Ressources shoudl be Era-specific

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I think the best solution is to have improvements and or wonders which can substantially reduce the 'disappearance chance' of certain resources. For instance, a 'stable' improvement or 'Horse Breeding' Small Wonder could be built. It requires the horse strategic resource but, once built, it would halve or even quarter the chance of that resource disappearing! Of course, there is still a remote chance of it disappearing, but this would be a freak event-or as the result of GROSSLY overusing the resource. Other examples include rubber and saltpeter!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

I agree with Khan, the resource system in Civ3 is far, far better than that in Civ2 (where all resources were bonus!). If you don't want a resource required for a unit, you can change the unit in the editor.

As for iron being plentiful, just why do you think the USA banned the sale of scrap iron to Japan just before WWII? It certainly was not because Japan could just create the stuff out of thin air!!! I actually believe that the makers missed the boat (so to speak) when they took iron out of the requirements for certain units. In my mods, you can not build Battleships and Cruisers without a source of iron.

You can go ahead and build guys with rifles (since the amount of metal is small) but things requiring large amounts of metal (like railroads) should require a large source of iron.

 

[Gengis Khan]

The only change I'd like to see made to the resource system is: Instead of a flat disapearing percentage chance, i think that it should be based on the amount of units/improvements being built using that resource.

 

[aeldrik]

@Genghis: how can you trade when there aren't enough resources for all the players on the map./... ever tryied an MP game with just another Human player? the game ends as soon as only one player has Salpeter.
Firaxis also added great options in CIV3 to allow for pacific games with victory, but the resource system ruins it, just because you have to attack your neighbours to get the resources.
I'd be more than happy with an option in the Map customization Menu that would allow to set the number of ressources independently from the number of players (that really should be possible) in CIV3-4 , but I sure hope they'll come up with a more elaborate and more equal system for CIV4....
Remember, the main reason Firaxis brought up when introducing the resources, was to make player protect their land tiles, this will still be necessary if they were more resources on the map, huge empires only having ONE source of Iron/Horses/Salpeter is just ridiculous...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, what I want to see is the concept of resource SIZE-with a larger size resource having a MUCH lower chance of disappearing! In addition, the chance of a resource vanishing should be based on the size of your empire (either # of cities in trade network or total population points in network), the scarcity of the resource, the number of improvements/units you build WITH that resource in a single turn, the number of people you're trading the resource with and the number of improvements/units that require the resource on an ongoing basis (like coal for a power plant or oil for tanks, for instance!) and, lastly, how much you're exploiting the square the resource is on (I'd like to see you be able to vary the # of food/shields you can 'extract' from a hex per turn!). This way, when a resource disappears, you can feel confident that it did so as a result of YOUR actions-not because of some arbitrary RNG!
By the same token, a civ should be able to invest some of its budget into 'prospecting'-as a means of increasing the chance of a resource appearing in a given square! This way, the chances of more abundant resources being found will be significantly increased, though at a cost.
Last of all, it would be great if having access to a resource increased your chances of discovering certain techs-like iron giving a greater chance of discovering 'Iron Working', or Uranium giving a bonus to getting 'nuclear fission'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Denarr]

OK, sort of a random set of thoughts, here...
Resources becoming available before a use is found for them is silly in that things such as Saltpeter weren't considered valuable until knowledge of what could be done with it was discovered.
Aluminum was worth nothing to a nation until it became a usefull resource. Until then, it was merely a curiosity, nothing more.
How many cities would build themselves near a source of some worthless metal when there was coal and game aplenty in a different location?
Having resources buildable after a peroid of time makes sense for some resources, but you simply can't produce metal or coal out of nothing. Horses, wheat, grapes...these are things that can be reproduced, if a quantity of them and the technological concepts for their reproduction become available. Then there is the consideration of quality to take into account. Sure, Washington can produce wine, but how good is it compared to wine from other places?

The more complicated the calculations added to the system, the larger the game, and the slower the game play. But, then again, games become larger and larger as bigger, better, faster computers become more commonly available.

