Should resources be more valuable?

[Terrance888]

Maybe have caravans that deliver a 'Dose' of a resource to each city. Each resource generates a caravan per X turns, and have an X range of time AND tiles (no uberairlifting untila fter you get a tech after flight). You only get X (probably 3-4). After you set a route, you can save it and only have to change it due to invasion or blockade.

 

[Shurdus]

Not luxury or strategic income. Britain AND Japan were almost defeated by submarines cutting off supplies. In Britain's case, twice. What I mean is, it would be much more realistic if you had to ship (or fly, or carry, and so on...) your materiel gains through potentially dangerous territory.

you can pillage the resouces just fine...

 

[Argetnyx]

I like Charles Li's idea, it would be highly accurate.

Shurdus: Pillaging the resource requires you to get to it first, and that is usually not easy.

 

[exhile]

I think there should be a finite amount of resources until it is depleted. After depletion, another square in the vicinity will emerge with the same resource or a newer resource will replace the old. Incense, Ivory, gold, and jewels are infinite as long as they are within a player's territory and properly extracted. This infinite luxury should end and be replaced with a finite amount of luxury.

 

[Camikaze]

Time for some mathematics!

Resource depletion:
Every tile with a resource is assigned a value (v) of that resource, which is depleted by a certain amount (n) each turn it is used. 0≤v≤100. The cumulative number of turns it has been used will be t. This amount would be some function of t, multiplied by the number of population points connected to the resource (p), divided by the number of tiles that are producing that resource (m). So, n = pc/m, where c is some constant. 0≤pc/m≤0.008v, so that the resource would at least last 125 turns of use. So, the amount depleted would be ptc/m, whereby t≥125. Now, let y = the amount of resource left. So, y=v, when t=0. Then, after t turns, y=v-(ptc/m).

This would ensure that resource depletion takes into account the number of people using the resource, and the number of turns it is being used for. pc/m would be variable for the duration of the game, with the number of cities using the resource, and the number of resource tiles being worked, changing over time.

 

[Argetnyx]

Wow, ok. Does Civ4 have depletion at all? Civ3 does, in a way; it disappears from the tile and reappears at the same time on another. It is not standard for each resource, some do not disappear at all, others at moderately high rates (strategically).

 

[Camikaze]

No, Civ4 has no depletion.

 

[Argetnyx]

Huh, why did they take it out? Sure, it's annoying sometimes, but life isn't perfect and that should be reflected realistically in the game.

 

[Camikaze]

Exactly. It shouldn't be taken out. If anything, they have he opposite, with new resources being randomly discovered occasionally.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

Exactly. It shouldn't be taken out. If anything, they have he opposite, with new resources being randomly discovered occasionally.

About this part, maybe they are discovered too often, at least in my case. During my last game (noble difficulty, epic speed), I've got 2 extra aluminium sources, 1 copper & 1 iron, none of those findings were due to discovering the techs associated to them. Those discoveries happened around the Industrial Era, in about the span of a 100 turns.

I do agree that it's truly irrational to have 1 single source of any resource in Civ to satisfy ALL of the needs of any single empire. I do agree with some resources making some units cheaper to build, that those resources don't last forever, & that those resources should satisfy the needs of a specific population, economy & military.

 

[Camikaze]

That seems very rare. I've only ever received, maybe, 5 extra resources.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

That seems very rare. I've only ever received, maybe, 5 extra resources.

What difficulty & Civ IV version do you play. That example I gave was with one single game in BTS (noble, epic). In almost all the games I play, I usually get at least 1 mineral resource! Some examples I can say are the following:

-Map: Europe (2 gems, in the same turn!)
-Map: Europe (1 gold, not sure if it was the same one of the 2 gems)
-The one I just mentioned in my previous post (2 aluminium, 1 iron, 1 copper)
-Others I can't remember at the moment...

 

[Camikaze]

Warlords Noble, generally. Maybe prolific resource discovery is just a BtS thing.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

Warlords Noble, generally. Maybe prolific resource discovery is just a BtS thing.

Ok, that's a difference I forgot to mention (yes, in BtS seems to be quite frequent).

