Resources: How to handle

[Dis]

how about seperating shields into wood and metal? That's something we never considered. Of course eventually you will reach a point where wood is useless.

In fact, the more I think about it. Forests should be more important early in the game and mines important later in the game. Forests would provide wood, and mines would provide metals.

Building mines in 4000 BC doesn't appeal to me that much.

[Kramerman]

i odnt know where lest to post this, so ill put it here

on terrain in general, i like the SMAC concepts of elevation and all that good stuff. That should be incorporated and then unusally large mountians or deep canyons and stuff could be made landmarks that could contribute a small amount to your nations (or nearby city's) happiness or culture or perhaps generate a small amount of revenue or something.

there should be a much larger terrain differentiation, for example between woodland hills, grassy hills, desert hills, etc instead of just hills. There should be a difference between disiduous and evergreen forests as well as taiga. also maybe craggy mountains, forested mountains, volcanoes, snowpeaked mountains (the higher ones, if elevation is incorporated, in general would be these. perhaps they could use actual meteorlogical functions of lattitude, elevation, and moisture as from proximity to lakes and oceans to determine climates and conditions in different terrain), etc. other ideas are for flatlands could be broken into grasslands, plains, arid waste, desert waste, tundra, glaciers, etc.

these are just general ideas, but i think they are things to consider.

I like in civ3 how they split water tiles into coastal, sea, and ocean

[Kuciwalker]

SMAC terrain sucks for Civ, and especially modding. It only really makes sense in the sci-fi environment of SMAC; it looks really strange in a historical context.

[Kramerman]

if they incorporate the meteorolgical ideas
(reposted: perhaps they could use actual meteorlogical functions of lattitude, elevation, and moisture as from proximity to lakes and oceans to determine climates and conditions in different terrain), these could maybe cause random droughts and floods and heatwaves and 'mini-ice ages' and even just prosperous climate conditions and other such phenomena (heh, perhaps even el nino and la nina type stuff if they make it impressively elaborate) that have had HUGE signifcance in shaping human civilization throughout time into what we know today. This would add a totally new and interesting element in civ which would certainly have effect your world's history

[Kuciwalker]

Using meteorology for terrain generation is fine, but they don't need to implement elevation to do that.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by skywalker
SMAC terrain sucks for Civ, and especially modding. It only really makes sense in the sci-fi environment of SMAC; it looks really strange in a historical context.

what do you mean?

[Kuciwalker]

Just look at the "Earth map" for SMAC and you'll see what I mean.

The Civ maps look more realistic.

[Kramerman]

well yeah. they dont have to incorporate SMAC graphics in order to incorporate some of its ideas

IOW, make more "earthy" graphics

[Kramerman]

in fact, Im assuming, hoping, and anticipating civ4 to have a totally new and revolutionary graphics engine. perhaps incorporating real 3-D, zoom slider so you can get right up into your units or way back in space, rotate the map 360 x-y axis and significantly on z axis, spherical globe as others mentioned, growing cities (even more so than civ3), etc

[Dis]

well SMAC terrrain doesn't make sense for earth. They really didn't have mountains iirc. Sure you had higher elevations and such.

I did like the different elevations though. It could be used to represent steppes and plateaus.

the weather model was nice for the aridity of the land. Though it could use more work to make it more realistic in an earth environment. In the arid southwest you will find only the higher elevations recieve rainfall, low elevations recieve very little- even if they are on the west side of the mountains

[Sore Loser]

The second option is definitely cumbersome, and not very Civ-like. I still voted for it, because I'd like to see more diversity in city functions. While you could, in theory, have high-production cities and high-trade cities in Civ II, the difference was the same. The cities were run pretty much the same. Little, if any, need for interaction between them.

With a *limited* quantified ressource system (food, ore, manpower, production capacity, luxury goods off the top of my head), you'd be forced to build a civilization of cities that work together, and not autonomous city states.

EDIT: Adding to that, food/ore/luxuries could be subdivided into a number of groups, such as fish, wheat, corn, rice in the food section and iron, wood (ore could be renamed to buildings materials, or some such thing), copper, clay, steel, etc. The exact effects of the different types can be determined in several ways. Either a bonus can be awarded for using multiple types instead of letting your people eat fish all the time. Or certain items (like spears) could specifically require iron ore.

[Nikolai]

I like the second idea best. While it is important that the game doesn't become too complicated, I think this will just make the game better, if it is implemented the right way of course.

[Shogun Gunner]

Sore Loser, similiar to how you said "cumberson, not very civ-like, but you like it" is the same way I would describe your suggestion of the "limited quantified resource system"

Other posters have referenced this concept before as well. You mine a particular resource from the earth which allows you to build specific buildings/units/wonders -- not a universal mining gives you everything you need and science is the only constraint to what you build.

