 |
|
Warhammer
|
|
Memphis, TN USA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Don't forget at the end of the war the Japanese ships lacked the oil to mount any operations (or very limited ones) against the allies.
The point is, you can get the resources, if you want them. It may not be as you would like to, but if it is that important you will get it.
Example:
As the French, I discover steam power. First civ to do so. I look at the map, and I have 0 coal, but the Russians have some excess, as do the Iroquois. So I GIVE them the requisite advances, and voila, I make the trade and I get coal. Not only that, but my generosity makes some game long friends.
The one item regarding resources I would be open to, is a toggle on the world selection screen for few/standard/tons for resource settings...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dalai Lama
|
 |
Antwerp, Belgium
Nov 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I like the concept of waging war on a civ because of resources very much. The game proves to be a lot more challenging. BUT, a little more resources and tweaking can`t hurt, I think.
Example in ancient era and middle ages: I`d say the chances you have and horses, and iron, and salpeter on your continent should be very very very small. And when you would have them all, you should get `punished` later on in the game with for example, no oil and no rubber.
On the other hand, I believe that every civ should have a more or less equal number of resources.
Example (overall view, late in a game): all the civs have had 3 or 4 resources on their home continent.
Like this:
- Greeks; horses, iron, rubber
- Romans; iron, saltpeter, oil
- French; horses, saltpeter, uranium,
- etc
- AND a civ with 4 (or even 5) resources, should be the envy of other civs, especially if they won`t trade. Alliances against that civ should also be easier to forge. The AI should wage war then (also see topic `Fun without war is pretending`) on that i-have-more-resources-than-the-rest-civ.
Anny comment????
By the way: the very first game i started (Germans), i was on a medium size continent (good for 15-20 cities), but there was no fresh water anywhere... This is really annoying, u can`t wage war over water or trade it...
Last edited by Dalai Lama on 19-11-2001 at 20:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barchan
|
 |
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
True, Germany and Japan both had access to oil prior to the war. But once war broke out and trade on the international market all but ceased they had little to run on but reserves. Neither Japan nor Germany produces any oil worth mentioning domestically; it's all imported. Both countries wartime strategies involved securing their own supply of oil (Germany in Romania, Russia and the Middle East, Japan in the Dutch East Indies). Both ultimately failed.
I'd like to point out that the entire German plan "Wacht am Rhein" (aka the Battle of the Bulge) hinged on the Panzer divisions moving quickly enough to capture Allied fuel depots to seize enough gas to reach the English channel. They didn't, and the whole drive literally ran out of gas well short of the channel.
But Zizka has a point: this is a game, not a history lesson. But the game is supposed to have some connection to history, doesn't it? After all, it's not chess. It's not all abstraction. It charts history from the beginning to now, with you in the driver's seat. And throughout history, not every nation had it as easy as the other. Fair or not, that's how it is.
And I don't think you can argue that because your territory lacks a strategic resource that you don't have any of it. You simply don't have enough of it to matter. For example, the US produces quite a bit of oil itself, but is still largely dependent on foreign imports. Sure, we could carry on for a while on our reserves and domestic production, but the US economy and military would be severely damaged by an extended embargo of foreign oil. WWII Germany was in much the same boat for Iron and was heavily dependent on Swedish imports (arguably, the sale of Iron ore to Germany was one of the few things that ensured they remained neutral; otherwise they probably would have been invaded). German steel output would have dropped dramatically without these imports.
The same could be said about CivIII's resources. Sure, you may have some coal here and there, but not enough to base a railroad industry on. You'll have to import it, do without, or take someone else's. Sure, the game would be simpler if strategic resources were evenly distributed to everyone. But then why even have them in there at all, save for useless eyewash? I think the added complexity is worth the frustration of getting totally shafted by circumstance every few games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
I like that I may not have resources in my Civ, but oil should be somewhere on my continent. This isn't some tiny island, it's stretches the entire length north and south of the map.
