Resources that run out

[nrudd]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before or even if it's already implemented in Civ4 but I thought it would be quite cool if when you connect your cities to resources they may eventually start to be used up and disappear. It would bring a whole new avenue to diplomatic negotiations as when you’re beginning to run out of things like oil, coal and iron you know you either need to negotiate a replacement from an civ or go to war to gain some… much like we in the west went to war for oil in the east

 

[RedRalph]

It used to happen in civ 4 vanilla, buit now that I think of it its gone in BTS. a lot of people have argued Civ5 should have quantifyable resources, which I agree with, same basic idea in a way.

 

[WankIT]

It would also be good that when your resources run out, like oil, and that you don't have a trade on for it, that you cannot use your oil dependant resources, they just sit there until you get some.

But then again, you should be then able to stockpile it, with each tank movement drawing down on it.

 

[nrudd]

Good idea but it would only affect certain resources like oil and coal. Units that require resources like iron and copper for swordmans etc would still be able to operate.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I am unsure about quantifiable resources, in Civ3 there were mines that would run out, so this is nothing new, I never noticed in vanilla civ4, or maybe I am confusing that with civ3, it was so long ago.

I like the idea of having a certain amount of a resource, you would get grain mountains and your oil reserves might run low forcing the price higher causing you people to get angry! Instead of telling a worker to chop down a forest and receiving a lump sum at the end you could tell a worker to chop down a forest and this would provide wood at an increased rate to if it was being worked by the city sustainably but it would run out.

 

[Titus]

I would like this too. I have thought along similar lines, and would like to expand a bit on the concept. I don't think it should be a "random" thing like, say, "there's a 1% chance each turn that a mine will run out", but each resource having a preset value of shields that can be exploited, something like a mine or tree in Age of empires. Working a mine would not necessarily add to the current production, but could also be stockpiled in the city. For example, overworking an iron mine would quickly exhaust it, but also add lots of iron to the city for future use.

Specific number of "iron" shields (or anything - grain, animals!) could then be used as a Railroad tycoon-type commodity, transferred between which city of yours need it the most, or even traded to other civs! It would add a completely different dimension to the game, and of course a micromanager's heaven.

As for units needing certain resources, you could say that each type requires a certain percentage of their total cost to be of the specific material. A swordsman, for instance, would need at least 10 iron shields. It can't be too many, because with this system, you couldn't actually build a swordsman without iron in the city's range - it would have to be transferred from a city that works it (which could be an automated and painless process, but still requiring that the other city actually works or having worked the iron mine, not merely having it connected). If a city is captured, so are the resources it contains.

A middle way would be to give each resource a set number of turns it can be worked, after which it expires. To counter this, there would need to be more resources to start with.

Also, stuff like plants and animals could possibly be re-planted in different tiles. Imagine if a worker had the ability to "lift" crops from one tile, carry it to another, and there plant it. This could potentially be overpowered, so some measures would have to be taken to counter the effect. The worker could only move one square at a time while carrying crops or herding animals, and during the time (several turns) that the original square regrows and the new one grows, neither can be used.

 

[rysmiel]

Working a mine would not necessarily add to the current production, but could also be stockpiled in the city. For example, overworking an iron mine would quickly exhaust it, but also add lots of iron to the city for future use.

I'm definitely with you on the finite-resources model, but I had not thought of stockpiling like that as an option. I don't know whether the benefits to that outweigh the additional complexity of tracking it; are you envisioning being able to vary the speed at which iron is extracted from a mine, then ?

It would however, provide a much more flexible model for resource trading, where you would be able to offer a specific number of shields' worth of iron to another civilisation.

It would add a completely different dimension to the game, and of course a micromanager's heaven.

Heading in that direction, definitely. I approve.

A middle way would be to give each resource a set number of turns it can be worked, after which it expires. To counter this, there would need to be more resources to start with.

I don't think there need to be more, but it should change with time and technology.

Consider; at the beginning of the game, or when you first discover mining, you find a number of iron mines with, say 100 to 200 shields' worth of iron in them. You use them up as need be. When you get, say, Gunpowder, a technology that allows you to carry out deeper and more extensive mining, some of those mines are revealed as having another 500 to 1000 shields in them that you could not previously see, and maybe again when you get Robotics there's another level of deeper resources you could not get to before.

I like that because it makes worked-out mines still something you need to keep in mind as tactical goals; I'm aware that it's not a perfectly realistic representation of how iron-mining works.

Imagine if a worker had the ability to "lift" crops from one tile, carry it to another, and there plant it. This could potentially be overpowered, so some measures would have to be taken to counter the effect. The worker could only move one square at a time while carrying crops or herding animals, and during the time (several turns) that the original square regrows and the new one grows, neither can be used.

Interesting. I don't know whether transferring, or generating new specials, or maybe causing specials to spread to adjacent squares would be the best way to implement something like this; I think the balance of it not being overpowered could be addressed by a combination of making it tech-dependent - possibly depend on a tech for each specific kind of special tile, so that it would take a focused development effort to get it going on any scale - and by making it require a lot of worker-turns.

