Some resources to become obsolete?

[RedWhiteArcher]

I wondered. After the cavalary will go obsolete we will have no use for horses? No other uses for horses?
What other strategic resources could become obsolete with time?

[ixnay]

Well, I'd imagine that if you are advanced enough, you could make quite a profit trading all of your horses to lesser civilizations that need them..

[Akron]

Good point, horses probably will go obsolete. I wonder whether at that point the ai will stop accepting horses in exchange for their more valuable goods. Iron and coal won't go obsolete, though, since they are required for steel.

[SerapisIV]

Now when they go obsolete for your civ, would you still be able to trade the obsolete resources to less advanced civs?

[Akron]

I would assume so, as they probably won't just disappear off the map.

I wonder, though, when you get a new technology, such as mobile warefare, and don't have the resources to make tanks, whether your cavalry become obsolete then or later when you can make tanks. Hopefully, its the latter so that you don't get penalized for discovering a new technology. Also, if you lose a certain resource required by say tanks, you should be able to go back to cavalry, even though they won't be as effective. Otherwise, defense will be too dependent on resource aquisition.

[RedWhiteArcher]

Well, I'd imagine that if you are advanced enough, you could make quite a profit trading all of your horses to lesser civilizations that need them..

Yes but I mean that in the end everybody will not need them in that case.

Also, if you lose a certain resource required by say tanks, you should be able to go back to cavalry, even though they won't be as effective. Otherwise, defense will be too dependent on resource aquisition.

That is actualy a very good idea.

Maybe horses could give some other bonus as well as having strategic value. Otherwise they could just take space on the tile.

[Lemmy]

from what i understand resources are depletable, they don't exist forever (sorry, no link).

so you won't be able to profit from them forever by trading it to lesser advanced civs.

[Akron]

Thinking about this, there also must be some more modern units that don't require resources, or a civ that is getting killed and only has 4 cities left will have no chance. Some units, such as partisans and fanatics, should require no resources to build. It wouldn't be right in the modern age for someone not to be able to produce any modern defensive unit, just because they don't have the resource required to make mech. infantry or riflemen.

[Akron]

Originally posted by Lemmy
from what i understand resources are depletable, they don't exist forever (sorry, no link).

so you won't be able to profit from them forever by trading it to lesser advanced civs.

I think this will work like in SMAC. There, you may have had a nutrient bonus to begin with, but at some point in the game, that bonus may randomly disappear. Similarly, at somepoint in the game, another resource may randomly appear within one of your city's radius. I don't think that there will be any time limit on the resource's use, just this randomness. IIRC, resources in civ 3 can also appear randomly.

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by Akron
Thinking about this, there also must be some more modern units that don't require resources, or a civ that is getting killed and only has 4 cities left will have no chance. Some units, such as partisans and fanatics, should require no resources to build. It wouldn't be right in the modern age for someone not to be able to produce any modern defensive unit, just because they don't have the resource required to make mech. infantry or riflemen.

There are probably a number of units we still don't know about that don't require a specific resource, like spearmen which just need bronze working. But then I'm still a bit dubious about the idea of saltpetre as a strategic resource required to make gun powder. Too much of what we think we know about Civ3 is mere speculation wrapped in wild guesswork.

David

[Crouchback]

Double post, but since I've got the space:

Horses should effect happiness in a civilization as well. They can always be raced after all, thereby making bookies very happy indeed and us poor punters deeply miserable.

David

[Akron]

Originally posted by Crouchback
Too much of what we think we know about Civ3 is mere speculation wrapped in wild guesswork.

You're absolutely right.

But this anticipation and speculation is what makes this part of the game development so interesting.

As for horses being a luxury, that's an interesting solution. I'd say that just giving it a tile bonus for later in the game after its lost its strategic value would also do.

[RedWhiteArcher]

from what i understand resources are depletable, they don't exist forever (sorry, no link).

Thats not the reason for not being able to trade them forever, in the end everybody will have horses obsolete and if I remember correctly when one resource dissapear, another one generates on another tile.

Also I don't think that horses, and other "living" resourses should be depletable. The do reproduce. Only the ores and oil should be depleteble

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by RedWhiteArcher
I don't think that horses, and other "living" resourses should be depletable. The do reproduce. Only the ores and oil should be depleteble

No they shouldn't be depleted, but close all the stud farms and stables and they'll soon die out. However, I live in the South of England where if my arthritic grandmother threw a stone she'd still hit a riding stable. That is despite the British army driving their tanks all over the best bit of farm land round Stonehenge.

David

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Crouchback


No they shouldn't be depleted, but close all the stud farms and stables and they'll soon die out. However, I live in the South of England where if my arthritic grandmother threw a stone she'd still hit a riding stable. That is despite the British army driving their tanks all over the best bit of farm land round Stonehenge.

David

I live in the South of England and can't think of one riding stable here.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Akron
Thinking about this, there also must be some more modern units that don't require resources, or a civ that is getting killed and only has 4 cities left will have no chance. Some units, such as partisans and fanatics, should require no resources to build. It wouldn't be right in the modern age for someone not to be able to produce any modern defensive unit, just because they don't have the resource required to make mech. infantry or riflemen.

