 |
| |
|
|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I kind of like resources. Don't love, don't hate; it at least makes you think a little bit about building cities in places you might never imagine one could go looking.
That said, I agree that the disappearing thing is really, really stupid. Sorry to say this, but iron buried in a mountain does NOT run out very quickly. When two iron resources peter out in 10 turns (maybe 100-200 years? I assume resources represent a saturation of that resource; i.e. horses don't mean there aren't horses many places, just not enough to be used for practical military purposes; similarly, I figured iron in a mountain meant that section of the range was particularly iron-rich), that's a bit much. Uranium isn't needed in such huge quantities that a supply of it would poof over 20 years (uranium may not be plentiful, I'll concede that's modeled well, but I've seen the specs on uranium mines versus stuff you can make with it, and you don't need buckets of the stuff to get enough radioactive stuff from 'em). Oil reservoirs are HUGE, oftentimes etc.
I propose the following: Resources ought to have a RANGE of time at which they're useful. For instance, iron should be plentiful but die out in 40-60 turns (takes a lot of iron). HOWEVER, iron in a more 'natural' place might last longer - in a mountain as opposed to a hill. Similarly, oil in a desert or in a tundra region will last longer than oil on plains (Texas has a lot of small oil wells 'cause none of them seem to last a long time; Saudi Arabia and Alaska can pump tons of the stuff). So there'd be a range of usefulness based on location. Makes the concept of 'strategic reserves' even more important - save that iron on the mountain until your two hill sources poof, so you can have a buffer while you seek a couple newer, more secure sources.
And horses (you can RAISE new horses), aluminum (the civilopedia even mentions it being the most plentiful metal; this stuff doesn't GO anywhere), rubber (it really DOES grow on trees!) and possibly saltpeter (once you've figured this stuff out, it isn't all that hard to make) needn't go anywhere, ever. Thus allowing "non-critical" resources to appear in slightly smaller quantities but last longer, while iron, coal, etc., the stuff people always want as soon as they become available, will be somewhat easy to find but prone to run out fast unless budgeted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Weldon
|
|
Laguna Hills, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
I believe that the idea of resources is tremendous, but that the penalty for not having them is _way_ too high. This is the same mistake Firaxis made with culturally reverting cities. The idea adds interest to the game, but the penalty of losing _all_ units within that city is just too large.
My solution is simple: treat resources as exceptionally pure locations. Assume all areas have trace amounts of needed resources, but that their extraction is much more costly than extraction from such 'pure' locations. This also makes the idea of a disappearing resource much more understandable, as it isn't totally gone, it's just that all of the easily accessible stuff is used up.
Mechanically, I use the editor to create duplicates of all units that require resources. The cost of these units is three times the cost of normal units (adjust the multiple to suit your tastes). I then remove resource requirements for things like building railroads. Of course if I have a resource I'll choose to build the cheaper units, but if I don't have it, then I at least have the option of building the more expensive equivalent units.
What you are left with is what I think Firaxis intended... an interesting addition to gameplay that makes it very important to accuire resources, but not absolutely essential. Remember that they made the design decision to make older units more capable vs. newer units specifically to enable resource-poor nations to stay at least somewhat competetive. That was an interesting choice which lead mostly to a lot of newbies *****ing about abnormal combat results. Personally I think my solution is much more appropriate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Allemand
|
|
Olympia
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
After losing two squares of the same resource in a very short time (happened more than once, too) I don't think the resource disappearances are all that random. I also seem to lose a resource just before I need it, again it's happened too often. So there must be something else at play here besides a 1% chance each turn.
One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal.
Still, I like having to go to war to get resources. Just don't like losing them to a "random" event.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spearthrower
|
|
Sorry for a "newbie" question
If you build a city directly on top of a resource, will it still have the chance to run out?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MadWombat
|
|
Calgary, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
I think each source having a number of turns of utilization applied to it when it's generated would be best. After that time it vanishes and a new one appears elsewhere.
And no, building on top of a resource doesn't make it stay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
I have suggested in the General forum that resources be modified thusly -
A much BETTER system for strategic resources would be that having oil or copper or iron would allow construction of a slightly better VARIANT of a unit, rather than making the unit dependant on it.
Example:
Tank - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Superior Tank - can be built with oil and iron - has +1 attack and +1 defense.
Battleship - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Improved Battleship - can be built with oil, iron, and uranium, + 2 defense and +1 move.
This would give you a nice bonus if you secured these resources, but wouldn't totally f@ck you if you don't. This REALLY helps the AI, because they are ridiculously easy to conquer (like the French). But securing a resource can give you a slight but sometimes crucial advantage.
This type of smart thinking with resources gives you a nice palpable bonus, without making the the spotty resources totally make or break a game (and let's be honest, these "resources" are found all over the world, to pretend that oil is only found in a couple spots is goofy).