Question - if oil doesn't appear right away, can it be "discovered" on your land at a later date? That would be pretty cool, and actually somewhat in keeping with reality.
Also - Germany produced massive amounts of synthetic oil during WW2...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
In Civ3 you have a small chance every turn to discover a new source of any given resource. Personally I have never had much of a problem getting any resource I did not have, I have also found a solution to the problem one way or anther. If you want to increase your chances of finding oil put some cities in the desert, that is were it is most likely to apear. Also if you want a map with lots of oil in it try the world map that comes with the game, trust me it has a lot of oil in it. You can also edit maps and put the resouces on the map yourself were you would like them to be. I like how the resouces work in the game, it is fun.
Zizka the reason why nations always seem to have been able to secure their own source of oil is if they didn't have they traded for it or went out and look to find were it is and get it. That is what you have to do in Civ3, if you want oil and it that important to you in the game then go out their and find a way to get it. If want to trade for oil, you got to have something worth trading. If the computer does not want to trade or ask to high a price their are still things you can do.
Fromage has a good idea, you can raise porduction in your cities, agree with the computer's high price and build up massive amounts of tanks, bombers and battleships and lanuch a attack the computer player that has the oil and have it all to your self.
I also find that if the computer player is weaker than you, when you renogiate your peace treaty with them they are more willing to give you a lot of things. I read on the message broads here that one person bought a city with a wonder in it for only 2000 gold when doing this.
So Zizka why dont you try some of these things out and see if this will get you the oil you seek instead of saying the game needs to be fixed because you didn't get any oil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramer
|
|
Atlanta, GA
Mar 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Okay, thoughts on the whole oil matter.
The problem with Oil is not only is it a late-game resource, it's a nearly essential one. Unlike most of the rest of the resources for which there are decent substitutes, going without Oil will pretty much screw you and end your game.
I don't think different units is the answer, there's no real historical precedent, and unlike SMAC, we're trying to stick at least fairly closely to the real world.
I think a real-world solution to the problem exist. Ethanol. For those that don't know, ethanol is a form of alcohol which is often considered as a cleaner burning alternative for Gasoline. The most interesting part of the Ethanol solution would be that it wouldn't require Oil. Ethanol is generated with vegetable matter --typically corn.
Now this makes things interesting -- players would be able to make an ethanol refinery in a city, then that city (but not ones connected to it by roads) would be able to make gas-powered units. The down side should be loss of food -- I'm thinking an ethanol refinery should consume about 4 food. It should be a signifigant hardship to run an ethanol refinery, players should still consider oil a great benefit, and it should be worth fighting over, but it shouldn't kill your game if you just can't get your hands on it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Zizka sorry if I offended you. Just trying to say that there are solutions to the problem of have no oil or other resource. I can under stand that you dont like to go to war to get oil or if the computer is really unwilling to trade it, of course I would be unwilling to trade any extra oil I had to Civs that didn't have it as well. History is filled with many war being fought over limited resources.
I think if we put we all put enough time into this we can find a peacefull solution to the problem of not having a certain resource in the game. Of course again I say you can always play on an edited map were you put the resources where you want them or play on map you now has a lot of oil in it.
But has anyone tryed the trick of renogitating a peace treaty with a weeker neighbor to get something you want( like oil). That is how I was able to get horsesin one game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JerryK72
|
|
Garden City Michigan
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I like the resources the way they are! Its what makes strategy games strategic. Geez, I think thats why they are called strategic resources. I had a game with no oil in my territory. But I was able to buy some from an ally, before I stabbed him in the back and started bombing him. I had to send a transport over the ocean to fight the Russians for an oil resource. When I lost it, I had to make nice with a former ally, and trade for some.
After reading this thread, I found out I could edit my favorite units to not require a certain resource. That kinda takes away the strategy of the game..
Jerry
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Death's Toe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
I like that I may not have resources in my Civ, but oil should be somewhere on my continent. This isn't some tiny island, it's stretches the entire length north and south of the map.
