Should resources be more valuable?

[TheMeInTeam]

Tell me what it is... It's not a bad thing...

Communism is a form of government that includes, economic, legal, and social factors.

It would be best, IMO, if they provided civic options that allowed us to create overarching forms of governance such as this. Maybe even cooler if you line up the civic choices a certain way, such as if you picked each category in line with communism - your government would actually say that and you'd get a small bonus on top of the base civic choice bonuses. Do this for each kind of government. It would need a LOT of work but it's an interesting idea.

As for resources being more valuable...they're already the most valuable tiles in the game hands down. I stand by the assertion that the reason they don't seem so is that the AI doesn't treat them as well as it could. If the AI REALLY cared, you could keep the base values for oil, uranium, and so forth but just make the SP experience more plausible by having the AI gun for it or try to remove others' access to it. Maybe not invade just for some sugar but as a nation has more it appears juicier or something.

 

[Camikaze]

It would be best, IMO, if they provided civic options that allowed us to create overarching forms of governance such as this. Maybe even cooler if you line up the civic choices a certain way, such as if you picked each category in line with communism - your government would actually say that and you'd get a small bonus on top of the base civic choice bonuses. Do this for each kind of government. It would need a LOT of work but it's an interesting idea.

Yeah, that would be cool. As I said earlier, it would be good to have this system with different bonuses and penalties for having seemingly incompatible combinations.

As for resources being more valuable...they're already the most valuable tiles in the game hands down. I stand by the assertion that the reason they don't seem so is that the AI doesn't treat them as well as it could. If the AI REALLY cared, you could keep the base values for oil, uranium, and so forth but just make the SP experience more plausible by having the AI gun for it or try to remove others' access to it. Maybe not invade just for some sugar but as a nation has more it appears juicier or something.

I think the idea of the OP was not that resource need to be more valuable, as such, but they need to have a value attached to them, in order to make them a more important aspect of the game.

 

[Argetnyx]

It would be best, IMO, if they provided civic options that allowed us to create overarching forms of governance such as this. Maybe even cooler if you line up the civic choices a certain way, such as if you picked each category in line with communism - your government would actually say that and you'd get a small bonus on top of the base civic choice bonuses. Do this for each kind of government. It would need a LOT of work but it's an interesting idea.

What we need is more civics and more effects for each one. There should not be a 'best', or a 'worst', but just many options.

For example, what does 'despotism', 'barbarism', 'tribalism', 'decentralization', and 'paganism' do for you? Nothing, right? There are definitely advantages to each one, but that is not represented. How is 'Paganism' a part of government anyway? I thought it was any religion that had multiple gods, otherwise known as 'not christian' (stupid christians).

My reason for more is: Each civic is supposed to be in a goivernment right? So what kind of legal, labor, or religious civics are in communism? See my point? I could go on, but I gotta go now...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think the idea of the OP was not that resource need to be more valuable, as such, but they need to have a value attached to them, in order to make them a more important aspect of the game.

Apparently FireAxis thought so too at some point then decided otherwise. IIRC there's a line in the code right now to make AIs favor a war target based on key resources...but no such resources are defined...

For example, what does 'despotism', 'barbarism', 'tribalism', 'decentralization', and 'paganism' do for you? Nothing, right? There are definitely advantages to each one, but that is not represented. How is 'Paganism' a part of government anyway? I thought it was any religion that had multiple gods, otherwise known as 'not christian' (stupid christians).

The game set default civics just so that you'd need to tech others. I wouldn't be averse to allowing some benefit to them however...keeping in mind game balance and that powerful alternates should be available by teching them.

I think civ INTENDS to make paganism mean that your people don't follow one of the game's "major religions". That's one interpretation of paganism I guess. Putting religion in the game is good for flavor and its affects on diplomacy make it quite dynamic. However, a game is on eggshells if it's representing actual religions, so it's understandable if they're less-than-accurate with it in some respects to avoid offending as many as possible.

