Resources

[Spartan117]

I hate it. This is a bad idea.

This is a realism mod, not a 'fair and balanced gamplay' mod. You cannot make swords and axes without metal. Nor tanks and battleships without both the appropriate materials and oil to power them.

Allowing access to restricted units by those who do not have the resources, and relegating the resources to only a promotion, practically defeats the purpose of having them, and seriously devalues the strategy of siezing resources so as to deny them to your opponents.

Fights over pools of oil, or uranium deposits is one of the most tense and enjoyable parts of Civ, and I would really hate to see it removed, and realism/U] denied, in the name of fairness.

I am vehemently opposed to this concept, and I will fight it to my last.

WarKirby

notice, i saids to some resources.

not including oil, horses, iron, uranium.

but including saltpeter and timber if possibly added.

Salt peter is very common and ships can be made with out timber preciesly.(use other wood) There are 24 civs or however much on realism map(I play with my own custom Earth map/ so not sure how many precisely are on the map)24 resoruces or plots needed for salt peter is jsut outrageuos considering some civs may not get them but should have an oppurtunity as seeing saltpeter is common and found in sooo many places. I repeat, saltpeter is common, wars werent fought over acces to saltpeter.

Unlike salt peter, other resources are not found nearly everywhere. Oil, iron, uranium, etc... are not found on certain areas of the map.

Instead of having tens of bunch of resources that are requied to build units(having too much resources like these, hurts gameplay especially when it doesnt coincide with reality) So there should be some change. I suggested 25% production increase due to the concentration of saltpater on a particular plot making production easier due to the increased supply of gunpowder.

In case no concern is taken to fair and balacned, might as well have 2 resources of oil, they could just duke it out beteween the 24 civs.

 

[WarKirby]

Saltpeter I agree with, but not timber.

Surely timber coul be incorporated into Mexico's resource pool plan, where chopping down a square of forest would say, add a one time +50 to the timber pool, and a forest with a lumbermill in it might produce +10 a turn seeing as it's renewable. To prevent early civs being stuck without boats, an unimproved forest could produce +0.5 per turn, representing that work can be done without metal tools, but is simply much slower. I believe early man used stone axes.

Very few people will be stuck without forest and it does regrow every so often so I believe the requirement for timber to produce certain units could work fine.

Say 0.5 timber to make archer/longbowman/spearman/pikeman, 4 for a galley/caravel/trireme and 6 for a galleon/frigate/vaisseau de ligne.

The numbers may need a little work, but the concept is sound and could allow a requirement for timber to make boats without seriously impacting gameplay.

Also, using mexico's idea, some really rich resources (Saudi Arabian oil for instance) could produce significantly more and so a single resource could be shared among several civs. Thus eliminating the problem of too many resources and making trade much more of a part of the game. One less reason to start wars.

WarKirby

 

[Spartan117]

Saltpeter I agree with, but not timber.
Snip.....

WarKirby

YAY!!! We agreed on something.

Mexico's idea was similiar to many other people's ideas. However i think they didnt accomplish it though. If Mexico gets it to work properly, it would be great though. and would be better then the system now.

 

[WarKirby]

Where does saltpeter actually come from? Can you just find it lying on the ground?

WarKirby

 

[Hian the Frog]

Hi WarKirby,

I hate it. This is a bad idea.

Please WarKirby, don't say it's a "bad" idea, but you don't like this idea. There are no bad ideas in such a forum, but ideas people are spoking about...

This is a realism mod, not a 'fair and balanced gamplay' mod. You cannot make swords and axes without metal. Nor tanks and battleships without both the appropriate materials and oil to power them.

Wrong. The game is now really unbalanced and not realistic because of some ressource (as salpeter) used as pre requisite. Furthemore, if you really want to play a realist mod, i let you play Japan against me for exemple in a multiplayer game. There is no strategic ressource at all in real Japan, they must import everything (coal, iron, copper, saltpeter, oil, uranium,...) On TR world map, Japan had these ressources and that make this country playable... It's not really realistic. No ?
Last point: modern armored vehicles and ships are nearly built without metals. Why ? To avoid radar detection. The last French, UK and Italian war ships are using stealth technologies. They are built with as less as possible metal...

Allowing access to restricted units by those who do not have the resources, and relegating the resources to only a promotion, practically defeats the purpose of having them, and seriously devalues the strategy of siezing resources so as to deny them to your opponents.

Fights over pools of oil, or uranium deposits is one of the most tense and enjoyable parts of Civ, and I would really hate to see it removed, and realism/U] denied, in the name of fairness.