Question - if oil doesn't appear right away, can it be "discovered" on your land at a later date? That would be pretty cool, and actually somewhat in keeping with reality.
Also - Germany produced massive amounts of synthetic oil during WW2...
Venger |
Resources do show up randomly. Infact, I think when one resource is exhausted, it shows up somewhere else.
Also, I'd like to know how you qualify your statement about 'massive amounts of syntetic oil'. If you mean that they had a lot, then how do you explain all the grounded air-craft, and abandoned tigers and panthers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
I do see the whole resource model as a very fun one, and oil is certainly on the list of my likes. If I do, at some point, discover that I got no oil, I am left with several interesting options. If the civ who has the oil is an ally, I can use my diplomatic skills to get what I want. If that's an enemy, well, I should amass cavalry, and take at least one of those damn cities.
Also, look at this so. Say, many civilizations have got oil, and it's a modern world war going on. You can largely shake somebody's situation by trying to cut their Oil supply. Have your aircraft bomb the roads that come from Oil sources, pillage those, leave him with no Oil, and then kill his Cavalry with Tanks.
It has to be said, the resource system makes it slightly tougher to play an isolationist in Civ 3. Isolationists in Civ 2 would feel themselves fine on a middle-sized continent, left there to develop a number of cities filling in the continent, have Settlers marching over the place and improving everything that can be improved, and researching in peace, while dedicating a number of cities to build an army, should the enemy come with an invasion attempt. In Civ 3, this is not the case, as you need those resources, and thus you need overseas colonies or contact with other Civs. Isolationists in Civ 2 rarely did at all build a transport ship to leave their continent, and had little business with other civilizations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dr.charm
|
|
I love the strategic resources, but what I would like to see is a synthetic oil refinery as a minor wonder.
To make things more balanced, I think that only the city that builds the wonder can now build oil dependent units (yes, not realistic, but better balanced I think).
Oh, and I'm sorry but Nazi Germany's synthetic oil production was not large *at all* as another poster pointed out.
And as for wars fought for oil, it could be argued that Japan attacked the US in December of 1941 because of oil. In fact, I would argue that.
Cheers,
Dr. Charm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dr.charm
|
|
Hate to reply to myself, but I just had another thought. A synthetic oil refinery would/should require coal in order to build/function.
Cheers,
Dr. Charm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiva
|
 |
Omaha,Nebraska USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramer
I think a real-world solution to the problem exist. Ethanol. For those that don't know, ethanol is a form of alcohol which is often considered as a cleaner burning alternative for Gasoline. The most interesting part of the Ethanol solution would be that it wouldn't require Oil. Ethanol is generated with vegetable matter --typically corn.
Now this makes things interesting -- players would be able to make an ethanol refinery in a city, then that city (but not ones connected to it by roads) would be able to make gas-powered units. The down side should be loss of food -- I'm thinking an ethanol refinery should consume about 4 food. It should be a signifigant hardship to run an ethanol refinery, players should still consider oil a great benefit, and it should be worth fighting over, but it shouldn't kill your game if you just can't get your hands on it. |
Ethanol as its used now is blended into gas to stretch the amount of gas. You could use straight ethanol but it doesnt have as much stored energy as gas so you would't get the mpg or horsepower of gas. You wouldnt be able to have any sort of high proformance aircraft like we have now. And you would have to have massive amounts of corn or grain. Still its better than nothing.
A better way would be to just have a "alternative Fuels" tech. Make it expensive to reseach so its a pain but its still there for people who come up on the short end of the oil stick.
It could cover ethanol, solar, synthedic oil , fuel cells, soybean fuels or whatever else all under one wing without detracting from the resource part of the game or adding alot of needless complication via micro management.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I play very aggressively in the early game so that I do not have to worry about resources... by the time saltpeter appears I almost always have one in my territory.