 

[Decimatus]

I think resources should have a value attached to them. Starting out in the tons, moving on into kilo tons, and eventually megatons as the ages and techs roll on(and your supply of course).

Or kilowatts, to megawatts, to gigawatts.

Or by the bushel/herd/whatever for food.

To produce 1 tank unit(20-40 tanks per unit) it would take 2kt of iron and 1kt of coal(for smelting steel) plus X megawatts from whatever source. To produce a battleship, you would need 60kt of iron 30kt of coal, plus X megawatts.


Each resource node would produce X resources per turn, quickly ramping up with new techs and upgraded mines of course.

It would make it essential to grab all those extra iron(which there would be more of in general than you see in civ 4) that you see since you need them all for your warmachine.

Make it important and profitable to trade resources, and even processed resources that might make production faster. For instance, your civ mines iron, and produces plate steel on the market. Whoever buys the plate steel can build ships and tanks faster(production cost discount) than if they had mined the iron themselves.

It would also let you stockpile strategic resources. You use 60kt of the 100kt iron a turn that you mine. The 40kt goes into the stockpile for future use. Or, if you have a capitalistic civic, all that extra iron on the market drives down the price of ore causing you to want to scale back production to keep prices lofty.

There are many many benefits to an expanded resource system, especially when you factor in processed resources which is a big part of trade economies. China didn't sell silk clothes to the west as much as they did bulk silk cloth.

Pittsburgh didn't produce cars, but they did produce vast quantities of processed steel and coal for power generation needed for industrial processes all over America.

Your village out in the woods doesn't sell finished wood products as much as they sell bulk wood resources for everyone who needs wood to make their products.


The possibilities are quite endless.

A real resource system is the key to building a robust and interesting economy for civ 5.

 

[Spartan300]

like the post Decimatus.
how about another point, the game (or map that you know of) should count he quantity of resources in the area, for example on your continent there are 7 iron (unlikely but just a sample)and 3 civs.
introduce monopolies. if civ A has 5iron he has a stronger monoploy than civ B so Civ C would find that the price of iron to be higher because of this monopoly.
conversely once the world is discovered and civ A find that another civ has 10 iron the value of his monopoly has deprecited.
the quantities are way out but it shows the idea easier

 

[Dragonxander PR]

So you're saying that capitalist tendencies should drive the relative value of the in-game resources. Still, there should be something to make the AI players value non-military resources more.

 

[Decimatus]

You could go even further and say that if all the available iron is being used for production then the prices rises until demand drop off.

It would be civic based of course. If you have a capitalistic society you get big bonuses to mining, production, etc, etc but you have to deal with market prices, bubbles, etc.

You can nationalize your industries and not have to be gouged by those foreign/domestic corporations but you loose a lot of bonuses.

Perhaps have an Economic Regulation civic that gives you a vast range of choices.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think there is too much need to trade processed resources, really. I think cottages are meant to represent the processing/manufacturing/secondary industry, so all that is really needed is for you to trade the resource, and for cottages to transform that resource into goods (which is done implicitly, not explicitly).

 

[Decimatus]

I don't think there is too much need to trade processed resources, really. I think cottages are meant to represent the processing/manufacturing/secondary industry, so all that is really needed is for you to trade the resource, and for cottages to transform that resource into goods (which is done implicitly, not explicitly).

Cottages and whatnot do a good job of representing the local effects of an industry.

However, they fail everywhere else when it comes to how important trade and especially resource acquisition is to societies.

Something has to be done to change the current resource/trade model into something viable, realistic, and of course fun.

The current resource model of "Find one iron and call it good" is far too simplistic.

It also doesn't help that cities are currently defined by the surrounding ~20 tiles as opposed to their economic viability in attracting resources, people, and trade.

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, have resources quantified in some way in order to make them more important in the game, but my argument was that having an explicit refining process in the game is probably unnecessary.