Wrong again. There is no devaluation of having such a ressource if promos are well made/created. A strong promo on an swordman (str 6) is sometime better than nothing on a maceman ( str 8) . Both units are using Iron.

As Spartan and I already wrote, some ressources will be nedeed as pre requisite: horse and/or elephant (mounted units), oil (tank, oil engine boats,..) and so on...

I am vehemently opposed to this concept,...

It's your right to VEHEMENTLY oppose to this concept. I just like to read some constructive comments.

....and I will fight it to my last.

to the last !!! pff...impressive !
I have more important tasks to do in my life that fighting to the last only for a leisure game....

To conclude: it was only an idea, as the one of Mexico. Let's try to speak of them while staying cool and constructive.
The Frog.

 

[WarKirby]

Hi WarKirby,

Please WarKirby, don't say it's a "bad" idea, but you don't like this idea. There are no bad ideas in such a forum, but ideas people are spoking about...

Wel, OK that is a bit out of order I suppose.

Wrong. The game is now really unbalanced and not realistic because of some ressource (as salpeter) used as pre requisite. Furthemore, if you really want to play a realist mod, i let you play Japan against me for exemple in a multiplayer game. There is no strategic ressource at all in real Japan, they must import everything (coal, iron, copper, saltpeter, oil, uranium,...) On TR world map, Japan had these ressources and that make this country playable... It's not really realistic. No ?

No, you are wrong. This is a list of the various industrial resources in Japan. While it is certainly not rich in resources, it is far from barren. You say there are nho strategic resources but that is not right. An what Japan lacked in resources, they simply invaded China and took. The Japanese empire got a lot of resources from conquest.

Last point: modern armored vehicles and ships are nearly built without metals. Why ? To avoid radar detection. The last French, UK and Italian war ships are using stealth technologies. They are built with as less as possible metal...

Who said anything about metal? I said the appropriate materials. You just assumed I meant metal. Although, if not metal then what are they made of? Plastic hulled ships would not be very militarily useful.

Wrong again. There is no devaluation of having such a ressource if promos are well made/created. A strong promo on an swordman (str 6) is sometime better than nothing on a maceman ( str 8) . Both units are using Iron.

Your example is invalid. Both units use iron so they would both get the same promotion. And it does devalue it. Having slightly better trained units is not the same as having a whole different class of unit that another civ cannot make because you had the initiative to sieze and hold the appropriate resource.

Having a slightly better swordsman is not as good as having swordsmen while your enemy is stuck with short swordsmen (hypaspists)

As Spartan and I already wrote, some ressources will be nedeed as pre requisite: horse and/or elephant (mounted units), oil (tank, oil engine boats,..) and so on...

All resources apart from saltpeter should be a prerequisite because saltpeter can be easily manufactured. (I did research ) All others must be found naturally occurind and cannot be manufactured.

It's your right to VEHEMENTLY oppose to this concept. I just like to read some constructive comments.

to the last !!! pff...impressive !
I have more important tasks in my life that fighting to the last only for a leisure game....

To conclude: it was only an idea, as the one of Mexico. Let's try to speak of them while staying cool and constructive.
The Frog.

I was just being dramatic. I do that sometimes. Maybe I should have added some to make it clear.

By the way, I really love Mexico's system. What do you think, Hian?

WarKirby

 

[Ankenaton]

Where does saltpeter actually come from? Can you just find it lying on the ground?

WarKirby

One of the largest most readily available sources of saltpeter are middens filled with animal feces. Bat guano (e.g. feces) was a ready source of saltpeter from the medieval period to the early industrial age.

 

[WarKirby]

Thanks but I already researched it myself.

WarKirby

 

[Hian the Frog]

WarKirby,

I don't really like Mexico's system, at first. But it could change if this system is well built. What i don't like is uneasy for me to explain, i'm not english language native.... I will try to.

1) Even if you can stock some ressources to build a precise amount of units, if you don't have this particular ressource you will never be able to built at least one... It will not change the problem of the lack of some ressources on TR world map . Furthemore, i don't think that it is in "the spirit of the game". Civ4 is not a game of economy....

2) As Spartan already said in an other post, trade is nearly impossible on TR world map . Still the same problem: not enough ressources to trade. When you got one iron, one copper, one salpeter as France (for exemple) what can you trade ? There is only wine (2 plots) that can be trade for this country. As England, you can trade....some fish or clam, i don't remember. A common ressource, easy to find, so uneasy to trade

3) Some ressources can be found nearly all around our planet: salpeter, iron,.... for exemple. Others are found in large quantities but only in very particular parts of the world as oil...
Have a look at coal for exemple. At the end of the XIX century, six countries were producing more than 80% of the coal produced (not in order, Germany, UK, USA, France, Russia and Belgium). Explain to me how to represent the GREAT power of UK with only one ressource on TR world map. UK was selling coal to many many countries, the Brit had the first steam powered fleet of the world,.... An other exemple: before WW2, Italia bought at least 50% of his coal to UK. When war began between these two countries, trade was stopped of course. It quickly began to be very critical for Italian industry.... but Germany finally helped them.
Only to say that the TR world map not show the true power of many countries because of the lack of titles with ressources. (For coal, UK must at least have 2 if not 4 or 5, IMO).

