The logic behind resources bonuses

[kalandra]

I was wondering, why rice has the most pathetic bonus among the food resource. Euro/American-centricness? It feeds billions (literally) of population in Asia. In game wise, it you can't farm rice unless its near a water source unlike to cows, sheeps, horses, etc.

Just a small thought in my mind.

 

[Manco Capac]

Nutrion quality compared to Wheat or Corn?

 

[kalandra]

Nutrion quality compared to Wheat or Corn?

For most of human civilization history, food were mostly about filling our stomachs and getting energy out of it. The richer men of those times were probably eating meat anyway.

Nutritional values concerns came much later, at a time where we finally figure out about nutritional values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice#Nutrition_and_Health
And yes wheat probably has more nutrition than rice but corn? And from the chart, corn is the poorest supplier of energy than all the other staple foods.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the accuracy about the game, but I merely find it fairly weird to me how particularly bad rice bonuses are.

 

[Manco Capac]

I don't mind some attempt to understand dev's intentions as long it remains polite, logical and fun.

Looking at the Wiki page, indeed, I see I had a narrow image of what is rice. First, rice quality depends of several factors and what surprised me was the amount of calories brought by rice compared to other food sources. Also seems to be a good antioxidant.

But sometimes, decisions are random. Possibly, they wanted to make a lower grain bonus and they chose rice for the same superficial reasons as me.

We may also say:
Why silver plots have to normally spawn tundra and icy regions?
Why stone/marble has to be on plains instead of a grass tile?
Why Industrialisation tech obsoletes over any other techs fur bonus?
Etc. etc.

 

[noto2]

Yes I've wondered why Firaxis gave resources the bonuses they have. It's frustrating that many plantation resources give 4-5 commerce at a time when a cottage would be giving the same yield, and cottages will improve with printing press and free speech, so plantations actually reduce your commerce, they negatively affect your output. That rice gives less food than wheat is just probably some stupid arbitrary decision made on the part of the developers. Also, late game resource yields are painfully low. IMO oil should have a higher yield than gold, it is certainly more valuable, but again, its yield is so low that it actually reduces output.
As for Euro-centricism, it's possible that's what's going on here, but even then the developers failed hard. Wool and cotton were key components to jump starting the industrial revolution, as Europe borrowed and improved upon spinning techniques from elsewhere in the world, and eventually European spinning machines produced decent quality stuff in a fraction of the time. If we wanted to replicate a European advantage we'd have to make wool the best resource in the game, like 10 hammers and 10 commerce.

 

[Manco Capac]

Well, I think for oil, the devs made a bad output, but set up its value in AI's eyes correctly. It's the most expensive resource of all the game. Oil is strong by its after effect, more than directly...I think.

 

[Yudishtira]

IMO oil should have a higher yield than gold, it is certainly more valuable, but again, its yield is so low that it actually reduces output.

I know what you mean, but if petrol was $1500+/ounce like gold, we would need approx. $2.5 million to fuel our car each time...

 

[kalandra]

Yes I've wondered why Firaxis gave resources the bonuses they have. It's frustrating that many plantation resources give 4-5 commerce at a time when a cottage would be giving the same yield, and cottages will improve with printing press and free speech, so plantations actually reduce your commerce, they negatively affect your output. That rice gives less food than wheat is just probably some stupid arbitrary decision made on the part of the developers. Also, late game resource yields are painfully low. IMO oil should have a higher yield than gold, it is certainly more valuable, but again, its yield is so low that it actually reduces output.
As for Euro-centricism, it's possible that's what's going on here, but even then the developers failed hard. Wool and cotton were key components to jump starting the industrial revolution, as Europe borrowed and improved upon spinning techniques from elsewhere in the world, and eventually European spinning machines produced decent quality stuff in a fraction of the time. If we wanted to replicate a European advantage we'd have to make wool the best resource in the game, like 10 hammers and 10 commerce.

There is no need for such harsh sarcasm. I was just wondering whether there is actually a reason behind it or like what tachywaxon said, randomness.

One that kinda annoyed and surprised me though, stone seemed to be more less common than marble. Plenty of games where I was finding stone to speed up my pyramids, only to find marble but no stones.

