{The List} Resources

[Agathon]

My two cents worth is that the map generator should be smart enough to cluster resources to actually make them bones of contention.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by joncha


Not so pointless, as Lajzar pointed out in terms of shipbuilding. Access to lumber has historically been very important, especially access to the right lumber.

There was a hint of this with the "Cedars of Lebanon" in the first C3C scenario, but I think it could use some more elaboration. I think the city-radius idea could work well for shipbuiding, but I wouldn't want to see it apply to all resources.

jon.

Exactly right. The problem is that island bound nations might find it hard to get going if they don'thave that resource domestically.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Exactly right. The problem is that island bound nations might find it hard to get going if they don'thave that resource domestically.

That's the idea.

[lajzar]

ok, lets look at a sample list.

Cameleers require desert terrain in the city to build. If you arent fighting in a desert, they have no particular advantage anyway.

Elephants require the ivory spcial resource in your empire, and a jungle tile in the city (for a local habitat). Again, elephants, while good, arent essential.

'Large wooden ships' require a forest tile in the city radius. If you dont have forest, with the right tech, your terraformers can transform plaisn to forest, and even so, the earliest, lightest ships dont require forest (a cludge so you can always leave even the smallest island), and modern ships arent wooden.

Note that requiring local forest is very realistic. This is, after all, why the Easter Island civilisation died out.

[lajzar]

My two cents worth is that the map generator should be smart enough to cluster resources to actually make them bones of contention.

In this case, the resources should be made such that they aren't required to build a unit. One thing that sucks immensely about civ3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpetre, you lose. I'd make it so that each special resource required but absent will increase the unit cost by the original unit cost. That would reflect the smaller deposits that exist.

[Kuciwalker]

One thing that sucks immensely about civ3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpetre, you lose.

One thing that rocks immensely about C3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpeter, you lose.

[lajzar]

One thing that rocks immensely about C3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpeter, you lose.

yes, that is quite realistic. however, I hate losing to the random number generator with no hope of a comeback. The game should not be written such that impossible situations come up more often than not. On about 1 in 3 civ 3 maps that get generated on my machine, I end up without any critical resources at all. Losing to the random number generator (as opposed to the AI) is a mark of bad design in a supposedly intelligent strategy game.

I only expect to lose to a RNG when playing Angband.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

One thing that sucks immensely about civ3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpetre, you lose.

One thing that rocks immensely about C3 is that if you have no coal, iron, or saltpeter, you lose.

No, the problem is not with the map generator, but with the AI. The AI will almost never trade me strategic resources even when it has a surfeit.

It also doesn't tend to build roads to strategic resources. There should be just enough strategic resources for every player in the game and they should have additional benefits to encourage trade.

[ThePlagueRat]

That's why there should be large amounts of resources scattered around the map, and as I have mentioned earlier quantified. Then they would only limit your military buildup, instead of denying you one...

[mr Rura]

Originally posted by lajzar
[...]

Note that requiring local forest is very realistic. This is, after all, why the Easter Island civilisation died out.

you are mistaken - that civilization become extinct because of war with one of polynesian tribe which lived on the other part of island, not because of lack of wood...

[lajzar]

And why do you think that polynesian tribe died out?

The current clack is that it was essentiually a civil war. Easter Islanders were polynesians after all...

[Fosse]

Regardless of which resources do or do not get modeled, the important thing is quantifying them so that one resource doensn't represent an infinite supply.

If it is decided that modeling timber, for shipbuilding, is a good idea then so be it.

I'll be happy so long as two things are built into the game: Units that require a resource [/i]to move[/i]. So tanks and battleships, for example, would require one free oil per turn in order to move in a given turn. So if I lose my oil production (or import) then my units get mothballed.

Stockpiles are a must. Any iron I don't use to build units this turn should still be taken from the mines and added to a national stockpile (a % of which could be taken by another civ occupying a city).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Fosse
Regardless of which resources do or do not get modeled, the important thing is quantifying them so that one resource doensn't represent an infinite supply.

If it is decided that modeling timber, for shipbuilding, is a good idea then so be it.

I'll be happy so long as two things are built into the game: Units that require a resource [/i]to move[/i]. So tanks and battleships, for example, would require one free oil per turn in order to move in a given turn. So if I lose my oil production (or import) then my units get mothballed.

Stockpiles are a must. Any iron I don't use to build units this turn should still be taken from the mines and added to a national stockpile (a % of which could be taken by another civ occupying a city).

Have you played Hearts of Iron? Micromanaging resources can be a real pain.

[Fosse]

No, I haven't. How does it work in Hearts of Iron, and how could Civ 4 do it better?

