What is *your* most important strategic resource?

[jordiflor]

^ I'm agree too... spears can be a PITA if you only have horses.
My vote is for Copper. Iron is more important, sure, in the long term (Cannons!!!) but Copper comes earlier and it's scarcer than Iron. So, if you get Copper in BFC, you won't have any problem with Barbs or early AI attacks.
You can delay expensive Iron Working, while grounding your economy. Eventually you will get Iron, often more than one, in some of your by-then 4-5 cities. Or beeline for Maces (iron OR copper) and use them to take your Iron.

 

[Vidar]

I voted Iron, not Horses, because of Pikes. Later age resources are out of the question anyway. It's not that they are unimportant, because they are. But with a good early age resource you can make sure your borders are so wide that you're almost guaranteed to get all later age resources.

And those who think you can't wage medieval wars because of Longbows, Castles and what not, clearly have to learn to use Siege!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Iron for me. You got horses? Gimme pikes and I'll take my chances.

When you're actually playing the game, chariots come before pikes.

It's unbelievable that a resource that the vast majority of good players don't even self-research on high difficulties has the most votes. Really? Iron? You don't get it fast enough to pull a competent rush, and the units that really NEED it are mostly medieval. Not entirely (cuirassers and frigates), but mostly. By then, you can secure it relatively easily.

The OP states "if you could guarantee 1 resource to be in your CAPITOL's fat cross". There are two competent choices under such a scenario, and neither one is iron. They are copper and horse.

AH is a good tech. It's often priority #1 for the good food tiles. The ability to quickly build chariots and kill someone OR simply choke them from ever hooking up a resource is incredibly powerful. I'm choosing horse, although copper is an understandable alternative especially for some starting tech combos.

Noobiphant ivory gets honorable mention because of its boost to econ though. Uranium is BY FAR the best late-game resource. Give me uranium and you anything else you want except uranium in the late game, and you're going to lose badly.

 

[Tortfeasor]

Before I made the hop to Monarch I would have said iron in a heartbeat. Monarch has made me get a lot smarter about warfare and I've come to realize that if you pillage their metals fast, which is not hard, that a chariot/HA rush will set you up for a rolling SoD to victory.

 

[lymond]

Yeah...the iron love is pretty laughable, TMIT....chariots/HAs/Curs FTW

 

[Htadus]

Iron for me. You got horses? Gimme pikes and I'll take my chances.

I like this response, I had the same thought.

Say allo to my frriend, The Cuirassier. Yes my maces just captured the Iron and all the HA are now Cuirassiers.

EDIT: I think I need to be clear. With copper, I can build units that can annex iron mines, horse pastures and Ivory camps.

With horses, I may have to rush things a bit. But I definately do not need Iron early. Also as others stated, it is extreamly rare for an experienced player to self learn IW.

 

[rah]

If you're playing an MP game and you have no horses or copper, you have a tendency to self learn IW sooner than later. Experienced or not.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Nice to see the experienced players show up and sneer at everyone. Seriously, steams my broccoli.

For the record I didn't vote for Iron, but I do think that spears/pikes eliminate the horse advantage.
But pikes come late, after a horse archer rush would have come and gone.

They are still a threat to Cuirassiers, so I can't agree with Htadus. Especially when the argument cuts both ways, do you think that I will only build pikes with metal? Your maces will die to mine.

 

[Htadus]

Nice to see the experienced players show up and sneer at everyone. Seriously, steams my broccoli.Eew broccoli Ok but seriously, that was not the intension. By experience what i refeerd to was that after a several games most players learn that IW as an AI priority and learn to trade for it. Typically a religious tech and AH will do. There has been games where I start next to 3 jungle Gems and find self teching IW is the fastest tech process and it has no bearing on discovery of Iron it self.

snip..
They are still a threat to Cuirassiers, so I can't agree with Htadus. Especially when the argument cuts both ways, do you think that I will only build pikes with metal? Your maces will die to mine.