 

[noto2]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The question of why the industrial revolution started in England instead of China/India is one of the most interesting topics in history. There have been many prominent theories floating around and I took 2 courses on the subject at a reputable university. To make a long story short - wool and spinning machines are involved in a couple of the more prominent theories. Anyway, there's no reason for rice to get the shaft. As you pointed out, rice has fed more people over the course of history than maize or wheat.
But I really do wish yields were higher for things like oil...I mean, look at regions that have a lot of oil, they are certainly wealthier than regions that have a lot of gold

 

[kalandra]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The question of why the industrial revolution started in England instead of China/India is one of the most interesting topics in history. There have been many prominent theories floating around and I took 2 courses on the subject at a reputable university. To make a long story short - wool and spinning machines are involved in a couple of the more prominent theories. Anyway, there's no reason for rice to get the shaft. As you pointed out, rice has fed more people over the course of history than maize or wheat.
But I really do wish yields were higher for things like oil...I mean, look at regions that have a lot of oil, they are certainly wealthier than regions that have a lot of gold

I understood what your saying there, though I didn't take any courses on it university, just a 10 minute youtube video.


Link to video.

 

[Kid R]

Is rice really "pathetic"? It's just 1 less than the other grains, and is buffed by being a key ingredient of sushi.

I think it's just random variation the developers put in, like the traits allocated to some leaders we sometimes talk about and try hard to read national insults into

I agree the science suggests corn should be the weakest of the grains. Perhaps they felt that would weaken the new world too much on the Civ 4 Earth map.

 

[noto2]

Hmm...I don't know...China has a lot of coal, perhaps it is on average farther below the surface than it was in Britain but I haven't heard that before

 

[nerdfighter13]

Those crash course videos are awesome.

 

[kalandra]

Is rice really "pathetic"? It's just 1 less than the other grains, and is buffed by being a key ingredient of sushi.

I think it's just random variation the developers put in, like the traits allocated to some leaders we sometimes talk about and try hard to read national insults into

I agree the science suggests corn should be the weakest of the grains. Perhaps they felt that would weaken the new world too much on the Civ 4 Earth map.

The other two grains produced 2 food, they didn't need to make them different, but strangely they did it for rice.

Hmm...I don't know...China has a lot of coal, perhaps it is on average farther below the surface than it was in Britain but I haven't heard that before

Well the argument was not Britain had coal, but Britain had cheap coal. Further down the surface probably make it rather expensive.

 

[elmurcis]

I would like to get sea resources (maybe won't work as great for land based resources) as "limited resource" but renewable during the time..
My example - turn 1, fish tile has 100 food.. can use it all if want but... it will has just like 6% regrowth rate for clam/crab and 8% for fish.. (don't care about nature and use 50 foods, have 50 remaining and next turn it grows back just to 53 or 54 etc , be nice and use 5 or 6 foods and next turn its back to 100)

 

[damerell]

As for Euro-centricism, it's possible that's what's going on here, but even then the developers failed hard. Wool and cotton were key components to jump starting the industrial revolution, as Europe borrowed and improved upon spinning techniques from elsewhere in the world, and eventually European spinning machines produced decent quality stuff in a fraction of the time. If we wanted to replicate a European advantage we'd have to make wool the best resource in the game, like 10 hammers and 10 commerce.

Except presumably that was not the aim - the last thing we want in Civ is the situation in reality where one part of the world snowballs and turns up on everyone else's doorsteps with "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

 

[nerdfighter13]

Very good book. In history we have been learning about how the Spanish conquered the America's. The Spanish had advantages such as guns and horses, and the Incas had just had a civil war. In civ terms this means the Spanish had horse and iron, while the Incas were recovering from anarchy.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

I don't have much to add to the thread, but since I just watched this yesterday, it's still fresh in my mind. History Channel has some series called "Mankind" that I've been gobbling up. Just got to the part where they discuss Aztecs/Incas/etc. pre- and post-Spaniards, and they mentioned that corn has more calories per acre than any other crop. Which made corn farming one of the most important things about the Age of Exploration, I guess.

Still, even from a Midwestern American point of view, can't help but notice that rice just happens to be the chief grain of the continent that's had half the world's population for the last few millenia. Must be something to that.

 

[noto2]

Except presumably that was not the aim - the last thing we want in Civ is the situation in reality where one part of the world snowballs and turns up on everyone else's doorsteps with "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

yeah...it might make for an interesting scenario, but certainly not the base game. Can you imagine the game mechanic for the "germs" part of that equation??? You lose 1 pop in each city each turn until more than half your cities are gone and the rest drop to 1. yay!!!

 

[Culture Bomb]

If you're looking at resources that don't really make much sense, what about Stone vs Marble? So you can build the Great Library faster from marble, but Oxford University faster from any other type of stone except marble...