07-11-2001 06:05									#1
	Resource and Luxury Reserves Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Anyways, as I was worrying whether my empire will have oil and aluminum sources nearby when I discover the pre-requisite technology to see them a bit later on, when a thought struck me.

Here's my idea....

Why not allow players to create resource reserves to better allow management of resources they do not have.
When players engage in trade, the goods directly into the Empire's vast storage facilities. Trade agreements still last for 20 turns, and this amount is added into the reserves. So in theory, a player could accumulate 20 turns worth of a resource if they wish to. The obvious idea here is that instread of simply having one resource to use for 20 turns, regardless of if were using it or not, players can instead decide to hold some, all or none of them in storage. With luxuries, small compact empires can manage to get to "We love the king day" by building a lot of wonders and good improvements without the need for extra luxuries coming in from overseas. But they may still want to trade for luxuries and hold them in reserve to release when they go to war and need that happy boost.

For strategic resources, like oil, iron and so on, players can hold these in reserve, finish building whatever they are building, and then set all their best cities to producing units that need these special resources only when they are needed. Instead of wasting that 20 turns of oil you negotiated on a few destroyers and a battleship, players who were unlucky enough to be dealt a bad hand, may be able to stretch those 20 turns of oil into a much larger force, through good management of their cities and releasing oil only when their cities are needed for producing units that need oil.

Anyone like this idea? and to the Firaxis programmers, is this idea viable for a possible patch feature?

	07-11-2001 06:17									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I like this idea. But not storing "turns", per se; rather, storing shields. eg. Iron would generate 50 iron shields per turn for the iron reserve. Building 1 unit of swordsmen would deplete the iron reserve of 1 shield for each shield spent on the swordsman.

Furthermore, if any of the strategic reserves ran dry, a shield's worth of iron could be generated from 3 shields of production, tripling the cost of swordsmen. Or something.

With strategic reserves, there would be a real advantage to having 2 coal or oil deposits; as it is, they only give you diplomatic strength.

This would take a little effort from Firaxis, and I don't think it could be done externally (using the editor, etc).

	07-11-2001 06:22									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Furthermore, if any of the strategic reserves ran dry, a shield's worth of iron could be generated from 3 shields of production, tripling the cost of swordsmen. Or something.

So basically rendering strategic resources useless. How are you going to put in effort to produce oil and iron? The Alchemist unit?

	07-11-2001 06:30									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well, I appreciate the input, but lets not get too far offbase adding more and more to the core idea, although I'm flattered by the interest.

My core idea still stands. Should we be allowed to store resources (in turns) <--this is probably closer to the game than storing it in shields and release it only when we need these luxuries and resources. Again, if you're poor and lack oil, you can technically afford or at least be more inclined to pay the high prices AI civs ask in return for their strategic resources because you know you can maximize that resource and not squander it building a handful of units. I'm sure we all agree, 20 turns worth of oil, is not nearly enough to produce enough of the units you need, unless you happen to have a lot of very productive cities producing those units for all 20 turns, and that is rarely the case. Hence the idea to give that power to the player and let them decide which turn(s) will best require that resource.

	07-11-2001 06:41									#5
	Suffering from ads?

I don't see this as a problem. Unlike Civ2 where the whole world gangs up on you, you are bound to keep a few Civs friendly to you.

I think alliances and trading are suppose to be an important part of the game.

If you could store or make synthetic resources you might as well turn it off. I mean 20 turns worth. Do you know how much oil the US has stored? A year, maybe? Your proposing storing possibly hundreds of years worth?

I don't like the idea.

	07-11-2001 06:48									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

How are you going to put in effort to produce oil and iron? The Alchemist unit?

Actually no... have you ever heard of shale oil or tar sands? Supposed to be 100's of years of energy in tar sands. But right now it is cheapest to buy oil from the middle east. If the US wanted it could become foreign-oil-independant, at a cost of roughly $2/gallon for gasoline instead of the current $0.40 (excluding tax, markups, etc. which make it more like $1).

As for iron, it is very abundant. You could mine iron from just about anywhere in the world. You can even get it from seawater. The problem is that it is very expensive that way... Did you ever wonder where you got iron in your diet? It doesn't come from iron deposits, just straight out of the dirt! (well, by way of plants or cows.)

Anyway, dexters, sorry to manhandle your thread with my own ideas; just looking for ways to add realism in game-improving ways...

	07-11-2001 06:48									#7
	Suffering from ads?

Well, the problem with that analogy is that you can also conduct far more military operations in a year than the game system lets you.

Moving from a friendly city to an enemy city accross the border may take 2 turns, and even if you go by the 1 turn = 1 year scale, taking 2 years to reach an enemy city by say a walking unit is still highly improbable.

In most cases, when the scale is 1 turn = 2 years, you'll have infantry taking 3 turns or 6 years to reach a city that's only a mountain range away. In the real world, taking a few months to do the same is considered a long time. A few days is more like it.

So I fail to see how the problem you raise with the turn scale implicating we'll be storing massive amounts to a resource to be a viable one. The game is conducted in turns, I disregard the year scale and think purely in turns.

	07-11-2001 06:52									#8
	Support Apolyton

Did you ever wonder where you got iron in your diet?

Not at all. I take One a Day vitamins.

	07-11-2001 07:00									#9
	Good idea, bad game mechanics Tired of ads?

The basic idea of "storing" unused resources is potentially useful and realistic. However current game mechanics do not allow for such an idea to be integrated into the game in a balanced way.

It is true that the US has 30 days (I think) of oil strored up, it realeased some of it late last year when oil prices were too high. But Civ3 lacks the sort of mechanics to handle such a concept, unlike say Colonization.

Colonization has (IMO) an excellent economic and trading system, possibly too complicated for some people's liking. There you must gather the resources required for building units and buildings (wood and ore), then process them into tools. buildings and units.

However, resources in Colonization have a much more domestic importance, often being your *only* source of income and being required to build all but the most basic of improvements. Not having played Civ3 yet (grumble, grumble, Australia, grumble, grumble) I can't really compare how this measures up to the Civ3 model. I have gathered that you require some resources as prerequisites for improvements, but not as much as in Colonization.

If resources such as iron, oil and aluminium were a requirement for producing many modern imrpovements just as they are a requirement for building many modern units, then the idea of storing resources might work.

After all, oil is used in almost all parts of everyday life now, not just to produce aircraft carriers and the occasional tank (which account for only a small proportion of oils usage).

Just my 2c

	07-11-2001 07:57									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Bambul, you are correct in your assumption that strategic resources are required to build certain units.

I'm just wondering, what limitation, technically, is there for Firaxis to include code that allows us to manage availability of stored resources. Isn't engaging a trade route similar in idea?

ie: if I engage in trade with a rival civ for a resource or luxury, the game places that resource in my economy for a set number of turns then based on AI's decision, it will more than likely remove it after 20 turns. I would assume it could be done on scale that is controlled by the player.

P.S. and oil, iron and aluminum is indeed essentiall in producing modern units. So it is in many cases essential to have these resources to stay alive in the game. Especially if an enemy Civ is rolling your border towns with Tanks (requires Oil, Rubber) when you have outdated units to defend. And that's just an example. Plenty of other units requires such scarce elements.