1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why donesn't Mechinized Infantry require oil?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Minor Annoyance, Dec 24, 2008.

  1. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    It's clearly a vehicle and I don't think the soldiers inside are powering it Fred Flintstone style.
    It's probably for gameplay reasons. Not having oil is already pretty crippling offensively, but losing the best defencive unit would screw you pretty bad and the AI even more since human players are better at identifying what they need and how much they should protect it, as well as identifying how to quickly screw the AI in a simple way.
     
  2. CCRunner

    CCRunner Deity

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,132
    This. Players without oil need to have something to defend against Modern Armor.
     
  3. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,355
    Location:
    US of A
    There are a lot of things that don't make sense for resources. Pretty much any modern unit without iron for example.
     
  4. Zeiter

    Zeiter Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    327
    I don't think this make sense.

    Although the game is a compromise between realism and gameplay, I think it would serve both if not having oil was like a ticking time bomb.

    In the real modern world, not having access to oil means you have no chance of standing up to a USA, Russia, or some other civ that has modern armors. You are basically forced to either synthetically manufacture oil (Germany, South Africa, Standard Ethanol corp in-game), or quickly seize oil (Germany, Japan), or vassalize yourself to a civ that does have oil for protection.

    Not having oil should mean that you have until modern armors to get your act together. Mech infantry should require oil.
     
  5. -FC-Commando

    -FC-Commando Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    114
    Had the same thought on having no iron but being able to produce muskets and rifles.
     
  6. obsolete

    obsolete Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    6,201
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Well, realisticaly during the last century, the Polish were able to have anti-armour units pulled with just cavalry. So....

    Another paradox.. is why do Janissuraries need Iron but Cavalry doesn't? And why do knights have better bonuses against archers than Cavalry? Buwahaha...
     
  7. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Yeah there's that too. I think I read a rationalization somewhere that by that the iron resource is a very rich deposit which you can get to with ancient mining techniques, and by the level of technological advancement where you're building things without iron, your actually getting iron from mines where it previously was inaccessible. I guess that's acceptable as an explanation, but the mechinf isn't in the same situation.
     
  8. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,721
    Mech. Inf. should need oil. This would make Std. Ethanol a viable corp, in addition to making oil a bit more relevant. As it now stands, oil is only necessary for aircraft and Modern Armor, as ships can get by with uranium.
     
  9. Calder

    Calder Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    243
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I'm wondering if this is an oversight and should have be fixed in a patch. The only other vehicle catagorised as a Gunpowder unit is the Mobile Sam which does requires oil.
     
  10. Al Capone

    Al Capone Warrior

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Germany
    I agree with Minor annoyance:
    Just imagine you needed a certain ressource for any unit you produce, but you don't have any. What would you build then? -Warriors maybe....
    I mean, it could be really grave if you have no oil for example, as this could cause not being able to produce any modern unit.
     
  11. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,721
    Well, with Std. Ethanol, corn, rice, and wheat could be transformed into oil. I currently find that corp. a tad useless, but having Mech. Inf. need oil could change that. But some others might like that corporation more, what do you think?
     
  12. digitCruncher

    digitCruncher Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,012
    I guess people make a good case for Mech Infantry needing oil, but personally, I any game (or mod) in which, a defender for an entire era requires a certain strategic resource, gets MASSIVE negative points for me. Yes... I am talking to you, every single mod that has sulpher as a strategic resource, and every unit between muskets and rifles requiring sulpher. Seriously... how do you expect to defend against Calvalry with LONGBOWS!? (And to rub salt in the wound, some mods demand that RIFLES need sulpher!!)

    Ultimately, civ 4 gets 2 thumbs up for avoiding major defenders not requiring oil.
     
  13. MkLh

    MkLh King

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    No archery or gunpowder unit (these are all defensive units that can have City Garrison and Drill -promotions) needs any resources (except Crossbow which usually can be replaced with L-bow). This is certainly because of game balance reasons.

    Edit: Mobile SAM needs oil...
     
  14. Joshua368

    Joshua368 Warmongering builder

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,072
    Yeah, the whole defender line does not require any resources -- Warrior, Archer, Longbow, Musketman, Rifleman, Infantry, Mech. Infantry. There is a very good reason for this, i.e. sometimes people get screwed resource-wise.
     
  15. Colossian

    Colossian Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    576
    Solar Powered!
     
  16. Zeiter

    Zeiter Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    327
    I think not requiring any resources for the defender line makes sense...except for near the end of the game. You obviously would like to give every player at least a chance of survival into the late game, regardless of their resource luck. But by the endgame, you need to start introducing some decisive factors that will bring a dynamic conclusion to the game. (The late game already has the problem of tending towards stagnation and repetitiveness. Suddenly making the best defender require a resource would make it more difficult for defensive builders to just sit back and cruise to a culture or space victory. It would make them scramble a bit more (especially needed in single player vs. the AI, considering that the AI isn't very good at defending against rival cultural victories). Besides, not needing resources for defensive units up until infantry gives the resource-screwed player plenty of time to figure out strategies for remedying that situation (forming diplomatic blocs, making a strategic raid to grab a piece of vital territory, etc.)

