What happened to iron?

[apocalypse105]

My experience is different. I sometimes see really big clusters of Iron, but then also parts of the map that don't have any.
So if we were to play together, I would have all the iron, and you nothing.

That kinda unbalanced map desing

 

[spfun]

I have noticed, though i normally ally with a city state who has 6 iron. Which there is normally a few with some iron.

 

[headcase]

That kinda unbalanced map desing

The theory is that one civ gets a bunch of strat resources and hills (strong civ), where another gets other resources and rivers, allowing them to build lots of buildings and resources (rich civ).

Then the strong civ builds a big army, and comes to take the rich civ's stuff. Presumably if both civs played well, it would be a close call whether the rich civ can muster enough defenses to hold of the attack of the strong civ.

In theory.

 

[Hustapha Thool]

I do not mind a shortage of iron, it tends to vary my game-play. On the other hand, I recently played a cultural game and had 24 iron in my fourth ring. It was quite a $$$maker!

 

[PreLynMax]

To each thier own, Mr. Thool.

To me, no iron no game. It's a major game breaker to me.
Just like Civ 4.

 

[The_Quasar]

I tend to accept any initial placement and work with it, mostly it evens out after a while, but...

Had a game recently where I had no iron, no coal, and no oil... I struggled through, in great difficulty (on Emperor) until I got to discover aluminium, and guess what? no aluminium either! What was worse, was that my neighbours, who were also struggling, had none of them either! All the resources were on another, smaller, continent where, of course, a runaway was, an era ahead of the rest of us!

I don't mind a challenge, but that was silly, I've had easier games on deity.

 

[Ruler]

Swordsmen are just useless in Civ 5, group of archer are alot more effective. Get crossbows and roll over them.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Had a game a while back as Rome on Huge Earth, spawned in South America, not a single iron in the entire damn continent, but ofcourse my northern American jackass neighbour Pacahuti had tons of the stuff, and if I take into account my other recent games too it'd say it almost hardcoded to NOT spawn close to you, perhaps because the player knows how to use it too well or some other horrible crutch fix to compensate for a mentally retarted AI?

 

[ense7en]

My luck isn't usually too good with iron usually.

But recently, it was rather awesome in one game i'm currently working on with some friends.
When iron was discovered, i had gotten it right on my second city tile
Pretty fantastic!

 

[gozpel]

To each thier own, Mr. Thool.

To me, no iron no game. It's a major game breaker to me.
Just like Civ 4.

I feel your grief, I've been there too many times.

Usually, this puzzle is gone by the time you find your CS with 6 iron. You just have to bleed your economy, to make the enemies bleed more.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

The biggest problem here is that you can't properly engage in war (this games main feature) without iron pre musket/artillery.
And yes, I've had to take the occasional capitol or choking off city state on turn 30 with 3 archers and 2 warriors, but with the deaths, general inability to retreat a war like this can't be sustained.

I never understood the decision to nerf horses and ships, I loved having a huge armada, and when you do it is rather fun to actually be able to take a city with it.
Same with horses, these days the only horseman I still use as a main army are Mongolia and Arabia's UU.

Just kinda sad you need iron for everything you take cities with, if they could at least take away the iron requirement for catapult/trebuchet (not sure but in contrast to a unit clad in iron armor can't these things be made without iron? The main iron component in these siege engines where stuff like bolts and casings, which have been substituted by bronze, leather and tough wood in other man made structures before the discovery of iron working or where it was a rather scarce resource).

 

[woodshadows]

the inclusion of iron as a 'strategic resource' makes very little sense. if you make iron out like some rare resource you might as well make saltpeter a rare resource as well. i can understand things like uranium, horses, oil, tho aluminum is another non-starter for me 'In 2008, the price of aluminium peaked at $1.45/lb in July but dropped to $0.70/lb by December'.. not exactly rare. it doesn't add much strategic depth to the game, other than making your early game incredibly boring or else providing the human player with severe advantages in exploiting the strategic resource penalty vs the ai.

 

[binhthuy71]

the inclusion of iron as a 'strategic resource' makes very little sense. if you make iron out like some rare resource you might as well make saltpeter a rare resource as well. i can understand things like uranium, horses, oil, tho aluminum is another non-starter for me 'In 2008, the price of aluminium peaked at $1.45/lb in July but dropped to $0.70/lb by December'.. not exactly rare. it doesn't add much strategic depth to the game, other than making your early game incredibly boring or else providing the human player with severe advantages in exploiting the strategic resource penalty vs the ai.

