Civ VII yet, there's sill a chance that they will actually model this - take the prior Civ-standard Resource requirements and use them only in the Modern/Post-Industrial Age, which would be accurate but a real challenge for gamers. If you played a historicalish Rome in Antiquity, the same region played with any Civ in the Modern Age would be severely limited by lack of iron and oil resources!

 

[kaspergm]

I agree with most others here, the new system seems overall better, at least for early game ages. The fact that random luck-of-the-draw leaving you with a zero iron start locked you out of building swordsmen completely was neither realistic or good for balance. Another work-around would be having the ability to produce iron (or rather: Steel) given a certain technology and building, but I'm willing to see how this plays out.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

hearing that strategic reasources have this more realistic and historic implemetation and less RNG made me a little more exited about civ 7 just now

 

[Disgustipated]

I should add that the new system will probably still have its issues. There's a reason the 3 most powerful nations today are the most powerful. They have a massive amount of land area over diverse biomes that provide a decent amount of resources. But of those 3, one is still lacking in oil, and must import it. And should war break out, it may be possible to cut their oil supply off. Simply put, large nations are simply at an advantage.

And I see why for gameplay reasons, we want tall empire still be able to compete and defend themselves. This new system is probably the best without making it overly complex. During peace time, civs should be able to procure whatever resource they want on the "market". But during wartime, lack of internal resources could be a problem. The new system somewhat models this, but if the combat penalty isn't high enough, it might as well be meaningless.