C3C : Strategic Resources Scarcity Sucks! - Page 3

mrpie · January 6, 2004, 21:05

Is there a cheat for adding resources on the map during gameplay? I'm suspecting the map I'm currently playing on to be lacking coal...

MrWhereItsAt · January 7, 2004, 05:46

Check in the Civ3 Files section to see if Gramphos has updated his C3MT (Civ3 Multi-tool) for C3C and the beta patch. IIRC that can edit savegames, but I am not certain what exactly it can do. However, no map should be completely without a resource. There may not be many of them (especially in C3C), but there should always be some. Try Ctrl-Shift-N and removing all the cities etc from the map - sometimes resources can exist under cities and you don't seem them all that easily on a quick scan of the world.

mrpie · January 7, 2004, 11:20

thanks, I'll check for the gramphos tool. I already tried the clean map option.

Cort Haus · January 7, 2004, 11:37

If there's no coal at all in the game, I wouldn't be too fussed, as no-one else can benefit from it.

Donegeal · January 17, 2004, 06:46

I just modded my game to add more civs at each size.

Tiny = 6
Small = 10
Regular = 14
Large = 18
Huge = 24

Interesting thing. The number of available resourses went up dramaticly. In my game playing on a regular map with 14 civs, only one team got jipped out of iron (they happened to be right next to me. Guess what happened to 'em

) and only one missed out on horse. There were even some who had two of each.

Lux were also abundant (

including Ivory). I will most likely play with this modded game more often to solve the resource problem.

Cort Haus · January 18, 2004, 12:24

Very interesting, donegeal. That certainly looks like a disproportionate rise in resource availability.

In my last game I started with Ivory on my 5-civ continent so I decided to go warmonger. By the time Gunpowder rolled around I was the only one with (the sole source of) Saltpeter on my continent, and it was cav vs spears. I then smacked up a weak overseas civ, hoping that 66% pop (I had 70%) was enough for domination, but you need the 66% land too (I only had 45%). From such a check-mate position, I don't know whether it's worth churning out the units to get an official win or just start again.

Capt Dizle · January 18, 2004, 13:11

The only thing saving Firaxis from my ire is my current lack of uranium.

MrWhereItsAt · January 18, 2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Very interesting, donegeal. That certainly looks like a disproportionate rise in resource availability.

In my last game I started with Ivory on my 5-civ continent so I decided to go warmonger. By the time Gunpowder rolled around I was the only one with (the sole source of) Saltpeter on my continent, and it was cav vs spears. I then smacked up a weak overseas civ, hoping that 66% pop (I had 70%) was enough for domination, but you need the 66% land too (I only had 45%). From such a check-mate position, I don't know whether it's worth churning out the units to get an official win or just start again.

If you're the only one with Gunpowder, then it shouldn't take so many units, should it? Or are the remaining civs all equal with you? Once I have got to a point where the only things standing in my way of a Domination are strong civs and I have warmongered for a while, I tend to just sacrifice EVERYTHING for units and the Domination victory. That habit started with C3C, where I got a resource and others didn't. If I didn't have a resource I would have to wait/conquer until I did, and then take on everyone without it.

C3C encourages warmongering, I tell you...

Cort Haus · January 19, 2004, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

C3C encourages warmongering, I tell you...

I know, and that's why I'm finding it a bit boring.

The Hack · January 19, 2004, 18:54

[QUOTE] Originally posted by vmxa1
It is not resources I am short of, it is luxs. I have had two games in a row where I only had two on the whole contient in a two contient game.

I have a game I am sitting on trying to figure out a strategy to play with. No luxeries at all on my continent! One neighbor at the other end pretty far away. Contact by galleys and everybody on the other continents seems to have plenty. Hoping for later strategic rescourses! Maybe a monopoly of some kind. I think I need to control my whole continant for better chances. Very interesting indeed. I've always had at least one.

notyoueither · January 19, 2004, 23:05

No doubt about it, the resource situation is a problem.

It begs for a mod that provides either weaker units without a given resource, or a superior unit with. Light Tank/Battle Tank/Heavy Tank sort of thing.

