 |
| |
|
|
Dain
|
|
One of the most annoying problem with Civ in general is the lack of redundancy. There is too much dependancy on resources in the game and the advancement of technology should ease the limitations.
For example, take the Rifleman unit that you get access to with Nationalism. It says that by the time you get to this technology saltpeter is plentiful and you do not need the resource to make these units.
I think this should be adopted with most of the resources. When they are first discovered you should be dependant on the resource concentrations but as you advance in technology you should be able to find common resources without relying on concentrations of it.
A very simple example is Iron. I find tapping into iron very early can often lead to it being depleted by the time you really need it, that is to make railroads and it is all just random. Sometimes I deplete my reserves of iron having not made anything that uses iron at all.
Iron should become much easier to extract as technology develops and they should utilise redundancy for most of the earlier resources.
Should you really be without horses in any modern age just because you did not have them early on? Stuff like that prevents Civ from becoming all it can be.
Last edited by Dain on 23-01-2004 at 08:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bvoncranium
|
 |
The Nation's Capital
Mar 2003
time: 00:33
|
|
Interesting points.
Certainly in modern times man has learned to make once-scarce resources more plentiful through better detection and extraction (e.g. iron, saltpeter, coal, oil, aluminum, uranium), synthesis & substitution (e.g. rubber, oil) and in the case of horses, breeding. Sure have made a mess of whales & fish though... 
In Civ some of the pain of resource depletion is addressed by resource re-emergence; from my experience this rarely leaves the world without a resource (though it probably won't emerge where you want it to be).
I would welcome some better model for resource management. At the same time, the way that the game handles resources, however simplistic and imperfect, certainly gives a player focus: keep your resources and take them from your opponents and you have a good chance of winning!
- bvc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dain
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zero
iron doesnt disappear all that frequently.
If you have 1-3, it should last you an entire game.
If youre really worried about iron disappearing, just disconnect it when ur not using it. |
At times it does, at times it doesn't, the whole point is that it can be very random. I've played some games where 1/3 of the continent was hill and mountains and had no iron on the entire continent, none on the next one, I had to travel to the opposite side of the world and take what little of it there was so i could build railroads.
Iron is not that scarce and its a critical resource because you need it to build a non-military improvement in railroads.
In one annoying game I had 3 sources of iron and stole another 2 from the AIs and had lost 4 of those sources before I could make railroads (i only build a road to one source at a time).
Yes, alot of games I go through and do not lose it or lose it well after I no longer need it. The point is it can make needlessly frustrating.
I do agree that securing resources is a vital aspect of the game and doubt that would ever change with more redundancy, it is just a little stupid to be launching spaceships when you can't even build a railroad, and that has occurs quite frequently in standard games at high difficulty when grabbing large chunks of land early on is alot more difficult.
In my current game I am playing I have 3/4 of the map explored and am holding on the only 3 sources of iron (by force) leaving the computer AIs to make inferior units to combat my better ones.
If I hold onto those sources of iron then the game wont reach the modern age. Does that make that resource far too important? I think so, the same thing applies if you do not have saltpeter to a lesser degree, but at least you can eventually make advanced units without it and do not need it for non-military construction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dain
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You could always adjust the game in the editor so that the resource simply dosen't disappear. If it's so frustrating that it kills your fun, do that. |
No, the mystical answer to everything is not edit it because modifying the game in any way makes it pointless to compare your progress with previous attempts and with other players.
It is strategy game and you need to adjust your style of play to whatever are the rules for competitive play, not just change them because they annoy you.
I hope they read suggestions like this and when looking to make improvements for future expansions or versions then they can incorporate the good ideas which make sense and are not too hard to code in as features.
To me Civ is not Doom, making my own mods of the game might be okay for my own ammusement, but for competitive games its just standard rules. If you become dependant on mods you will enjoy competitive games even less and will be more accustom to unofficial modifications.
Once you have played Civ for a while its only real attraction is to see how much you improve from one game to the next or how you compete against other players. Most people I play with refuse to play with any modifications to the game.
Hell, they even refuse to play with the beta patches. If its not official then its not allowed. No matter what modifications you make to the game, you can't fix the AI's lack of intelligence so being isolated from competitive games is not a real solution for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rkarmes
|
|
They should add some terrain improvements in later ages that act as sources of common resources. For example, your workers should be able to build an "Iron Mine" that acts as a normal mine (increased shield output) AND as a source for the Iron resource. This terrain improvement could be made available by a technology that appears late in the middle ages maybe or early in the industrial age. Same for coal, horses, oil and even uranium and aluminum. The technologies for the later stage resources could be near the end of the tech progression in the modern age.
By making them terrain improvements, they are susceptible to pillaging / bombardment and interdiction by enemy units. The other option is to make the resource available as a city improvement but I think the terrain improvement is a better idea.
Rob
|
|
| |
|
|
|
eris
|
|
I agree with the frustration of resouce scarcity. It has reinforced my warmongering decisions, which is not entirely a good thing in my opnion. (I'm *trying* to be nice!)(Mostly.) I'm still judging whether it kills gameplay or just changes it.
However, one thing in this thread seems worth clarifying. To my understanding, the depletion of resources such as Iron is entirely independent of whether you are using the resource, hooked up to it, or anything else. It is purely a random chance per turn that it will disappear from one place and reappear in another. (Sort of like the Spawn AI option) Therefore, I recommend that you use it while you've got it. It is an infinite supply until it runs out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dain
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkarmes
They should add some terrain improvements in later ages that act as sources of common resources. For example, your workers should be able to build an "Iron Mine" that acts as a normal mine (increased shield output) AND as a source for the Iron resource. This terrain improvement could be made available by a technology that appears late in the middle ages maybe or early in the industrial age. Same for coal, horses, oil and even uranium and aluminum. The technologies for the later stage resources could be near the end of the tech progression in the modern age.
