Resources

The Rook · October 26, 2001, 16:00

I wonder how many resources will be spread over the map for each particular type. Say on the largest map with 16 Civs, will there be at least 16 horses. Will there be more or less? Is it set or is it random?

The reason I ask is, they said that one resource is enough to supply an entire nation for that resource. If you have 2, then you have extra that you can sell to another civ. I'm hoping that civs will be able to monoplolize some of the resources, but not so much as to where all civs in the game are lacking.

Will oil play as big a part as it does in real life? Oil is a huge resource like Iron is.

I'd love to have the oil monopoly, and watch as the other civs beg me for oil.

Lorizael · October 26, 2001, 16:09

I'm pretty sure that Oil is required for most if not all motorized vehicles and aircraft. Therefore I'm willing to bet it will play a major part in the game, as it should.

I guess they have to have at least one resource for every civ, or else some civs might be screwed just because the only Oil was on the other side of the world. But it would definetely be a challange.

Mars · October 26, 2001, 17:12

It would probaly be completely random. You don't have a certain resource you dam will better find a place to take it from (aka another civ)

The Rook · October 26, 2001, 17:22

Well I am looking forward to the political dealings when the AI finds I have locked up all the good resources. This new element that CIV3 has added to the game rocks.

UKScud · October 26, 2001, 17:42

Quote:

I'd love to have the oil monopoly, and watch as the other civs beg me for oil.

Can you say w-a-r-f-a-r-e.

That's the kind of thing that in the real world leads to war, and I think is going to be what Civ3 is all about.

I can't recall the exact review that I read, but someone was saying that it wasn't uncommon that all the Civs were active to some degree or another during the endgame.

How many of us can say the same thing about playing Civ2. By the endgame either yourself (if you are winning), or the dominant AI Civ occupy a large chunk of the world and 2 or 3 Civs have gone the way of the Aztecs.

I think it's going to be VERY difficult to occupy 2/3 of the world and win by domination. The resource model enocurages limited wars based around denial and capture of resources, but fighting a prolonged war to capture most enemy cities will be very difficult due to the nationality model. Not only are you going to have to deal with defending military units, but as soon as an AI Civ has Nationalism, if it's attacked (or is an aggresive AI) you can bet it's going to be cranking out Drafted units to resist your aggression every turn. The people within captured cities will be refusing to work, can revolt, and your whole supply line of new troops for the front line will get overstretched.

Small wars...not big ones are the way to go.
Naval warfare - incredibly important now. The blockading of enemy ports is going to be very important - whereas you could load up trade units in Civ2 anywhere along your coast, often avoiding the AIs navel units, there are now only a few places...seaboard cities...where this can occur now.

Hmmm...a thought...is this going to mean that most naval conflict will occur around cities...rather than grand mid ocean naval battles?

The Rook · October 26, 2001, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by UKScud

Can you say w-a-r-f-a-r-e.

That's the kind of thing that in the real world leads to war, and I think is going to be what Civ3 is all about.

I can't recall the exact review that I read, but someone was saying that it wasn't uncommon that all the Civs were active to some degree or another during the endgame.

How many of us can say the same thing about playing Civ2. By the endgame either yourself (if you are winning), or the dominant AI Civ occupy a large chunk of the world and 2 or 3 Civs have gone the way of the Aztecs.

I think it's going to be VERY difficult to occupy 2/3 of the world and win by domination. The resource model enocurages limited wars based around denial and capture of resources, but fighting a prolonged war to capture most enemy cities will be very difficult due to the nationality model. Not only are you going to have to deal with defending military units, but as soon as an AI Civ has Nationalism, if it's attacked (or is an aggresive AI) you can bet it's going to be cranking out Drafted units to resist your aggression every turn. The people within captured cities will be refusing to work, can revolt, and your whole supply line of new troops for the front line will get overstretched.

