This game is too reliant on Iron

[Creosote]

Maybe its just me
But I am sick of struggling because of lack of iron.

I havent been playing Civ 3 for long but have worked my way up the difficulty levels and now on Emperor.
Yet all 3 Emperor games I have played so far I have had no iron, none anywhere near, and so are reduced to lesser combat units. By the time I can build enough to go try get the iron the AI has units far stronger than mine and so far I have been defeated trying to get to the iron. I have been unable to trade for it as I have not enough resources/techs/cash to trade them, and the buggers know it

All three games have been ok in terms of early expansion, knocking out my neighbour and getting to be the largest civ, but each game has fizzled away due to lack of iron.

I know there are fantastic players here who would be able to overcome this, but for a lesser mortal such as myself the whole damn game seems to be totally reliant on iron, at least at the harder difficulty levels.

Sorry for the whinge, but playing for a day to be able to get to the position to realise you wont get any iron, and therefore prolly have a losing game is just not on.

 

[Khan_Asparuh]

The Iron for the units is important, but even more for RR and factories. I agree that it's hard to do without, but doable.
I remember a game when I lost 12 archers to a heroic spear just to get Iron. I never captured the city...
C3C is ressources painfull...

 

[morchuflex]

Yes, iron is a bit too important, compared to, say, coal or salpeter. The problem with iron is that you need it for three eras; other resources are only needed for shorter time periods. Except horses, but lack of mounted units is not totally crippling.

If you don't have coal, then buy some (just make sure you have enough workers to RR everything in 20 turns). It may be very expensive but probably not more than waging war to get it. Lack of coal plants can hurt, but if you get Hoover Dam (and who doesn't? The stupid AI always goes for the upper branch of the tech tree first), it's only a temporary drawback. Of course, buying coal supposes that you wait until they discover steam engine, which can slow you down.
As for the lack of salpeter, it's a mere annoyance, nothing more. With enough trebuchets you can survive the second age without cavalry, muskets or frigates. And if you're really desperate, just stockpile ancient units, go 100% tax for a while, buy salpeter and upgrade everything while it lasts.

But iron... I'll do anything, including starting a big war, to secure at least one (and preferably two) deposits.
The game might be better off if it included other metal resources (such as bronze), allowing to build at least decent units. After all, bronze swords and pikes did exist.

 

[thetrooper]

The struggle for resources and territory have initiated much warfare throughout history, yes?

 

[eldar]

You don't need Iron if you have Horses. One of the two must be close by.

If you have Horses, getting Iron shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Rohili]

Iron is very important, yes, but it seems to be in abundance whatever map I play. It's saltpeter and coal which are rare, IMO. I think it is just bad luck on your part.

Maybe you could shoot for iron working first so that you can see them earlier and settle/build colonies on them?

 

[EquinoxOmega]

Iron is importantant. I always try to get enough. Build some ships or fast moving units and try to explore the world. Maybe you can find anywhere a free resource. If you don't have success with this, try to conquere a resource, at all costs! Maybe you can trade some iron from an other CIV, just to build a few strong units. Then you conquere the iron with them.

 

[gunkulator]

Lacking iron is a huge handicap up until the time of muskets and cavalry. That's an awfully long time. It bad enough that you can't build swordsmen, medieval infantry and knights, but to lose pikemen too is a real blow. Without adequate defense, longbows and trebuchets are useless. Worse, it takes 3 Middle Ages tech to get them.

 

[Brain]

I find it quite stupid too, because iron is very abundant in the real world. There wouldn't have been so many weapons built from it if it weren't.

I think iron should not be a strategic resource at all. The same way that you can build bronze spears without requiring bronze.

 

[tR1cKy]

Iron is paramount, but there are ways to be successful in the game without it.

In the ancient age, with iron you can build swords (3.2.1). Without, you need to stick with archers (2.1.1). But archers are cheaper (20 shields) than swords (30 shields). So you can build 15 archers with the same production needed for 10 swords.

Now, are 15 archers equivalent to 10 swords? No, for 2 reasons. First, weaker units means more casualties, and this lead to more promotions in the defender's ranks. And second, archers defend too poorly, and need to be escorted by a few spearmen. In a few words, things are worse, but not so worse to be defined desperate. You can build a good "poor men's army" and go killing anyway.

When you enter middle age, things are really bad. No iron, no knights. And no pikes and no MDI. The best unit you can use is the longbowman, but you need to research 2 techs first. And for defense duties you have nothing better than spears until you research gunpowder. Thus, there's a period in which you're almost screwed up if you don't have access to iron.

What to do, then? The only thing i can suggest is to assemble a poor men's army in the ancients, then go conquering iron before it's too late. Difficult, but not impossible.

 

[Roxlimn]

I don't believe that things are "really bad" when you enter the Middle Age without Iron. You just have to prioritize different research trees. Going for Engineering - Invention - Gunpowder for decent defense without Iron is quite doable. Killing invasion armies using mostly Longbowmen (upgraded from your Archers) narrows the defensive gap considerably, and once you get Musketmen, a Musketmen/Longbowman defended square is right up there with anything defended by Pikemen, with greater flexibility.

This is comparable with Monotheism-Chivalry-Feudalism with the added advantage that you don't research anything dead end. Moreover, you can usually trade favorably, as the AI usually focuses on the Feudalism-Chivalry route, especially if it has Iron. About the only awkward time in this line is when you're going against Pikes and MI with only Archers, Horsemen, and Spears, which would be truly bad.

 

[tR1cKy]

...
About the only awkward time in this line is when you're going against Pikes and MI with only Archers, Horsemen, and Spears, which would be truly bad.