 

[Decimatus]

Sure, have resources quantified in some way in order to make them more important in the game, but my argument was that having an explicit refining process in the game is probably unnecessary.

It was merely an option to quantify it.

If you have better ideas, lay them out.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I'm not saying I have a better idea to do with refining resources, so much as saying that the process of refining resources and transforming them into products is probably not a necessary step to include in the game, when you consider the role of cottages.

 

[Trias]

I think resources should have a value attached to them. Starting out in the tons, moving on into kilo tons, and eventually megatons as the ages and techs roll on(and your supply of course).

Or kilowatts, to megawatts, to gigawatts.

Or by the bushel/herd/whatever for food.

To produce 1 tank unit(20-40 tanks per unit) it would take 2kt of iron and 1kt of coal(for smelting steel) plus X megawatts from whatever source. To produce a battleship, you would need 60kt of iron 30kt of coal, plus X megawatts.

Each resource node would produce X resources per turn, quickly ramping up with new techs and upgraded mines of course.

This idea might produce some interesting game mechanics of worked out properly. One thing to worry about is that wars can turn into whoever has the most of resource X wins situations. Some careful balancing with that respect is in order.

Another area of balance would between war and economy, these two interests should continiously compete for resources. This means that resource must also have an role in the operation of your economy. For example, a laboratory might need a constant supply of certain resources to run.
This also ensures that resources are also valuable in mostly peaceful games. And it adds a possibly interesting new economic aspect to the game.

 

[Hail]

This idea might produce some interesting game mechanics of worked out properly. One thing to worry about is that wars can turn into whoever has the most of resource X wins situations. Some careful balancing with that respect is in order.

just like in real life! a good example would be Japan in WW2

Another area of balance would between war and economy, these two interests should continuously compete for resources. This means that resource must also have an role in the operation of your economy. For example, a laboratory might need a constant supply of certain resources to run.
This also ensures that resources are also valuable in mostly peaceful games. And it adds a possibly interesting new economic aspect to the game.

it's a good idea!

 

[w2w2w]

I agree next time I want to start a war for bananas just to see what happens

 

[Dragonxander PR]

To then establish vassals that would become "Banana Republics"? Quite historically accurate IMO

 

[fandamage]

Edit: posted in the wrong place. Don't see a way to delete this post though...

 

[logotet]

I think resources should have relative value to one another. For instance, let's say there are 10 Iron resources and 2 Copper resources on the map. The more abundant resource ought to be cheaper, therefore a fair trade would be 5 Irons for one Copper (both constituting half of the world supply).

A strategic modifier could and probably also should be involved, as to indicate the highest strategic important of Oil compared to, say, Corn.

The final touch should be that only those resources that are hooked to the international trade system of roads should be counted when their relative price is determined. For example, in the beginning of the game there could only be a couple of Spice squares developed, which should make them more valuable; the fact that there are 20 more on a remote uninhabited continent somewhere doesn’t really matter, since no one has access to them. Then later, when someone colonizes the continent the relative price of Spice would dramatically drop. This could even open up for a monopoly type behavior, when a player chooses to not hook up an abundant resource, just in order to artificially keep the relative price high. The trade-off for the player being that undeveloped resources don’t produce any extra hammers/food/commerce.

 

[rysmiel]

I think resources should have relative value to one another. For instance, let's say there are 10 Iron resources and 2 Copper resources on the map. The more abundant resource ought to be cheaper, therefore a fair trade would be 5 Irons for one Copper (both constituting half of the world supply).

This works if you want to assume market forces as an underlying feature of reality. If you construe the importance of market forces as a feature of the type of government you happen to be running, this might not always be appropriate.

A strategic modifier could and probably also should be involved, as to indicate the highest strategic important of Oil compared to, say, Corn.

Until such time as you get the tech for fermenting the corn and powering your engines with ethanol...