Resource Rarity or lack thereof

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree that defending should be easier than attacking, but I prefer defender's bonuses that require an army to benefit over ones that don't.

That is a big part of the problem with separating resources between economy and war - a large economy directly feeds into war production.

So it can create scenarios where the player invested in war, with a weaker economy because of it, has either a marginalized military benefit or little at all.

In which case, why choose to have a standing army of resource units? Why not simply sell buildings when the war comes and buy the units?

Well selling and buying is a Terrible way of converting production.

The balance needs to be made between the two, such that investment in resource units is worthwhile if you are going offensive (getting econ boost by getting new cities and slowing the opposition) v. the benefit of just keeping it in buildings (which should be worthwhile if you are going defensive)

 

[Galgus]

It may be, but it allows you to benefit from those fancy buildings instead of pay maintenance for idle units until a war comes.

I'd rather have production costs and maintenance be the only penalties for having a the best units to encourage all players to have strong standing armies.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It may be, but it allows you to benefit from those fancy buildings instead of pay maintenance for idle units until a war comes.

I'd rather have production costs and maintenance be the only penalties for having a the best units to encourage all players to have strong standing armies.

So there should be no other way to improve your army besides building more?

No techs/virtues you pursue to boost military effectiveness, no city sites you settle just to get resource access, etc?

The game should have multiple trade offs that are worth making (ie balanced) the lack of balance doesn't mean you eliminate the trade off, it means you balance it. (you eliminate the trade off if it isn't interesting, or you don't Want to balance that choice... in which case you should eliminate the choice)

 

[Galgus]

One could choose to build units better suited to the scenario, or other elements such as aircraft and satellites.

I did not mean to say that level of technology should or choice of virtues should make no difference, or that military units should not be reliant on resources.

My ideal is to simply split resources into a version for military and a version for other things, so that they are important for both, but having a strong standing army does not cripple one's economy.

If anything it is far too easy to get by without a strong standing army at the moment, which is a product of the line of thinking that peaceful players don't need real armies.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One could choose to build units better suited to the scenario, or other elements such as aircraft and satellites.

I did not mean to say that level of technology should or choice of virtues should make no difference, or that military units should not be reliant on resources.

My ideal is to simply split resources into a version for military and a version for other things, so that they are important for both, but having a strong standing army does not cripple one's economy.

If anything it is far too easy to get by without a strong standing army at the moment, which is a product of the line of thinking that peaceful players don't need real armies.

They should need real armies, but they should be able to focus their 'resources' (strategic, tech, virtues, production, energy) on domestic growth v. military

However certain choices should not work

ie domestic -military
100-0 you get steamrolled (everyone has a bigger army)
0-100 you get steamrolled (everyone has a bigger army)

say
70-30 best for winning defensively (usually, modified based on your terrain, neighbors, and your neighbors' strategies)
30-70 best for winning offensively (usually, modified based on your terrain, neighbors, and your neighbors' strategies)

[numbers are just examples, the real game is more complicated because of the fact that you can reallocate.. although reallocation has its own costs.]

There does need to be enough time for investments (either troops for conquest OR buildings for development) to pay off.

 

[Galgus]

The only one of those I'm not wanting to be a tradeoff is strategic resources.

I think factions should need to maintain a good military, maybe 60/40 at least, to simply stave off attacks.

Ideally there should be some non-conquest uses for a decent army, like securing artifacts and expansion locations if Aliens were enough of a threat to actually require one.

In traditional Civ I've had fun with a mod that lets Barbarian camps develop into cities and lets them capture cities, which isn't an issue much of the time but can offer an interesting option for expansion.

Kind of like how in Rome Total War players expand by attacking neutral cities - but simply as an option.

 

[DefiantMars]

The only one of those I'm not wanting to be a tradeoff is strategic resources.

I think factions should need to maintain a good military, maybe 60/40 at least, to simply stave off attacks.

Ideally there should be some non-conquest uses for a decent army, like securing artifacts and expansion locations if Aliens were enough of a threat to actually require one.

In traditional Civ I've had fun with a mod that lets Barbarian camps develop into cities and lets them capture cities, which isn't an issue much of the time but can offer an interesting option for expansion.

Kind of like how in Rome Total War players expand by attacking neutral cities - but simply as an option.

For some reason, you've given me this image of a Harmony colonist driving over to an alien nest and converting an alien nest into a city with variant art...

 

[Galgus]

I could see them founding a city near one for study or simple living, especially after full adaptation.

It would also be interesting if we could restore Derelict Settlements into functioning cities, with a Culture bonus for Purity civs.

 

[Roxlimn]

Hello all! Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays!

I've been off playing the heck out of Endless Legend. Once I got my head around its economic model, it just blew my socks off. Not that I prefer it to Beyond Earth - I like Beyond Earth just fine. EL is fantasy-themed, BE is scifi and pretty deep end scifi at that.