Civ 3's system is too dumbed down for a group of intelligent gamers. There will always be a trade off between managment levels and features, and only a remarkably boring game will get rid of MM completely. I don't see resource quantities implemented on a broad scale, with perhaps fewer resources than Civ 3 has, as necessarilly creating PITA level MM.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Fosse
No, I haven't. How does it work in Hearts of Iron, and how could Civ 4 do it better?

It's a pain. You have to organize convoys of fuel and other resources to all units and provinces that aren't connected by land. And you have to keep a constant watch on supply.

[ThePlagueRat]

A compexity level between those two games would suit me fine.
After all HoI is very different from Civ games.

Now... Victoria is too, but might at least have some concepts to rip off for Civ4. Like the nice diplomatic system, and quantified resources to refine and sell, or make things of, and the world market...

[Agathon]

Perhaps we should consider a supply side solution. Each resource is needed only once to build particular units, but each additional one adds a stack of money to the treasury, or can be sold for a princely sum (or an Imperial sum, if you please).

All that is needed in my view to make the strategic resources work better is that the AI is programmed to get them and will actually trade them to you for a fair sum. Trying to get some rubber out of Bismarck in the current game is like trying to get blood out of a stone.

[Plotinus]

I have to say I've always thought that the idea of a single resource supplying the whole civilisation was rather elegant, but it's true that (a) it's not very realistic and (b) it reduces the impetus to find other instances of the same resource, unless you're planning on trading. After all, we all know that George Bush is terribly keen on securing more oil, even though he's got plenty back home.

But I don't like the idea of resources of variable strength. I think it would simply be a bit confusing or hard to show. Similarly, it is true that you need, say, oil for supplying your units rather than for constructing them - but I think that to distinguish between resources for building and resources for supplying would simply be too complex, without adding anything to the game. After all, if a player has access to oil cut off, he can't build any more tanks, and that will have just as serious an effect on any war that's going on.

Instead, keep the quantification of resources idea, but make it so that each resource on the map represents a single "unit". If you want to represent a particularly rich resource, simply have several of them, like you always used to get with luxuries before Conquests came along and took them all away.

I like the idea of, in some circumstances, being able to synthesise resources. Perhaps certain Wonders, or Small Wonders, could do this under certain conditions. They might augment resources you already have - useful if we're going for the quantification model - or even synthesise ones you don't have at all. I'd be careful with that one, though...

[Agathon]

Unless the AI is improved I'm not sure how much of a difference changing the system would make. It might make it harder for us, but I don't know if it would make for a more satisfying game. I currently use resources for bribes. It's amazing how far you can get in the game through bribery.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's a pain. You have to organize convoys of fuel and other resources to all units and provinces that aren't connected by land. And you have to keep a constant watch on supply.

Sounds like a pain. I'm not advocating supply lines or fuel or anything that has to be done "by hand."

Perhaps we should consider a supply side solution. Each resource is needed only once to build particular units, but each additional one adds a stack of money to the treasury, or can be sold for a princely sum (or an Imperial sum, if you please).

I'd rather just get rid of the idea of strategic resources if this is the approach that's taken. It effectivly turns strategic resources into bonus ones anyhow, just boosting the commerce of each addtional source.

Similarly, it is true that you need, say, oil for supplying your units rather than for constructing them - but I think that to distinguish between resources for building and resources for supplying would simply be too complex,

They wouldn't be two different types of resources for supply or build. Let's use coal for an example... You need coal (1 unit per turn) to build ironclads. If you don't have coal in the city you are building the ironclad from on any given turn, then you can't add production to the unit that turn (so if you are cut off, you don't get to "magically" keep building). Now, ironclads also need 1 coal per turn in upkeep. The SAME coal from the same source. No distinguising needed.

Player intervention is not called for, so the game or interface does not become more complicated.

without adding anything to the game.

It adds depth to the game and resource model, a reason for securing more of a resource, and the ability to model small regions of land that are also resource rich. With the one size fits all model in Civ 3 then the bigger player will always have the most resources. When bigger=better all the time the game stagnates.

After all, if a player has access to oil cut off, he can't build any more tanks, and that will have just as serious an effect on any war that's going on.

Well, to begin with this doesn't address the fact that one source of oil can build an infinite number of tanks. Also, not being able to build more falls woefully short of simulating the grinding halt any mechanized army would come to if it had oil cut off.

You can still use resources as a bribe, but it will actually cost you something (as it should be), instead of in Civ 3 where more than one instance are extra, and actually useless to you unles you sell them.