If resources weren't required to build things, they wouldn't be very strategic now would they? If I maul a Civ and deplete their resources, they ought not be building a whole lot. I think people are understimatingThe resources aspect of Civ 3, it will add wonderful strategic complexity.

[Akron]

Originally posted by HalfLotus


If resources weren't required to build things, they wouldn't be very strategic now would they? If I maul a Civ and deplete their resources, they ought not be building a whole lot. I think people are understimatingThe resources aspect of Civ 3, it will add wonderful strategic complexity.

Well, most units, especially the better ones of each age, should require resources. However, a small civ that is getting crushed in a war should have some chance of survival, right? At the very least they should be able to build partisans whenever they want. Otherwise, if they have a key city on their border producing say oil (and that is their only source of oil), then if you capture that one city , you'll have no problem sweeping through the rest of their empire. Sure, it makes that city strategically important, but I'm concerned that it would make it too important.

Of course all this depends on the distribution and scarcity of strategic resources.

Also, I feel that in civ games, large empires have always been far too powerful. That needs to change. But the resource system seems to really benefit a large empire, which may promote ICS (I certainly hope not).

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Akron


Well, most units, especially the better ones of each age, should require resources. However, a small civ that is getting crushed in a war should have some chance of survival, right? At the very least they should be able to build partisans whenever they want. Otherwise, if they have a key city on their border producing say oil (and that is their only source of oil), then if you capture that one city , you'll have no problem sweeping through the rest of their empire. Sure, it makes that city strategically important, but I'm concerned that it would make it too important.

Of course all this depends on the distribution and scarcity of strategic resources.

Also, I feel that in civ games, large empires have always been far too powerful. That needs to change. But the resource system seems to really benefit a large empire, which may promote ICS (I certainly hope not).

I agree that the tactic of "more is always better" seems to win out in Civ3 too.
I think resource strategies will go a long way toward making every game different.
It would make sense that partisans would be built without resources, so maybe that will be an option. But any "small civ that is being crushed in a war" ought to do their best to stay out of such wars.

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by red_jon

I live in the South of England and can't think of one riding stable here.

Ever heard of Newmarket, Brighton, Plumpton or Ascot? To name but a very few major race courses. No, then we must have different vices.

David

[Cyclotron]

I hope that "obsolete" resources become luxuries. If they just became useless, that city you founded at that horse deposit (now that sounds odd...) becomes useless with the discovery of tanks.

It also seems like a good idea to have base units that are not dependent on any resources, like spearmen or whatever. Riflemen don't need that much steel, only a bit for the barrels of their guns (not comparable to a tank division). Of course, a weak civ that is not able to defend its resources shouldn't last long anyway.

[Sandman]

Thinking about this, there also must be some more modern units that don't require resources, or a civ that is getting killed and only has 4 cities left will have no chance. Some units, such as partisans and fanatics, should require no resources to build. It wouldn't be right in the modern age for someone not to be able to produce any modern defensive unit, just because they don't have the resource required to make mech. infantry or riflemen.

This seems like civ2 thinking: whoever produces more units will win. Perhaps civ3 will favour a 'standing army'?

In civ2 I almost never built offensive units during peace, and only started production after a war had begun. A large standing army would just retard my peacetime economic growth.

In civ3 it's different.

1. There are barbarian camps to attack.
2. The army is supported by the whole civ with gold.
3. Units can be grouped into armies and can retreat from battle. This increases their chance of surviving.
4. Units can be upgraded (I think).
5. Military units keep cultural conversion under control.
6. And your production may be dependent on a few key resources and the roads and ports that supply them.

BUT

There is that nationalism thing.

[SteveJH]

Originally posted by Sandman

4. Units can be upgraded (I think).

Yes they can, that has been confirmed. You have to bring them to a city and pay an amount of gold (shields?) to upgrade them. Leonardo's Workshop now halves the cost of upgrading.

[Akron]

Good points Sandman.

So if a standing army becomes that important even during peacetime, the ai may get a big boost. It always built tons of units and stationed them uselessly in the middle of its continent.

Looks like managing your economy will be crucial too, given that maintaining an army will now put a strain on it.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Crouchback


Ever heard of Newmarket, Brighton, Plumpton or Ascot? To name but a very few major race courses. No, then we must have different vices.

David

I use Brighton for a very different purpose

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by red_jon
I use Brighton for a very different purpose

As soon as I saw that mentioned, I knew this reply would come...
Epsom's almost London anyway. Miles from Eastbourne...

Horses could be used for weaponry all the way to railroad. I read somewhere about the Pembrokeshire militia had horses pulling howitzers in WW2

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

As soon as I saw that mentioned, I knew this reply would come...

Sad isn't it?

Horses could be used for weaponry all the way to railroad. I read somewhere about the Pembrokeshire militia had horses pulling howitzers in WW2.

Both sides used horses for half the year on the Eastern front during WWII. Tracked vehicles wouldn't go in the mud and snow.

David

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Crouchback
Sad isn't it?

Not quite as sad as a bloke who likes riding horses

IW =

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by red_jon

I use Brighton for a very different purpose

When you get a bit older lad

[Crouchback]

Hey, I like putting money on midgets riding horses.

That didn't come out quite right did it?

David