Coal, Iron, Aluminum...these things get used up. Some are reuseable, while others are completely gone, once they've been used.
Having a limit, based on usage, makes sense, but then more resources would have to be spread around, or the ability, to recycle, rebuild, or simulate resources would have to be added to the game system, as appropriate for any given resource, else all resources would eventually become exhausted, and then the game would run down due the lack of the needed resources to build military units.
Having only some resources become visible upon the discovery of its value, while having the rest remain undiscovered would make the addition of Prospectors or the Prospect order for Workers a sensible one, but having a Prospector able to discover a resource merely by looking might imbalance the game by allowing one civ to successfully discover Iron, Coal, Uranium, and Aluminum all in the same place, while another civ fails time and time again to find any resources at all.

 

[Shirastro]

How about if they put 2 diffrent kinds of units.
First would be "normal" ones, that dont need resources, or at least stop needing them when they become common. So that evryone could build, lets say, cavalery after some time.
Second would be "spetial" units that would need specific resource to be biuld.
Something like enchansed pikeman, or sword man or anything else.
E.g. you have iron, that means you are more "used" to work with it, giving you certian "mastery" over it, so you can build better units that requier it, or maybe build them faster.
Thou not all the resources should be treated in the same way. Horses, iron may have become common, but uranium certianly did not.

This ofcuorse would change the whole UU system, but i think it would be more logycal.

And about luxuries. I think that they work good as they are now. They are just optionals after all.

 

[Pounder]

There reaches a point where some resources become readily available and if you were to have a shortage in your own country you could easily buy the resource on the open world markets, that is; once those markets have been established you shouldn't have to depend on the whim of a single country not giving in to your request for the resource.

Maybe if there were lets say United Nations sanctions set up against you, maybe that would be a possible exception.

So maybe there should be a global markets great wonder that would make the above possible. The Civ that builds the wonder would gain some extra benefit, but all Civ's that have discovered trade would be able to buy resources, buy 20 turn contracts, prices subject to world supply.

Example maybe if there are 5 Civ's and 5 coal deposits in the world there would be a factor (multiplier) of 1.00 applied to the price of coal, if there were 5 civ's and only 4 coal deposits in the world then a factor (multiplier) of 1.25 applied to the price of coal, price would be adjusted to show the tight supply.

 

[Denarr]

There reaches a point where some resources become readily available and if you were to have a shortage in your own country you could easily buy the resource on the open world markets, that is; once those markets have been established you shouldn't have to depend on the whim of a single country not giving in to your request for the resource.

This concept is already covered in Civ III.
Any resource your nation doesn't have access to can be bought from a rival nation. The price is determined by availability and the amount of benefit that the rival nation percieves you will recieve from the resource.
"Commonly available" is a relative term.
Just because most nations in the world have access to a resource doesn't mean that they'll trade it for next to nothing, and it's not like they can just grow a new resource if they're trading it away to someone.
Maybe certain resources can be grown (with the proper technologies), but even artificial diamonds aren't nearly as much a luxury as real ones, and synthetic oil isn't nearly as versatile or as useful as 'natural' oil.

 

[Gregski]

Might as well add my 2 cents:
As far as resources are concerned, greatly increase the number of resources in the map, so each civ should have on average well a lot of each. When that's done, set the effectiveness of each resource/luxury to a certain level, say one unit of one luxury providing happiness to so many citizens. This way having one source of furs provides less benefit than say five sources. Similar to strategic resources. The more you have, the more you could build. Say for instance you had 4 iron and 5 coal resources. You could build 4 railroad lines per turn or 3 rr and some pikeman. Well you get the idea. This way fairness is observed. If you have few resources, you can barely get by, but with many, your civ can grow and develop quickly.

 

[Gregski]

Just thought of another idea to tag along: The ability to build storehouses (or whatever is appropriate) to store resources that are not used that turn. The storehouse could store say 20 units max of a resource like iron (one added to the store each turn when the resource is not used somewhere else) and when you need to build say rr, you could take it from the store if you have no other source.

 

[SSgtBaloo]

I thought of something else. Perhaps units that can't be built without a certain resource could be, but only at double shield cost, and if an appropriate replacement technology were researched. That way, if an opportunity to trade for the desired resource came up, it still might be worthwhile, but you wouldn't be SOL if you couldn't otherwise get access to it.