Just about three month ago, I would have no comment for that since as a spaceship player, I head to Liberate Steel. And give no heed to the Cuiras.

But recently, I think as a reaction to a statement Tachywexon made, i tried Cuiras and found them not having much respect to even Pikes. Try attacking a pike with a flanking 2 cuira, there is good chance of withdrawing dependent on the tile. If he fails, follow with combat line unit. Chances are the second unit wins.

 

[jonesinski]

I can't believe I'm the only one to select aluminum so far. Perhaps this because I just lost a monarch game to Frederick in which he and his vassal had all the aluminum and I had none. He's already more powerful than me and ahead in tech. Space race victory is impossible and I can't win a war with him bc I can't even get modern armor. Aluminum is crucial for the end of game and if you don't have it, people don't usually want to trade it in my experience.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Okay, I can see where you are coming from Htadus. I still think pikes hinder the effectiveness of a mounted rush, unless the AI only builds a few pike in each city, then I could see them being overwhelmed.

A few concerns I have about the Cuirassier flanking scenario you mentioned:

-Successful withdrawl could mean the Cuir is almost dead, making it useless for several turns.
-It's possible to withdraw while inflicting little to no damage, meaning you may need many Cuirs with flanking promotions. This could also make your stack vulnerable to attack.
-Large numbers of pikes would make Cuir warfare inefficient, compared to a simple SOD + siege.

 

[Jabarto]

Give me uranium and you anything else you want except uranium in the late game, and you're going to lose badly.

Can you humor me and explain this a bit? Are you really that crazy about nukes and attack submarines or am I missing something? I mean, those are fun and all but I'd rather have tanks, aircraft (and railroads if you have iron) then a pile of nukes.

That said, I agree with you about horses. Even if you don't want to do a rush, catapults, longbowmen, and horse archers can get you farther than one might think. Too bad horses are always rare and/or clustered in odd places.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you're playing an MP game and you have no horses or copper, you have a tendency to self learn IW sooner than later. Experienced or not.

And if they took horse or copper as their guaranteed resource, it won't matter. The iron guy dies.

If he fails, follow with combat line unit. Chances are the second unit wins.

Cuirassers can get shock with 5 xp, which is easily attained with a civic or stables. Pikes need aggressive or 10 xp to reach formation.

On flat ground, pikes can't even beat cuirassers straight up, and that's BEFORE you factor withdrawal.

For the record I didn't vote for Iron, but I do think that spears/pikes eliminate the horse advantage.
But pikes come late, after a horse archer rush would have come and gone.

Yeah, spears and pikes make horse units slower, remove their ability to flank siege, and pull their base strength. Absolutely.

Actually no, that's not true at all. Spears are pretty good vs HA/Chariot, Pikes are only OK vs knights and damned awful vs cuirassers in the field (promo disadvantage). Pikes can't even consistently beat LONGBOWS for cost. Regardless, if you were to take iron as the guaranteed resource vs a horse player you'd never actually have iron. Copper would at least let you survive + possibly press him though it is very difficult to break hill archers or pillage anything meaningful using 1 movers against humans without tremendous hammer investment. The AI can't handle 2 movers.

Can you humor me and explain this a bit? Are you really that crazy about nukes and attack submarines or am I missing something? I mean, those are fun and all but I'd rather have tanks, aircraft (and railroads if you have iron) then a pile of nukes.

What counters a nuke late game?

...

...

...

And it's coal or oil that allow rails, not iron. However, nukes pretty much give you access to anything else you might want. They're the only way to 1 turn kill massive AI empires regardless of bonuses. If you're a human player w/o bonuses and you get nuked, you start finding it hard to build anything due to the fallout. There's a good chance the oil reserves can't be hooked up due to said fallout.

Meanwhile, uranium opens up not just nukes and subs, but also the full complement of metal naval ships, including subs to carry 3 tactical nukes. It doesn't matter what is there; tanks, planes, modern armor, gunships, archers, etc. Nukes kill it. You need a VERY late tech + project (SDI) to simply reduce the efficacy of tac nukes to ~2/3 chance to annihilate the majority of things in a stack outside of a city. There's no answer to it other than trying to dig into someone's happiness by forcing them to defy the UN ban...but even there votes start counting for less when cities see some...nuclear pop shrinkage.