That said, I think the resource management of EL is very interesting. In terms of strategics, EL has multiple ones as well, and a pair for every other Era, ending up with 6 in the endgame. For BE, we have 3 Affinity Strategics, Titanium, Oil, and Geothermal - also 6.

In EL, the advanced units all require a crap-ton of strategics. We're talking something like 54 for a single unit. The resource management is different - it's not an ongoing cost but a one-time payment; but 54 units of Strategics could represent your entire empire's allotment of it for 4 or more turns! For a single unit. You really have to think about its allotment per unit. Moreover, the buildings can require them as well, with some of the strongest buildings requiring 40 Strategics. You really have to coordinate your buildings and units based on what you can afford. You end up prioritizing buildings on certain cities because you don't have enough.

I think that's the intent behind some of the late-game buildings in CivBE. With a more stringent cost in Xenomass, a building doesn't have to be hammer-expensive to be limited. An empire might only be able to afford one or two simply because it doesn't have enough Xenomass or Floatstone or Firaxite to sustain more. Particularly resource-poor empires might not even be able to afford one.

Implementing this thoughtfully in BE requires serious consideration, but it might bring about increased identity and differentiation between Affinity factions. Currently, only late-game buildings require Floatsone and Firaxite and such. But what if the tech to exploit the resources were located on the first ring (everyone can exploit them early), but the tile production boost is moved to buildings?

How does that work?

Well, instead of putting Energy on Floatstone, you nix the tile output, but require a token - 1 Floatstone to build a Purity building themed around production (Manufactories certain look Purity-ish). Autoplant feels pretty good. It's Purity/Supremacy. Boost the hammer output of the building, add more energy output, reduce the hammer cost, and require 1 Floatstone. The bottleneck here is not intended to be the hammer cost itself, but the tech and the resource.

Could require Titanium for other (even more basic) production buildings as well, given how abundant it is.

Firaxite could be required for science buildings (like Institute) while Xenomass could be required for food buildings (and boost their food output).

The other side of this idea means that Purity factions could find themselves having to balance their Industry Floatstone requirements with their stronger units, whereas a Supremacy faction can freely use all their Floatstone for industry - their units depend on Firaxite. Of course, the Purity faction can use all THEIR Firaxite for science.

So what we have here isn't merely a balance between economy and military - certain aspects of economy are weighed against your military concerns, but you can spare some in areas your military doesn't use.

 

[Callonia]

Endless Legend, I remember that game with ridiculous eternal winter. All your units could only move one hex per turn once it gets that late in the game. And AI have no army worthy of battling. They also have ridiculous production capabilites. Have to constantly restart map until I get a forest or dirt near my starting place jut to have semidecent production at start. Oh and after each era starts, all your units increase in rank but increase by alot in production costs. What's that you finally got to crank out that marine every 1 turn? Nah, how how about 20 turns for one marine cuz you entered a new era!

I never quite could understand what the game wanted from me.

And then the main storyline quest required some obscure hero from random hero recruitment just to continue.. blah.

If there was some kind of resource system, I missed it completey except for the resource you declare as sacred for great boost in cities for the human faction.

 

[Acken]

EL has a ton of good design ideas. I have some fun with it. It's plagued by its AI and endgame powercreep though (more so than the civ series I mean).

The ressource system is nice with different effects per luxuries and elite unites costing a lot of strategics.

I've played it for around 20h after a recent sale and I'm currently working my way up at Impossible/Endless difficulties. The biggest issue with the AI is that the bonuses are even more ridiculous than civ deity to mask a really incompetent AI. But that is also due to the inability of the AI to really use the upgrade system to its potential and its poor valuation of battles.

 

[Miravlix]

Instead of just talking about it, does anyone use sparse setting to do something about it?

 

[Ashbery76]

Yeah even sparse seems like it has too many.

 

[Alkaid]

Instead of just talking about it, does anyone use sparse setting to do something about it?

I've used sparse setting and didn't even really notice a difference that game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Alright EL. I'll go at some length but this is mainly to think about what can be taken from it easily to improve BE.

Callonia:

The AI's battle upgrade has been somewhat improved. Lots of improvements, actually. Very much like Civ and BERT. Production depends on faction and research priorities. You can have good production, but you'll need the research for it, site for it, and then make the necessary buildings. Your estimate of what decent is might be off because there really aren't that many things to build to begin with. I regularly run out of things to build if I focus on production a little too much.

Your faction sounds like Vaulters. They have terrible production partly because they receive no bonuses for it, and because they have such OP science. End result - lots of tech you can't build! Haha.

Vaulters, Roving Clans, and Ardent Mages are all human.

Acken:

EL's AI is famously bad even among those who like it, me included. I've started automating all the battles just so I don't take too much advantage of the AI's shortcomings. Without manual control, the AI fares somewhat better. The tactical map was a great idea taken from Master of Magic, but they ultimately didn't have what it took to make a good AI for the feature.

I will point out that MoM's tactical AI was also pretty frickin' horrible.

Miravlix:

I've played on Sparse. Things were as noted. There's a bit less of everything, but it still doesn't matter.

