About resources and building units with them.

Asesino_Virtual · July 1, 2001, 11:57

There is something that i dont have clear, i need resources in order to build units, but, if i only have one square of iron, ill be able to build as many units in any city of my empire that requires iron?. With this i wanna say that, if there isnt a limitation in the number of units that can be built per square of resource, should be. Or perhaps, it already is, like i saw in some shots, i have 15 of iron, so i can only build 15 units at the same time?. mmh, im little confused.

A_V

July 1, 2001, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Asesino_Virtual
There is something that I don't have clear, I need resources in order to build units, but, if I only have one square of iron, ill be able to build as many units in any city of my empire that requires iron?. With this I want to say that, if there isn't a limitation in the number of units that can be built per square of resource, should be. Or perhaps, it already is, like I saw in some shots, I have 15 of iron, so I can only build 15 units at the same time?. Hmm, I'm little confused.

You must connect the resource (Iron) to all of your cities by roads. Only the cities that are connect to the resource can build that unit. Firaxis has not said there will be a limit on units. However they did say the resources can be depleted (gong/no more), and then you will have to find another source of Iron, either by trade or another Iron deposit.

July 1, 2001, 14:44

I think this concept is brilliant ROFL

Imagine if you owned all iron on the planet, LOL!!

Can you imagine what other civilizations would turn out like? Civs without Iron? LOL

I would laugh my head off

July 1, 2001, 14:46

This brings up another question, Firaxis, do you need certain resources in order to discover a technology?

I think it would be quite good and interesting if it was done properly.

DarkCloud · July 1, 2001, 17:06

Resources to discover a technology is a good idea- providing that the number of resources is reasonable...

Hopefully Firaxis will answer this question or include it in the game.

TechWins · July 1, 2001, 17:29

Quote:

This brings up another question, Firaxis, do you need certain resources in order to discover a technology?

I don't like that because it would slow down the research of technology. It would be too difficult to have all the resources just so you could research everything.

Quote:

There is something that i dont have clear, i need resources in order to build units, but, if i only have one square of iron, ill be able to build as many units in any city of my empire that requires iron?. With this i wanna say that, if there isnt a limitation in the number of units that can be built per square of resource, should be. Or perhaps, it already is, like i saw in some shots, i have 15 of iron, so i can only build 15 units at the same time?. mmh, im little confused.

No way can it only be one unit per resource. It would be way too hard to ever get any units built.

July 1, 2001, 19:58

There are not that many advances to go through tho..

and people have been complaining about that..

So maybe making the feature of discovering advances more interesting and difficult will fix that..?

July 1, 2001, 20:17

Firaxis has said when the discovery is compete, then the resource will be visible.

July 1, 2001, 23:50

I mean for instance, if I needed a sewer system, I would need iron for the piping, so in order to invent a sewage I would need iron so that my scientists can work out a way to make a sewage system

ok too complicated maybe

ok maybe only certain advances require a resource then?

DarkCloud · July 2, 2001, 13:25

It should really be all techs require resources or no techs require resources... If it was variable- there would be problems in determining the worth of the technology vs. the cost of developing the technology.

SerapisIV · July 2, 2001, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by ContradictioN
I mean for instance, if I needed a sewer system, I would need iron for the piping, so in order to invent a sewage I would need iron so that my scientists can work out a way to make a sewage system

Well, we know units need resources, do buildings? I hope so, at least modern buildings such as factories needing iron for steel. Don't know enough about the other resources to think about other required resources.

Ralf · July 2, 2001, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Well, we know units need resources, do buildings? I hope so, at least modern buildings such as factories needing iron for steel.

Only units needs special resources. And thank Firaxis for that.

If buildings and techs needed resources as well, they would have told us by now. Why release info about the connection between resources and units, but not between recources and buildings and/or techs? It wouldnt make any sense.

SerapisIV · July 2, 2001, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf
Only units needs special resources. And thank Firaxis for that.

If buildings and techs needed resources as well, they would have told us by now. Why release info about the connection between resources and units, but not between recources and buildings and/or techs? It wouldnt make any sense.

Are you sure? I tend to agree with what you say, but heck, we haven't even seen the combat system work yet and with resources being a game-wide concept effecting all aspects of gameplay, why not effecting building construction as well?