Small wars...not big ones are the way to go.
Naval warfare - incredibly important now. The blockading of enemy ports is going to be very important - whereas you could load up trade units in Civ2 anywhere along your coast, often avoiding the AIs navel units, there are now only a few places...seaboard cities...where this can occur now.

Hmmm...a thought...is this going to mean that most naval conflict will occur around cities...rather than grand mid ocean naval battles?

We are on the same page

No longer can you just build a huge army and go on a conquering spree. You are going to need resources, allies, and good strategy to win in CIV3

UKScud · October 26, 2001, 18:11

Quote:

No longer can you just build a huge army and go on a conquering spree. You are going to need resources, allies, and good strategy to win in CIV3

Absolutely! And that's going to tickoff the warmongers no end...They'll no longer be able to damn the rest of the world and just go through the mechanistic actions of assembling the biggest army and stomp through the other civs one by one.

Civ3 rocks

Mars · October 26, 2001, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by UKScud

Can you say w-a-r-f-a-r-e.

That's the kind of thing that in the real world leads to war, and I think is going to be what Civ3 is all about.

I can't recall the exact review that I read, but someone was saying that it wasn't uncommon that all the Civs were active to some degree or another during the endgame.

How many of us can say the same thing about playing Civ2. By the endgame either yourself (if you are winning), or the dominant AI Civ occupy a large chunk of the world and 2 or 3 Civs have gone the way of the Aztecs.

I think it's going to be VERY difficult to occupy 2/3 of the world and win by domination. The resource model enocurages limited wars based around denial and capture of resources, but fighting a prolonged war to capture most enemy cities will be very difficult due to the nationality model. Not only are you going to have to deal with defending military units, but as soon as an AI Civ has Nationalism, if it's attacked (or is an aggresive AI) you can bet it's going to be cranking out Drafted units to resist your aggression every turn. The people within captured cities will be refusing to work, can revolt, and your whole supply line of new troops for the front line will get overstretched.

Small wars...not big ones are the way to go.
Naval warfare - incredibly important now. The blockading of enemy ports is going to be very important - whereas you could load up trade units in Civ2 anywhere along your coast, often avoiding the AIs navel units, there are now only a few places...seaboard cities...where this can occur now.

Hmmm...a thought...is this going to mean that most naval conflict will occur around cities...rather than grand mid ocean naval battles?

That's perhaps one of the best explainations of why you won't be as affective to be a pure warmonger. I congradulate you.

RobC · October 26, 2001, 19:00

I wonder if this means that expansioninsts/warmongers will need to be extra aggressive in the early game, when other civs will not have so much culture (so captured cities don't revolt back), and military units don't need resources...hmmm perhaps India will ironically be the civ of choice for warmongers because they can build war elephants without any resources early in the game!

dennis580 · October 26, 2001, 19:21

It's also a very good idea to keep backup resources incase your road network is cut off by the computer during war.

UKScud · October 27, 2001, 00:16

Quote:

I wonder if this means that expansioninsts/warmongers will need to be extra aggressive in the early game, when other civs will not have so much culture (so captured cities don't revolt back), and military units don't need resources...hmmm perhaps India will ironically be the civ of choice for warmongers because they can build war elephants without any resources early in the game!

This has always worried me about the Civ attributes model that has been introduced into Civ3. In Civ2 you were an even footing with every other Civ at the start of the game. But there is no doubt in my mind that some Civs will have a better early game than others.

Quote:

I can't recall the exact review that I read, but someone was saying that it wasn't uncommon that all the Civs were active to some degree or another during the endgame.

It would appear though that these Civ attributes don't have as much effect as I thought some weeks ago, just providing unique flavour to each Civ, but no overall advantage.

Here's a thought. The AI might not necessarily take full advantage of the early bonuses provided by the Civ attributes, but what about a human player?

Perhap's it's just as well that there is no MP with this game. Human players taking advantage of the early bonus due to their Civs attributes would stomp on those with end game civilizations.

Quote:

That's perhaps one of the best explainations of why you won't be as affective to be a pure warmonger. I congradulate you.

Thank you!