18-07-2002 19:55									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A no iron game sounds interesting, if a bit unrealistic. Consider it the setting for an interesting game.

	18-07-2002 20:44									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

i once had a game with only 1 coal and no rubber on the entire map. I didnt play it long after I discovered no rubber because I like the modern units. I think there should be a minimum check to make sure that every strategic resource exists 5 times on a huge map. I dont mind resource wars but there cant be a monoply on a strategic one.

	18-07-2002 21:10									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64 I think there should be a minimum check to make sure that every strategic resource exists 5 times on a huge map. I dont mind resource wars but there cant be a monoply on a strategic one.

But there are monopolies in the real world. Again, I wouldn't care if there was a preference, but I'd hate a game that forced everything to be so predictable. Personally I love it when I have to go get my resources.

	19-07-2002 03:22									#34
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by RedBird [quote]What are you going to build the tank out of? Wood? With really tough paint? This would be completely unrealistic.

As completely unrealistic as only 8 squares of iron on a map of the earth? Or iron that disappears without use? Or oil only being on one or two continents? Or a marine requiring rubber?

quote: I'm not enough of an historian to know how things were in ancient times, but resources were major factors in WWII. Japan's lack of oil lead it to attack Perl Harbor,

Bullshit. Japan attacked America to establish a political and military hegemony in Asia. That Japan is oil-poor doesn't change that fact. Japan could have secured SE Asian oil without attacking Pearl Harbor.

quote: and all parties were scrounging for all sorts of medals (the penny was not made out of copper during WWII because we needed the copper too badly).

The problem is that the game treats iron, which is 5% of the lithosphere, as if it was some rare hard-to-find substance. In that instance, Civ A can build tanks because they have a little iron mine, whereas Civ B cannot, despite the fact the earth is practically covered with the stuff. Stupid. The only way to make the game properly balanced is to decouple units from it. Iron is everywhere dude.

Venger
P.S. You know what the precious copper penny was made out of in WWII? Steel. That's iron dude...

	19-07-2002 05:12									#35
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Venger Bullshit. Japan attacked America to establish a political and military hegemony in Asia. That Japan is oil-poor doesn't change that fact. Japan could have secured SE Asian oil without attacking Pearl Harbor.

Bullshit. What RedBird said was 100% correct. It was primarily the (oil) embargo that the US enforced against Japan that actually made the Japanese start the war eventually. They had a critical lack of oil.

Pearl Harbor was the home of the US Pacific Fleet. Without destroying or neutralizing the Pacific Fleet, the Japanese would risk being attacked from flanks while conquering the SE Asia (with its oil fields and other strategic resources). Remember, the Americans had a strong military presence on the Philippines - by hitting hard Pearl Harbor and other US island possessions in the Pacific, the Japanese cut MacArthur at Philippines from supplies and reinforcements. The primary reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor was to prevent the US from retaliating after the Japanese would start rolling through the SE Asia.

While the "political and military hegemony" itself was the aim, controlling the strategic resources (primarily oil) in the area was the reason.

As for the Civ3 resources: I believe it is a great idea and although the current implementation may not be the very best (or, can be further improved), it significantly adds to the gameplay. Sure, having iron everywhere would be more realistic. But then, you could simply take the whole concept of resources out of the game - the resouces are there to pose a challenge, not to decorate the landscape. What you are complaining of is perhaps that Firaxis made the iron a strategic resource, while in the real world, it is not very strategic, as it is abundant. Still, there are countries that lack (sufficient) iron deposits - and that is what Civ3 simulates.

It is surprising that so many people complain about this or that being unrealistic in Civ3... It is not meant to be a simulator of reality. It is a game! You certainly do not complain about the fact that Pyramids grant you a granary in every city. That is also an utter nonsense, as the Egyptian pyramids have never had anything to do with food storage... Jesus... I see people complaining of "unrealistic" things only when they pose a problem for them to overcome. Never heard anyone complain about that the poor AI had no iron, while he/she had it - in such a case, he/she is happy that the bastard AI had no chance to defend against those powerful swordsmen pouring all over...

	19-07-2002 06:24									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DrFell A no iron game sounds interesting, if a bit unrealistic. Consider it the setting for an interesting game.

It is, but sometimes it's frustrating.

	19-07-2002 06:39									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Venger The problem is that the game treats iron, which is 5% of the lithosphere, as if it was some rare hard-to-find substance. [...] The only way to make the game properly balanced is to decouple units from it. Iron is everywhere dude.

I will grant that iron itself being a strategic resource is a bit unreal. I suspect they did this for the Iron Age idea, but the idea of strategic resources is still very much valid. Maybe Copper or Chromium would have been more realistic, but iron is a metaphore for a strategic resource in that era.

My point is that it would be a huge loss to the game if you decoupled strategic resources from units. I could see having a preference toggle to say something like "Ensure all resources are represented", but if you're going to decouple units from resources you might as well just go back and play CivII.

And besides, I think you can decouple them with the editor, so you can just make your own mod to play CivII with CivIII.

Sorry, I don't mean to be nasty, but then, you did call me "dude".

	19-07-2002 06:48									#38
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Iskandar Reza It is, but sometimes it's frustrating.

Hey Iskandar, can you post a .SAV for us? There have been a few people already (myself included) who've shown interest in playing this game out.

	19-07-2002 06:52									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Venger The true fix for the 'no iron' is found by decoupling basic units from resources. Make a Tank, no resources. Make an Improved tank, requires iron and oil. The Improved variant may be slightly cheaper and have slightly better stats. This not only allows the game to still progress through the ages, it allows countries screwed out of a resource to still maintain a competitve front with just a little intrepidity. As it stands, a country without oil or iron is screwed, and all too often it's the human player... Venger

Just BTW... Tanks require oil and rubber, not iron...
IIRC, the manual says something like... 'cause iron is abundant in times when tanks enter the stage..."

With no iron, you are at a disadvantage in the ancient and medieval eras. Then you need primarily saltpeter, later on oil. It is unlikely that you would lack all of these strategic resources (and if you really do lack all of them, then you have a very small empire and you suck anyway...). So as I understand it, you may have difficult times to overcome... but having no iron does not mean losing the game - you just need to make it through to the times when iron is no longer a strategic resource. That is a challenge, not a screw-up.

Realizing that tanks do not need iron, I take back what I said about iron not being a very strategic resource. Civ3 actually makes it a strategic resource for a certain period of time only, just like it was in the real world, I suppose.

	19-07-2002 07:12									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Here, earliest save of the game, just after I declared war on France

Attachment: bismarck of the germans, 2800 bc.sav
This has been downloaded 3 time(s).

	19-07-2002 16:14									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Coracle I suggest just you EDIT UP the ridiculously low resource appearance rates Firaxis gave us.

Low resource appearance rate ? Huh? I've frustrated with every civ having 2-3 iron, horses etc, i'd like to see LESS resources, so it would be harder to secure them to yourself.

	19-07-2002 19:14									#42
	Increase the size of your Attachments

i made less oil!Very nice, lots of trading, and the ones without are alot more friendly to me now i have 3!