Resources

[GRM7584]

To restate what I said earlier in the thread, I really don't like the idea of representing the importation of earth crops or cattle. Diet was far more important to health in Civ 4 than it would be in Planetfall, since the colonists have a solid understanding of nutrition. I think it is better to represent earth crops/cattle with buildings and non-resource-dependent improvements. Hydroponic farms in bases early on, but not "Tomato Hydroponic Farm" and "Wheat Hydroponic Farm". Regular Farm improvements outside bases once the appropriate technology is discovered, but not building farms on top of "Earth Food Type X" or "Alien Food Type Y". The same goes for cattle: if the colonists are cloning terran cattle using genetic blueprints, it should be represented through pasture improvements rather than specific animal resources, if it is represented at all.
Summary: I think any resource-based mechanic for imported flora and fauna is more suited to a colonization scenario taking place in the 16th or 17th century.

 

[woodelf]

I'm fine with that. I'd rather have the colonists discover safe uses for existing fauna I guess.

 

[Gerikes]

I didn't see much people other than GRM, woodelf and I, but I think the main ideas of strategy resource are enough that we can put it to a vote, just to get others opinions, since I'm sure the long posts are what drove people away from the discussion.

Here is how i would summarize the discussion thus far (i.e. there would be room for adding more stuff on, such as a "seed" system, if the general populace deems it so )

• Strategy resources would be many different resources that would be divided into a few classes. In this example, we'll use the classes of "Light Metals", "Heavy Metals", "Radioactives", "Hydrocarbons", and "Silicates".
• Unlike Civ4, no units depend on Strategic resources to be built. However, strategic resources, when linked to a city with the proper building, can speed the development of certain units (similar to how strategic resources can speed wonder construction). For example, a needlejet could receive production bonuses if a Reactor Lab is present in a city where a Light Metal strategic resource is connected.
• Buildings that give bonuses could give relatively weak bonuses generically (many or all units being affected) or stronger bonuses more specifically (to a smaller amount of units). Specific bonuses could be determined by unit class, domain, or other factors.

Would this be a valid description to put to a vote?

 

[GeoModder]

On genericizing resources: would only the metals be under this, or all types of resources? Just for the sake of consistency, you know... :cute:
In Civ4, units depending on resources simulates more or less the whole chain from mining the ore to constructing the stuff in an appropriate assembly spot.
What GRM advocates here is putting an extra step or two in between the point a type of unit is researched and can be produced. Extra micromanaging if you ask me. I would more be in favour of a system where for instance a generic "Electronics Lab/Workshop" allows hightech stuff like SA's, and a generic "Assembly Plant" allows construction of units.
If we go the route from a building/unitclass, there's no end to the amount of production facilities we have to dream up.

As on GRM's objection to using earth's flora/fauna graphics, it would mostly be a way to show the discrepancy between the settled and terraformed lands compared the the native kept lands. I feel this would give a player a profound look on how his/her colony is expanding as an Earthclone (or not if he/she goes the Planet way). I agree on his point that there's no real need to let earth crops give extra health for each and every type. But what I would advocate is perhaps a system that per latitude/raininess of the plots determines what kind of crop/cattle will be shown on the map.

 

[woodelf]

Yes. I prefer the time bonus when you have a strategic resource as opposed to needing it entirely. The resource itself represents a massive amount, not the only stuff available. Saving time and maybe cost works for me.

 

[woodelf]

And I would think luxury and health stuff would be treated as is. and for those unless we're going away from health...

 

[GRM7584]

On genericizing resources: would only the metals be under this, or all types of resources? Just for the sake of consistency, you know...

My proposal was only to make Strategic resources generic, and to make luxuries and 'health' resources (IE Alien Flora and Fauna of various sorts) specific. To look at it another way: the familiar things (Iron, Copper, Aluminium, Uranium, etc.) should be made generic to help suspend disbelief while simultaneously taking some focus away from them, while the new things (Alien Animals/Spores/Fungal Buds/Fungal Narcotics) should be specified and made interesting.

In Civ4, units depending on resources simulates more or less the whole chain from mining the ore to constructing the stuff in an appropriate assembly spot.
What GRM advocates here is putting an extra step or two in between the point a type of unit is researched and can be produced. Extra micromanaging if you ask me. I would more be in favour of a system where for instance a generic "Electronics Lab/Workshop" allows hightech stuff like SA's, and a generic "Assembly Plant" allows construction of units.
If we go the route from a building/unitclass, there's no end to the amount of production facilities we have to dream up.

I proposed several systems, the first one simply requiring a production facility present before units can be built, and the second (small note) simply accelerating unit production through resources instead of requiring them. That is almost definitely the simplest option, and still seems sensible to me.