Something also has to be done about RRs, coal and iron. It is no challenge at all when only 1 or 2 civs out of 6 or 8 can build RRs. If you're willing to go to war, the chance of the human being one of those without is very slim.

vmxa1 · January 19, 2004, 23:49

No luxs, ouch. (vmxa tries to dry his eyes)

Cookie Monster · January 20, 2004, 10:08

I'll add in my observations to the mix.

I've played over 25 epic games with C3C since I bought the game. I've had the game since release day and haven't tried any of the conquests yet. However I do notice that compared to vanilla civ and ptw resources do appear to be scarcer. I like this though.

Now you must focus almost every turn on trade to get resources peacefully or you have to go to war and be very precise in your strike. Ask for peace and secure your resource. The game must be played differently than before and yes war is more of a neccesity now but there is always the restart button if you think the situation is hopeless.

vulture · January 20, 2004, 10:34

Not that my observations are worth much, since they're based on 1 game with conquests so far...

(and that's only in the middle of the industrial era - not yet got to oil).

I started in a very cramped area, and had to take out the Americans to get enough room to breathe. The Aztecs and I have about half the continent each now, although they have slightly more (and this is after I took some of their territory, after I was done with America - not very nice starting locations). This left 6 civs of roughly equal size (plus the Iriquois on the other continent which were reduced to OCC by the AI civs there). My resource count is 2 spices, 1 wines, 1 iron, 1 horses, 1 coal, 1 saltpetre, 2 rubber. Of those, the horses, coal, saltepetre and one rubber were in American territory, with only the spices, wine, iron and 1 rubber in my 'native' area (and the wine only by dint of agressive expansion towards Washington).

Resources do seem scarcer - which is more of a problem with luxuries IMHO. Almost none of the AI have any to spare - I've had to live with 2 native and 2 imported for most of the game.

In many ways though, the game is atypical. On emperor, I nabbed 3 ancient wonders without SGLs (colossus and great library in my capital which also served as a settler pump during the REX phase, plus the lighthouse in a nearby city). It's all a bit strange.

steven8r · January 20, 2004, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The only thing saving Firaxis from my ire is my current lack of uranium.

If I only had Horses, I'd have attacked them long before.

Steven

Aqualung71 · January 20, 2004, 23:29

Double post.....sorry, deleted this one

Aqualung71 · January 20, 2004, 23:30

I like the challenge of having to cope with fewer resources in C3C. Unfortunately however, as with many features that seem to be designed to make it more difficult for the human player, the AI is not able to adapt as well as a human and I'm afraid that the change is actually counterproductive.

So often, what should be a risky or marginal war against a large AI with a strong military, turns into a no brainer because they don't have horses/saltpeter (preventing damaging Cavalry led counterattacks) or even rubber (extending the utility of your own Cavalry as they won't have infantry).

Perhaps the AI should also get resource bonuses.....hmmm!

Mountain Sage · January 21, 2004, 06:06

On the other side, when YOU have no iron and no saltpeter (or iron but no saltpeter and no rubber), things get more, well, interesting.

Cookie Monster · January 21, 2004, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
On the other side, when YOU have no iron and no saltpeter (or iron but no saltpeter and no rubber), things get more, well, interesting.

Yes they do. That's usually when I scour the market to see if someone will trade with me. If not and I have no real chance of taking the resource by force I then esc/newgame/temperate/standard/.......etc.

Iron Giant · January 21, 2004, 11:08

Started new game last night:

I got no iron.
Good start city, but on a thin strip of land between two AI.
I built the Great Library.

North of me I might win a long, costly war with Longbowmen.

South of me are the Romans.

They got:
2 Iron
Ivory
Temple of Zeus (just built)
double my number of citys due to better start location.

I think the resources are too, too scarce.

CerberusIV · January 21, 2004, 11:45

The resources thing cuts both ways.

My current game gave an isolated start. I didn't use suicide galleys but did build the Great Library so sat and waited for the AI's to turn up. I got 14 techs out of that, virtually to the end of the Medieval.