Probably too complex, but I swear I would totally get into a much more complex economic system. (enjoying being in the minority )

[Sore Loser]

Um, I take it you agree then? The main concern is not complexity, but micromanagement. The more difficult decisions, the merrier. But if these decisions amount to ten times the amount of time needed to feel certain that you gave fairly solid orders, then it's going to kill the game.

Colonization used this approach, and, while I found it extremely neat at first, it didn't do the job very well. There were several reasons for this; most commodities were pure cash crops, for example. I always wanted to use my cloth, rum, cigars, coats and silver for something. Granted, in the historical context it made sense that the colonies would primarily be supplying the motherland with goodies, but even so it bored me.

Another problem was the fact that wagon trains with trade routes were shown moving visibly every turn. I liked setting up trade routes, so I'd typically have 8 or 10 running around the screen every turn. As has been suggested elsewhere, trade units could be "invisible" and merely be shown as a trade route. The longer the trade route, the more trade units you need per unit of goods freighted. Transfers should be made at the beginning of a round. Excess capacity (=that is not used for automatic freighting every round) may be used manually. The main point is that it should become as streamlined as possible.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
The main concern is not complexity, but micromanagement.

Great statement.
You really hit it on the head there, Sore Loser. Complexity (i.e. Game Depth) is a good thing. Compilcation (i.e. micromanagement) is a killer.

In some cases there is a fine line, and in some a very hazy one. I think that in this case it is very clear that a system that tracks the amount of certain resources (like the luxury and strategic in Civ 3) gives lots of depth, and can be done without making things tedious.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
Um, I take it you agree then? The main concern is not complexity, but micromanagement.

Yes, I agree (I could have made that more clear ) It's not the complexity as the main issue.

Quite frankly, I don't think I would mind the micromanagement either...THAT'S where I think I'm in the minority.

It seems the list of resources/luxuries could be listed on one page. In fact, I think the Resource Screen is the worse advisor screen in Civ3. It tells you the least of all of those advisors. Fire her and get an Economist in there!

[Sore Loser]

Complexity and micromanagement often walk hand in hand, unfortunately. Much of it can be done away with by allowing intelligent automation of predictable processes. Transporting ressources around, in particular, shouldn't be a great hassle to players, or they'll grow frustrated.

[Fosse]

Agreed that the two often are of the same coin, but they don't always have to be.

I want to be clear that I do not support the player having to move resources himself. Instead resources should be more or less global in the sense that if you have some oil and iron, you can select tanks to build in your cities until you run out of one or both. And you can choose to trade any resources you aren't currently using.

And as far as luxuries, I don't want to the player to distribute these (except to "take them out" of his own economy by exporting them) at all, but rather let it happen automatically.

[Sore Loser]

I envision the player making templates and standards to get around those. Distribution of luxury goods should not be manual, but should still be decided on by the player. Which means slide bars or percentages or whatever. I think something similar can be done for caravans, taking away much of the hassle for the players, if not all.

[Kuciwalker]

Complexity can be bad in its own way - the player has to be able to understand and use the underlying mechanics of the system.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, but the trend seems to be computer aided assistance like governors. It seems that templates could function in this manner as well.

I don't mind these automated functions being present, but a little less efficient VERSUS investing a little time and getting better results.

Players are left with a choice and both systems work. People play the game differently. For some people that is fine.

[GePap]

I am a big supporter of making resource quantity count- and it need not be that difficult.

Each instance of a resource should be given a number , so you might see a lump of iron with 100 over it. Now, that now means your empire has access to 100 units of iron. That 100 units of iron would support a certain number of units or factories or so forth. Now, once you mine it, or build a road, that is all you need to do, now you have 100 units. Now, lets say you need a much bigger army, or more factories, whatever-well, you can no koinger uswe those 100 point, but need to trade for more or capture more iron. That simple. In essence, each tile of a resource would take you only so far-of course, if you strike it rich with one reosurce, you can trade it for handsome profits. But this also negates the possibility of one civ having a monopoly, since now you can spread out resources more widely.

Another big change-with tech changes, the visibility of sources would change- mines of iron you could have never gotten before now are avaliable, or exiting mines now yeiled far more- creating an even bigger bond of tech with resources. Finally, as tech changed, the necessity would change- primarilly, you might waste less, so that same gets you further. All this could be done without any significant change to the shield system of city production.

But what you could introduce is manufactured goods-for example, forms of luxuries that are made (like TV's, or cars, whatever)-so that if your factories are idling and not building units or buildings, they can build luxuries you can not only use for internal happiness, but to trade.

