The logic behind resources bonuses

[robbyextreme]

Lol funny one is taj mahal becoming available before astronomy. Pretty sure global currency is the reason that thing was able to be built.

 

[SquirrelCensus]

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 might be a conscious decision on the part of the developers, they force you to choose weather the resource or the gold is more important. In real life, a town might be more profitable than a banana plantation, BUT if you don't build that plantation you can't grow and distribute bananas. You, Dear Leader, have to make that call: Do I build a cottage and increase the commerce of my empire, or do I build a plantation and increase the health/happiness/bargaining power of my empire?

 

[Alchemind]

Rice is a pathetic crop and should be shamed.

 

[noto2]

@squirrel: I doubt the devs were doing it intentionally...I mean...have you seen the rest of the game? Firaxis doesn't appear to understand the concept of balance

 

[nfw]

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".

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not.

 

[noto2]

@nfw: why? Although civ games might have runaway civs, it's not nearly as imbalanced as real life. If you were to try to base a saved game on history you would have to have the British with factories, coal plants, and something in between a red coat and modern infantry, as well as destroyers, when India and China are still using medieval units like chokonus and galleons, and the native Americans would be using bronze age units. It would be realistic, but it wouldn't be very fun

 

[Apricottage]

@nfw: why? Although civ games might have runaway civs, it's not nearly as imbalanced as real life. If you were to try to base a saved game on history you would have to have the British with factories, coal plants, and something in between a red coat and modern infantry, as well as destroyers, when India and China are still using medieval units like chokonus and galleons, and the native Americans would be using bronze age units. It would be realistic, but it wouldn't be very fun

Agreed. Games would be pointless, because the winner would always be the one who historically won (with a few EXTREMELY notable exceptions, like the American Revolution: it's shocking how incredibly CLOSE that victory was).

Regarding resources... I guess I'd mostly just like to see later resources get more of a bonus. Right now, there's no difference between Copper and Coal (although Aluminum is marginally better), and Gold blows all the Calendar resources out of the water. Oil was brought up; it's ridiculous how bad it is given how late in the game it appears (and what tiles it appears on). It's the Islam problem all over again. Actually, this problem kind of resounds through the entire game: the devs completely failed to make the late-game scale up in power appropriately so that it's balanced with the early-game. Oh well.

 

[nfw]

@nfw: why? Although civ games might have runaway civs, it's not nearly as imbalanced as real life. If you were to try to base a saved game on history you would have to have the British with factories, coal plants, and something in between a red coat and modern infantry, as well as destroyers, when India and China are still using medieval units like chokonus and galleons, and the native Americans would be using bronze age units. It would be realistic, but it wouldn't be very fun

Isn't that the point? Or do you try and become the weakest civ in your game?

 

[damerell]

Isn't that the point? Or do you try and become the weakest civ in your game?

Ah, I see the problem. Let me explain. Of course we as players try to become as strong as possible; we want to win. But the game should provide us with a fair chance to do so - it doesn't make us play 1,000 turns of not developing Agriculture because it makes no sense in the terrain we started in and then getting curb stomped by Europeans - and with a challenging game when we do try it, so equally we never turn up after discovering Astronomy to find aborigines who can simply be murdered for their land (given that a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral).

 

[Apricottage]

Isn't that the point? Or do you try and become the weakest civ in your game?

Let's put it this way.

Do you want to play as the Australian Aborigines, who haven't discovered anything but Mysticism and Hunting by the time the British show up with Riflemen? Similarly, do you want to play as the British in that war?

 

[kalandra]

@nfw: why? Although civ games might have runaway civs, it's not nearly as imbalanced as real life. If you were to try to base a saved game on history you would have to have the British with factories, coal plants, and something in between a red coat and modern infantry, as well as destroyers, when India and China are still using medieval units like chokonus and galleons, and the native Americans would be using bronze age units. It would be realistic, but it wouldn't be very fun

I think most native americans civilizations at that time - the "Red Indians" civilization, the Aztecs and the Inca still haven't developed metal working. That why thier unique units doesn't require metal.

 

[noto2]

It depends. From north to south America you realize we're talking about...what...over a hundred different languages, so over 100 different "civilizations"..and I'm just talking about the major ones (that numbered into the hundred thousands at least). It's true that in S. America obsidian was widely used, and was the choice material for tools and weapons, but I'm sure somewhere in the new world someone had worked copper. There was widespread gold smithing going on, so I'm sure there were other types of metals being worked.

 

[nfw]

Ah, I see the problem. Let me explain. Of course we as players try to become as strong as possible; we want to win. But the game should provide us with a fair chance to do so - it doesn't make us play 1,000 turns of not developing Agriculture because it makes no sense in the terrain we started in and then getting curb stomped by Europeans - and with a challenging game when we do try it, so equally we never turn up after discovering Astronomy to find aborigines who can simply be murdered for their land (given that a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral).

So if I find a barbarian village on some island, (though the aborigines would be more akin to tribal villages) I should not take it so not to hurt the feeling of imaginary people?

 

[nfw]

Let's put it this way.

Do you want to play as the Australian Aborigines, who haven't discovered anything but Mysticism and Hunting by the time the British show up with Riflemen? Similarly, do you want to play as the British in that war?

I try to development my empire to be the British to AI's AAs, that is basically the point of this game.

 

[Rusty Edge]

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.

I was doing some research and calculations. From a production standpoint, corn yields are about a third higher than rice yields in the US. So maybe the game isn't so arbitrary.

I'm guessing that sugar cane has the highest energy yield/acre in the places which can grow it. At least as I recall, fuel alcohol comes from cane in Brazil.

 

[Quasar1011]

Why silver plots have to normally spawn tundra and icy regions?
Why stone/marble has to be on plains instead of a grass tile?

When I make my own Civ IV maps, I usually place those resources in hills. Making maps gives you control over some of these things.

 

[damerell]

So if I find a barbarian village on some island, (though the aborigines would be more akin to tribal villages) I should not take it so not to hurt the feeling of imaginary people?

No; a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral. Didn't I say that?

I really don't understand your objection here.

 

[nfw]

No; a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral. Didn't I say that?

I really don't understand your objection here.

Then what is your objection in post #16?

 

[calibur]

Then what is your objection in post #16?

As I see it, he wants, as most do, that the game be relatively balanced, and that game-play decides who wins more so than starting position, though that's obviously a major factor.
It seems to us that you want it to be unbalanced and, if given an opportunity, to be able to wipe out all your foes with little competition. If so, why not just WB in some modern armor and gunships and go ravage the world?

 

[nfw]

As I see it, he wants, as most do, that the game be relatively balanced, and that game-play decides who wins more so than starting position, though that's obviously a major factor.

An early rush can let you snowball your rivals, should I refrain from doing so?

It seems to us that you want it to be unbalanced and, if given an opportunity, to be able to wipe out all your foes with little competition.

Ahh yeah, no **** sherlock. That's the point, you try and create a power imbalance and then fully exploit it. Or what? If I get a good start I should handicap myself? Or if I find some primitive screwheads I shouldn't curbstomp them (further) back into the stone age?

If so, why not just WB in some modern armor and gunships and go ravage the world?

Because there's a difference between creating the imbalance from a random start, and having it be imbalanced to begin with? Evidently, playing well is cheating, or amoral, or something.