4) IMO, tech are more important than ressources to build new types of units. What make the European so strong from the 15 to 19 centuries ? Their knowledge ! With their knowledge they had developped new tactics, new weapons,... and then conquered/colonized most of the world. It was not because they owned one particular ressource that they had spreaded all over the planet....it was because they had the knowledge (so the techs in Civ4) to find/use/improve this ressource.


I hope you will understand what i try to say . My brain is overheating
Meanwhile, i stay "open" to have a look and give constructive comments on Mexico's system, if he develop it.

Ressources on world map are a problem IMO. How to change this ? I don't know. But the scale of Europe don't represent his greatness on our world history....

The Frog.

 

[Hian the Frog]

Hi all,

There is an other very special solution to solve ressource problem: giving each palace of each civs some special ressources bonuses linked to their history.
Some exemples:
- English Palace ( aka Westminster ): same as a normal palace + X free coal ressources.
- French Palace ( aka L'Elysée ): same as normal + X free wine ressources.
- USA Palace ( aka White House): same as normal + 1 free cotton and 1 free oil.
- Russian Palace (aka Kremlin): same as normal + X free beaver/fur ressources.
- Ottoman Palace (aka Topkapi): same as normal + X free horse ressources.
- Mongol Palace ( aka The Ring): same as Ottoman.

and so on.

Each Palace could receive as many free ressources as we decide, of any kind (historical or "cultural" one are those i prefer) and, if possible, its own picture.
This could add some taste to the mod and allow more trade.
Linked to palaces, other "special" bonus/malus may also be added (food prod, shield prod, cultural prod, war bonus/malus, etc)

Also, it could help us to avoid too great changes, as those Mexico and I described in previous posts....

Comments are welcome.

The Frog.

 

[WarKirby]

The simple way for the problems you speak of to be solved, will be by having some resources be richer than others, ad having the ability to trade only part of a resource.

For example, to represent UK coal, a normal coal resource may produce +10 per turn, and the UK's especially rich deposit would produce 40-50, allowing plenty of coal for both personal use and for trading.

Likewise, Japan could have all the resources, but have them be poor sources that only produce half of normal. This would both improve realism, encourage trade and solve the problem of not having enough resources to trade.

It would also allow a solution to the problem of overcrowding of resources on map. Instead of 5-6 oils to represent middle east, you could just have 1-3 that are really rich, thus producing plenty for those who control them, and creating lots of war in the middle east for control of this oil. Realism. And balanced too.

It's a win-win situation no matter what your views on the subject. Mexico's plan is perfect.

WarKirby

 

[Spartan117]

The simple way for the problems you speak of to be solved, will be by having some resources be richer than others, ad having the ability to trade only part of a resource.

For example, to represent UK coal, a normal coal resource may produce +10 per turn, and the UK's especially rich deposit would produce 40-50, allowing plenty of coal for both personal use and for trading.

Likewise, Japan could have all the resources, but have them be poor sources that only produce half of normal. This would both improve realism, encourage trade and solve the problem of not having enough resources to trade.

It would also allow a solution to the problem of overcrowding of resources on map. Instead of 5-6 oils to represent middle east, you could just have 1-3 that are really rich, thus producing plenty for those who control them, and creating lots of war in the middle east for control of this oil. Realism. And balanced too.

It's a win-win situation no matter what your views on the subject. Mexico's plan is perfect.

WarKirby

first so perfect that no one was able to accomplish it yet. From what i understood from otehr programers in the forums it is quite difficult and only the original plans took place. I think if mexico was able to perfect that system, (i dont think the idea with japan is a good idea), then it would be very interesting . However seeing as that idea will be extremely hard to implement(ai understanding/ bugs within the system to work out/ balance), i say maybe other ideas should recieve consideration. But its all up to realism mod team, and what they think is the best "course" for the mod.

