If you lose access to a resource, do your units stop working?

Provost Harrison · September 2, 2001, 16:22

Say for example you had access to Iron, Oil and Rubber (or whatever you need) to build some tanks, and you have a few divisions of these. What happens if, in war, you lose access to one of these resources (eg, if someone attacks and seizes your oil). Would your tanks stop working because lack of access to any of these would make it impossible to refuel or repair your units? I think this could be an interesting possibility for inclusion into the game...

Ralf · September 2, 2001, 16:34

I believe that lost oil-recources (for example) only hamper the production of new oil-demanding units. Already built units are probably not affected. But I dont know - maybe...

Provost Harrison · September 2, 2001, 16:44

Well I thought it just seemed logical. If a country has lots of tanks, but no oil, the tanks simply do not move. Perhaps if you run out of the necessary resources, you cannot repair units (once damage is caused to a unit, it does not heal)...

Fiera · September 2, 2001, 16:54

I reckon that the new special resources system is (though better than Civ2's) pretty imperfect. This can be one of its major flaws.

Let's see how they sort this one out...

Gramphos · September 2, 2001, 16:59

It applies for units that require fuel, but not for earlier units that just requires weapons. I don't know if this feature is in, but I've hoped for that. (I also hoped for, with some inventions, be able to replace oil (for fuel) with ethanol (made in ethanol factories out of food)).

shum00 · September 2, 2001, 19:40

Perhaps in the case of tanks, a lack of oil could mean a loss of an amount of movement points (depending on the total amount, which I'm not sure of), and a lack of iron and rubber could mean slower repair times. I'm not for complete loss of movement or no repair at all, because this could complicate the game too much. For more ancient units the iron/rubber rule could apply, but not the oil of course.

September 2, 2001, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by shum00
Perhaps in the case of tanks, a lack of oil could mean a loss of an amount of movement points (depending on the total amount, which I'm not sure of), and a lack of iron and rubber could mean slower repair times. I'm not for complete loss of movement or no repair at all, because this could complicate the game too much.

Unless they (Firaxis) say something otherwise, the resource are for building only nothing else.
If you remember a while back someone said no, repeat no supply lines will be needed.
In Civ 2 if your unit is damage the unit slow down, I would suppect the same in this game.

isaac brock · September 2, 2001, 20:03

Thats stupid. I don't think that that will be a major flaw. If i have to be fueling all my units towards the end of the the game, THAT would be a major flaw. You had to have all those resources to build a friggin unit, but you couldn't wage war on, say, the persians because you needed their oil to maintain the units that you needed to wage war on the persians. it's a catch-22, and it blows hamster ass.

btw, if you take a city over by means of culture, does it piss off that civ? would they demand it gets returned? And can you offer to purchase another civ's city, like in SMAC?

Lung · September 2, 2001, 22:14

Whoa! My shield is vanishing before my eyes!!

Curses! Someone must have captured our iron mines!

Odin · September 2, 2001, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
Thats stupid. I don't think that that will be a major flaw. If i have to be fueling all my units towards the end of the the game, THAT would be a major flaw. You had to have all those resources to build a friggin unit, but you couldn't wage war on, say, the persians because you needed their oil to maintain the units that you needed to wage war on the persians. it's a catch-22, and it blows hamster ass.

btw, if you take a city over by means of culture, does it piss off that civ? would they demand it gets returned? And can you offer to purchase another civ's city, like in SMAC?

It's a Catch-22 but it's realistic because in life the US doesn't declare war with Iraq is because the Arabs would stop sending us oil.

I bet taking over a city by culture will piss them off, but not as much as war would.

Urban Ranger · September 2, 2001, 23:51

The system can get sophisticated, without the player needing to do anything. It does make sense to hamper units requiring fuel if you have no access to oil.

At long last Provost comes up with a good idea

isaac brock · September 3, 2001, 00:21

For the last time: Provost never had a good idea, he has no good ideas, and he never will have a good idea! Units should not be hampered because of oil shortages. And if you want good reason why, it's because the tanks are powered by urine. Besides, If i'm sending money to support them, then they can use it to buy some gas at the local Petro-Canada

gremalkin · September 3, 2001, 10:35

I think it would make a lot of sense if you cannot build or repair units if you do not have the relevant resource. Repair is meant to be refitting isn't it? And would therefore need access to the resource in much the same way as production.. Would make for some very interesting gameplay..

