Should Civ 4 reflect generalized resource shortage?

[Texan General]

I dont believe this measure is meant to simulate a worldwide scarcity however. I think that this more pointed towards simulating situations in which one country may have tons of a resource where another may only have a few tons. The second country would want to trade for more or perhaps attempt to conquer the smaller country to improve thier stocks. Besides, this measure would force a player to seriously consider the importance of individual tiles and the price of resources.

 

[RandomInsanity]

it would be so cool to have resources gradually vanish and then disappear all together based on how much they were used throughout the game. Imagine playing a game until the 1900's and then you run out of oil, aluminum, and saltpeter, so all you're left with is swords and nuclear weapons. I think it would be great fun.
This would be a great idea as a selectable option when you set up the game

 

[Alo]

sounds like a good idea....will put much more strategic depth into resource acquisition.....although i dont c any pt in implementing it for anything except oil and coal

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, a game which had a really great 'Resource Depletion' system was 'Jeff Wayne's War of the World'. In that, each side had 3 key resources. The amount of each resource determined how many units and buildings you could build at 100% efficiency. If you started doing lots of buildings and lots of repairs-all at once-then your efficiency would drop, slowing down all your building times accordingly. Not sure if a system like that could be applied to Civ4? Perhaps if your current tech level determined your base efficiency, and the total number-and size-of resources you have could determine at what point your efficiency drops, based on how many cities you have and units you build. Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Tantor]

Many wars in history have been started by the wish to conquer natural reources and many small nations have become powerful by trading valuable resources. I don`t think this is represented very well in Civ3 as longer the game runs the fewer civs are around. This means that sometimes there`s more than enough of everything to please everybody, this means less fighting over resources and less trade since nobody really needs anything.

-Tantor-

 

[Meleager]

Maybe there should be n of each rescource where n is the number of nations - a number based on the difficulty setting.
So on Chielftain with 8 players (say a diff modifier of -2): you would have 10 of each rescource
But on Sid with 8 players (say a diff modifier of 4): you would have only 4 of each rescource

There will always be competition for rescources. When a nation is destroyed so is a rescource. To help in fairness any unclaimed rescources or rescources of a person who owns more than 1 rescouse could be eliminated first.

Note: This method also helps to make higher levels more difficult due to their complexities or inbuilt challenges rather than AI bonuses, which is good.

 

[Tantor]

I agree that the number of resources could be related to the number of civs, but only problem is that if you start with many civs which you destroy, you`ll still have a lot of resources to go go around. I think each resource should have some limits regarding size. Either it should be depleted if overused or there should be a limit to how many cities it may supply. This would make it easier for small civs to supply its entire nation while large civs needs more resources. It should hurt sometimes to be the big guy.It may also reduce the snowballing effect.
I also believe that some resources should be more concentrated and not pop up everywhere. This will make some regions suppliers of a given resource, like the Middle East for oil and South Africa for gold and diamonds.

-Tantor-

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, just quickly. What I was thinking was a resource deposit of size N can support 2N+2 cities without any reduction in efficiency-or any chance of resource 'depletion'. Each city by which you exceed this number increases the maintainance cost of that city. Also, it increases the chance of that specific resource disappearing. Obviously, the more resources that you are overstretching, the more expensive your cities become to run.
Certain techs, however, should be able to boost the above multiplier and/or reduce the maintainance cost caused by overstretched resources.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

Tantor, you will notice if you read my post that the number of rescources reduces with each player destroyed

Ausse_Lurker (that name is indeed an oxymoron ): I like the basis of your idea, and whilst I know that it was only a brief introduction I would like to see it explained more.

1) where did you get the formula 2N+2 from ??

2) how do you decide which cities will cost more in matenace?

3) How do you see rescources working? Are they the same as in Civ3 where they give a happyness boost / strategic rescource to the entire civilization?

4) How would you tell how many of a rescource is on a square? (probably graphics i imagine)?

5) How would trade work?

At the moment I am a little bit worried about how complicated this idea may turn out to be as well as how the gameplay would turn out. I know lots of people don't like it but "simplify, simplify, simplify" really is the best way to go. Anyway just some questions for you, at the moment i still like the idea of only 1 rescource being able to support and entire nation.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

1) OK, I confess first up that the 2N+2 was just a number I plucked out of the air. The actual number would depend on Gameplay balance issues.

2) The base maintainance cost of ALL cities would be boosted by a flat rate-i.e. if a city cost 10gpt to maintain, but resource shortages had boosted maintainence costs by 10%, then this city would now set you back 11gpt.

3) Resources would-as always-grant economic, health and happiness bonuses to the city in who's radius it is-that would remain unchanged.

4) Too easy, the size of a resource deposit would depend on the number of that resource on the tile. For instance, a size 4 coal deposit would consist of 4 lumps of coal. A size 3 horse resource will consist of 3 horses.

5) When you trade a resource, you will select the number of 'Units' you are trading. So, if you select your size 4 coal deposit, you will enter a number from 1-4 to indicate how many units you are offering.