In Civ 3 you could have access to oil for one turn (afer which it disappears). But in this one turn you could start producion of 100 tanks in 100 cities that will continue to build and finish those tanks after the resource "expires." Then, when they are finished you can proceed to drive them around the world until the end of time. This is only infintessimally better than in Civ 2, which simply did not model resources. It's time for a step ahead, unless of course Firaxis decides to just go the Graphic Update route.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Couldn't agree with you more, Fosse. I think it would be very simple to have a resource size of 1 to 10 (units, for instance), with the default being 5! The larger the resource size, the larger the resource icon, and vice versa! Also, the larger the resource, the less chance you have of it disappearing suddenly (meaning you can support more units and cities from a single LARGE amount of a resource)!
I do have more to say on this issue, but I'm afraid it will have to wait til tomorrow, as I have a bus to catch!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Optimizer]

Acquiring different kinds of crops and livestock should be an important issue for civs, at least during the beginning of the game.

Livestock would work like strategic Civ 3 resources - but as soon as you have access to them, workers would be able to "build" (or breed) them in terrain squares as a complement to irrigation, mining and roads, increasing food, shield and commerce output.

They would to some extent be dependent on terrain - you would only be able to breed reindeer in tundras and boreal forests, and pigs would require access to water.

Too much livestock would cause pollution, erosion and disease.

[Wernazuma III]

Well, just one more word on resources:

If horses are again included - which I think is certain - please dear developers give them a food bonus and remove the food bonus from the wine resource. This is just plainly ridiculous.

PS: When I tried to argue this at Civfanatics my thread got closed by some PC looney mod who thought I was hateful against horses... Honestly!

[lajzar]

Too much livestock would cause pollution, erosion and disease.

pollution? Considering the effect of pollution, thats a bit harsh. Erosion? The logical game effect would be to turn forest and jungle into plains, and thats a natural consequence of making farmland available anyway. Disease? Thats a natural consequence of having a high population.

fwiw, in ancient times, it was very normal to keep food livestock in the house. It isnt by accident that the Chinese character for a house is a pig under a roof.

I think having a livestock model (as distinct from general 'food production') is too much detail. It is enough to know we are producing food. In any case, it is established that too much agriculture in the wrong environment also results in serious erosion. You don't need a specific livestock model if thats what you want to recreate.

[Optimizer]

Allright, skip pollution then.

Erosion due to livestock-herding is an obvious problem in many parts of the world. One can learn from the classical Greek plays and epics that most of Greece and Asia Minor was coverd with forests and fertile grassland, where only stone can be found today.

Disease? Just read "Guns, Germs and Steel" - man has inherited smallpox, the flu, the measles and most other epidemics from domesticated animals.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Optimizer
Allright, skip pollution then.

Erosion due to livestock-herding is an obvious problem in many parts of the world. One can learn from the classical Greek plays and epics that most of Greece and Asia Minor was coverd with forests and fertile grassland, where only stone can be found today.

But equally, erosion due to simple plant based farming is a serious problem in many areas. The midwest didn't threaten to become a dustbowl because of the buffalo.

Disease? Just read "Guns, Germs and Steel" - man has inherited smallpox, the flu, the measles and most other epidemics from domesticated animals.

Yes, and the only logical way to avoid this disease factor in the game model would be to make your society entirely vegetarian. Given that kind of flexibility, and that it doesn't make sense in game to deliberately stunt your population growth, no one is going to choose a vegan route. Also, history suggests that anywhere meat animals were available, they were generally eaten. I don't think this is the sort of choice a player should have available; its unrealistic and introduces MM. Not even the Kims of North Korea dictate their subjects' diets. At least, not beyond the eat/don't eat level.

Basically, I'd assume that anywhere that is inland will use meat animals, and plan a disease model accordingly. The effects you suggest are either MM-intensive (disease) or would naturally result from agriculture as well as animal husbandry (erosion).

[CiverDan]

One other resource problem: Horses

I find it odd how the other player can pillage my horses, yet I have plenty horses in the field at my disposal. Did I realy keep my horse farm at the front lines where the enemy could capture/kill them.

[ThePlagueRat]

Great livestock ideas here. They would combine nicely into my resource quantification ideas. This way you would have to build a new improvement in addtion to irrigation - e.g. a ranch. This improvement would in addition to food, expand your capacity in regards of cavalry.

However, the map should not be scarce regarding wild horses, but their turn-output could differ... Each ranch's output could just have a lower value, since they might include cattle and anything used for food, so you build a lot of them... One wild horse tile would not be sufficient to a humongous cavalry in such a realistic system, but getting some of them should provide for a cavalry-buildup before domestication is developed.