That's precisely what i was referring to, when describing the situation as "really bad". Being for, say, 20 turns struggling with archers vs. pikes and MDIs vs. spears may lead to your doom. Once you have longbows and muskets you're almost on par, although you lack a strong mobile unit.

 

[Grogs]

That's precisely what i was referring to, when describing the situation as "really bad". Being for, say, 20 turns struggling with archers vs. pikes and MDIs vs. spears may lead to your doom. Once you have longbows and muskets you're almost on par, although you lack a strong mobile unit.

Knowing that this will happen, I'd say do everything possible not to be in a war during this timeframe. You may catch some bad breaks and not be able to avoid it, but that's the way the game goes sometimes.

@Roxlimn: I think for my next game I may drop down a level and play without iron (not connect it even if I have it.) Your strategy sounds viable, although certainly more difficult. One reason I get nervous at the thought of no iron is I've never really dealt with it before. As a result, I don't have the 'workaround' strategies in my bag of tricks.

On a slight tangent to the topic, would most people agree that you would probably want to go with Monarchy if you don't have iron? More weak units = greater support costs under Republic.

 

[Rohili]

Remember, there are a few civs out there whose knight/pikeman equivalents do not require iron, like Greece, Carthage, Mongolia, India etc, and can help offset the disadvantage a bit. Though you probably cannot predict whether or not you can get iron in your game, if you feel you are always unlucky you may want to use these civs (unless you are one of those who absolutely must go random each game )

 

[Roxlimn]

Grogs: thanks for the sound out. I once had to play a game as Persia without Iron until the Industrial Age. Horrible, but I won it anyway.

Even if you don't have Iron, you should probably go for Republic if you have a large enough civ and can handle it. You can actually support a larger army with a mid sized Republic than with a mid sized Monarchy and this is all from the extra Commerce from city size settlements. As a civ without Iron, you probably want to avoid war anyway, so the WW should be less of an issue.

tR1cKy: That's almost always untrue. You can almost always avoid war at any particular time if you offer a juicy enough deal. Once you upgrade to the Longbowmen, the AI will respect your defense more (with good reason) and you can cut the bootlicking.

 

[tR1cKy]

...
tR1cKy: That's almost always untrue. You can almost always avoid war at any particular time if you offer a juicy enough deal. Once you upgrade to the Longbowmen, the AI will respect your defense more (with good reason) and you can cut the bootlicking.

In my opinion, this is an hightly questionable statement, unless you play Chieftain or like.

First, without swords, pikes and knight your military is seen as weak by the AS. Thinking of you as an easy prey, they are quite more inclined to attack.

Second, you may have nothing worth offering to avoid war.

Third, you may have something worth offering, but the AS could catch you pants down and attack before you have a chance to see the danger.

Fourth, you may be in a position in which, to keep on par with military and expanding, you need to play the zero research gambit, and hope for the AS to research techs for you. If they go for the upper techs (as they do almost always), how many turns to obtain Engineering, Invention and then Gunpowder?

Fifth, what if you lack saltpeter?

Sixth, what if you need to expand quickly before it's too late, and cannot wait for the right technologies to be available?

Got the message?

 

[vmxa]

Well if you get IW very early, you will know if you have Iron or not. If not, then get working on horses and a tech that the AI wants to trade for later. Republic works very well for trade bait.

The problem will be to have a trade route with an AI that has iron to trade. Use the horses if you cannot make a trade. 15 horses or so will do a lot of damage. If you are on an island, best get Map Making and crank out those galleys.

 

[dgfred]

Nothing sucks like Celts with no iron anywhere -- No Gallics .

 

[Roxlimn]

No, I think not. Even on Monarch, it would be the height of unluck to have absolutely nothing on your home territory. If you don't have key resources like Iron, you will probably have things like Saltpeter and luxuries.

First, without swords, pikes and knight your military is seen as weak by the AS. Thinking of you as an easy prey, they are quite more inclined to attack.

Sure. That's why you need Archers and upgrade to Longbowmen ASAP. And more units than usual.

Second, you may have nothing worth offering to avoid war.

At the very least, you can arrange for an MPP or an MA. If you're so far down that you can't avoid war at all, then your lack of Iron is probably the least of your worries.

Third, you may have something worth offering, but the AS could catch you pants down and attack before you have a chance to see the danger.

You always assume the AI will attack first chance it gets. You never give them a chance. If you get caught with your pants down, it's your own fault. Not having Iron is likewise not a factor here. You can get surprised whether or not you have Iron.

Fourth, you may be in a position in which, to keep on par with military and expanding, you need to play the zero research gambit, and hope for the AS to research techs for you. If they go for the upper techs (as they do almost always), how many turns to obtain Engineering, Invention and then Gunpowder?

Probably better to sacrifice expansion for Research in this case. Getting Engineering and Invention will almost always allow you to exchange and recoup your losses. If you think the AIs will get Invention soon, then that's the time to zero the research and buy it.

Fifth, what if you lack saltpeter?

Lack Iron, Lack Saltpeter, Lack anything worth trading, and no one to ally with. Lack of Iron here is no longer the issue.

Sixth, what if you need to expand quickly before it's too late, and cannot wait for the right technologies to be available?

You need to focus on what's doable. Invading a larger, more advanced civ with inferior and outdated units is not doable at this point in the game. You will need to consider other means.

You don't initiate a war when your military is inferior. I should've thought that was quite obvious.

I think I can say for certain that I have never played a game in which I had no luxuries, no strategic resources of any kind, nor any useful bonus tiles to power a favorable deal heading into the Middle Ages.

 

[bingen]

Fortunately, no resources are needed to build the most powerful units, the artillery units.