15-10-2001 14:54									#1
	Power plants and strategical resources Get a bigger avatar today!

In short:

(coal/oil) power plant: do I need coal/oil in the trade network?
hydro plant: river, sea as in CivII?
nuclear (fission) plant: uranium in the trade network?

new types of plants?

	15-10-2001 15:02									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think it unlikely from what we have heard that resources will be needed for buildings. I found CtP's decision to unlink the proximity of water with irrigation and farmland sensible. The maps are just too macro-scale to show all the small rivers. Similarly in Civ III the number of sources of common resources like coal would be overwhelming. Limiting them to restricted locations and only tying them into a few critical items makes the game more playable.

	15-10-2001 15:25									#3
	Tired of ads?

Actually I think this would be sensible. You could always build sources of renewable energy (hydro plant, solar plant) later on in the game so you can get energy. Of course the nuclear and power plants would bring their own advantages and disadvantages (cheap, plenty of reliable power).

So yeah, I think resources to build buildings is a good idea!

	15-10-2001 22:41									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Speaking of power plants, I wonder if they will have the same effect as in civ2? In civ2 they increased the shield output, although not by very much.

Maybe there will be a national grid system where each power plant benefits all cities? Like the satelites in SMAC?

	15-10-2001 23:02									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think it would be wize to make these buildings dependant on a civilizations supply of natural resources, after all, that should be part of the economic model.

I hope Firaxis put this in there.

	15-10-2001 23:07									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

As rubber is needed for the Mass Transit System, why wouldn't uranium be needed for a Nuclear Plant?

What happens if you trade uranium from someone and builds powerplants. Then you get in war with that civ and loses your uranium. Will your plant still work?

	15-10-2001 23:09									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

This also razes another question:

If you build a certain building like a factory, and then loose your supply of coal, would you still be able to use your factory?

	15-10-2001 23:24									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

i remember them saying an airport needs oil.

	15-10-2001 23:29									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think resources will be used only for building proposals, not for mantaining. If u need one resource for mantaining a building, wouldnt be enought resources for all the civs and wars will be something of all days, like in CIVII, and thats not something Firaxis wants.

	15-10-2001 23:34									#10
	Remove this text

I don't know, I guess that everybody wants one of each resource anyway. But most likely you will only need it when it first is built.

	15-10-2001 23:34									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

bah, i think you should need upkeep costs, but then again i also proposed stockpiling resources

	15-10-2001 23:39									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX bah, i think you should need upkeep costs, but then again i also proposed stockpiling resources

Viva la Colonization!

I wanted stockpiles too.

	15-10-2001 23:45									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

To require resources in the upkeep of buildings is fairly ludicrous consider in a war - you lose your city which you generate all your uranium in - all your power plants are destroyed - it's insane.

It's much more likely ( and if correct, another big for Firaxis ) that they will be required more simply for the initial construction of civic improvments.

I disagree with the notion of removing rivers/ocean tiles nearby as a requirement to build irrigation. It adds another degree of challenge and realism. Afterall you're not going to fight another more powerful civilization for a fertile river delta, if you can just terraform your own in the middle of a dessert.

	15-10-2001 23:45									#14
	Remove this text

If resources are needed for building upkeep we'll all want stockpiles.

Surely there is a point at which the resource system could become a real barrier to game play, and this may be it for me. Talk about making warfare difficult.

David

	16-10-2001 02:07									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Appears to me that one source of a resource supplies all that is needed as long as it is available. So there's no such thing as stockpiles, and the same resource can both facilitate building a city improvement and sustaining it. CTP 1 and 2 were NOT developed by the Firaxis team and will not be a source of ideas or code.

	16-10-2001 02:18									#16
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Blaupanzer Appears to me that one source of a resource supplies all that is needed as long as it is available. So there's no such thing as stockpiles, and the same resource can both facilitate building a city improvement and sustaining it. CTP 1 and 2 were NOT developed by the Firaxis team and will not be a source of ideas or code.

but to trade it with another civ you need an "extra" source. and in a diplomacy screenshot, it said "1 extra". and, according to other screen shots, resources are plentiful in an area, so it is doubtful they only had 2 of the resources. i believe that 1 resource supplies a certain number of cities.

	16-10-2001 02:24									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm sure that buildings won't require upkeep resources, as that would make resources way too valuable. So if you lost your uranium, your production would instantly be crippled. Civilizations should not be that fragile just because of one resource.

	16-10-2001 03:06									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I like the idea of improvements being dependent on resources, but only for building them, not upkeeping them. This insures that the game isn't unbalanced from resource losses, but does add to the depth of the game (and makes you reconsider your wars).

	16-10-2001 03:32									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think resources should determine upkeep and building. Resources have always been critical asspect ofwar. if we our supply of oil was cut off today it would severly hamper our ability to fight, so i don't see it as unbalanced or unrealistic. Remeber Japan in WW2

	16-10-2001 06:08									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mars I think resources should determine upkeep and building. Resources have always been critical asspect ofwar. if we our supply of oil was cut off today it would severly hamper our ability to fight, so i don't see it as unbalanced or unrealistic. Remember Japan in WW2

Realistically, I agree with you. But for playability I do not. In the game, consider that lack of resources will prevent you from building more units & replacing your losses.

Re WW2 Japan, just look at it as their not being able to replace units lost at the front.

