 |
|
Caesar2760
|
|
Ohio...
Nov 2001 time: 00:34
|
|
Coal. Railroads, with their infinite movement, so vastly increase your attack and defense powers that it can't be ignored. I find that I can get away without others, depending on the civ, of course, but without coal you are vastly disadvantaged against those who do. And hey, Ironclads aren't bad, either...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
The availability of Iron definitely changes the face of the game more than any other Strategic resource. Also, with Iron you typically have enough game to secure the rest.
The one that I most hope to get within my borders, however, is Coal. I really dislike delaying my rail network, and if the game is not won by then I'm probably having a tough time grabbing resources by military means. I've had mixed success trading for Coal.
Dominae
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Coal. Without it no RR's. Also no coal plants - I only build 2 or 3 but they are crucial in outbuilding the AI to the Indusrial Era GW's.
Iron is a bit easier to get through war, especially as you know where it is from an early stage so you have more time to grab some.
Oil is the second most crucial as it is needed for the effective later units.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
eris
|
|
I have figured my way around the lack of other resources. The funniest one was fretting over a lack of horses (lost the REX race for that horse on the edge of my borders) and then realizing I was India and could build War Elephants. (DUH!!!) I had picked India to experiment with the traits and hadn't really thought about the UU.
But getting around not being able to do railroads is something I have not figured out. I can work around the transportation issues, clumsy as that may feel, but the loss of extra production lets the other civs just leave me in the dust. I have traded for coal ssuccessfully once, and then the trade would not renew at any price. I am not sure about the modern day real life ethics of war-for-oil, but I have come to understand war-for-coal as a political reality of my civ games. (Although I usually mutter under my breath, "You know, we could have done this the easy way." as I demonstrate the folly of not being a cooperative trade partner.) I have given up games where I had neither might, nor money, nor tech to obtain coal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Iron without a doubt. Lacking iron puts you at a big disadvantage through a long period of time.
As #2, I'm gonna say Horses. If I have Iron AND Horses, I can basically just go in and grab any resources I may be missing. No saltpeter? Muster your Knights and take it. Now you can build dozens of Cavalry which in turn can quickly grab that coal you didn't get either.
Early in the game, Horsemen reinforce your poorly protected cities at the edges of your fledgling empire. I can't imagine anyone not building Horsemen given the chance. Without horses (and outside of UUs, Ancient Cav and such), you have NO two movement units at all until Tanks.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002 time: 23:34
|
|
Give me iron, and I'll get the rest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:34
|
|
iron
|
|
|  |
 |
|
geniemalin
|
|
I can quite happily go throughout the Ancient Age without iron, using Archers, Horse and Catapults. Swords are nice but not essential. In the Middle Ages it gets harder, but Longbow-based counterattacks can let you survive long enough.
But if you are without RR in the industrial age you lose the game. Yes, you need iron too but there is more of it, so snatching some or trading for it is generally more feasible.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
Railroads and Factories require Iron...
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|