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Allemand
One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal. |
That's not true. I wish I could remember which thread it was in, but someone had information showing that it did not matter whether or not a resource was connected to a road, it's just a random chance that the resource will disappear and show up somewhere else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matthevv
|
|
Crawley, W.Sussex, England
Mar 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I really like the resources idea. I'm not so sure about the random dissappearance, but it doesn't affect things much, and its a welcome random element in the game. I don't find any problem with not having resources in my patch of the world. I just trade for what I need, and have never had a problem obtaining it so far. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll focus on cities with resources when attacking an AI Civ, but going to war just to try and grab a resource would probably lead to you getting into some wars at a bad time, and not in the way that you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Weldon
|
|
Laguna Hills, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
Nadexander:
I didn't miss the point. In fact, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted addressed that point explicitly. I thought it did a pretty good job, even.
Venger:
We seem to agree in spirit: Resources good, pelnalty for lacking them bad. After that it is of course a matter of personal taste, but I think that your solution is too soft. It makes the possesion of resources not really matter. Tanks with +1? That's an almost irrelevant bonus. Of course the bonuses could be tweaked to taste, but I think that the real effect of not having plentiful resources is that things are more difficult to make, not that they are of inferior quality. Thus my concept of more expensive equivalent units.
I totally agree with you on the real problem being if you have a monopoly, not if you are missing a particular resource. I'm not sure what to do in that case except to make all of the AIs recognize that you have a monopoly and try to tear you down. If only one or two make the attempt, that'll just give you extra GLs as you eat them up, but if the whole world got angry at you, perhpas it would be different...
Others:
I love the concept of resources, and I think the random movement is very important to prevent a stagnant end-game. I actually increase the disappear/reappear chances in my games. I wish that they would move around even without roads built to them. I assume that your society makes use of the resource even if your military is not. The gameplay idea here is to give you something important to do once expansion is over. If you just go get what you need and then never worry about it again, then the idea didn't work in reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MarshalN
|
|
Again, as someone who likes to play large/huge maps, the resource problem show up more prominently. Currently, my game seems to be lacking in rubber, except on this small patch of forests deep in the French Empire... and they have 3 of it. Right now we're still early enough so the rubber doesn't matter much, but I can just see it later on being a pain in the @ss when I need it to build improvements, etc. It's not exactly the easiest spot to get to either, seeing how the French has an empire of about 50 cities, and it's almost smack in the middle of their land.
I guess you can trade, but the thing is, the AI doesn't always want to trade with you unless you give them everything, and even then, you might not be able to trade seeing how sometimes they sell it to another AI before you get a chance to buy it. Worse is, the French in my current game decides that it's ok to just connect one of the rubbers for themselves.... so I can't even buy even though I definitely have the money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranald
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarshalN
I guess you can trade, but the thing is, the AI doesn't always want to trade with you unless you give them everything, and even then, you might not be able to trade seeing how sometimes they sell it to another AI before you get a chance to buy it. Worse is, the French in my current game decides that it's ok to just connect one of the rubbers for themselves.... so I can't even buy even though I definitely have the money. |
That's what colonies are for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Weldon
|
|
Laguna Hills, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
ranald:
I'm sorry, but colonies won't help the situation he describes because you can't build one on a resource that is in another civ's "territory".
MarshalN:
In the past I've signed an RoP, and then sent a settler to connect it for them, just so I could trade for the resource I just connected. There are a lot of drawbacks to this approach, but it is a possible solution if you really need the rubber bad enough. The other thing is that they will _eventually_ get around to connecting it, because automated workers will _eventually_ build a road in every square.
I guess you get to decide whether you want to wait or to watch his units roam all over your territory for a few minutes per turn...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Allemand
|
|
Olympia
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
In one game, I used all my cavalry units to create a wall along the border, then did an RoP with my neighbor. He couldn't easily get into my country but I sent dozens of tanks through his to attack the next country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Allemand
|
|
Olympia
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I recall that I wasn't allowed to establish a colony within the AI's city radius. Within the cultural radius should be okay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Weldon
|
|
Laguna Hills, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
I recall that I wasn't allowed to establish a colony within the AI's city radius. Within the cultural radius should be okay. |
This would be a _very_ important distinction if it's true, even though I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a spot in an AI empire that isn't within a city radius...
I know that when my own cultural border overtakes a colony, the colony disappears even though it's outside of a city radius. It's possible that a different mechanic is used for "enemy" colonies, however, and this should absolutely be tested.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MarshalN
|
|
Yeah, they did get around to it all right. I'm lucky I got some luxuries that the French want and now am swapping luxuries with them for the rubber (paying them like 10 gold a turn, not too bad). I can see it being worse though if I'm not lucky -- and there's still the problem of the possible and eventual war. Then I'm out of rubber for the duration.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
narmox
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
I _adore_ resources, even their disappearance. Makes things more interesting, and their disappearance has never been too much trouble for me - except in my latest game where it made things even more interesting, and here I was impressed with civ3:
I was playing on Satya's huge world map, as the Romans, and I had all of europe (except scandinavia and england). Then, in the mid-middle ages, my resources were starting to die out, and I had not many luxuries other civs wanted, and they asked for too high prices for theirs. Result: colonization of america and australia was a _must_ for european nations, just like in the real world! And yes, the world was big enough that still in 1500 it's not all covered in cities...
This made me like the resources even more 
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2001 14:09
|