I do think a good solution for people that do not have certain resources would be able to build conscript versions of the unit at 200% cost... you wouldn't be able to conquer the world this way, but you would be able to take a city that has the resources you need.
I like the clumping of luxuries a lot... strategic resources should be in more than one single spot on the map. Resources are the only reason to conquer in the mid-late game (other than destroying other civs) it is funny having a monopoly in 2/3's of the resources there are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ken01
|
|
LA, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
I think the real point (hidden though it is) was mentioned by Solver.
The resource issue is only a problem if the only way you play the game is as a isolationist (aka, SimCiv).
I agree that the resource issue is annoying. I used to stick to my island (I even tried experimenting with smaller and smaller islands) and block out the world. Eventually, I get jet fighters and obliterate every other civ in the world with massive numbers of jets and a couple mech infs.
Now, I have to obliterate them with ground troops. Which is a hassle and a half.
But resources are fun. I won one game against the massive Zulu empire (which controlled about 40% of the map, and 50% of the useful map) because they had a huge empire with few resources.
I also won once as the only civ with coal.
If you're complaining about oil, just imagine having no coal. Your navy getting pummeled by ironclads. Having no opportunity to make railroads, your production is an order of magnitude worse that other civs.
That's why you want to be the first civ with refining. You figure out where the oil is, and get it.
Rather than complain about having no oil, why not make sure you have all the oil? Become a robber baron. That's whant the AI does when it has the oil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
habitualuser
|
|
New Amsterdam, New York
Feb 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Death's Toe
Resources do show up randomly. Infact, I think when one resource is exhausted, it shows up somewhere else.
|
Yes, they do. Only ran out in a few games... One time Iron ran out and re-appeared in the same spot, and in another game some oil just popped up next to a city, long after i had it's tech.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barchan
|
|
drifting across the sands of time....
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Dr. Charm said:
“And as for wars fought for oil, it could be argued that Japan attacked the US in December of 1941 because of oil. In fact, I would argue that.”
Having already argued that in this thread, I'd heartily concur! 
As far as trading strategic resources, let's think about that for a minute. I have oil. I can build tanks and battleships. My opponent comes along asking for oil. Obviously he cannot build tanks or battleships. Do I really want to enable him to do so? Perhaps this is why the AI is so reluctant to trade strategic resources. I know it's why I'd be reluctant to trade them.
And, if you are a peaceful Civ, do you really need oil? I don’t have the manual handy, so I don’t know if oil is needed for the spaceship or not, but you can still build perfectly good infantry (unless you lack rubber as well...) and artillery. If you build these in quantity you should be able to mount a fairly effective defense. At the very least, you should be big enough to keep the AI from bullying you around.
As was pointed out, Germany’s production of synthetic fuel was far too small to meet its needs.
As regards Ethanol and other replacement fuels, they probably just wouldn’t be effective enough to be an adequate replacement. Even in WWII, the engines for war machines were high-performance things. As such they required potent fuel to operate at peak performance. One little-known edge the Western allies had against the Axis was more powerful aviation gasoline (aka AVGAS). The Axis generally could not refine its AVGAS at more than 100 octane, whereas the US was refining 120-130 octane AVGAS. The higher-octane fuel meant higher performance for Allied aircraft, and, in an evenly matched fight, every little edge helps.
Anyway, the point is that there are some historical constraints that have to be followed to call the game “Civilization”. If you add too many “what ifs” you might was well go back to SMAC. In the modern age, oil is king. Petroleum products power most of the world’s military machines (aside from nuclear-powered sea vessels that, arguably, would never have been developed without gasoline-powered grandparents). We currently have nothing else on earth that can be as easily stored, transported, consumed and releases as much energy as oil and its derivatives. To suggest that some sort of alternate fuel be developed to make tanks on par with those that run on oil both (a) proposes the introduction of a technology that does not exist and (b) seeks to eliminate the challenge that strategic resources add to the game.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2001 19:53
|