 

[RedRalph]

Both really good ideas. Same applies to oil: you find a well, after the resource is revealed. not every well gives the same yield, maybe there could be 10 different levels of yield. Each tank/ship/plane requires a certain amount of oil every turn. If your oil runs out, your oil requiring units can no longer move. Or you can give what little oil remains, to say, the army, at the expense of the navy. So just having one oil well isnt enough, you need a few hugh yield ones to conquer the world with tanks. It would mean (in a related topic to what I've said here:

I would really like to see a move away from the total focus on cities that now exists.

I think the cross system should be removed, farms built anywhere in your empire should provide food which can be evenly distributed amongs your cities, at least in the late game. to build research and production should require specialist cities and building, nothing more. So if your populauiton reaches a certain level, you can assign a scientist, as now, but that scientistc success shouldnt be based on whether there is a gold mine nearby. Each specialist should be required to be paid a certain amount, so employing them removes gold from your treasury. commerece should be obtained form resources, buit they should have to be ina city cross to be worked, it makes no sense. you could still specialist cities, you just wouldnt have to base it on where they were situated but how you manage them.

War should also not just be about cities. I've posted my border proposals a few times, I think so many wars were fough over fertile land, etc, that shoul;d be a feature of a game, not just capturing cities.

It would mean a oil rich region would be important, and something to fight over.

 

[Scilly_guy]

How about biodiesel, I mean I know its not the answer to climate change that some people are making out but it could provide an in game alternative to oil if you cannot gain access to that. Perhaps instead of coming from a worked tile it could come from a building in a city and it would use up some of that cities food and corn or appropriate crop.

On the mining front I think the idea of different levels of mining makes sense, surface mining, open pit, shaft. I also see all of the technologies as being able to break them down into smaller techs. That is why I think there should be technology lines to research, I am not sure what they should be, I previously said military, transport and civil but thinking about it that doesn't work, it would be better if it was military, scince and spiritual (although thats not right, I'm thinking arts, philosphy etc).

 

[Commodore Nate]

I think that RedRalphWiggum's idea is great, and that I agree heartily. Areas with rich food should be able to feed other areas. However I think the fat cross system is good and should be kept, while introducing a resource-region system as well.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I am not saying that I don't like it or its not the way Civ should be but it doesn't make sense that the people that live in you cities work in your farms, mines and towns. Because of the city based structure of civ we have urbanisation from the beginning of time, wouldn't it be interesting if your civilisation could be less centralised. And then during your industrial revolution people move to the cities in huge numbers. This would cause the new world to look completely different.

 

[WankIT]

Well, taking it this far, I've always had a problem with the borders of countries, and the way 'culture' affects it. I think borders should not be affected by culture, and more so by first discovering land and claiming the discovered areas as your own. This would create a more realistic begining as you would have to fight to contest undeveloped but unhabitated lands. This would also bring about border disputes, and border agreements.

Adding to Scilly guy, with the influx of people to the cities, you could also, if you were not communist gov't, lose people or gain immigrants based upon the attractiveness of your civiliation and cities, increase or reducing your tax base. This would obviously have a huge impact post airplane/steamship development.

Cause, when you think about it, people are a resource in itself to provide labour, pay taxes, and serve in your military. But, its more of a resource that cannot be bought or sold, it has to be attracted or maintained.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, taking it this far, I've always had a problem with the borders of countries, and the way 'culture' affects it. I think borders should not be affected by culture, and more so by first discovering land and claiming the discovered areas as your own. This would create a more realistic begining as you would have to fight to contest undeveloped but unhabitated lands. This would also bring about border disputes, and border agreements.

How do you envision this working ? Presumably you would have to get some unit there to claim it; if not necessarily a settler and a city, then a worker and a colony in the Civ III model ?

I think culture boundaries already do this reasonably as a mechanic, at least in Civ III. Claiming land is all well and good, but unless you have people there to actually work it, there's no real point, and those people have to live somewhere, and that has to be represented somehow.

Adding to Scilly guy, with the influx of people to the cities, you could also, if you were not communist gov't, lose people or gain immigrants based upon the attractiveness of your civiliation and cities, increase or reducing your tax base. This would obviously have a huge impact post airplane/steamship development.

Bits of the mechanics for handling also pretty well exist in earlier Civs to my mind, though not put together exactly as I would; that the happiness of your cities reflects the attractiveness of your civilisation as a place to live works for me. Unhappy cities going into civil disorder could, I suppose, be enhanced by there being some probablilty each turn that some number of citizens emigrated to another civilisation, depending on whether that civilisation was relatively more attractive/happy/cultured (happiness and culture really should be more independent, but that's anoter rant entirely), but I think I'd prefer the mechanism there to work as, or also as, there being a chance that a city in disorder secedes, to a neighbouring culture or to independence as appropriate, which grows with every turn it's not attended to.

 

[rysmiel]

I think that RedRalphWiggum's idea is great, and that I agree heartily. Areas with rich food should be able to feed other areas.