P.S. I dont think a world map that size with 24 civs will ever work. THe map is too crowded, too little of plots. I would rather have portions of the map enlarged. Like say a map of europe alone, or east asia, or eurasia. i think it would be great if realism team came up with those maps and worked them to perfection. A 24 civ, even 18 civ map will never work on whatever size map realism map is. I think the map should be discarded due to the unplayableness of the map and unrealism associated with the map. Some civs are destined to be screwed with 2 or 3 cities. So i think the map should be discarded completely or not be taken so seriously and the realism team could expand to other ventures in map making. It may sound extreme but I think it will compliment the realism mod well. I hear strategy guy is working on different locations.

As much as I would like the map to work out, it wont, nobody has successfully been able to create a balanced earth map, that small. Impossible I say. Europe is too small, too many civs located on the mediterrean area, etc....

 

[Hian the Frog]

All,

I both agree and disagree with Spartan.
A map of THAT size is overcrowded with 24 civs, that's right. But if you create an enlarged map, how many PCs will be able to run it ? Not many i suppose. Creating maps of Europe, Africa,...is an other idea but will not change the problem of a world map.

I think that we had to create a system that better represent the world with this map. Mexico's idea is a solution but others can be found.....

The Frog.

 

[Marmoteo]

Hi all.

Uh, well, I have a suggestion about the saltpeter stuff. Why don't double the production cost of all units that requires thar resource, and that the effect of the resource would be to double the production speed of those units. That would represent large quantities of saltpeter, not the presence of saltpeter itself.

 

[Anaztazioch]

@ Hian the Frog

I dubbled the size of large map, and played it. Didnt notice any slowdown exept those when each civ had stack 24 units in each city and 1305 barbarian attackers... And it was only a bit slower than WTR WorldMap.

amd 32 3500+
x850xt
1024mb

 

[WarKirby]

Anaztazioch: Really? I say this warrants more testing. If it can be proven that the map size can be increased without significant impact on performance, we could have an XXL TR map. That would go some way towards solving these problems.

You'll need to find out how pronounced the slowdown is as you approach the modern era though, with civilisation at it's height, that time will cause more slowdown than any other I should think

WarKirby

 

[Anaztazioch]

Well the slowdown is made by WB and units "spam".

I checked 45 x 32 size "custom game" fractal map. It was smootly untill mass unit stack began appearing. After delating units via World Buidler performace increased to 20 secs turn wait instead for arround 2 mins.

The original XML file is here :
C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Warlords\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4WorldInfo.xml
Make a back up and open it even in notepad.
At the end you have:
<WorldInfo>
<Type>WORLDSIZE_HUGE</Type>
<Description>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE</Description>
<Help>TXT_KEY_WORLD_HUGE_HELP</Help>
<iDefaultPlayers>11</iDefaultPlayers>
<iUnitNameModifier>0</iUnitNameModifier>
<iTargetNumCities>6</iTargetNumCities>
<iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>7</iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>
<iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>100</iBuildingClassPrereqModifier>
<iMaxConscriptModifier>75</iMaxConscriptModifier>
<iWarWearinessModifier>-50</iWarWearinessModifier>
<iGridWidth>32</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>20</iGridHeight>
<iTerrainGrainChange>1</iTerrainGrainChange>
<iFeatureGrainChange>1</iFeatureGrainChange>
<iResearchPercent>150</iResearchPercent>
<iTradeProfitPercent>30</iTradeProfitPercent>
<iDistanceMaintenancePercent>100</iDistanceMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>20</iNumCitiesMaintenancePercent>
<iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>6</iNumCitiesAnarchyPercent>
</WorldInfo>
</WorldInfos>
</Civ4WorldInfo>


I changed only
<iGridWidth>32</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>20</iGridHeight>
to
<iGridWidth>45</iGridWidth>
<iGridHeight>32</iGridHeight>

Try it ;p. Even whith all civs.
But i say every use of World builder slowes down the game by even 5% !!!

 

[Anaztazioch]

If you want me to do it, i can email you modified XML

 

[WarKirby]

So it's only the units that cause slowdown, not the actual map?

Do you think that in having a large map, civilisations would spread out evenly, and be limited by maintenance costs, or would it just lead to huge empires that would cause a lot of slowing down anyway?

We need to establish the long term workability of this idea. In the back of the CIv manual, in the developers notes, I believe it mentioned that for testing civs, they turned off all animations, set all civs to AI and taped down the enter key. This allowed the automated playing of a whole game in just a few hours.

Maybe try doing that to fast forward to the modern era, and then test the performance then?

WarKirby

 

[Anaztazioch]

dont know how to actually do that

You might help or do it whith me.
Make 45x32 map, playi it whith WTR (Warlords Toral Realism) whith no barbarians and whith only 5 or 6 civs on noble or even easier, making enemy maintanace get higher. Im gonna try do this tomorow.
Lets just say, count the duration of waiting for enemy at year 1000 or arround turn 400 or 500.