BigRich · July 3, 2001, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ContradictioN
I mean for instance, if I needed a sewer system, I would need iron for the piping, so in order to invent a sewage I would need iron so that my scientists can work out a way to make a sewage system

ok too complicated maybe

ok maybe only certain advances require a resource then?

I like the idea but I think it should only apply to more advanced structures like research labs, robotics plants etc. Basic infrastructure shouldn't have resource requirements, otherwise bad luck with resources can slow down your infrastructure development to the point where you never really get off the ground. The alternative would be to make the basic building materials (eg stone) widely available, which kind of negates the point.

Rich

Robert Plomp · July 3, 2001, 10:38

In fact they could use this concept with about everything.
You need wood to build phalanx, not really a special resource, but that means that no city that doesn't have any wood in it's surrounding can't build them.

And of course the woods will become smaller when more units are made, so you have to build new woods now and then. (or pherhaps maintain an area where you keep them)

Same with concrete, you need sand to build concrete.
In that way the original less interesting tiles like forest and desert suddenly become more valuable.

CyberShy

July 3, 2001, 13:51

I think its a good idea, It also reminds me that the style of buildings has been effected by the resources available, especialy Egypt.

So instead of choosing what style you want, the land you get, will decide on what your cities will look like.

But thats also complicated, hopefully stuff like this can be edited in

SerapisIV · July 3, 2001, 15:02

I think that a large all-encompassing resource scheme would be great, but lets not forget what Firaxis has already announced, 16 special resources, 8 being production limiting/enabling resources. I was focusing my thoughts mainly towards more modern buildings with steel as there has been little mention of a lumber resource.

TechWins · July 3, 2001, 20:13

Ok lets say you need steel resources to research Automobile. You don't have any steel resources that would mean for the whole game you would never be able to have automobile, mass production, recycling, and environmentalism. Lets say you need horse resources to research horseback riding but again you don't have any horse resources. You won't even be able to research over half of the techs. (These assumptions are based on the tech tree of Civ2.)

That is why I feel that it could really screw up a lot of the game with the requirement of a specific resource for a tech. I also don't feel that a specific resource should be required for building a certain city improvement.

July 3, 2001, 23:06

But! This is how it is in the real world, and I believe if it could be done properly, it could make the games very very interesting.

resources could also be sold at a price, so if you had most of the worlds oil, you could sell it at a low or high price, but if you sold it at a high price, some countries might not be able to afford it, and so you won't make much profit from it if its too high.

This could easily spark wars.

It's fun in both sides, If you were a country without oil, and you need oil to keep your modern city happy, you would need to buy it from a country, but if they are either not wanting to sell it to you or selling it at a high price, then you could be forced to go to war with that country, or vice versa. makes the game much more interesting and there is actual sense in going to war rather than just going to war for the sake of it

SerapisIV · July 3, 2001, 23:17

I don't like the idea of resources being required for technology, I was only looking at resources being required for tangible production, such as buildings and units.

TechWins · July 4, 2001, 02:16

Contradiction, the game is about controlling a whole civilization not just managing resources therefore it's not a resource management simulator. I guess you're one of the players that enjoys realism before fun. I know for a fact that Civ will always be fun before realism and I'm very thankful for that. So with that being said, something as complicated, boring, yet realistic shouldn't and won't be in Civ ever.

July 4, 2001, 14:05

no no I am a guy who wants realism to be fun, I just like to try and work out how it can be done, but most people seem to think that realism doesn't = fun. And to me they have very closed minds.

I'm glad Sid has a very open mind

TechWins · July 4, 2001, 17:00

Quote:

no no I am a guy who wants realism to be fun, I just like to try and work out how it can be done, but most people seem to think that realism doesn't = fun. And to me they have very closed minds.

You've misunderstood what I said. What I said is that I like fun before realism. Not that I don't like realism. It's just that I think fun should be the top priority. If realism adds fun then I'm all for it but if realism takes away from fun then I don't want it.

Quote:

I'm glad Sid has a very open mind

Yes, Sid is very opened minded (as you can tell by his new project, Sim Golf). I do think that Sid is another fun before realism guy, as well.