Edit:

Recent example of the efficacy of nukes (LHC Qin spoilers):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11489647&postcount=4

Declared on target (who had superior technology overall) in 1921. Master was dead in 1922 (couldn't get the 1 turn kill because I had no paratroopers to take the inland city on the turn I declared). Vassal was dead in 1924. 9 cities belonging to a more advanced AI with bonuses, all gone in 4 turns. I'd like to see that matched with even remotely comparable investment using tanks and air power...especially given that this was an intercontinental invasion.

Nukes are just that much better than everything else late game.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Another Horse vote. I love Chariot rushes. I can get my Chariots in the field before I run into too many spears. If you're using Chariots versus Iron units or Horse Archers vs. Pikes you aren't aggressive enough in getting the techs needed. For me, the only UU to challenge the War Chariot is the Fast Worker.

I admit that I often trade for Iron Working.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Cuirassers can get shock with 5 xp, which is easily attained with a civic or stables. Pikes need aggressive or 10 xp to reach formation.

Good point

On flat ground, pikes can't even beat cuirassers straight up, and that's BEFORE you factor withdrawal.

If you have pike, then you have Engineering and can actually out maneuver horses in your own territory. So withdrawal is not necessarily a factor.

Yeah, spears and pikes make horse units slower, remove their ability to flank siege, and pull their base strength. Absolutely.

Regardless, if you were to take iron as the guaranteed resource vs a horse player you'd never actually have iron.

Because... you couldn't research / trade for it in time? I don't understand.

Copper would at least let you survive + possibly press him though it is very difficult to break hill archers or pillage anything meaningful using 1 movers against humans without tremendous hammer investment. The AI can't handle 2 movers.

Multiplayer is very different than single player, my thoughts only pertain to single player.

It's hard to match your passion TMIT, but maybe something constructive will come of this.

 

[lymond]

Can you humor me and explain this a bit? Too bad horses are always rare and/or clustered in odd places.

I find horse to be just a prevalent or more so that iron on a map, and at least on par with copper.


@Will - It's going to be hard to argue iron vs. horse with experienced players simply due to the fact that they have so much success with mounted units (HAs/Curs) specifically on higher levels. Pikes are of no concern. Curs are hands down the best unit/era for warfare and putting yourself in a winning position. You can often do so with HAs. Speed and tactics is a very important part of the equation with mounted warfare.

What is so surprising and makes me facepalm about all the iron votes, is that if I were to choose a metal, I'd vote for copper. If I'm using that era's metal units, I would be using Axe, which you will get up much much sooner than Swords. Of course, on low levels, one can do whatever they want and still stomp. Or a lot of voters are like Iron=Praets=MustVoteIron=Derp.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I think it's more a testament to the diverse play styles/difficulty levels of the community, than cause for scorn. Just saying.

The expert players are answering the question according to which resource will help them survive early / succesfully rush a rival. As you eluded to lymond, that is not necessarily the same concern of a player at a more modest difficulty. To me iron is some what rare, and I could see it being useful for pikes or especially crossbows as the game advances.

 

[lymond]

I don't think there's any scorn going on around here

What is this fascination with pikes? I don't follow.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

But, but, but, Cuirassiers and Knights need Iron, don't they ? Not fair !


My first pick would be Iron. For solo play. For multi, I wouldn't know.
Metals offer every kind of counter units. Spears and pikes, sure. And the Crossbow as well.

Horses allow to power through the map but losses are abundant. Metal based units are much more sturdy and thus economical.

 

[Tlalynet]

HRE's UU is an upgraded pike. HRE's UU requires Iron. Iron is a must.

Pikes FTW.



I think the pike subtopic got started with spears. Spears>chariots so copper is marginally better than horses in that way. Then Pikes got added to the equation by the ironmongers.