As on GRM's objection to using earth's flora/fauna graphics, it would mostly be a way to show the discrepancy between the settled and terraformed lands compared the the native kept lands. I feel this would give a player a profound look on how his/her colony is expanding as an Earthclone (or not if he/she goes the Planet way). I agree on his point that there's no real need to let earth crops give extra health for each and every type. But what I would advocate is perhaps a system that per latitude/raininess of the plots determines what kind of crop/cattle will be shown on the map.

I wasn't really concerned about the graphics: I was concerned about the bonuses to health and food production. I don't think we need to carry over a system of "The colonists have planted rice here, so it is +2 food as opposed to +3 food for the wheat over there, and we can't plant these right next to each other for gameplay purposes, and we had better optimize which types we plant to ensure we get the most health out of it and have the most available to trade". If it's purely graphical, I don't see any problem with having farms look like wheat farms in some terrains/elevations/latitudes and maize farms in others, but I don't think there should be any gameplay differentiation between them.

Edit: On the topic of luxuries, are there any other thoughts on the "Fad Luxury" idea (Post 53)?

 

[Gerikes]

In Civ4, units depending on resources simulates more or less the whole chain from mining the ore to constructing the stuff in an appropriate assembly spot.
What GRM advocates here is putting an extra step or two in between the point a type of unit is researched and can be produced.

I was under the belief that there would not be a building required to build specific units. I took it as specific and generic buildings give specific and generic bonuses of production. No resources of buildings are needed to build units, all they do is speed production.

Extra micromanaging if you ask me. I would more be in favour of a system where for instance a generic "Electronics Lab/Workshop" allows hightech stuff like SA's, and a generic "Assembly Plant" allows construction of units.

That could be a possibility.

If we go the route from a building/unitclass, there's no end to the amount of production facilities we have to dream up.

That's true. Domain might be a better choice, as there would only be a few. We could also create a new tag specifically for these if we want something in between, but I think domain or unit combat type should fit this fine.

As on GRM's objection to using earth's flora/fauna graphics, it would mostly be a way to show the discrepancy between the settled and terraformed lands compared the the native kept lands. I feel this would give a player a profound look on how his/her colony is expanding as an Earthclone (or not if he/she goes the Planet way). I agree on his point that there's no real need to let earth crops give extra health for each and every type. But what I would advocate is perhaps a system that per latitude/raininess of the plots determines what kind of crop/cattle will be shown on the map.

I'm just not sure about the cattle. I don't think there would be large animals on board the ship. There are other, more efficient ways of getting the nutrients we get such as protein. We're only a half-century or so in the future, the ship that is being launched isn't exactly the Enterprise. Also, how much space could be in those escape pods?

Crops I can understand, but I don't like the idea of Earth-animals. I feel it would take away from the futuristic feeling.

And I would think luxury and health stuff would be treated as is. and for those unless we're going away from health...

Yeah, I also don't see changing luxury and health too much, but that doesn't mean I'm set on keeping it as it is. If a good idea came along I would go for it.

 

[GRM7584]

I'm just not sure about the cattle. I don't think there would be large animals on board the ship. There are other, more efficient ways of getting the nutrients we get such as protein. We're only a half-century or so in the future, the ship that is being launched isn't exactly the Enterprise. Also, how much space could be in those escape pods?

Crops I can understand, but I don't like the idea of Earth-animals. I feel it would take away from the futuristic feeling.

Genetic Blueprints from datalinks -> Cloning Techs -> Reconstructed Earth Animals.

There are a few problems: The datalinks don't have full entries for the animals, and mass cloning is a big endeavor, so cattle would have to come late in the game if they were to come at all.

Now, what use are they compared to grains, is a different matter. Imported Cattle would seem to me to be a liability on an alien world, as every added step in a food chain opens up the possibility of unexpected unpleasantries, including things like environmental toxins, or alien diseases. Even in a completely controlled environment, its an inefficient use of limited energy resources; animal products would be a luxury for the elite, or a high price meal ticket at a fancy space restaraunt, rather than a common foodstuff. Cattle, I think, might be better represented by a resource-providing wonder: its a taste of old earth, and all that.

 

[woodelf]

Tofu? Solves everything.

 

[Gerikes]

I was looking to see what would need to be implemented to do production bonuses for building/resources, when I realized we would probably need to come up with whether we want to use unit/unitclasses/domain/unit combat types/other for the decider on how resources/buildings affect unit production.

GeoModder already made the point that going with unit or unit classes would probably be a ton of work, so I would recommend either domain types or unit combat types. I think unit combat types would be better off, since we have more leverage to change a unit's combat type than their domain if we need balancing.

Besides that issue, I think all those who have commented find that unit production bonuses are worthwhile, so I was hoping to just skip the vote and go to implementation tonight, since it's pretty small.

I know we're still up in the air for the other resources, so I would just be working on the strategic. Basically, it would be an XML tag for buildings that would have a bonus ("resource") and unit combat type / domain type / other and the modifier to their production.