 

[Naokaukodem]

One of the things I have always found interesting in Civilization is how petty most resources are. Strategic resources such as Iron or Oil always have immense value and players rush to connect these resources, sometimes even waging war over them, but others are either common or petty enough nobody really bothers with them unless they have the time and spare resources to develop them. Even then, nobody ever goes to war for them.

In the history books you read about civilizations going to war over gold, silver and spices. Countries protected their secrets of silk, dye and other luxuries better then they protected their military tactics. The new world was settled and colonized to gain the vast amounts of resources that could be harvested, both new exotic ones like chocolate and valuable ones from the old world like sugar.

Civilization IV has hardly any of this. You can find some gold lying around your borders and think "Oh, that's nice." The commerce boost is nice in the mid-game, but villages and towns can be just as good if not better, and can be built anywhere. The same goes for pretty much any nonstrategic resource. Some players may push to obtain at least 1 for the happiness or health, but outside of corporations see no difference from owning 1 or 10.

I'm not exactly sure how this could be changed, but I have some ideas. For one, owning multiple resources needs to provide some benefit, though not as great as owning several different ones. Resources should effect trade routes between cities and civilizations, and obtaining a brand new resource on another continent should provide a much larger commerce bonus then simply +1 happiness and a few commerce on the tile.

I can go to war to gain more ressources, when i don't have enough to trade. Well, that's usually not the only reason why I go to war, but a reason in a good place in the top. Usually, I will go to war whenever I can beat an AI easily; because some extra cities (and ressources) are not that a bargain.

 

[Camikaze]

That (^) brings up another point in regards to giving actual value to resources, and allowing for the use of multiple of the same resource.It would give more incentive to go to war over resources, which has been tremendously important in history, particularly modern history (when resource depletion would kick in).

 

[Naokaukodem]

I would not be against quantitative ressources, as long as their distribution and access is realistic, like for example many many iron ressources, more or less in number, and the ability to find new ressources as the technology increases.

However, I think it would make the ressources management too much complicated. First, ressources would that way spread all over the place. There would be less room for cottages. (but i would not object for their elimination of Civ5) Second, it may be tedious to take care of ressources when building units. It is already annoying in Civ4 when the AI destroys your oil mines and to see this message "you can't build this anymore". This would be particularly insane with quantitative ressources. Last, it would be kind of frustrating if you can't feed all your population when trading X ressource. And first, it would be a problem to determine how many cities could benefit of say 1 ton of ressource, and which ones.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps their could also be some storage of resources, for any surplus that you produce (although this would require the micromanagement of each individual resource tile to successfully implement). I don't think it would be too complex. The formula I suggested is reasonably simplistic and easy to understand in practice, and would allow for only one or two of a particular type of resource, whilst still acknowledging that five or six is much better for your economy.

 

[Argetnyx]

I like the Civ3 idea, you build a road to it, you got it. Unless it was outside of your territory, then you build a colony. Much more simplistic and efficient.

 

[TheDS]

Seems like a humongous waste of time for a game that already has a lot of things going on in it. It might make for a fun game, but I don't like having it added to this one. Specifying trade lanes and counting resources? Not for me.

It's just fine with generalized routes that can be blocked by naval blockades, privateer blockades, and sending troops to cut roads. If you're ready and eager to worry about the grief of assigning all these trade routes, then why are you too lazy to use the tools the game already provides?

I can see some merit in wanting multiple resources to mean something, especially when it comes to oil-powered units. When the game's economy moves from materials to energy sources (frex from iron and copper to oil and uranium, then yeah, I agree the paradigm needs to shift. Oil should be needed to move units, not to build them. (I can see a similar argument when it comes to being sure Coal plants work - you gotta have Coal for the plants to run and bestow their Hammer bonus, not for them to simply be built.)

I'm not going to clamor for it, though, because there are PLENTY of resources on the map. Almost every city I found has at least 2 resources in its city square, and often I get 3 or 4. When I get Corps, it's not hard to have 10-20 of a given resource sometimes. Adding more resources would just get ridiculous.