--
Example: If coal was required to use factories and you lost your coal, there would have to be a big popup window informing you of which cities had a loss of production due to coal loss. Without the window, people would be screaming their head off if it happened and they were not made aware of why.

The simplicity of only needing resources to BUILD keeps the game within Sid's philosophy of design, just as having each resource being good for every city connected to it.

Actually, I would like a 'simulation' game which also entails random events such as plague, changes in climate (as has occured several times in numerous places), etc. Probably would only play it a few times, though.

	16-10-2001 07:34									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Example: If coal was required to use factories and you lost your coal, there would have to be a big popup window informing you of which cities had a loss of production due to coal loss. Without the window, people would be screaming their head off if it happened and they were not made aware of why.

but if you popped up a menu then it wouldn't be as big of a problem. Then you could have the city advisor, national advisor or what ever their name is now could say "sir we are out of coal so our factories are not working now, until we acquire more coal our factories" and it could say it in the civilopedia "you need a constant supply of coal to make your factories work." In that i think it work

	16-10-2001 07:40									#22
	Support Apolyton

I still think that model for resource requirements is just too involved for CIV. It is realistic, but for the compass of the game, it adds too much management.

	16-10-2001 08:25									#23
	Question Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ok, let's assume that the resource system is the simplest we've mentioned- if you have access to A horse, then you can switch or initiate the construction of horsemen in any city that has access to it.

So, if you're crankin' out horsemen, and your horsey supply fizzles, then can you just keep makin' horsemen if you don't switch production to something else?

???

Hopefully some dude pops up and says, "Hey punk, you no make no more horsemen."

	16-10-2001 08:37									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Good question.

And don't call me 'punk'- my mom used to call me that all the time.

But I could see Firaxis thinking ahead and making a pop-up for this, since losing resources is such a big deal. Let us hope...

and btw- you used a double negative.

[in one of those moods ]

	16-10-2001 11:31									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I hope that strategic resources are needed for the maintainence of certain improvements for several reasons:
1) It would be inkeeping with Firaxis' plan that you now need to protect ALL your territory, not just cities. For example, lets say you have a city that is able to collect coal, which in turn fuels your power plants and factories. Along comes the enemy and, instead of attacking your city, just plonks themselves on the coal square-well, you can't just hide behind your city walls, you'll actually have to go out there and rough them up a bit!!! In real-life terms, how far do you think England would have gotten in WWII if the Nazi's had taken over their coal fields?
2) Reources are now Depletable, not only would this encourage players to move to renewable energy (aside from the pollution factor), but would also drive players to seek out new sources of these resources!! Thus keeping up with the economics driving expansion/conflict!
3) Security of resources is an important factor in real-life, and should be in the game. If your power stations could keep pumping out energy, even though your source of coal/uranium is no longer accessible, then not only would it not be very realistic, but I don't think it would be much fun, either!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	16-10-2001 11:42									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Faboba To require resources in the upkeep of buildings is fairly ludicrous consider in a war - you lose your city which you generate all your uranium in - all your power plants are destroyed - it's insane.

Without stockpiling it would be hard to justify.

quote: I disagree with the notion of removing rivers/ocean tiles nearby as a requirement to build irrigation. It adds another degree of challenge and realism. After all you're not going to fight another more powerful civilization for a fertile river delta, if you can just terraform your own in the middle of a dessert.

The problem in the past has been the lack of rivers on the map. Entire continents can be riverless because only rivers the size of the Rhine are represented. Any grassland is grassland only because it is getting ample rainfall. Jungle without rainfall would not be jungle. Perhaps some terrain types like desert should simply be unable to be irrigated until modern technologies are discovered.

	16-10-2001 17:43									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Faboba To require resources in the upkeep of buildings is fairly ludicrous consider in a war - you lose your city which you generate all your uranium in - all your power plants are destroyed - it's insane.

Who said anything about the building being destroyed if it doesnt have the required resources?? Wouldn't it make more sense for the building to simply not function. A fission power plant doesnt create much power without fuel, but as soon as you get more fuel, it can begin producing power quite quickly.

	16-10-2001 18:26									#28
	Got spare money?

Is there any solid proof that buildings will require strategic resources in order to be built?

If anyone can point to a quote or an article where this is confirmed, please post it here! I'd really like to see it first.

Thanks!

	16-10-2001 22:12									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm with Jason on this one. This debate has devolved to speculation on whether resources will be needed for upkeep of buildings. We don't even know if we'll need them to build the buildings in the first place. All examples related to resources at the site and in the reviews i've read have been related to building units (which are sustained with money).

	17-10-2001 00:04									#30
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold The problem in the past has been the lack of rivers on the map. Entire continents can be riverless because only rivers the size of the Rhine are represented. Any grassland is grassland only because it is getting ample rainfall. Jungle without rainfall would not be jungle. Perhaps some terrain types like desert should simply be unable to be irrigated until modern technologies are discovered.

Remember that, even when irrigated, desert still only produces 1 food, and not much else (only 1 minerals?), at least in Civ2. I once watched a documentary about a desert people who once lived entirely off caravan trade, but have taken to agriculture in recent generations to suppliment their income (trucks and planes outcompeted them). They lived in a rocky desert area, and their agriculture relied upon the careful and discrete use of well water. Still, it produces much less than nature does by itself in an unirrigated river delta.