 

[Maniac]

To look at it another way: the familiar things (Iron, Copper, Aluminium, Uranium, etc.) should be made generic to help suspend disbelief

Well personally I feel making generic strategic resources would create disbelief. Personally I prefer concrete names so I can live in and roleplay in what I'm doing. "A Fusion Reactor requires Hydrogen" means more to me than "A Fusion Reactor requires Light Metals or something". I'd rather have no resources than generic resources.

 

[GRM7584]

Well personally I feel making generic strategic resources would create disbelief. Personally I prefer concrete names so I can live in and roleplay in what I'm doing. "A Fusion Reactor requires Hydrogen" means more to me than "A Fusion Reactor requires Light Metals or something". I'd rather have no resources than generic resources.

Fair enough; if more people have trouble with generic resources, I can understand it. But like I said in my first post in this thread, virtually every element forms a vital part of a futuristic industrial society's industry, and you can't implement 100+ resources. Also, a lot of the elements could be used interchangably or in different amounts for different applications. If we are limiting it to a certain number of resources, there should be a justificiation for it: perhaps Planet is completely littered with easily obtainable samples of all of the lighter metal elements, except for aluminium oxides, so aluminium makes the grade for a resource because, for one reason or another, it cannot be replaced with those easier to obtain samples. Perhaps plutonium, radium, actinium, and the rest of the naturally occuring radioactives are all completely absent on planet, and so only uranium makes the cut for a resource.

 

[GeoModder]

I too prefer to have reallife resources so to speak.
Not to break down your suggestin, GRM, but I like to keep things consistent and Native Planetresources would be too common if only called by generic names. It's part of the dreamy fluff that surrounds scifi.
As on the whole periodic table to be included: the few things I read about metals used in industrial equipment, there are always the most common ones that keep on popping up: iron, copper, gold, silver, aluminium, silicons,... most of the others seem to be interchangeable with those, altho at lower efficiency levels then for the final instrument.

 

[GRM7584]

First: in case there is any question on it, I am definitely not in favor of making non-strategic resources generic. I'm only concerned about elements.

As on the whole periodic table to be included: the few things I read about metals used in industrial equipment, there are always the most common ones that keep on popping up: iron, copper, gold, silver, aluminium, silicons,... most of the others seem to be interchangeable with those, altho at lower efficiency levels then for the final instrument.

For one, it isn't just industrial equipment, its units and buildings and components, and anything that strategic resources can be used for. Potential in-game uses easily cover the entire periodic table. I'll put it another way, in reference to Civ 4: one of the biggest failures of Civ 4 in representing the modern era is the handling of resources. It is perfectly suited to ancient and classical periods, but once you start to move up, it loses its viability. If it were to accurately represent the modern era, everything would require iron, coal, and aluminium, along with a lot of other 'invisible' resources. In civ, the way it is justified is that only 'economically significant' resources are represented, even though economically significant resources from ancient ages continue through into the modern.

In order for iron to be useful, it needs carbon. Coal, on earth. There isn't any on Planet, although I'm sure alternatives could be come up with, especially with synth fossil fuels. Copper can be replaced by Aluminium, Gold, or Silver for wiring and other electrical conductivity applications (The only thing copper would be used for in a futuristic industrial society), although Aluminium is less efficient and on earth, Gold and Silver are 'too valuable' here because of their monetary association. Silicates are already a generic resource that I proposed.

 

[woodelf]

Silicates, Rare Earths, Precious Metals, Heavy Metals, Radioactives, Gases, ect could all be groups of resources. Why split hairs on gold or silver or platinum? I'd settle for classes of specific elements if they can be grouped.

 

[Gerikes]

I'm thinking for resources what a classification system. You could introduce the entire periodic table if you wanted, but these exact elements would be "fluff". The important part is that each resource would have a classification, of which we would probably only limit it to around 5, with GRM's Heavy/Light Metals etc. being an example. You might have 100 resources in the XML, of which maybe 20 are generated on any given map, and each class of resources would only have a few resources of it's type on the map.

That way, we could have the simplicity of only having five plus or minus a few resources with the fluff of adding as many distinct resources with story and background as we want for those who want to open up the Civilopedia and read about it.

I'm not sure if this completely would cover the "fluff" element, as it would still be pretty generic in what the exact resources do (just a name can only be so interesting, it's how it works that's interesting). Ideas such as the "fad" resource (although it was concieved for luxury, use a similar idea of making individual resources affect gameplay without having to hard-code what exactly that gameplay effect is) could be used to push forward knowing what's going on.

 

[woodelf]

I did the classification.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Show us, please !

 

[Gerikes]

I did the classification.

Funny you say that. I thought you mean you did it and committed it to SVN. I was gonna' check it out and then find some way to scold you nicely about committing stuff without discussion. But, I guess you meant in the forum you did it

Thankfully, while checking out the XML to see what you didn't do, I realized that there already is a tag for BonusClassType, which I was just about to start implementing under another name

Edit: PS my shell for my new computer just arrived, so don't be surprised if you don't see me until Monday j/k