On a side note and perhaps this should be a different thread.. If you say have 2 horse resources and one is for producing your cavalry and the other you have traded to an opponent (under some sort of agreement), what happens when one of those resources is captured? Do you lose prod capability or does the trade agreement stop? If the trade agreement stops I imagine the person you were trading with might be a tad annoyed.. If you stop being able to produce the cav units, some hasty renegotiation would be necessary... nice...

Any opinions?

isaac brock · September 3, 2001, 15:45

i think requiring the resource to repair it would be a feature that not only is unnecessary, but also not fun. I don't see why anyone would enjoy having a tank that ended up being disposable because you lost your iron.

The point of civ is to be a fun game, not a freakishly realistic game that no one wants to play. I'm glad that you have an idea, but it doesn't add anything but frustration to the game. Nuff said.

Provost Harrison · September 3, 2001, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
For the last time: Provost never had a good idea, he has no good ideas, and he never will have a good idea

Would you like to sort this one out outside? *rolls up sleeves*

That one is going in my sig

Now anyway, I really don't think this issue would detract from the game and could bring another strategic dimension to the game.

Provost Harrison · September 3, 2001, 18:33

And so the new signature came into being...

tniem · September 3, 2001, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
For the last time: Provost never had a good idea, he has no good ideas, and he never will have a good idea!

Wow, I am glad that someone here less than a month can say whether someone that has been posting for over a year and a half has ever had a good idea. And not only that go on to predict the future and say that he will never come up with a good idea.

Quote:

Units should not be hampered because of oil shortages. And if you want good reason why, it's because the tanks are powered by urine. Besides, If i'm sending money to support them, then they can use it to buy some gas at the local Petro-Canada

Oh yeah, tanks powered by urine that sounds like that is factual and actually mature. Let's play a new game, guess isaac brock's age.

I'll start - 13.

Fiera · September 3, 2001, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by isaac brock
Thats stupid. I don't think that that will be a major flaw. If i have to be fueling all my units towards the end of the the game, THAT would be a major flaw. You had to have all those resources to build a friggin unit, but you couldn't wage war on, say, the persians because you needed their oil to maintain the units that you needed to wage war on the persians.

Let's put it the other way and you'll see why I think it can be a major flaw.

Imagine that your great enemies, the Germans, have no access to oil but have been trading it with other civs and thus have managed to build 100 tanks so far.

Then, by diplomatic negotiations, you call for an oil embargo against the Germans and they no longer are supplied with oil. Now what? The Germans will not be able to build new tanks but they'll still be able to use against you those 100 tanks they already had. So the embargo wasn't a very powerful measure, was it?

IMO, units needing fueling every turn could add a lot of fun, especially to the diplomatic area of the game. Since we now have resources, let's make them something more than a decorative feature.

Inverse Icarus · September 3, 2001, 20:04

although it makes logical sense, i don't think tanks require an UPKEEP of oil. i think if you lose oil you just cant build them.

shum00 · September 3, 2001, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by tniem
I'll start - 13.

Nah, I'm 14 and I haven't said a thing like that for a while. I'd guess 9 or 10.

shum00 · September 3, 2001, 20:54

And I'm for this idea because if you lose your supply, there's also diplomacy. And there could always be an option.

star mouse · September 3, 2001, 20:57

Gameplay's the thing, peoples. If CIV3 was realistic, we would not be able to change the production of something after we start, the Americans would not start at 4000 BC, and a battleship would not take 40 years to circumnavigate the world. I am not troubled by these apparent defects in the way resources work, because it's only a game.

Lung · September 3, 2001, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiera
IMO, units needing fueling every turn could add a lot of fun, especially to the diplomatic area of the game. Since we now have resources, let's make them something more than a decorative feature.

This is the problem with making everything "real". If you can simply stop Germany and their 100 tanks from attacking you by a simple trade embargo, then you have you provide real alternatives as well. Sure, in reality you can create an embargo to stop resources going to a particular country, but in the real world, you can also look elsewhere for your resource. That means having 300-odd countries from which to seek your oil. In Civ3 you will conceivably have only 3 civs in total. If you want "realism", then Civ3 must have 300-odd civs. This is ridiculous, and we already know it won't happen. Also, to build tanks in the first place, you would need to have more resources than simply iron and oil.

