Strategic resource dependency

[Nixalo]

For civilizations who are known for existing during a time period and not using a certain strategic resource, how dependent should they be on those resources? In the past, Civ games gave North and South American civs units that didn't need iron. Also Civ gave desert civs camel units and some civs elephant units to ignore horses need. This allowed them to worry less on those resources for their military until the mid to late game and create additional cities with other priorities.

What we know of civs is that they have 4 components, an unique ability and 3 other aspects. This means it is very unlikely to strip all of a resource from a civ. There probably won't be enough for complete removal without using every component.

So how hard should the idea be pushed? Should Monty get no Iron using military units? Or does Mayans in plate armor not bother you?

What about the reverse? Could some civs have their strategic resource dependency increased for more power?

My opinion is if dependency or the lack of it are important to the civilization's flavor, it should be big or not happen at all. If a civilization doesn't need iron or horses much, then it should be able to really ignore it.

 

[dexters]

Historically the native American civilizations that lacked iron or steel also fielded inferior armies to their contemporaries. I don't feel there is any further need to incentivize resourceless play by making some civs do without a strategic resource. Now, some UUs could be possible (ie: Japanese zeros doesn't need oil)
But they need to be balanced overall.



Civ5 resource dependency is ideal as everyone could conceivably get access to some of every resource but desire for more will drive diplomacy and warfare. Pre Civ5 the system was punishing. You only needed 1 instance to equip all your army but it is very easy to get screwed out of a resource or if seriously unlucky multiple.

 

[moysturfurmer]

If like to see Elephant units require the Elephant/Ivory resource again. Give South Asian Civs a starting bias favoring those resources and it should be okay. It'd also be cool if /any/ civ can use elephant cav if they have the ivory resource and an applicable Wildcard policy in place.

I think I'd even go as far as to say the same about camels.

 

[shaglio]

Ultimately, Civ is a game of "what if?" What if the Aztecs had access to iron? What if the Mayan's wore plate armor? I wouldn't want them to focus too strictly on the civs' real life limitations or it would become too much of a historical simulator.

 

[dexters]

Ultimately, Civ is a game of "what if?" What if the Aztecs had access to iron? What if the Mayan's wore plate armor? I wouldn't want them to focus too strictly on the civs' real life limitations or it would become too much of a historical simulator.

Or rather offset their real life limitations by giving them equivalent swordsman and knight units without the need for iron and steel. That's what I'm objecting to mostly

 

[Nixalo]

Historically the native American civilizations that lacked iron or steel also fielded inferior armies to their contemporaries. I don't feel there is any further need to incentivize resourceless play by making some civs do without a strategic resource. Now, some UUs could be possible (ie: Japanese zeros doesn't need oil)
But they need to be balanced overall.

Having them be equal versions than dont the resource is boring and nonsensical.


If Aztec Jaguars replace Default swordsmen, they shouldnot have equal or better power. They should be as strong only in forests or jungles. Or move faster.

Civ5 resource dependency is ideal as everyone could conceivably get access to some of every resource but desire for more will drive diplomacy and warfare. Pre Civ5 the system was punishing. You only needed 1 instance to equip all your army but it is very easy to get screwed out of a resource or if seriously unlucky multiple.

Civ 5s system wasn't great either. Resource drops were so random that unless your UU or UB needs it, skipping it was too temping an option.

Civs should not skip strategic resources unless it is part of their theme.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm hoping that Civ VI uses a strategic resource system similar to that in vanilla Civ V, before they nerfed it into pointlessness. Lack of resources should be a real consideration for going to war.

 

[Acken]

I'm hoping that Civ VI uses a strategic resource system similar to that in vanilla Civ V, before they nerfed it into pointlessness. Lack of resources should be a real consideration for going to war.

This. Can't really remember Civ5 vanilla but the uselessness of iron and horses for most of the game in Civ5 is annoying.

Ressourceless Bows shouldn't be your main army.

 

[Larsenex]

This. Can't really remember Civ5 vanilla but the uselessness of iron and horses for most of the game in Civ5 is annoying.

Ressource-less Bows shouldn't be your main army.

^^^ I would like a bit more dependency on resources as well. It greatly limited warmongers but didn't STOP them which is both good and bad. It just made them smart on where and when to attack. Got 7 iron? Make 7 legionnaires.

One idea is that if you HAVE a resource such as iron, rather than limit production of that unit (Legionnaire) instead give the first ones you build up to the resource limit an
attack and/or a defense boost due to the presence of that resource for that unit.
Also we can then give those resource boosted units either a name or a higher tier....

Legionnaire #45

Elite Legionnaire #3

 

[Battlehelm043]

I agree, the resource need/use can be improved upon and provides the best path for creating limiting factors. With Happiness now at the local level I feel we will see possibly ivory being moved to a necessary resource for say war elephants. Further I have a feeling they will improve the units so resources actually matter throughout the game. To be quite honest with Happiness relatively retooled and essentially gone it does open the possibility for many more resource uses.

