Suggestion for balance of strategic resources

Uberness · Aug 30, 2007

I think that some of the strategic resources can be abit to few and far between and can just completly ruin a civ if it doesn't have access to one or two of them to build a unit (such as priest of leaves, ritualists, the rarely seen stonewarden) and leaves the game much more up to chance on what kind of random numbers generated the map.

Here is what I suggest, make it abit similiar to warrior axemen macemen and some golems, where the resource isn't required, but gives a boost.

Gunpowder: resource -25% construction cost to gunpowder units, or just remove gunpowder as a resource.

Regeants incense and gems: -25% gold upgrade cost, -25% production for units effected by it, +25% production cost to priests, or instead free promotion with resource.
Perhaps also only required to upgrade from conjurer and mage to summoner and archmage and priest to high priest.

Iffy changes: Iron golems -50% production with iron, increased production cost 40%, doesn't require iron, possibly add stone and gold golems.

Pandemonis · Aug 30, 2007

Uberness said:
[...]

No resource should be so critical the game isnt worth playing if you don't have it.

I disagree. Going to war (or using diplomacy) because you lack a certain type of resource is a vital dynamic of the game. Protecting them and their access is also critical, and part of the best dynamic of Civ.

brainpan · Aug 30, 2007

True, except I believe Uberness is probably focusing upon the dynamics of a multi-player game.

Nobody in their right mind will give the elves or followers of FotL incense, nor will they give regeants to the Sheaim. It is likely that those who lack critical resources in a MP game will never obtain them, or the effort to control them will essentially bring about a victory.

I believe the game would be improved by guaranteeing that step between the creation of certain civ and religion-specific units and ultimate victory. I think that is also a vital dynamic of the game, and it wouldn't preclude the need to protect all the other resources not mentioned by Uberness.

PS- I'll be home Monday, Uber. Hope you're ready to get pwned!

(I mean to own me)

Pandemonis · Aug 31, 2007

I see your point, now. Maybe some resource should be able to be player-created, based on the accomplishment of a quest/heroic deed. Im thinking on creating Mammoth camp à la Age of Ice scenario.

giddion · Sep 3, 2007

In single player I use diplomacy to trade happy or health resources off as bribes, this allows some manipulation of the game. Getting a strategically based ally helps heaps.

I haven't actually played MP, i think the game needs to force the use of it.
In MP you need players to start off fighting for them selves up to a certain point, then force players into alliances based on the way they have been interacting and needs to be restricted to a 2 player alliance.
You could even make a sudden death at the end which destroys the alliance, and forces them to fight it out.

It would need to be based on how the players have interacted with them and treated them. This would force the use of diplomacy more in MP, it ensures you align with the right player for both the early and late game.

You could get some interesting combos.

Vulcans · Sep 3, 2007

brainpan said:
True, except I believe Uberness is probably focusing upon the dynamics of a multi-player game.

Nobody in their right mind will give the elves or followers of FotL incense, nor will they give regeants to the Sheaim. It is likely that those who lack critical resources in a MP game will never obtain them, or the effort to control them will essentially bring about a victory.

I believe the game would be improved by guaranteeing that step between the creation of certain civ and religion-specific units and ultimate victory. I think that is also a vital dynamic of the game, and it wouldn't preclude the need to protect all the other resources not mentioned by Uberness.

PS- I'll be home Monday, Uber. Hope you're ready to get pwned! (I mean to own me)