    And c'mon, let's just be realistic. The unit is clearly a vehicle that would run on some sort of hydrocarbon (ethanol or oil). Solar power? Yeah, if you want it's top speed to be 2 mph. Coal (with a steam engine)? Maybe, if you don't mind it being a heavy, hulking, inefficient slug of a target. Electric batteries? Yeah, if you want a range of about 5 miles.

    Gunpowder seems like a different case to me. I mean, how rare is saltpeter or sulphur? Making musketmen require a resource would be like making archers require roaded forest resources. But oil is a different case. It is the most strategic resource of the modern world. World wars have arguably been fought over it. It should hold the key to any late-game military victory or even military survival, at least to the extent of making mech. inf. require oil. Besides, if you are a defensive builder going for a culture victory (or even a space victory), and you are presumably ahead of the warmongers in tech, and you haven't won your victory by the time the warmongers get modern armors, then you deserve to lose, or at least face a very desperate, exciting battle to the finish. You still have infantry, marines, paratroopers, machine guns (which don't receive siege collateral damage), anti-tank (strength 31.25 vs. armored units on even terrain with no bonuses), artillery, sam infantry for air defense, and (for what it's worth), airships. Marines and machine guns, dug in in cities on hills, aided by offensive stacks of marines and artillery...vs. modern armors. Would it be a desperate fight? Sure. But with much larger local numbers (and here defenders have a huge innate advantage, especially with railroads late game, assuming they at least have coal), the defender could pull through, or at least stave off an assault for long enough to squeak to a culture or space victory. What's the big, insurmountable difference between 24 strength and 32 strength? (I realize it's a lot, but it's not like the difference between archers and longbowmen).
     
  17. Mesodius

    Mesodius Warmonger

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    208
    Gender:
    Male
    I kinda agree with this sentiment. People like Asoka will do nothing the whole game and sit there and turtle and wait for a culture/space race victory. Making them actually go out and work for resources would def make the late game more interesting.
     
  18. IPEX-731BA5DD06

    IPEX-731BA5DD06 Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,716
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Simple reason is, they use a 'flintstones' technology to 'power' the transports to move. If they run out of power, a troopers simply add more footpower.

    Yabba dabba doo......

    Nah, seriously, I agree, Oil, SHOULD be a modern tech Resource requirement. If our current civilization, was to "magically" eliminate oil from the world, Using the Cosmic world builder option, our economies would shut down.

    But don't make Standard Ethanol a once off wonder, like all modern tech's, once you've discovered computers, in real life, hooked up to the internet, the knowledge of Standard Ethanol, would be available, but still cost a Great Scientist to enable, Research and development.

    The use of Ethanol crops, ie rice, wheat, corn is valid, and would add to the late game, as well, a pollution factor from using 'Carbon based' products, could be added to enhance the late game.

    Now granted most players, by this stage are either set on space race/domination/conquest victories.

    This would be possibly best used in a Mod/senerio development. Where you don't just win by being the best mass producer, though in real life its true.
     
  19. Joshua368

    Joshua368 Warmongering builder

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,072
    I guess the biggest problem is that the AI isn't really designed to actively fight to gain a resource. Along with making the defensive unit quite oil you'll have to program the AI to acknowledge it lacks it, and then actively try to secure a reasonable source or found Standard Ethonal. Otherwise it could sort of get screwed, and not in a fair way like human players who get plenty of warning and the ability to react.
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,110
    ?

    Jans require no resources. They're the UU for the Ottoman empire and require gunpowder only.

    If you mean Cuirassers, I wish I knew. I am kind of annoyed that they require iron, though I don't know enough about warfare in their period to determine if it has merit. They ignore first strikes just like knights. Cavalry are the only DEFAULT mounted unit that does not. However, rare is the time a knight will actually have better odds against an archery unit than a cavalry since they have 1.5 knights' base strength. I guess if you were ramming them against powerful units with first strike en masse', you'd want immunity to first strikes...but if you're going to do that, you'd probably want flanking II on your units anyway, and that also grants first strike immunity.

    A flanking II cavalry > combat V knight vs archers...it will survive more often due to withdrawals and shares strength and first strike immunity. That's 2 promos vs 5. Maybe the first strike vulnerability was a balance tweak? Cavs still own the !@#$ out of pretty much every archery unit in the game though, and many other units with 1st strikes.
     

Share This Page