Multiple Resources For Units Confirmed

Inverse Icarus · August 31, 2001, 21:30

Quote:

quoted from civ3.comThe Rider is an upgraded version of the Knight. Like the knight, it requires both iron and horses to build,

looks like units will require more than one resource.

i always thougth that, but now it's confirmed.

monkspider · August 31, 2001, 21:36

This has far reaching implications for some of the more modern units, who may require many resources

tniem · August 31, 2001, 22:10

But the thing to remember is that you only need one of each resource in your empire or by trade route to make a unit. So by the end game you should have most resources without much worry. There will probably be an advisor saying what you need and when.

I really think by the end game you will have a handle on what resources you have, need, or can do without fairly easily.

isaac brock · August 31, 2001, 23:26

The modern units don't require many resources. The jet needs, like, oil and iron, and i don't think a unit will even need three resources. besides, by the time you're making jets, you should have enough of a trade network going that it should not matter.

Christantine The Great · September 1, 2001, 00:50

I would assume that each age's units requires an additional resource than the previous age's units. A jet might need oil, iron, rubber, and something for electronics while a hoplite would only need a metal for shields and spears.

Inverse Icarus · September 1, 2001, 01:14

i dont think hoplites require anything.

a FIRAXXIAN said that archers require nothing to build, but chariots need horsies.

korn469 · September 1, 2001, 02:25

Quote:

The modern units don't require many resources. The jet needs, like, oil and iron, and i don't think a unit will even need three resources.

isaac brock

i don't think you are correct...from what i've heard tanks will require iron, oil, and rubber so i'm sure that the stealth bomber will require at least three resources if not more

lockstep · September 1, 2001, 03:26

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
The modern units don't require many resources. The jet needs, like, oil and iron, and i don't think a unit will even need three resources.

Tanks need three resources. From a GameSpot UK Preview (http://www.gamespot.co.uk/stories/pr...7326-3,00.html):

If the iron-controlling civilization wants to build tanks, they need oil, rubber, and iron, but if those other resources are controlled by two other civilizations then they must be careful. If the dominant iron civilization enters into the rubber-controlling civilization, then the oil civilization may see that as a potential threat and ally with the rubber-controlling civilization to fight off the invasion.

H Tower · September 1, 2001, 03:50

with all of these differnet resources needed to create units, especially modern ones; how hard will it be to field an army capable of taking any meaningful action? It would stink if you couldn't have the most advanced units if your resources are used up. while more realistic, i'd rather fight than micromanage the use of my resources.

Gramphos · September 1, 2001, 05:23

This is perfect for customizing.
Now if you just can add your own (new) resources to the game everything is perfect on the resource front.

Urban Ranger · September 1, 2001, 08:22

It now makes sense to build cities in a pattern that covers all the squares

It also means that being a pure conquest strategy is going to be a lot harder to achieve.

Gramphos · September 1, 2001, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It now makes sense to build cities in a pattern that covers all the squares

It also means that being a pure conquest strategy is going to be a lot harder to achieve.

Not necessarily, you may use colonies, and you may wait for big borders.

ajbera · September 1, 2001, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
with all of these differnet resources needed to create units, especially modern ones; how hard will it be to field an army capable of taking any meaningful action? It would stink if you couldn't have the most advanced units if your resources are used up. while more realistic, i'd rather fight than micromanage the use of my resources.

I think you're in the minority, Tower. I believe most of us are thankful that the game is going to be a bit more complex than simply churning out tanks for conquest (well, it's always been more complex than just that, but you get my drift.) I think this is one of the best innovations implemented, and possibly the best.

Just my opinion, but I strongly feel it is mirrored in others.

Dan Maghaha, in describing his 'peaceful' Civ3 game, mentioned how he had to get aggressive with the Americans to procure much-needed oil. I can't wait to deal with a civ for a needed item, whether through diplomacy, espionage, or outright warfare. It will (presumably) make gameplay so much deeper. Of course, I respect your opinion, but I heartily disagree.

Transcend · September 1, 2001, 12:42

I think fighting for resources will be the main reason for war in Civ III - Perfectly realistic. I wonder how AI would respond to this kind of situation and how agressive it will be in pursuing resources.

tniem · September 1, 2001, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It now makes sense to build cities in a pattern that covers all the squares

It also means that being a pure conquest strategy is going to be a lot harder to achieve.

No actually this new strategy makes it so that doesn't make any sense at all. You are going to need to build buildings for culture to expand your borders. Building settlers will not allow you to build the culture buildings and so you may have tons of cities but you will not have any borders to get the resources.

tishco · September 1, 2001, 15:30

i'm really looking forward to stopping the agressive civ building a huge army from nothing, i'm gunna sit on a oil field and now let anyone havce some apart from my ally who has oil.
mwaha

Gramphos · September 1, 2001, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by tishco
i'm really looking forward to stopping the agressive civ building a huge army from nothing, i'm gunna sit on a oil field and now let anyone havce some apart from my ally who has oil.
mwaha

And when you run out of oil?

Inverse Icarus · September 1, 2001, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos

And when you run out of oil?

beat the sh*t out of the guy who has it with all the tanks i built with my own oil.

Gramphos · September 1, 2001, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
beat the sh*t out of the guy who has it with all the tanks i built with my own oil.

That could work. But he was the ally. You must be evil.

Yog-Sothoth · September 1, 2001, 17:03

Standard Archer: 2 1 1
Babylonian Bowman:2 1 2

Standard Knight: 4 3 2
Chinese Rider: 4 4 3

Looks like the differences between the regular unit and the unique*unit might increase the more modern the unit is. If this is the case, I think it's good that they need more resources to build.

tniem · September 1, 2001, 19:29

Percentage wise the older unit actually getting a bigger bonus. The standard unit attributes make up 80% of the Bowman, but the more modern Knight makes up 82% of the Chinese Rider. It would be 90% if there was only one attribute addition.

It appears that Firaxis realized that they had to add extra attributes for more modern unique units to allow them to actually have some added effect to the game. Otherwise a modern UU would have a better chance of not winning a battle compared to an earlier one.