There is a tried and tested mechanic for this; the Civ 2 food caravan. It has balance problems, but they are known problems which could be adjusted at more appropriate scales, IMO, than cutting it out of the game entirely.

 

[Titus]

are you envisioning being able to vary the speed at which iron is extracted from a mine, then ?

I didn't think of it that way (more like just citizens working the mine, as opposed to not working it), but I guess it can be done, similar to what you suggested about "digging deeper". Stuff like aquiring iron tools instead of bronze tools, or explosives later, would affect the extraction rate.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I think any unit should be able to claim land, perhaps not EVERY unit, I mean missionaries shouldn't, not all great leaders. I envisage claiming land to happen at the click of a button, perhaps "claim tile" and "claim surrounding tiles", the later of which could be used in the early game and cannot claim tiles off the enemy but has a lower claim rate per tile. "Claim tile" could be used after a move but claiming a tile off an enemy should take several turns allowing the enemy to respond. Claiming an improved tile should take a little longer as it is obvious more valuable to the enemy, and has been populated, capturing a city would work in the same way, it would just take even longer and a larger population would slow down the rate. If the city is partly (culturally) your nationality then it would not be as slow.

This way you would not neccessarily need units garrisoned in cities to defend them but you would need military units within range of tiles you wish to defend, you would escort armies through your territory so you could respond if they try anything, and you would have units stationed along your border to settle disputes. This would mean mobilisation would be much more important (well I suppose it is important at the minute, but it is more obviously important). Also armies would more likely be armies rather than a collection of units.

 

[WankIT]

How do you envision this working ? Presumably you would have to get some unit there to claim it; if not necessarily a settler and a city, then a worker and a colony in the Civ III model ?
.

When say your scout goes out and explores, he will be able to claim any land that he has explored. When 2 countries claim the same land, this would be uncovered when finally the 2 nations meet, and you can choose to negotiate, choose to go to war, or choose to agree on resolving the dispute later, with the disputed land being shaded a different colour. Noone would be able to travel through it or develop it without causing tensions between the nations. Or, you can claim land as being yours and annex the land/city peacefully (if your neighbour is much weaker than you) or by going to war. Later UN resolutions could help allowing for voting on whose land it is.

The reason why I think this should be worked in is look at the current world map. LIke there are too many settlements in Northern Canada (in the artic), Greenland, or northern russia. But, there is no way in hell another countrie would be allowed to set up a city there and claim territory. If they did, it would be a call for war, or atleast a diplomatic crisis.

I am also obviously a supporter of allowing units into other people's territory without having to declare war. I also think that when you agree to withdraw, it shouldn't be automatic, and that if you attack another unit, it necessarily doesn't mean war, and that you should be able to solve it diplomatically. And that you can secretly side/aid an ally by either giving units directly, or using your own units in the name of defending an ally from attack, without having to declare war. Like the Korean war, with China.

Imagine how fun it would be like playing in a cold war situation. 2 superpowers slugging it out indirectly in countries like Vietnam/Afganastan inorder to stop the spread of the other's influence, without having to get drawn up in a direct war, where nobody will win. Instead, you face the other in hotspots allover the world.

 

[rysmiel]

When say your scout goes out and explores, he will be able to claim any land that he has explored. When 2 countries claim the same land, this would be uncovered when finally the 2 nations meet, and you can choose to negotiate, choose to go to war, or choose to agree on resolving the dispute later, with the disputed land being shaded a different colour. Noone would be able to travel through it or develop it without causing tensions between the nations. Or, you can claim land as being yours and annex the land/city peacefully (if your neighbour is much weaker than you) or by going to war. Later UN resolutions could help allowing for voting on whose land it is.

I don't know about that; it would seem to make the advantages of getting a fast unique unit early, or focusing on running around exploring a lot in the early game, difficult to balance. If you can claim half the continent while you only have a couple of cities, that's unbalancing; alternatively, if you can sort of claim half the continent while you have four cities and then three-quarters of the stuff you claim can't be developed or travelled through without causing tension and risking war, that doesn't seem notably of any use to you before you get there with units enough to fight over it/settle it/make it yours in some indisputable way, which takes the notion back towards the way things already work.

 

[WankIT]

I don't know about that; it would seem to make the advantages of getting a fast unique unit early, or focusing on running around exploring a lot in the early game, difficult to balance. If you can claim half the continent while you only have a couple of cities, that's unbalancing; alternatively, if you can sort of claim half the continent while you have four cities and then three-quarters of the stuff you claim can't be developed or travelled through without causing tension and risking war, that doesn't seem notably of any use to you before you get there with units enough to fight over it/settle it/make it yours in some indisputable way, which takes the notion back towards the way things already work.

If you claim land but cannot back it up without stretching your current military, the other nation will probably take it by force. Which is probably why there is a balance in the effect that it would be wise to claim only that. that makes sense. Just look at the exploration of the new world by the europeans. Its not like they built colonies and cities before claiming more westward lands. Ultimately, they had to agree on boundaries, purchase or sell their claims (like the louisana purchase), or ultimately, eventually go to war.

 

[buffalo6542]

this would make the game more real world like. im all good with it