By making them terrain improvements, they are susceptible to pillaging / bombardment and interdiction by enemy units. The other option is to make the resource available as a city improvement but I think the terrain improvement is a better idea.
Rob |
Yes, I agree if there was more substance involved in the collecting and use of resources then it would make the game more interesting. Having a slightly more in-depth resource system I think could add alot to the game.
I think each type of resource should have varying levels of concentration making some more valuable than others and have the level of concentration slowly deplete through its extraction (for depletable resources).
For example, I find a source of iron in my terrirtory after getting iron working, it will have a certain level of concentration and can provide X amount of iron per turn which can be used in production. That means one source of iron may not provide enough iron to allow all your cities to produce say swordsmen but would allow a certain amount of production based on its capacity.
For example sake, say my iron supply has a value of 100/10,000 then I know I can use a total of 100 iron per turn from that source and after using a total 10k that source of iron would be depleted. If a swordsman for example required 25 units of iron to make a swordsman then that one supply of iron would allow up to four cities to make swordsmen per turn.
At full capacity, that would give you 100 turns of constant use. If its use was more strategic and depletion was not random then there would be good reason to tap into multiple sources to expand production and would allow it to more critical in trading if it is realistically depletable and not random.
You could also allow workers to have a survey command, they could spend a number of turns surveying the terrain for minor concentrations of resources. For example, after spending several turns surveying some hills the worker finds a small iron source of 25/1,000 which could allow the civ to use that source to increase the availability of iron for a short period of time.
The difficulty and chance of success at surveying for resources should dependant on your technology level. If you have just discovered Iron Working you are dependant on heavy concentrations that show when you get the technology but as your technological level improves you should be able to find minor reserves in terrain which they are normally found. If you have no mountains or hills near you then you will have problems acquiring it at all.
Then you could utilise strategic use of resources. Say you take over an iron source from an enemy Civ, you might disconnect your access to local reserves and use the newely acquired source so you use up resources further away from you.
At higher technology levels your ability to survey for resources, the rate of extraction and the size of the reserves would increase.
For example, in real life we can continue to extract oil from reserves once thought to be depleted with the use of more advanced technology.
Its important resources do not take too much micro management but has logical and fun type of mechanics which do not make the development of your civ too clinical.
Resources will always be valuable. But with technology and time you should have some access to most types of resources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
Interesting line of thought.
There's prolly an easier way though, with less MM and less difficulty for the newer player... just decrease the chance of depletion with the discovery of specific new techs, probably in the same 'chain' (i.e., all having to do with material science and manufacturing technology), e.g., Engineering, Chemistry, Metallurgy, Steam Power, Mass Production, etc., would each do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dain
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Interesting line of thought.
There's prolly an easier way though, with less MM and less difficulty for the newer player... just decrease the chance of depletion with the discovery of specific new techs, probably in the same 'chain' (i.e., all having to do with material science and manufacturing technology), e.g., Engineering, Chemistry, Metallurgy, Steam Power, Mass Production, etc., would each do so. |
Yeah, that can work. It all depends on how detailed and interesting they make future versions of the game. I would like to see more in-depth developments which do not add too much to micro-management but not go to extremes like Masters of Orion went from verstion 2 to version 3.
MOO3 is a horrible compared to 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dain
No, the mystical answer to everything is not edit it because modifying the game in any way makes it pointless to compare your progress with previous attempts and with other players. |
Oh, yes it is. Who said anything about comparing attempts? I just do this to relax. 
quote:
It is strategy game and you need to adjust your style of play to whatever are the rules for competitive play, not just change them because they annoy you. |
You are correct -- it is a strategy game, not something worth raising my blood pressure over.
quote:
I hope they read suggestions like this and when looking to make improvements for future expansions or versions then they can incorporate the good ideas which make sense and are not too hard to code in as features.
|
So it's all right to scramble everything around, as long as it's official? How do you feel about our resident modding communtiy?
quote:
To me Civ is not Doom, making my own mods of the game might be okay for my own ammusement, but for competitive games its just standard rules. If you become dependant on mods you will enjoy competitive games even less and will be more accustom to unofficial modifications.
|
I see. What if you have no interest in competition?
quote:
Once you have played Civ for a while its only real attraction is to see how much you improve from one game to the next or how you compete against other players. Most people I play with refuse to play with any modifications to the game. |
I've been playing Civ, etc., since 1999, and for me, one of the principle enjoyments is seeing how different I make each game, both by altering my playstyle and by modding the game. I haven't gotten bored yet.
quote:
Hell, they even refuse to play with the beta patches. If its not official then its not allowed. No matter what modifications you make to the game, you can't fix the AI's lack of intelligence so being isolated from competitive games is not a real solution for me. |
To each their own, I suppose...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dain
|
|
Yeah, for people who are not into competion playing then making whatever adjustments you like is fine. I have played with the editor a little but its more out of ammusement than anything else.
I guess I don't find Civ all that entertaining outside of competition play because it lacks alot of depth for a strategy game, that and the AI is really inept even in Sid mode.
If you can come to terms with an opposition that just likes to zerg you then you shouldn't have any real difficulty with the game in any difficulty mode.
I just can't really take it too seriously outside of player based games, other players make mistakes, but they usually have the intelligence to have a goal or a point in what they are doing and you can play with 'intelligent' opponents who do not need to play under a different set of rules or an outrageous head start to pass off as competitive.
Tiny map civ games with just players are alot of fun. Sometimes they can be over quite quickly, but they can be a real laugh. Eight human player multiplayer games are also alot of fun. When you are used to playing without or limited AI you quickly find out how dull and boring normal games are.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2004 08:45
|