Now, the key issues are (a) different deposits of the same resource will appear in your trade screen as a single icon with the
collective size next to it. If you click on the icon, it will show you a breakdown of all the different deposits.
(b) Your collective resource size determines the total number of cities you can build, not the size of individual deposits.
(c) Exceeding your resource limits has a few key effects. (i) The increased maintainance costs for cities; (ii) increased build times for units and improvements; (iii) an increasing chance of the resource becoming depleted.
If a resource becomes depleted, its size gets halved-rounded down. This means a size 1 resource disappears, a size 2-3 resource becomes a size 1, and a size 4-5 resource becomes a size 2.
The important thing about this model is that it drives both trade and warfare much more strongly. After all, just because you have a single deposit of coal, does not mean that you won't need more. If it is a size 3 coal deposit, then in my system it will only support 8 cities before the efficiency of your cities starts to drop off. So now you will need to seek out more to keep your economy running efficiently. Building terrain and city improvements-as well as researching techs-can either increase or decrease the equation for determining city limits.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Tantor]

Meleager: I don`t think resources should be destroyed along with civs as it would no longer be any point to try and conquer a resource, but if a resource only supplies X number of people you`ll need more if you conquer and get bigger. But if each resource had a building attached, such as stables, farms, quarries, mines, trade post, oil platform etc, which is needed to take advantage of the resource then that building could be razed when the resource is taken and resource will be useless until a new one is erected. But this will probably make more MM than the developers want.

I`m not sure I like the idea of resources becoming depleted at random as I believe the AI, so far, has a tendency to favor the AI civs. It would be really bothersome and annoying if my resources went barren all the time and not the AIs.

 

[frekk]

Well, I don't really like the idea of resources disappearing. That isn't so much what's happening today really anyway ... what's happening is that supplies are being strained by demand.

This would be easily reflected in the game by making resources have a value of some sort (eg, an Iron deposit would produce, say, 5 units of Iron per round). As tech progressed you might be able to upgrade the resource (eg, Steam Engine might let you build a deep core mine that would give you 8 or 10 units per round from the same Iron source). Each use of the resource - to build a unit or improvement - would cost you 1 pt of the relevant resource, unused points getting stockpiled or traded.

 

[Timeeee4]

You could have an assigned value to each resource on the map telling how many units of material are available. This would allow stockpiling, you may need to build a pump, or a mine on the resource, and then every turn a certain amount, based on infrastructure, will be brought to the capital city and stored up for use. This would let you trade a lump sum of a resource so you can limit how much can be built by the purchaser. Also it would a allow for different units to need a different amount of a certain resource. For instance a tank may need one unit of oil to build it, while a battleship may need 2-3 units of oil (this would reflect the amount of fuel used in the life of the unit). Also a country could purchase a ton of iron from another country and proceed to attack that country the next turn with a stockpile of iron ready to build new reinforcement troops. I'm not sure how well this would work for luxuries, but it would work great for strategic resources.

EDIT: It would also allow for different sized mines/wells. One country could have one iron mine with 1000 units of iron, and trade it with everyone, while another country has three iron mines each with only 20 units of iron and has little to trade after building it's own units.

 

[Sullla]

The number of strategic resources on a Civ3 map is tied to the number of civs in the game already. Try generating a huge map with only 2 or 3 civs present in the Editor if you don't believe me.

Resources that run out? It could work, but I'm not sure that it would be worth the effort in the long run. I'm sure the developers could set up a situation where an iron resource would only allow the production of a certain amount of swords before running out, but the key questions then would be:

1) Can the AI be programmed to understand this?
2) Would this really add strategic depth?
3) Would it make Civ4 more fun to play?

I'm not convinced that the answers to those questions would necessarily be affirmative. But in the end, as long as the resources don't randomly move around the map for no reason as they did in out-of-the-box Civ3, I'll be happy enough.

 

[Timeeee4]

I think my above idea would add depth by allowing stockpiling and trading lump sums of resources, and would be very simple to use. The only things to figure out, would be the proper amount of each resource to place on the map, and the method of removing it from the ground to stockpile in cities(probably a workers job or city improvement).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I cannot give a definitive answer to question #1, Sullla, but I can assure you that a Non-Binary, depletable resource system would definitely add a great deal to both the fun and gameplay depth of Civ4-so long as it is done in an abstract fashion.
In Civ3, one of the greatest disappointments is that, for all the sophistication of the 'Trade Table', it all counts for nothing if you have a resource that the other civ already possesses. If you have enough resources in this category, then suddenly trade and diplomacy take a major back seat in the game . With the system proposed here, though, having one deposit of a resource does not preclude a civ from seeking out more-especially if said deposit is very small. So long as the measurement and depletion effects of resource deposits is done in a logical and easily understood fashion, then managing it should not be a great chore. So you get massively boosted importance of trade and diplomacy, without extra MM, and all from a single, simple change to the game mechanics.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kurioku]

ofcourse, as long as it is not based on a one sided foudation(such as just using "todays world" as a developement scheme.)

 

[Tantor]

I think there should be more options for elite civ players vs green civ players. Many complex trade models or RR models with capacity points may add complexity and micromanagement, but also depth, new challenges an realism to the game. If there were a simple menu at the start of the game where you could turn Limited Rail Capacity or Depletable/ Limited Reources on or off it would satisfy everyone. Fireaxis wants it to be fairly easy for new green players to get into while elite players simply want more of everything.

 

[Timeeee4]

I agree with tantor on that, but I don't expect it on this release of civ 4. Mabey in an expansion or later in the series.

 

[doronron]

I would love to see a system of gradual depletion for resources. Simlar to many of the popular RTS games available, assign a numerical value to the resource deposit. You can stockpile said resources over time, and your gathering rate would be based on the level of technology your nation possesses.

Resources being used up should be a major concern as players will quickly reach a point where they can reach modern technology by the 1500-1600s...or earlier, depending on their start points.

Either way, I really hope Firaxis does something with its method of resource distribution. One of the few things that bother me in Civ 3 is the way resources are randomly placed on the map. I hated having my c.1950s teched out nation stymied by the fact that I had no coal, oil, or rubber available nearby, thus leaving me with c.1860s military units (and barely that) instead.