Example: The Incas have no iron available to them, and none of their potential trading partners is willing to sell any to them at a price they can afford. If the Incas want to build swordsmen, they must then research "Iron Substitutes" technology. Once they have learned that one, they may then build swordsmen (or any other unit that requires iron), but at twice the normal shield cost. Possibly the units manufactured with this technology would be less effective than if Iron was available. In this case, they should be made upgradeable once the Incas do secure a source of iron.

How might this be applied to terrain improvements, like railroads? Suppose that once you'd researched "alloys" (or some such appropriately named technology) you might be able to build rails, but it takes twice as much time to do so unless you have iron? Also, rail segments built with "alternative" technology might be given a small percentage chance of "breaking" (disappearing) and then having to be repaired (rebuilt). Even a relatively small percentage chance of such an occurrence would result in having to assign labor units to repair broken rail segments on a nearly continuous basis, especially in a large, iron-deficient nation. If iron became available, you could assign laborers to upgrade inferior rail segments to iron, taking some small, yet not insignificant amount of time to do so. (And the substandard rail segments could be in a nifty bronze color, too.)

--SSgtBaloo

 

[Pounder]

This concept is already covered in Civ III.
Any resource your nation doesn't have access to can be bought from a rival nation. The price is determined by availability and the amount of benefit that the rival nation percieves you will recieve from the resource.
"Commonly available" is a relative term.
Just because most nations in the world have access to a resource doesn't mean that they'll trade it for next to nothing, and it's not like they can just grow a new resource if they're trading it away to someone.
Maybe certain resources can be grown (with the proper technologies), but even artificial diamonds aren't nearly as much a luxury as real ones, and synthetic oil isn't nearly as versatile or as useful as 'natural' oil.

I think you missed my point, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't have to approach a nation to obtain a resource once global markets are set up.

I am saying that you should be able to buy the resource on an exchange at current market price.

If I don't get along with a nation that has a resource I need, it shouldn't stop me from having access to the resource if I have the cash.

I should also be able to sell my resources on the exchange for cash which would drive down the price. If I decide to hord my resources, then the price would be driven up.

The exchange could be a wonder that is built and the Civ that builds the exchange would gain some addtional benefit as well.

Just thought of another idea to tag along: The ability to build storehouses (or whatever is appropriate) to store resources that are not used that turn. The storehouse could store say 20 units max of a resource like iron (one added to the store each turn when the resource is not used somewhere else) and when you need to build say rr, you could take it from the store if you have no other source.

I like this idea as well.

 

[Denarr]

I thought of something else. Perhaps units that can't be built without a certain resource could be ...if an appropriate replacement technology were researched....
Example: The Incas have no iron available to them...If the Incas want to build swordsmen, they must then research "Iron Substitutes" technology...they may then build swordsmen (or any other unit that requires iron), but at twice the normal shield cost. Possibly the units...would be less effective...In this case, they should be made upgradeable once the Incas do secure a source of iron.

How might this be applied to terrain improvements, like railroads? Suppose that once you'd researched "alloys"...you might be able to build rails, but it takes twice as much time to do... Also, rail segments built with "alternative" technology might be given a small percentage chance of "breaking" (disappearing)... Even a relatively small percentage chance of such an occurrence would result in having to assign labor units to repair broken rail segments... If iron became available, you could assign laborers to upgrade inferior rail segments to iron... (And the substandard rail segments could be in a nifty bronze color, too.)

--SSgtBaloo

I can't think of a single rail system that had been built without the use of Iron, or a steam engine, for that matter.
The idea behind Civ technologies is to use technologies that existed.
Different nations used different weapons made from bronze. There were swords made of it, axes, spears, etc. The makers of civ didn't have the luxury of adding every different unit that ever existed in the history of the planet.
Without the use of Iron, Bronze was the next best thing. Other metals, such as orichalcum were devised, and abandoned.
Let's just stick to the historically relevant resources and technologies.

I think you missed my point, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't have to approach a nation to obtain a resource once global markets are set up.

I am saying that you should be able to buy the resource on an exchange at current market price.

If I don't get along with a nation that has a resource I need, it shouldn't stop me from having access to the resource if I have the cash...

Yep, you're right, I misunderstood.
Probably something like a mini-wonder that allows those nations that build it to participate. It would have to be based on something we already have, and there would still be the possibility of a trade embargo. I sort of think that using the system would look a lot like the current trade system for Civ III...might be a bit confusing.

