 |
|
mrpie
|
|
Is there a cheat for adding resources on the map during gameplay? I'm suspecting the map I'm currently playing on to be lacking coal...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrpie
|
|
thanks, I'll check for the gramphos tool. I already tried the clean map option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
The only thing saving Firaxis from my ire is my current lack of uranium.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cort Haus
Very interesting, donegeal. That certainly looks like a disproportionate rise in resource availability.
In my last game I started with Ivory on my 5-civ continent so I decided to go warmonger. By the time Gunpowder rolled around I was the only one with (the sole source of) Saltpeter on my continent, and it was cav vs spears. I then smacked up a weak overseas civ, hoping that 66% pop (I had 70%) was enough for domination, but you need the 66% land too (I only had 45%). From such a check-mate position, I don't know whether it's worth churning out the units to get an official win or just start again. |
If you're the only one with Gunpowder, then it shouldn't take so many units, should it? Or are the remaining civs all equal with you? Once I have got to a point where the only things standing in my way of a Domination are strong civs and I have warmongered for a while, I tend to just sacrifice EVERYTHING for units and the Domination victory. That habit started with C3C, where I got a resource and others didn't. If I didn't have a resource I would have to wait/conquer until I did, and then take on everyone without it.
C3C encourages warmongering, I tell you...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Hack
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by vmxa1
It is not resources I am short of, it is luxs. I have had two games in a row where I only had two on the whole contient in a two contient game.
I have a game I am sitting on trying to figure out a strategy to play with. No luxeries at all on my continent! One neighbor at the other end pretty far away. Contact by galleys and everybody on the other continents seems to have plenty. Hoping for later strategic rescourses! Maybe a monopoly of some kind. I think I need to control my whole continant for better chances. Very interesting indeed. I've always had at least one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
 |
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
Not that my observations are worth much, since they're based on 1 game with conquests so far...  (and that's only in the middle of the industrial era - not yet got to oil).
I started in a very cramped area, and had to take out the Americans to get enough room to breathe. The Aztecs and I have about half the continent each now, although they have slightly more (and this is after I took some of their territory, after I was done with America - not very nice starting locations). This left 6 civs of roughly equal size (plus the Iriquois on the other continent which were reduced to OCC by the AI civs there). My resource count is 2 spices, 1 wines, 1 iron, 1 horses, 1 coal, 1 saltpetre, 2 rubber. Of those, the horses, coal, saltepetre and one rubber were in American territory, with only the spices, wine, iron and 1 rubber in my 'native' area (and the wine only by dint of agressive expansion towards Washington).
Resources do seem scarcer - which is more of a problem with luxuries IMHO. Almost none of the AI have any to spare - I've had to live with 2 native and 2 imported for most of the game.
In many ways though, the game is atypical. On emperor, I nabbed 3 ancient wonders without SGLs (colossus and great library in my capital which also served as a settler pump during the REX phase, plus the lighthouse in a nearby city). It's all a bit strange.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
On the other side, when YOU have no iron and no saltpeter (or iron but no saltpeter and no rubber), things get more, well, interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Iron Giant
|
|
Started new game last night:
I got no iron.
Good start city, but on a thin strip of land between two AI.
I built the Great Library.
North of me I might win a long, costly war with Longbowmen.
South of me are the Romans.
They got:
2 Iron
Ivory
Temple of Zeus (just built)
double my number of citys due to better start location.
I think the resources are too, too scarce.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The resources thing cuts both ways.
My current game gave an isolated start. I didn't use suicide galleys but did build the Great Library so sat and waited for the AI's to turn up. I got 14 techs out of that, virtually to the end of the Medieval.
I had horses, so could build my Hittite War Chariots, but no iron, no saltpeter and no coal. I managed to buy some (expensive) iron and coal, built RR's, factories and a couple of coal plants (mainly thanks to the Romans declaring war, landing a Legion and a MI which my war chariots crushed, and giving my GA). I missed US but got ToE and Hoover.
The really good bit is that there are 7 civs left, only 6 sources of rubber and I have 3 of them! If I get oil then 2 civs are easy pickings for tanks and bombers and that will give me the missing resources.
I nearly quit this game at several points but am now looking forward to the payback for hanging in there.
I do think that strategic resources should not be quite so scarce and hope this is fixed but it makes for a different game where you have to choose who to war with carefully.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
geniemalin
|
|
I had no iron or horses. I fought a nasty archer/catapult war against the Maya to seize an iron deposit just north of me.
I still have no horses. I have no saltpeter, having just traded for Gunpowder, and none anywhere near me.
This has been an interesting game, and is forcing me to think on my feet. If you get al the strategic resources, especially if you get them without struggles, the game, especially warfare, can turn predictable. I like the unpredictability that the scarcity injects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
The reduction of the strategical resources is absolutely atrocious and makes war in Conquests not an option, but a necessity. This moves the otherwise enjoyable game dangerously close to the category war game. But for a war game it has a too poor combat system and not nearly enough unit types. So it isn't a game for builders anymore, but for warmongers there are better, more complex war games on the market. This fact severely reduces the usability of Conquests. The obvious solution is (sadly!), don't play it at the moment, enjoy other games and wait for a fix.
Oh, and before anyone complains and says, blah, blah, you can modify the odds of resource appearance in the editor, I know that, but it's the standard rules that should balance out a game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Yes, I am not unhappy with the resource scarcity for now (the next game or two that I play) but it needs to be sorted in the next patch for the long term playability of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SirOsis
I do see appearance ratio in the Natural Resources tab but they are the same value in C3C and PTW. Also luxuries have no appearance ration so this must be handled somewhere else. |
For some reason, apparently due to the addition of the new terrain types, the same settings result in fewer strategic resources in C3C compared to PTW.
In the example I gave earlier I now have 3 oil and three other civs have 1 oil each. So an 8 civ standard map in C3C has 6 of each of oil and rubber for 8 civs whereas PTW would often give one per civ.
Luxury resources are indeed handled differently and were deliberately reduced and scattered more widely on each continent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2004 06:05
) and only one missed out on horse. There were even some who had two of each. 
Lux were also abundant ( 
|