I had horses, so could build my Hittite War Chariots, but no iron, no saltpeter and no coal. I managed to buy some (expensive) iron and coal, built RR's, factories and a couple of coal plants (mainly thanks to the Romans declaring war, landing a Legion and a MI which my war chariots crushed, and giving my GA). I missed US but got ToE and Hoover.

The really good bit is that there are 7 civs left, only 6 sources of rubber and I have 3 of them! If I get oil then 2 civs are easy pickings for tanks and bombers and that will give me the missing resources.

I nearly quit this game at several points but am now looking forward to the payback for hanging in there.

I do think that strategic resources should not be quite so scarce and hope this is fixed but it makes for a different game where you have to choose who to war with carefully.

Tall Stranger · January 21, 2004, 13:28

It definitely cuts both ways. In a previous game, my adversaries included the Celts, who didn't have iron, and the Russians, who didn't have horses. Sure, it crippled them, but since they were both on the other continent, it resulted in a mega-powerful Sumeria, who wound up posing a pretty significant challenge.

geniemalin · January 21, 2004, 22:33

I had no iron or horses. I fought a nasty archer/catapult war against the Maya to seize an iron deposit just north of me.

I still have no horses. I have no saltpeter, having just traded for Gunpowder, and none anywhere near me.

This has been an interesting game, and is forcing me to think on my feet. If you get al the strategic resources, especially if you get them without struggles, the game, especially warfare, can turn predictable. I like the unpredictability that the scarcity injects.

Harovan · January 22, 2004, 05:36

The reduction of the strategical resources is absolutely atrocious and makes war in Conquests not an option, but a necessity. This moves the otherwise enjoyable game dangerously close to the category war game. But for a war game it has a too poor combat system and not nearly enough unit types. So it isn't a game for builders anymore, but for warmongers there are better, more complex war games on the market. This fact severely reduces the usability of Conquests. The obvious solution is (sadly!), don't play it at the moment, enjoy other games and wait for a fix.

Oh, and before anyone complains and says, blah, blah, you can modify the odds of resource appearance in the editor, I know that, but it's the standard rules that should balance out a game.

CerberusIV · January 22, 2004, 06:36

Yes, I am not unhappy with the resource scarcity for now (the next game or two that I play) but it needs to be sorted in the next patch for the long term playability of the game.

lancealot · January 22, 2004, 08:32

As mentioned b4 - the scarcity and a problematic diplomatic system cause the game to heavily rely on war.
I am a builder type of player (with an occasional war of course

), but in my current monarch where im playing on a huge map with continents- i managed to control 1 continent out of 3 ,and i still have to wage war in order to have the essntial coal and oil (there are only 3 in the entire map!!).

I think it's a bit nuts and even though i manage to stay one step ahead of my rivals its more annoying than challenging.

vmxa1 · January 22, 2004, 13:04

I am actually thinking about using PTW instead now. Many useful things are in C3C, but the game is much different than is was.

I do not want to use the editor to change things, but the resoure and lux rationing is forcing me to just make troops and not do much building. I like an occassional warmonger game, but not a mandatory one.

I am giving the 1.15 a few more spins, but man......

SirOsis · January 22, 2004, 17:55

What are the actual changes from PTW to C3C? I have been looking in the editor and where can you change the scarcity/abundance of resources?

I don't think there is such a thing.

SirOsis · January 22, 2004, 18:03

I do see appearance ratio in the Natural Resources tab but they are the same value in C3C and PTW. Also luxuries have no appearance ration so this must be handled somewhere else.

CerberusIV · January 22, 2004, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SirOsis
I do see appearance ratio in the Natural Resources tab but they are the same value in C3C and PTW. Also luxuries have no appearance ration so this must be handled somewhere else.

For some reason, apparently due to the addition of the new terrain types, the same settings result in fewer strategic resources in C3C compared to PTW.

In the example I gave earlier I now have 3 oil and three other civs have 1 oil each. So an 8 civ standard map in C3C has 6 of each of oil and rubber for 8 civs whereas PTW would often give one per civ.

Luxury resources are indeed handled differently and were deliberately reduced and scattered more widely on each continent.