"Saltpeter" I played so many CiIII games where I had to hang on by my toenails because I didn't have bloody Saltpeter and my neighbor did.

 

[woodshadows]

"Saltpeter" I played so many CiIII games where I had to hang on by my toenails because I didn't have bloody Saltpeter and my neighbor did.

ha, i had totally forgotten that it used to be a strategic resource in previous civ's. i guess that's progress. no more requirement for copper or saltpeter.. now just to remove this ridiculous iron requirement.

 

[builer680]

ha, i had totally forgotten that it used to be a strategic resource in previous civ's. i guess that's progress. no more requirement for copper or saltpeter.. now just to remove this ridiculous iron requirement.

Rubber too. I had some great games in Civ III ruined because the only Rubber was on the other side of the world. Well, not ruined, I just had to go and take it.

However, I like the need for resources, as a rule. I'd prefer more diverse resources rather than less. Contrived as the need for some of them may be, they do add a little depth, imo.

 

[binhthuy71]

However, I like the need for resources, as a rule. I'd prefer more diverse resources rather than less. Contrived as the need for some of them may be, they do add a little depth, imo.

You're right; having units or buildings constrained by resources is a Good Thing in that it compels you to develop alternative strategies. On the other hand, the lack of some resources (Iron) can be game breaking for some players. I try to play around the lack of a critical resource but, I wouldn't mind seeing CiIV's feature of having a resource pop up (Iron on a previously mined hill, etc) implemented in CiV.

 

[woodshadows]

I would like strategic resources to be mostly removed from the game. Replaced with a higher maintenance cost on units of 'higher quality'. Wealthier nations are given a choice to outfit their armies with superior arms or not. Who in the ancient era wasn't able to build swordsmen? Other than those lacking TECHNOLOGY, or maybe some desert nomads, tho even they could trade for swords/iron.

 

[binhthuy71]

I would like strategic resources to be mostly removed from the game. Replaced with a higher maintenance cost on units of 'higher quality'. Wealthier nations are given a choice to outfit their armies with superior arms or not. Who in the ancient era wasn't able to build swordsmen? Other than those lacking TECHNOLOGY, or maybe some desert nomads, tho even they could trade for swords/iron.

IMO, that would take a lot of depth out of the game. As it is, Resources of both types affect where you build cities, which tiles you improve first, which types of units you build, etc., etc. To me, removing Strategic Resources would turn the game into Sim City with weapons.

 

[woodshadows]

IMO, that would take a lot of depth out of the game. As it is, Resources of both types affect where you build cities, which tiles you improve first, which types of units you build, etc., etc. To me, removing Strategic Resources would turn the game into Sim City with weapons.

The inclusion of strategic resources turns everyone into being burdened with Spains UA, in so far as your entire game can be made or weakened all on a roll of chance that has nothing to do with strategy or skill and yet can be circumvented with a restart which many seem to do, esp when playing civs which rely on those resources. If I'm playing Rome and I land on a large area with zero iron around I will not enjoy my game, I will play it through and likely do okay, but the fun factor will be severely decreased. Contrariwise, if I am playing Japan and have Mongols as my immediate neighbour and the Mongols have no horses anywhere near them yet I have iron, I will with ease dominate them, again not owing to skill but simply to the fact of a die roll which decided to give me things and them nothing. Does this add strategic depth to the game? It becomes less chess and more bingo and for these earlier 'strategic resources' there is very little historical precedent for it, so it doesn't even make a lot of sense.

 

[TyBoy]

All the really good solutions to implementing strategic resources in a way that is good gameplay, not too luck-based and somewhat realistic that I can think of end up needing a greatly expanded tech tree and units and just a generally longer, larger game than civ is.

I've never liked horses as a strategic resource. They kind of worked in 3 and 4 where a single instance could supply all you need. At least that creates the possibility of an old world/new world situation but even that didn't work that great. It just doesn't make much sense to have two neighboring civs on the same continent where one has horses and the other doesn't. It probably makes even less sense to have a limited amount of horses, they just don't work that way. A small number of horses + years = a large number of horses, as necessary. If there was ever a resource for that higher maintenance idea horses would be it.

One thing that would be neat is to consistently try and provide unit and building uses for each resource. That would allow for making the resources more common. That in turn would let you always build a few units or buildings, but you could get lucky and have a lot of a resource allowing you to build the buildings and the units, or lots of the units and that would be the equivalent of getting anything at all in the current system.