-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Why Don't Riflemen require Saltpeter?
- Thread starter Cheops
- Start date
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
the civlopedia says it becasue its abundant for rifleman by that time.
so no, i dont know.........
so no, i dont know.........
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
It's to even out the civilization strength's some. If musketmen require saltpeter then the Civ's without it would be hard-put to get the saltpeter. If Riflemen also required it... it would make it even harder. Also the lack of two units would drop your power down some.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
the civilopedia says because saltpeter is abundant by that time, but that is completely illogical compared to the rest of the game. Surely you can argue that iron becomes plentiful in the industrial ages so you shouldn't need it for rails and all the old units, surely you can argue that horses are plentiful in the middle ages, so you shouldn't need them for cavalry etc? Likewise, if saltpeter is so plentiful that you don't need it for rifles, why do you still need it to build cavalry after nationalism?
The real reason rifles don't require saltpeter is from a gaming point of view, because a civ with no resources would still be building spearmen in the industrial ages, and that would make the game very difficult.
The real reason rifles don't require saltpeter is from a gaming point of view, because a civ with no resources would still be building spearmen in the industrial ages, and that would make the game very difficult.
thedirk
Master of Stealth
To be more consistent riflemen should require saltpeter. However, the make the gaming side more equitable the number of saltpeter resource squares should double with the discovery of nationalism or something like that, so that it is much easier to obtain.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
Doesn't happen too often, but this time Civ3 is just about right historically. Until the late 19th century, saltpeter was needed for gunpowder production (it contains potassium nitrate which is the necessary ingredient in gunpowder) and was in somewhat limited supply. Much of it was obtained from caves containing bat guano. Later on the potassium nitrate was made commercially.
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
but early industrial period was 1800-1830 and since nationalism is a first ech in the industrial era, it would still need the saltpeter to get the postassium nitrate.
Hmmm. And your point is?
How would this be any different than a civ being stuck running around with Rifilemen in the modern era because they lack the necessary resources to produce infantry, mech infantry and tanks?
Isn't acquiring necessary resources, either through diplomacy, clever schemes, or brute force just part of the Civ experience?
The bottom line is that Riflemen, if they are to be allowed to be made without the Saltpeter resource, should not be rewarded with a GREATER attack and defense bonus over their Musketmen precursor.
This has huge effects on attack schemes as well. For example, you can completely deny a Civ the ability to create Knights and Cavalry and even Musketmen by destroying one road to iron, Saltpeter, and/or horse resources, but somehow that Civ would still be able to create a STRONGER defensive unit than any of these. It just doesn't seem quite right.
general_kill
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,870
It's just how the game is made....
Hooray
Civ3 Cartographer
But if there weren't any resource-less defenders, a civ that had the misfortune of having absolutely no resources would be stuck with Spearman forever.
That would just be too harsh.
That would just be too harsh.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
If it bothers anyone - change it in the editor.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
My point is that the designers put it in as a balance issue
I don't necassarily agree with it any more than you do, but the reason it is in there is a gaming reason, not a historical re-enaction or reality issue.
dguichar
Warlord
...carry as a weapon?
Is it a rifle, perhaps?
So you can have mounted riflemen before you have unmounted riflemen.
And if saltpeter becomes abundant by industrial ages... then every unit which requires that resource will no longer need it.
That'll really make sense.
The same will be applicable to the need for iron. As long as you reach modern times... iron is so abundant that you won't require to have it as a resource.
Keep civilized
Is it a rifle, perhaps?
So you can have mounted riflemen before you have unmounted riflemen.
And if saltpeter becomes abundant by industrial ages... then every unit which requires that resource will no longer need it.
That'll really make sense.
The same will be applicable to the need for iron. As long as you reach modern times... iron is so abundant that you won't require to have it as a resource.
Keep civilized
Take the letter "T." Add "RADE" to it.
While I agree with the general feeling that it's completely illogical and inaccurate, I still think it's better in game terms. Sure, resources should be important, and they are. But if every single defender in the game besides spearmen requires a resource, don't you think that's just a little harsh? (Which I guess Hooray was saying.)
Piltdown_Fan
Chieftain
Spearmen vs. riflemen and cavalry? Not so far-fetched. Think about the European expansions into North and South America, when civs with advanced weapons techs beat up on civs that had taken, shall we say, other paths up the tech tree.
nmcul
I have missles
Tanks and Battleships don't require iron as a resource, do they? They obviously are made of steel, which would probably mean that they would need coal as well. So Riflemen aren't the only unit in this unusual situation. Conversly, please explain to me why Infantry requires Rubber.
And what about those workers? They need no resources-are they using stone and bronze pickaxes and shovels? Speaking of which, why do Cannons need Iron? IIRC, historically cannons were mostly forged from bronze, not iron.
If I have Uranium and Nuclear Power, but no Oil, shouldn't I still be able to train Carriers and Battleships? How many oil-powered warships does the Navy still use, hmmmm?
And what about those workers? They need no resources-are they using stone and bronze pickaxes and shovels? Speaking of which, why do Cannons need Iron? IIRC, historically cannons were mostly forged from bronze, not iron.
If I have Uranium and Nuclear Power, but no Oil, shouldn't I still be able to train Carriers and Battleships? How many oil-powered warships does the Navy still use, hmmmm?
farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
werent the cannonballs iron? im no expert, but i guess cannons were made ou tof iron as wel as bronze. infantry neding rubber is a mystery. the only rubber they woudl have used is on there souls of there shoes, and lets face it, i dont htink that shoudl be good enough to make it a rquirmen. can you imagine paint being a requirment for tanks??
Northern Pike
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2003
- Messages
- 6,673
Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch worked out how to synthesize liquid ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen in Germany around 1908, and IG Farben under the leadership of Carl Duisberg turned their invention into a practical industrial process just in time for World War I. Since this was well into the era of replaceable parts, it should really be the infantry unit, not the rifleman, which can be built without saltpetre/nitrates. As a couple of you have said, it was doubtless a game-balance decision.
Nexushyper
Warlord
... Slight subject change, but the Steam engine and automatic sliding doors was invented in 50AD.
(The Greek dude that made the steam engine used it to make sliding wooden doors at temples.... long story)
And speaking of rails, don't those tracks need timber and of course most tracks (atleast in the U.S.A.) are built up on a gravel bed.
Frigates... don't they need a Cloth type sail made for them, and tons of lumber also....
Rifleman, I could never figure out the rubber thing either! I could see it for paratroopers (kinda) but not rifleman.
Anyways, my point is not everything in this game is historically correct nor does it always make sense. However, it's a game not reality and if the game designers made it that way they must have a reason! If you want to change it, do like I did, use the editor.
(The Greek dude that made the steam engine used it to make sliding wooden doors at temples.... long story)
And speaking of rails, don't those tracks need timber and of course most tracks (atleast in the U.S.A.) are built up on a gravel bed.
Frigates... don't they need a Cloth type sail made for them, and tons of lumber also....
Rifleman, I could never figure out the rubber thing either! I could see it for paratroopers (kinda) but not rifleman.
Anyways, my point is not everything in this game is historically correct nor does it always make sense. However, it's a game not reality and if the game designers made it that way they must have a reason! If you want to change it, do like I did, use the editor.
Similar threads