The cities will provide a basis the manpower, which also should be quantified...
So, in the ideal cavalrist's situation you'll have enough ranches so that you will have a horsepower equal to you manpower, and weapons ,so every soldiers can have a horse and a gun. :-)

[ThePlagueRat]

Why do I want to see such a system in Civ4 ?
The cool thing about such a system is that once you get to the tank-era, you will not have the use for all these cavalry resources, and you will need high industry production because one tank or air unit do not need the biggest amount of manpower, but it need high production. Infantry would take more manpower and a cheaper product, and if you lose them, and manpower is at zero, you can still build units but cities would have to lose the resource-working citizens because, then you take out women and children to fight.

What will you do with all the ranches?
Well, then we can introduce a new improvement which could be a local industry complex and overwrites the local ranch. This one giving bonus to production in the city, instead. Arrgh, they'll have to find food somewhere else! Or just balance this industrial thing out...
Just like in real life!

[Xorbon]

I made a post on the Economics/Trade List a while ago that would fit this thread better (I didn't know about this thread at the time). It has to do with finite resources and how they could be handled.

Originally posted by Xorbon, 08-03-2004
In Civ3, if a civilization has access to a single strategic resource, then that civ has access to that resource as if it was infinite. These resources should have finite values attached to them in Civ4. Each source on the map would produce a certain number of 'units' of the appropriate resource per turn. For instance, there could be 3 sizes of iron deposits which produce either 20, 30, or 50 units of iron per turn (the numbers are just examples). As the game progresses (tech-wise), certain resources could become more abundant. For example, iron sources could produce more once engineering is discovered.

Any collected resources could be traded to other civs, used for upkeep of units/improvements, or in the building of new units/improvements.

1/ Trade with other civs would involve the trading of a specific number of units/turn of a particular resource (eg. trade could involve 10 units of oil per turn). If a civ is unable to provide the agreed upon amount of a resource, that civ must provide compensation to the other civ, or the deal is cancelled and the one who broke the deal suffers a reputation hit.

2/ Upkeep: some improvements and units would have upkeep that uses a certain number of units of one or more resources each turn. For example, a coal plant could use one unit of coal per turn, and a battleship could use two units of oil per turn. If resource upkeep can't be paid for an improvement, that improvement has its effects reduced or it stops functioning altogether. If a unit doesn't have its resource upkeep paid, one or more of its stats would be reduced (i.e. attack str, defense str, moves, etc.) depending on what resource it is lacking (eg. lacking iron/saltpeter could mean reduced att/def; lacking oil/coal/uranium could mean reduced movement, etc.). If a unit goes for several turns without having its resource upkeep paid, it would lose an experience level ( to a minimum of conscript level).

3/ Building certain units or improvements could require access to a strategic resource. As a simple way of doing this, as long as a player has a surplus of a resource (after factoring in trade to other civs and upkeep), then that player may use that resource to create the appropriate units or improvements. Units and improvements that require access to a resource to build wouldn't necessarily require that same resource for upkeep (and vice versa).

4/ Leftovers: There are a few options as to what the game could do with any surplus units of a resource: the player could be allowed to stockpile surplus resources; any surplus could be converted into gold and/or shields; or the surplus could simply be lost to waste. Or there could be some combination of the above. If the player is allowed to stockpile, there should be limits to how big the stockpile is allowed to get.

An alternative to 3/ is to have a 'resource cost' associated with each unit/improvement (for those which require resources to build). Surplus resources (after taking into account 1/trade and 2/upkeep) go to pay for new units/improvements (or builds) until their cost(s) are paid. Completion of builds are delayed until the resource cost is paid (even if the shield box is full). If there isn't enough of a particular resource to pay the costs for all builds, resource units are divided up between the various builds according to a priority system. The first priority goes to those builds which would be completed the earliest (or which have been waiting the longest with their shield boxes full). In case of a tie for build time, second priority goes to the city with the lower city rank (i.e. closer to the capital). To get around the priority system, a player would be able assign top priority to selected builds.

Example: Swordsmen require 5 iron units each to build. 5 cities are each building swordsmen. One swordsman will be ready in 4 turns (in city A), two in 2 turns (in cities B & C), and one in 1 turn (in city D). The last city (E) has been ready to produce its swordsman for the past 2 turns. Therefore, city E gets first crack at the available iron surplus. If there's still some left, city D gets second priority for iron. Third priority goes to either city B or C (with fourth priority going to the other city), depending on which has the lower city rank. Finally, city A gets fifth (and last) priority for iron. This means, if there are 20 units of iron available for city builds, cities B, C, D, and E would have their resource costs paid in one turn. City A would be out of luck for that turn. If the player wants, 'top priority' could be assigned to city A (for example), which means it would then have first priority over the other cities.