On the note of should other civs have equivalent units that don't require strategic resources; I must say the point of that is chance. You have a chance at having that resource and if not you need to rely on diplomacy to obtain those resources. Which is very much what happens in the real world. It requires one group to treat with another to achieve a set of self determined goals. In regards to giving a boots to units before you run out of a resource quantity; it sounds interesting but I feel it still makes it pointless then to trade that resource or trade for it, because then you will have units that constantly lose elite status when deals expire, or you game the system.

 

[bite]

I did like the I have 3 iron, do I build swordmen or catapults

 

[Redaxe]

Having them be equal versions than dont the resource is boring and nonsensical.

If Aztec Jaguars replace Default swordsmen, they shouldnot have equal or better power. They should be as strong only in forests or jungles. Or move faster.

Absolutely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eAOqpIy2B0

Jaguars in my opinion should be quite cheap to produce - a bit weaker then swordsmen (and certainly weaker then Longswords) but much stronger than gunpowder units in forests or jungles. English Redcoats didn't wear much in the way of armor and early muskets weren't real efficient so a muscled warrior with an obsidian club could certainly overpower a musketman in an ambush

 

[AriochIV]

They've done a pretty good job recently of giving unique units interesting attributes and promotions instead of just +strength. It's both more realistic and also allows some of the benefits to persist into later eras with the units are upgraded.

 

[dexters]

I did like the I have 3 iron, do I build swordmen or catapults

Ditto. Or I have 3 aluminum. I need more!

 

[Nixalo]

Absolutely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eAOqpIy2B0

Jaguars in my opinion should be quite cheap to produce - a bit weaker then swordsmen (and certainly weaker then Longswords) but much stronger than gunpowder units in forests or jungles. English Redcoats didn't wear much in the way of armor and early muskets weren't real efficient so a muscled warrior with an obsidian club could certainly overpower a musketman in an ambush

Maybe not that much.
An Aztec jaguar should be noticeably weaker than a default Swordsman but in the the jungle or forest as stronger or stronger than a Roman Legion. The Strength of the Aztecs should be that they don't need iron and thus can carpet of doom them. But the Roman legion should be by far the superior unit.

 

[Cyon]

I would like it to be double use of strategic resources, iron could be used for catapult and swordsmen and heavy Knight or be used for a workshop that cost three iron, horses could be used in circus maximus of cavalry, elephants could be used for ivory, war elephants or later circus and turism. The only such choice in civ 5 are with the late stuff such as uranium for bombs or powerplants

 

[x2Madda]

I did like the I have 3 iron, do I build swordmen or catapults

Except it was still a none choice in base Civ5.
You could still build spearmen to soak up attacks and taking cities was so much harder n base civ5 that it just made sense to take the 3 catapults.

When catapults not needing iron came along, we also got composite bowmen who were superior in every way except bonus city damage due to not needing to set up prior to attack, being able to move and shoot in the same turn, being able to upgrade to crossbowmen way before trebuchet could upgrade to cannon with the bonus of being on a good tech path...

And then their is the "I have no iron but Monty does, and he is here to deliver it to me, pointy end first" where your only hope was to carpet bomb him with inferior units and again, given the combat system in base civ5, you were more likely to not be able to take a city without iron when faced with a warmonger AI.

I don't miss the old system.
As for the OP question, the consistantly most popular mods on steam workshop are the ones that add new buildings or interesting leader perks, not unique units. With that in mind, it seems that general consensus is that UU seemingly don't have a great impact to most players enjoyment of the game. I think therefore the way civ 5 handled it is fine. Its not perfect, for example not having iron as the Romans, but it wasn't as polarizing as base civ5 either where early warfare really did depend a lot on iron.
I think going to the other extreme however like the mayans not being allowed to use iron is going too far in the direction of a historical simulation, which civ games are not.

 

[dexters]

To be fair, the harshness of lacking a resource has long been smoothed out.

When the mechanic was first added in Civ3, not having a strategic resource could mean the entire game is ruined. People raged to no end.

I don't necessary think not having your entire game ruined when you lack a resource is a 'non choice'
It still places significant limitations on what you as a player can do.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I'm hoping that Civ VI uses a strategic resource system similar to that in vanilla Civ V, before they nerfed it into pointlessness. Lack of resources should be a real consideration for going to war.

I have great memories of epic wars in Civ III fought over oil and rubber. Though strategic resource dependence was probably a little too strict in that game.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

As for the OP question, the consistantly most popular mods on steam workshop are the ones that add new buildings or interesting leader perks, not unique units. With that in mind, it seems that general consensus is that UU seemingly don't have a great impact to most players enjoyment of the game. I think therefore the way civ 5 handled it is fine. Its not perfect, for example not having iron as the Romans, but it wasn't as polarizing as base civ5 either where early warfare really did depend a lot on iron.

I, for one, beg to disagree here: since I like to roleplay a bit, I like using the UU and I think I'm not the only one here. Anyone who likes to play USA/england/arabia/mongols is strongly because of UUs.
Maybe the most popular mods on steam are for buildings because we already have enough fun & useful units to play with whereas not so much on buildings.