[Shogun Gunner]

Very interesting suggestion GePap. I like the idea of a resource being worth a relative value. This concept provides for granularity - and not an absolute black or white which translates to HAVE IRON or DON'T HAVE IRON. Very cool. it improves both the production/military aspect of the game AND the economic/trading aspects.

Double for this idea.

[TheBirdMan]

That must be the second option for me as I think resources and trade should be important in a future game.

I would like if the game handled money/gold as a resource with the posibility to loan money from other players. And to negotiate how(much) to pay back and when. A player should be able to "cancel" his loan (I will not pay you the rest). What reaction this would lead to belongs under the diplomacy (a good reason for war I think). The one, who is leanding out money should of course also be able to cancel the others debt (a truly allied might do this).

Of course the AI should be able to handle this in a decent manner.

[LDiCesare]

I don't like the resources in civ3 very much. The main thing I dislike is you can get iron working without having iron in your territory. How did you come to find out how to work iron if you never saw any? Iron working shouldn't be available unless you have iron available on your territory.

As for limits about the number of units built, I think it's too much hassle. Having separate wood/metal (and also stone?) productions could be interesting, but would probably be too complex to manage. Considering it doesn't take 200 years to build a library or train warriors to use a hoplos, I think realism doesn't matter much, and a single iron mine is enough to fuel as many units as you like.
The resources do cause some problems in the early game, though, because lack of horses and irons means you'll lose the game due to bad luck, or crush a civ thanks to luck, which I don't like.

[Kuciwalker]

GePap

[Kramerman]

nice idea Gepap

[GePap]

The number of key resources should be kept low- the more things you need, the more compliacted- as i said, I like an end to the "one ron is enough for everything" abstraction, but the way to end this is not to implment some sort of resource system like in RTS's, which is not that good.

On resources, one idea I am playing with in my head is making fresh water such a resource- in order to support people or make irrigation tiles, you need fresh water (which is already true in civ3)-the difference being that each tile would have a sort of fresh water production- and remove the arbitrary limit of 6 and 12 for cities- cities should be able to grow as big as food supply (which for good sakes, MUST be something than can be moved around, how far to be determined by tech levels) and water supply allow. Th danger of huge cities shoul be the omnipresent danger of great pandemics (and addition to any civ game that I see as a must, but not a resource issue). The point of aqueducts woul be to tap new water resources for cties (thus allowing growth, but not a must for all cities not next to rivers), while sewers would limit disease.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, city improvements to be influences not hard core limiters to growth and the city's well being... Interesting idea.

I totally agree about the mobility of food. You would think even stone age hunter/gatherers could pack up a few donkeys and cart some food about...

[Merp]

So are we saying that

1. There are 2 types of resources: Named resources (strategic and luxury) and Unnamed Terrain Resources (say timber from worked forest tiles)

2. Named Resources are quantified by the rate at which they are available, rather than their total quantity. Come to think of it this is already the way Unnamed Terrain Resources work.

3. Slightly offtopic, but mentioned here: The production of shields in a city is partially informed by the availablity of Unnamed Terrain Resources at a rate dependent on the terrain and the governing improvement but this is at limited rate. ie. Important in the start game, less so later. The other source of production shields not tied to the working of tiles is determined by population not assigned elsewhere in conjunction with improvements.

To rephrase: exactly like traditional civ but production shields produced by labourers or factories etc are not tied to the city's worked terrain as a multiple or percentage increase. Thus working terrain like forests might be very important at the start of game, with limited population and improvements, and dramatically less so later.

4. The only intersection between city production and named resources is in the building of units or improvements that require it.

5. Additionally, cities can funnel production into making manufactured luxuries for local, national or international disposal.

Is that about right?

Off-topic:
Admittedly, I think the tax, science and luxury sliders should go! It doesn't make sense when you think about it. After all, if you increase tax you merely increase the amount of revenue collected that is provided in coin. Obviously if you decrease tax you are still collecting the same amount, else why does science or luxury provision increase? Why then does the population become unhappy when tax is too high?

IMO The solution is to make tax a slider, tie it to happiness, but have the science and luxury output determined by the allocation of the population to these tasks. This is overall much more consistent since we already have scientists and entertainers. This just extends the concept further so it can stand on its own two feet.

Other (On-Topic) Considerations:

1. Do we want named resources to still expire? Is this dependent on the rate one produces units or improvements that require them?

2. Are surplus resources stored? If so, how? Invisibly with no limit? Transparently with no control? As a city improvement? As a tile improvement? (IMO it would be good if reserves could be targeted).

3. Are luxury named resources quantified?

4. Obviously a mine built in 1000 B.C. will not produce a named resource at the rate one built in the modern day would. To what extent is the resource rate dependent on a tile improvement and its era?

5. Can an AI manage successfully a complicated system, both for itself and the player who doesn't want to get involved except when necessary?