Why do cannons and arty have no iron requirement?

[Monbijou]

In the classical and middle ages you have to choose wether to use your iron between either melee or siege.

but in the renaissance period, iron in only used for your navy. Why not the cannon?
I know forges need access to iron, but do they use iron like the factory uses coal?

and once you get to the industrial period, what unit or builds uses Iron? It seems to me to cease being a strategic resource since nothing needs it.

I can see Horses Obsoleting in the the industrial era, but not iron. I keep thinking of examples in history (ww2) where iron, and access to iron was just as important as oil.

 

[Olleus]

I agree fully with you. Maybe not in the modern/future era where iron effectively gets over taken by aluminium, but not industrial age.

I can see a mass spam of cannons being a very viable strategy. Its bombardment is stronger than any other units and its resourceless. Just build some rifles in front and blow everything up. Everything.

 

[migkillertwo]

In the classical and middle ages you have to choose wether to use your iron between either melee or siege.

but in the renaissance period, iron in only used for your navy. Why not the cannon?
I know forges need access to iron, but do they use iron like the factory uses coal?

and once you get to the industrial period, what unit or builds uses Iron? It seems to me to cease being a strategic resource since nothing needs it.

I can see Horses Obsoleting in the the industrial era, but not iron. I keep thinking of examples in history (ww2) where iron, and access to iron was just as important as oil.

others have posted that strategic resources are such because they are rare in the eras that they are important in. But ever since the invention of the Bessemer process, iron has become so widely available that anyone really has access to them.

From a gameplay perspective, I strongly suspect that it's because the developers (and I as well) want combat to be different in the modern era, and because they want it so that any civilization can adequately *defend* itself, but not necessarily wage offensive wars. For instance, I dont quite need modern armour to defend myself from an invasion if I have lines of mech infantry, anti tank guns, and artillery supporting them. But if I want to attack a country, I'll need modern armour.

 

[Andvare]

Nah, no one had iron shortages in either world wars.

 

[Schuesseled]

Why do destroyers not require oil?

Balance.

 

[Olleus]

why is it balanced to have no limit to how many cannons you can have?

 

[PawelS]

I remember someone argued in another thread that Cannons can be made of bronze, but I think it's a good idea to make them require iron (especially when Catapults and Trebuchets require it).

Knights should require iron in addition to horses.

Ironclads should require iron too, but maybe coal and iron would be too much for this not very useful unit.

And why doesn't the War Chariot require Horses?

Edit: Just noticed that the Camel Archer requires horses

 

[VikingMaekel]

Nah, no one had iron shortages in either world wars.

But Iron ore was the reason why Hitler invaded Norway and Denmark, to safeguard his supply of Swedish iron ore.

 

[Ashbery76]

Why do people think Civ is a realistic history simulator?

 

[rastak]

why is it balanced to have no limit to how many cannons you can have?

My guess would be many hundreds of hours of playtesting.

 

[PawelS]

Why do people think Civ is a realistic history simulator?

I don't, but the fact that some units don't require resources that they should is counter-intuitive.

Also, gameplay-wise, artillery units are quite powerful and should be limited somewhat (but I'd accept it if AT and AA guns required no iron).

Edit: Seems AT and AA guns don't require iron, but the manual on page 43 states otherwise.

 

[Ahriman]

why is it balanced to have no limit to how many cannons you can have?

Because its the only Renaissance bombardment unit.
And its really expensive.

 

[Landiron]

It seems quite inconsequent and weird, let's see how it plays

 

[homan1983]

In the classical and middle ages you have to choose wether to use your iron between either melee or siege.

In the classical and middle ages you can make archer for defending. So you have a mix of archers and melee (swordsmen / spearmen)

Were they to require a resource for artillery, then some civs will auto-lose if they get unlucky.

Strategic resources are supposed to give a considerable advantage, and I think they do that as is.

 

[Schuesseled]

why is it balanced to have no limit to how many cannons you can have?

why ask me, im not a developer.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Since it's the only ranged unit of the era, it makes sense to make it resource free.

Personally, I'd suggest extending the no-resource (Archer) units into these eras with a weaker ranged unit. Perhaps "Field Artillery" or "Light Artillery" or some other cannon-like unit that requires no resources and can fire without setting up. After that, I would suggest a Mortar for the Infantry-era and a Rocket Propelled Grenade for the modern one.

Just throwing out ideas to be honest. For what they did, this makes sense.

 

[Kilroywashere]

oh look, it's this thread again.

I'm pretty sure (not like 60% "pretty sure", like 99.9% sure) that the developers have played the game more than you have. Therefore, I think as of right now, they would have a much better sense of balance in the game then most of us out here in the Forums. If it makes the game play better if cannons and artillery don't require iron, the cannons and artillery won't require iron.

but, historically, cannons and artillery needed iron, so they should need it in the game. Q.E.D.

No. They don't. The developers, even Jon Shafer himself, has said that if Historical Accuracy and Gameplay ever conflict, GAMEPLAY WILL ALWAYS WIN. Honestly, someone should make a box that pops up every single time someone tries to make a post with the word "History" in it.

Edit: The quote in the box may or may not have been made up for the sake of pre-resolving said argument.

 

[Olleus]

I wonder if it would work to have the Anti-Tank gun as an 'archer' type unit. Not massively historically accurate, but it sort of is a light artillery. Would also be interesting to have nothing better than infantry to take the charge of a tank, but then being able to wipe them out in a counter attack - providing you can hold the line in the turn before.

 

[King Jason]

No. They don't. The developers, even Jon Shafer himself, has said that if Historical Accuracy and Gameplay ever conflict, GAMEPLAY WILL ALWAYS WIN

Fair... But don't you find it odd that Renaissance is the only era that has only one ranged unit? (I'm counting aircraft for later eras)

My personal logic is two-fold ~ Due to the gap in strength, Xbows could be useful until industrial era, and further, all of the iron excess can be convered into a massive navy, giving costal bombard to where it'll be beneficial.

 

[Olleus]

What could be done is to give either the lancer or cavalry a ranged attack - turning them into a chariot archer type unit so to speak. Rename it Dragoon or something and everyone's happy.

Will it be good for gameplay? Hard to tell for sure, what it will do though is make the renaissance/early industrial era more similar to the others. Might be good, might be bad.