Stuck with my saltpetre disappearing just when I need it

[Optional]

Sounds like very good advice to me, Overseer. I don't think it needs to be that much work either. Why all the build changes? If you started a build, you can finish it, even when you lose the resource.
What can be handy to know as well, if you go hooking up and pillaging every turn, is that the game checks whether a resource is in any of your city boxes. So if a resource would be on a mountain, which would take quite a few workers to hook up every turn, maybe it's possible to tackle just a road to the resource. The resource will not deplete if it doesn't appear in any of your city boxes.

 

[TheOverseer714]

It's when you finish a build, you can't build the same thing without the resource. So you put a "placeholder" build that if it happened to finish wouldn't be bad either. So build infantry as a tank or bomber or mech infantry placeholder, hook up the resource and switch to what you realy want. Then unhook the resource before ending the turn. Works for me.

 

[ecuwins]

So if a resource would be on a mountain, which would take quite a few workers to hook up every turn, maybe it's possible to tackle just a road to the resource. The resource will not deplete if it doesn't appear in any of your city boxes.

Great point -- if you have just one road leading to the resource then pillage said road on a grassland/plain tile as opposed to the road upon the hill or mountain where the resource lay. I imagine this would be the case for Iron on the edge of one's empire. But if it is in the middle there may be a road leading to it from every direction.

 

[iguana1]

If we didn't do anything that exploits the AI's stupidity, we wouldn't use armies because the AI doesn't know how to use them, or mass artillery, or tighten city spacing, or build on rivers for the free aqueduct, etc., etc., etc. I think I'll continue playing my way, and you will play your way, but I think my tip is still solid advice for anyone in a situation similar to the one that started this thread.

In my opinion there is a big difference between doing something that "exploits the AI's stupidity" and doing something that changes the rules of the game. From reading some of the threads, I may be one of the few people that really likes the trade and diplomacy model established in Civ 3. I really like the aspect of having to trade for limited/unavailable natural resources and luxury items. Some of my favorite games I've played are ones in which I lacked some critical resource and had to find a way to get it from another nation - whether it be by trade, extortion or conquest.

To each his own and I'm not here to say you shouldn't use your "strategy" if you are fine with it. I'm just offering up an opinion that others may or may not want alter the game rules in this manner. A big part of that is likely geared around how you play. I'm not a "win at all cost" kind of guy and I'm usually not much of a warmonger either although I do generally have more than my share of wars. I play the game in a 'psuedo role-play' mode. For me the most fun is in watching how the world unfolds and keeping a running history of the world - either in my head or in game notes. I generally steer toward a diplimatic or space race victory in most of my games and try to keep a pretty clean reputation with the AI.

Here is a composite picture of a game I have where I had 1 Oil on an entire standard continent:

Spoiler :

And the save for verification: http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/110452/Ragnar_Lodbrok_of_the_Vikings_1834_AD.SAV

This continent had 2 other civs on it. If you load the save, you'd notice the other continent has at least four Oil on it. If my oil had depleted, I would have had a hard time grabbing it without modern units. I would have had to "exploit" the AI to do it.

This is exactly how the game is designed to work - it's one of the areas that models the real world half way decently. Rarely are natural resources like oil readily available to the whole world. The game tends to stock these resources in a way that a couple of nations will likely control all them and the others will have to trade or conquer to get access to them. Circumventing the game rules to protect your only source completely removes an entire feature from the game. However, I am not saying you can't or shouldn't do this. My point is that I wouldn't do this and it is something for others to consider if they decide to use this "method" in their games.

 

[Optional]

I've rarely agreed with a post more than the above, Iguana. I would want to quote some points that pleased me most, but then I would be repeating the whole post.
I think, if I would be in a situation where a resource would be critical to me, I would still let it depend on chance whether I lost it or not. But maybe I'll change my mind if I once get caught out with a resource depleting.

 

[12 Bar Blues]

The thing is that the ressource unhooking technic doesn't exploit the AI, but the game mechanics.

 

[iguana1]

The thing is that the ressource unhooking technic doesn't exploit the AI, but the game mechanics.

Someday I have to learn this trick. That's exactly the point I was trying to make but it took me quite a few more words to express it!

 

[TheOverseer714]

As does ship-chaining. I am at heart a problem-solver, and I am not averse to using the solution at hand. AFAIK, there is no "Civilization Code of Ethics" that exists. The closest thing to it might be the XOTM and HOF rules, which I follow when playing those. Meanwhile, I will continue playing as I see fit in my solo. If you play a different way, it's your choice. To each his own.