I do think that this disconnect is because BERT's resource system is a legacy system inherited from Civs long past. Even in Civ 5, you have to wonder what the point is when you can field however many Knights or Swordsmen you like.

In Civ 3, Swordsmen were a key element of the unit capability balance for attacking, but not for defending. So you could attack someone if you had Iron, but you weren't left defenseless without it. This is important but not game-losing if the RNG screwed you over.

I do believe that Civ 4 and Civ 5 had already begun to lose track of this difference and begun to lose their way.

For instance, key in Civ4 and Civ5 are UUs. Being touchstone parts of their respective Civs, there wasn't much point in playing Mongols and not have access to enough Horses, so you always aimed to have horses. They become a nonissue because of a fundamental play preference that should have been totally predictable.

Possible solution: All UUs are resourceless as part of their power suite. That way, you can always have your UU. The resource-du-jour of the age affects your unit selection in other ways.

This sort of top-level consideration is fundamental to resource design. We can't program the resources to do what we want when what we want isn't concrete and doesn't have specific ties into specific aspects of the game in ways that matter to design and play.

If, as a specific idea, we tie Xenomass to everyone's food buildings, then the logical result is that Harmony players will have to choose either food or their special UU. Other factions can dedicate their Xenomass to food only. Having said that, Harmony players would fight harder for Xenomass anyway. There are concerns on that either way.

If we tie Floatstone to Industry (it kind of already is), Non-Purity players can just build those juicy industry buildings without concern using all their Floatstone, whereas Purity players must balance units and buildings. But then, Purity players would seek and fight harder for Floatstone...

There is, too, the issue of unit balance and projected unit numbers...

 

[Callonia]

Yes that's right! I play Vaulters! So that's why.. no wonder why.

 

[Galgus]

@Roxlimn

Thematically I think it would be strange to make an Affinity use their signature resource less for buildings than others.

I've already spoken at length on my view that there should not be a unit / building resource trade-off, but aside that it would just not feel right if Purity lacked Floatstone infrastructure.

Perhaps affinities could get bonus modifiers to resources, giving Purity more of it with the same locations, and so on.

 

[Roxlimn]

It's a complex question. A Purity faction should have more Floatstone to begin with, since they're supposedly siting their cities around Floatstone preferentially. So a Purity faction splitting their resources between units and buildings won't necessarily have less Floatstone infrastructure than a non-Purity faction. Moreover, Floatstone infrastructure itself is located on Purity techs, so non-Purity factions won't have the tech to make Floatstone infrastructure, let alone have the resources for it.

A faction with Xenomass or Floatstone requirements can already enhance their stores using the Quests, whereas factions that don't need the extra stores can choose the tile enhancements instead. Not sure I like that trade off, but that's something that could be jiggered to create more choices and more nuance.

Faction benefits already enhance Xenomass and Firaxite sourcing, AFAIK, though I'm not sure Floatstone stores are enhanced with Purity levels. Ultimately, we have to get a situation where your resources are there, but they're NEVER enough, so you have to make mutually exclusive choices, regardless of which faction you choose.

 

[Galgus]

I still prefer more specialization around resources, which a resource modifier would encourage.

Like if going Purity doubled your Floatstone resources, and going Supremacy/ Purity increased Floatstone and Firaxite resources by 50% each.

Buildings could also still be gated behind affinity choice like units are - it wouldn't really make sense to construct a high-level Harmony building as a Supremacy faction, or at least it wouldn't make more sense than training a Xeno Titan.

I would greatly prefer a system where players must lock in to a core or hybrid affinity, to increase asymmetry and keep their bonuses from bleeding together in the late game.

 

[Barathor]

I still prefer more specialization around resources, which a resource modifier would encourage.

Like if going Purity doubled your Floatstone resources, and going Supremacy/ Purity increased Floatstone and Firaxite resources by 50% each.

Buildings could also still be gated behind affinity choice like units are - it wouldn't really make sense to construct a high-level Harmony building as a Supremacy faction, or at least it wouldn't make more sense than training a Xeno Titan.

I would greatly prefer a system where players must lock in to a core or hybrid affinity, to increase asymmetry and keep their bonuses from bleeding together in the late game.

Ooh, you guessed one of my features. Similar to the existing, early one Harmony gets, I'm planning on each affinity instead having a deeper perk which grants extra copies of their affinity resource for each tile they own, to help with higher tier units, buildings, and such later in the game. Hybrids that take the time to grab both that deep will have both perks.

Though, it's not a percent modifier, just the existing, hard value of 2 right now. Though, also, affinity resource quantities are much more controlled and smaller than the current game's, so getting that extra two per tile will really help. (You won't have to kill off or delete lower tier affinity units to free up resources to build some costly, powerful ultimate tier ones once they're available at that affinity level.)

Also, I'm all for locking and officially declaring an affinity stance. There's a bit too many units available right now and affinities need to "represent" themselves more instead of being so diluted.