 

[apopholeus813]

i think if there were more resourses, or at some point you didnt need them, it would take away a lot of the reason of going to war. id personally like to see a few more resources and buildings that require resources, like in the mesoamerica conquets. Id also like to be able to buy more than 1 of a resource from another civ. say i buy 5 gems from one civ and trade one of each to 4 other civs.

 

[rhialto]

This idea could be modded into civ 3 now.

For each unit that needs resources, create three versions. Version A has standard cost, needs the resource, and comes with the original tech. Version B costs much more (maybe x 1.5), but needs no resource. Version C costs standard, needs no resource, but comes a few tech levels later.

Of course, this idea may make upgrading units hard to work in to it.

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is a killer idea, I can't believe I never noticed this thread until now. Thanks for someone for bumping it up.

I'd do three things:

1. Have more different kinds of resources and luxuries.
2. Have discrete supplies of resources that are needed for everything.
3. Make resources become obsolete by era / technology.

Issue 1 is important so that way resources can become MORE strategic. Make it impossible for one person to have every resource they need within their borders, so they are forced to trade and develop relationships with the world around them.

Issue 2 is important so that way you can't survive from just one square of a resource, and there's an actual incentive to practice conservation. Instead of pumping out as many Swordsmen as you can once you discover Iron, you stick with a few Archers to conserve your Iron supply, just in case the going gets tough. Maybe you'll trade your excess supply. And maybe you'll rethink the idea of expanding to 25% of the continent if you don't have enough Iron to support the infrastructure you need.

Issue 3 was the one suggested. This prevents the game from being too complicated. Limestone is only necessary in the classical age. Plastics make Wood obsolete. (Just to give examples). This way you only need to focus on 8-10 resources at a time, instead of something like 40.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Great ideas, DH_Epic, and many of them fit in with the resource ideas I have been putting up here almost since day 1! ANYTHING that encourages a more cooperative approach to gaming should be given priority in the new game! I also think that Civ3's abstract 'resource disappearance' model could still work in conjunction with DH's discreet quantity system. In this, the chance of a resource disappearing would be directly linked to how much you use it! This would include the # of cities in your empire and the number of units and improvements you build in a turn which depend on said resource. Some units and improvements might require a resource on an ongoing basis (like mechanised units and power stations), in which case the TOTAL number of improvements/units you currently have will determine the chance of the dependant resource 'running out'! Whilst on that issue, does anyone feel that a power plant should be able to 'power' more than one city? Perhaps you have one city with a 'coal station' for instance, which can power six cities if those cities are connected to that city via a road/rail connection? I would like to hear your thoughts on that!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is an overview of how to solve this on a resource-by-resource basis. For this model resources can stack in tiles.

Iron/Coal/Aluminum/Uranium

Over time certain metals became more plentiful to humans thanks to improvements in refinement and mining techniques. Each square that has a resource also has a minimum tech required to utilize that resource.

Iron - Iron Working would allow you to see the most basic sources in mountains and hills. Construction would allow for more efficient and deeper mines, showing Iron in more squares. Engineering would lead to even more squares. Chemistry allows for blasting and Metallurgy makes Iron refinement easier. By the industrial age many many Mountain and Hill squares would have Iron.
Coal - Chemistry shows surface level coal. Combustion shows some deeper shafts. Other techs would lead to more squares where coal would be. By late-industrial age most of the coal fields would be discovered.
The rest go in this fashion.

Horses

Once horses are introduced, either trhough battle with an enemy, or otherwise, they can quickly be put into Stables(small wonder). Stables allow horses to always be present.

Saltpeter

Once metallurgy and one source of saltpeter is somehow known, then it exists everywhere.

Rubber

Rubber farms can be planted, but planted ones have a good chance of disappearing unless in the 'right' square(randomly chosen squares before game).

Oil

Some technology would allow for more oil to be found and exploited. There woudl be more in the fields, but it would deplete faster.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd rather see certain techs just pave the way for "infiniteness" of resources. For example, metalurgy allows you to build any units or improvements that require Iron without having any iron within your borders.

The end result is the same, but it also means you can cut out strategic resources that become more cumbersome to keep track of. This way you could have many many resources and shift emphasis off iron and limestone onto saltpeter and coal and onto oil and penecillin.