If you want Civ3 to be realistic, you now also need hundeds (more likely thousands) of resource types available from thousands of locations. It just gets more and more ridiculous.

Simply put, i read somewhere once that if you want a map to contain all the information that there actually is, i.e. everything , then the map itself would be the size of the area being mapped. The point is, is that a map is a representation of the area being mapped, the same way in that Civ3 is representative of the history of civilisation. Trying to make everything "real" is simply opening up a can of worms. Civ3 would just become as tedious as real life

To make matters worse, it would take 6000 years to play!!

Now shut up and let Lung roll infinite armies over whomever i please, whenever i please

shum00 · September 3, 2001, 21:26

This isn't asking for complete realism, its just another feature to make the game more interesting. Maybe to you it doesn't have appeal, but in my opinion I think it could make the game more fun. This is why if it were to be implemented an option should be included. And yes, tanks require more than these basic resources, but again I'm not asking for complete realism. Having hundreds of types of resources would be riduculous for a game like Civ, and I wouldn't want to have to deal with that. The idea of this thread however, is not so complicated, and could be applied without a huge amount of micro-management.

I understand your arguements against this idea, but I think it could be enjoyable for many if utilized correctly.

Harlan · September 3, 2001, 22:06

If tanks could be powered by pee, what an interesting world that would be!

They would sell it at the gas station along with unleaded and superunleaded. You wouldn't know what the P in BP stood for anymore!

Tanks use so much fuel they use gallons per mile as a measure, not miles per gallon, so the tank crew would need to take a whiz about every 5 minutes for the tank to roll forward a few more feet!

He probably got that from the fact that you can pee into your car's tank (or put in other liquids) when you've run out of gas, to get you to the station. But that's just cos the liquid will raise the vestige of oil at the very bottom of the tank high enough so the car can use it. Its a one time thing only.

The issue of resources running out only really makes sense with Oil, Coal and Saltpetre (for gunpowder). For the rest of the resources, the vast majority of the resource went into the making of the thing, not the running of it. I imagine Firaxis will be wise and keep things simple.

But the question does raise interesting issues. What DOES happen when you have two Irons, one for building, one for trading, and you lose one? Or you have two for trading and you lose one, which trade route gets cut off? Perhaps you'll always be promted to choose.

faded glory · September 3, 2001, 23:23

*Goes to the gas station*

Filler up, all the way !

"That'll be 60.00$ sir"

It doesnt matter, Urine or Oil they will always find ways to overcharge you

Urban Ranger · September 3, 2001, 23:54

I agree it doesn't have to be complete realism. If that's what we want we wouldn't be playing Civ

If handled properly restrictions on resources will add extra dimensions to diplomacy and strategy without bogging the game down. For example, in the case of oil, make it that every country has a 3 turn strategic reserve. When your civ gets cut off, you have 3 turn to re-establish supply or face the consequences

Harlan,

"What DOES happen when you have two Irons, one for building, one for trading, and you lose one? Or you have two for trading and you lose one, which trade route gets cut off? Perhaps you'll always be promted to choose."

I'm all for promting the player. Lets suppose that in this case too there's a 3-turn grace period. So if the player chooses "trade" all units requiring iron that will be completed within the next 3-turns can be completed, after that they will be halted, until supply resumes.

dexter4dxm · September 4, 2001, 06:28

i've got a question, can you stockpile resources in civ3? i should be able to stockpile my holds of oil, like how the U.S. does today with the federal reserve. i imagine that if this was a feature in the game it would have a large affect on building units and the possible maintaining of units in the field.

Gramphos · September 4, 2001, 06:52

Quote:

Originally posted by dexter4dxm
i've got a question, can you stockpile resources in civ3? i should be able to stockpile my holds of oil, like how the U.S. does today with the federal reserve. i imagine that if this was a feature in the game it would have a large affect on building units and the possible maintaining of units in the field.

As far as I know: No, we can't.
I think this has been up before and it was stated that we can't.

Robert Plomp · September 4, 2001, 07:24

If I would be a militairistic leader then I would send much oil with my tanks if I send them out to attack another country.

If that other country then hits me with an embargo, than I pherhaps can't send new tanks, but my current heading to the enemy-tanks will still have enough oil.