The least useful strategic resource

[CrackedCrystal]

I know that all the strategic resources are important, but if you had to go without one of them, which would you give up and why?

 

[MTheil3508]

Uranium

Two reasons:
1. Games don't last to modern age
2. Nukes and AEGIS Cruisers usually don't play a major role

 

[DiamondzAndGunz]

Originally posted by MTheil3508
Uranium

Two reasons:
1. Games don't last to modern age
2. Nukes and AEGIS Cruisers usually don't play a major role

You need uranium for one of the spaceship parts. A very important resource if you are going for a space victory.

I would have to say horses. I can hold out without horsemen/knights/cavalry throughout the game. Although they do help quite a bit, I can certainly do without. Also, if you are playing as India, their importance is decreased even further, due to the war elephant not requireing resources.

 

[MTheil3508]

I would have to say horses.

Knock out 11 units out of the game and 7 UUs!?!? I would have never have thought about it unless I read it.

(opps... horses were my second choice )

 

[DiamondzAndGunz]

Well, of course, if you choose a civ that does not have a UU that relies on horses, you'll be fine.
Or, if you take the "peaceful builder" route.
Or, if you prefer to do all your combat in the ancient/industrial/modern ages.

Besides, you just posted in another thread that you build and use nukes all the time.

 

[MTheil3508]

Besides, you just posted in another thread that you build and use nukes all the time.

Oh... that... wasn't meeee... I would never...
(Dang, I knew...oh wait he can see this on the screen)

 

[Perfection]

I'd go with saltpeter only reall necessary for early industrail age.

 

[CrackedCrystal]

Originally posted by DiamondzAndGunz
You need uranium for one of the spaceship parts.

Don't forget, you need it for the Apollo wonder as well. tHough I think I would sacrifice Uranium first. I never use nukes, and thus no Nuclear subs. And AGEIS crusiers I use very rarely.

I would probably go for a cultural win instead.

 

[Sirp]

Well, if I was told at the start of a game that I could choose one resource that I couldn't use throughout the entire game, I'd definitely choose uranium. Yup, it means no spaceship victory, but there are lots of other ways to win.

Playing without horses has actually been done: See Sirian's Infantry Variant in the Succession Games thread.

-Sirp.

 

[Aggie]

It's possible to win the game without uranum (culture, diplomacy, conquest, domination). It's far more difficult without on of the other resources...

 

[Perfection]

Not really you can do pretty well withou saltpeter

 

[piderman]

Why are SO many people voting horses? In the middle ages, are there any units as fast as knights or as strong as cavalry? I can't do without.

 

[el_kalkylus]

You don't need salpeter to build riflemen. After nationalism, do you need salpeter at all?

 

[Sirp]

el_kalkylus: You need saltpeter to build cavalry. Cavalry are useful at least up until replaceable parts, and probably until motornized transport. They are the primary offensive unit for close to the length of an era.

Additionally, saltpeter is needed for cannons, which are also very important in some situations. They are needed for frigates too, but frigates are of dubious value.

I am currently in a game where I lack saltpeter and it's killing me, surprisingly not for lack of horses, but because I can't build cannons and most importantly frigates, so there's no way I'd put saltpeter on the list

If you want to know the story behind this, check out my "Always War on Deity" story in the stories and tales section. When I get my story up to the late-medieval era, you'll see why I'm so desperate for saltpeter.

-Sirp.

 

[dojoboy]

I would never want to be without any of them when I needed them. But, I voted for saltpeter. Why? Well, its not needed for riflemen or infantry, so defense is never an issue. Infantry have the same fire power as cavalry, which need saltpeter. And, saltpeter is not needed for tanks.

 

[Park Ranger]

I voted saltpeter but I've had to make do in a few games without coal. I've always managed to trade for it so for 20 turns my workers do nothing but build RR's. Anyway depending on the situation going without coal isn't that bad - at least you're not hampered militarily and can go after a source....

Going without saltpeter is tough until you get nationalism, then at least you have a chance defensively against civs with cavalry.

Even though I've never used a nuke I always build some for "deterrence" value, so I like to have Uranium at least for 20 turns. I like nuclear subs too, don't the require Uranium?

 

[china444]

I think this is a bad question. Every resource is unique and useful in its own time and way. They all are worth the same in their certain age.

 

[warpstorm]

I agree with china444, they are all useful. Just play a game where you can't get one and see how it impacts your game. I think I've been 'shorted' each of them except for horses in the games I've played. (By this I mean that there was just no way to get the resource and I had to do without it for the entire game).

Having said that the one that had the least impact was Saltpeter. This seems to have the shortest useful life.

 

[Mercade]

Originally posted by warpstorm
I agree with china444, they are all useful. Just play a game where you can't get one and see how it impacts your game. I think I've been 'shorted' each of them except for horses in the games I've played. (By this I mean that there was just no way to get the resource and I had to do without it for the entire game).

Having said that the one that had the least impact was Saltpeter. This seems to have the shortest useful life.

Agreed on both accounts. Every strategic resource has its use. I certainly appreciate musketmen to guard my cities, but surviving without salpeter isn't so bad as doing withour horsies or coal .

 

[dreadknought]

Ive played several games with no horses and had no problem but I tend to go to war in the industrial ages (tanks-planes).....dread