Strategic resource dependency

[stealth_nsk]

The problem with 5 though is not that they become useless. It's that they are useless from the start and mostly a source of gold.

It's a problem of overall combat balance to me. Ranged units are too strong and they don't require resources.

 

[dexters]

The problem with 5 though is not that they become useless. It's that they are useless from the start and mostly a source of gold.

You're probably overstating it now. Horses I agree. post nerf.

Iron is pretty useful as it unlocks melee units through to longswords. For warfare, upgraded melee units still useful for sieges. Can't have a bunch of pikes the AI punches through while setting up a seige.

 

[Ryika]

It probably depends a lot on the goal, too. Never got into deep strategy with Civ5, but in general people seem to trade away iron in pretty much any situation that they're not trying to play offensively.

And even if they play offensively they will usually just build a couple of Iron-Units and still trade away most of the Iron if another player wants them.

Seems to be mostly a balance issue.

 

[Callonia]

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.

I remember starting wars after massing a bunch of longbowmen in civ3 just for iron. Those tend to be bloody for me.

Anyways, resource scarcity don't really work when resources self obsoletes themselves by default. And generic resourceless units tend to be strong enough to not worry about resource units. I think they was only really ever a concern to some degree in civ3.

I'm like, I don't have iron? Well okay whatever I don't really care I can just field spears.
Only time when its a pain is when I wanna frigates and I cannot build any.

And then that time period where I want alot of ironclads but only can have like 3.

Then oil for planes or tanks/battleships.

I think those three times is only times when resource scarcity really matters. Other than that, doesn't matter at all. It might matter if a unit took up more than one resource to run. Like a single Panzer unit = +3 Iron/+1 Oil to field.

 

[Staal]

Resource could change use in later periods.

For example steel is required for modern units. Steel is produced by factories and requires iron/coal. Horses give a small amenity/happiness bonus in modern times etc.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Iron and horses for example could be later required for buildings (that actually consume them, not like circus). Iron for example could be required for some [insert] building that gives some kind of significant production bonus. Plus maybe giving a bonus to production for factories (coal still being a requirement to build it in the first place) etc.
Same with horses, but different effects, say food (and maybe some happiness). Some [insert] building that consumes one horse as with iron and plus some food related building that gets a bonus to food etc.

As for the units...

I would further enforce the rock paper scissors 3+1 system and make it available from start. Crudely explained spear beats horse, horse beats sword, sword beats spear with arrow being ranged +1 that can damage all, but also can get wiped by all. That being the base available from start with all kinds of other hybrids and UU's mixing it up a little.
Anyway the idea is that the core 3+1 being available from start, and it's better gear that is upgraded upon tech progress and resource availability. Like I have 10 str sword (bronze) after bronze working, 12 str horse after horse riding and 9 str spear after bronze working (with arrow after archery of course).
AND after iron working and iron resource I upgrade my sword to 16 str (iron). Same later with steel, 24 str sword (steel). Same with horses getting steel > being knight counterparts etc etc.

Anyway that's how I'd do it, instead of not having a whole unit type available to you (infantry / sword).

 

[Acken]

You're probably overstating it now. Horses I agree. post nerf.

Iron is pretty useful as it unlocks melee units through to longswords. For warfare, upgraded melee units still useful for sieges. Can't have a bunch of pikes the AI punches through while setting up a seige.

Im pretty sure im not overstating anything. The imbalance in favor of range is such that people just ignore it for cbs and xbs and that indeed a couple pikes are enough. Maybe a couple muskets later on and then you guessed it its artillery time.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Agreed, ranged units should be weaker both in melee and with their ranged attacks.

Your mod is amazing BTW, never did I have so much fun with a V game. It's modern era and I'm still going at it. Usually I get bored in industrial. Almost lost by culture twice in one game, Belgrade and Milan destroyed Ottoman Empire... so many interesting stuff happened.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Crushing ranged dominance needs to go first, makes no sense to have that in the game.

If you make strat resource units too strong you can easily have "spawned to your death" scenarios for players or AI, IE you get decent odds of someone being kill-able early on with no counter-play available to them. Civ 4 had that, someone with BFC copper could pillage you out of the game no matter how many archers you produced and as far as I know serious MP had to have pre-made/doctored type maps to be viable. I don't miss that.

However having strategic resources ideally should mean something, otherwise they're not actually serving their stated purpose.

 

[dexters]

Im pretty sure im not overstating anything. The imbalance in favor of range is such that people just ignore it for cbs and xbs and that indeed a couple pikes are enough. Maybe a couple muskets later on and then you guessed it its artillery time.

We agree ranged is too strong. Unless I misunderstood you in the previous post, you implied there's no need to use iron for anything due to this imbalance "useless from the start". I don't agree. I rely on them to set up screens for my ranged. Spears/pikes are just way too squishy

 

[Acken]

Well considering the underlying problem is with ranged units i wont pursue this issue very far since the topic is more cebtered around late game use of these strategics. But i sincerely disagree that youd pass 2gpt per strategic and the opportunity cost of making the tech detour to IW or steel. Hell i dont know a single player doing that.

Lets be clear though. Iron units are stronger than spear units. But melee is soooo bad that my point is that you dont even need the iron units.