Final Verdict on Strategic Resources

ElitePersian · November 11, 2001, 22:16

There has been alot of suggestions regarding strategic resources and how there should be ways that civs could improvise and still survive if they dont have any say, oil, or coal.

I agree that as far as gameplay balance and realism an implementation of a mod that could offset an unlucky lack of strategic resources on a player's land mass is a great idea.

Im sure the programmers are heeding the advice of countless gamers who are frustrated by games where their great empire crumbled to no fault of their own because they had no oil.. Im sure the programmers are considering including a mod to the resource problem in their upcoming patch...

I sincerely hope they do not. There are alot of good reasons to change the dynamics of civ3 and make it easier on civs who get unlucky with the resources, but, by reducing the desperate need for resources players have in Civ3, the game will lose that spark, that soul that it now has.

There is no way I can describe the feeling of finally finding that precious iron resource and finally being able to build my first special unit. This feeling is why I play civ. Its being able to for just a moment here and there in your life, escape the realities we live in and actually lose yourself in your empire building.

The strategic resource aspect of the game could very well be more realistic and balanced, but I hope they do not change anything about it.

yeesh · November 11, 2001, 22:51

Agree, except that the AI needs to be a little better about trying to get those resources. In my huge monarch game, the Romans have been without iron for thousands of years, all the while I had a little outpost city pretty much within their borders that I put there just to prevent them from getting the iron adjacent to it (I didn't have a territory connection to the city, but had several other sources myself. That's huge for you). Despite the fact that they could've easily taken it at any point, they never tried, nor did they ever even demand the city or try to trade for it. I didn't start seeing legions until like 750AD by which time they were no threat.

My point is that the resource deal does kind of spice things up for the player, but eventually you just grab one of everything you need from some AI civs who don't seem to want them back very badly. In that sense, it's just another advantage for the player. On deity I'm sure you need every edge you can get, but on the lower levels it just makes the slaughter that much easier. Or would if it weren't for the completely random combat system...

star mouse · November 11, 2001, 22:52

One way of addressing the issue would be to provide alternative units that can be built if the resource is missing. These would be less powerful versions of the unit that is available if the appropriate resource is present.

For example, suppose that you have got an advance that allows you to build swordsmen. If iron is available, swordsmen might have a power of 3 because their swords are made of iron. If no iron is available, bronze swordsmen with bronze swords can be built, but these only have a power of 2. The iron swordsmen would be better, but your empire won't curl up and die simply because you lack iron.

JKremer35 · November 11, 2001, 23:16

Hello,

My last game really had issues with resources, the only coal (2) on a large map 5 civs, were right in the middle of Japan's empire. It was a continent game and 4 of us shared one while Japan had it's own by the time I was able to find the 2 resources of coal Japan was the strongest empire and held both of them. The way I understand it there should be 2 coal spots for every empire on a large map. This really made the game suck because I had the highest tech level and Japan hadn't got to steam yet, so they couldn't trade with me. I ended up having to give them the techs to get there and then they still wouldn't trade with me even though we had great relations so I was stuck, and also gave them all the extra techs. So no Railroads for me to move my forces around the map quickly to battle the other civs on my continent. I survived but it still sucked. Only 2 resources of coal for 5 civs just doesn't seem right. Sorry to ramble but I love the resources and I think the way they are random is great but this could be a game halter if it was oil, rubber or aluminum.

JKremer35

Hans2 · November 11, 2001, 23:53

I agree and I disagree. I do think that the resources allocation formulas and the chance of depletion needs to be reworked. HOWEVER, I do not agree with 'spending more gets me the same thing.' Let us take WWII as an example. Fought solely for resources. Germany need 'lebensraum' (living room). When the allies bombing the oil fields in Romania towards the end of the war, the German war machine ground to a crawl. The shortage of oil in the German military was a major factor in their defeat. Japan would have completely run out of oil in 6 months due to the allied economic embargo. That was the sole reason they attacked the US and took the East Indies.

Their placement and depletion might need improvment, but that fact of the matter remains, oil is oil, and if you don't have it you can build all the tanks you want to but they won't run anywhere.

star mouse · November 12, 2001, 00:16

Perhaps CIV3 needs new setup options in the world creation screen.

Strategic Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
Luxury Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
Bonus Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant

Scarce might be 0.7 resource per civ, Normal is 1 resource per civ, Abundant is 1.5 resources per civ. Multiply as necessary for each "common" resource like coal and iron, and apply different rules for Bonus resources.

Forgive me if this is already present, I don't have the game yet.

New resources should also be created at a slightly faster rate than they run out (say 5 to 4), and their creation should be much more likely if the number of each strategic resource is less than the number of civilisations. There shouldn't be only 2 Coal on the map if there's 8 civs.

dexters · November 12, 2001, 00:32

Ummm.... The idea of the game is to have strategic resources be useful. If everyone had it and had access to it, it would be pointless.

If people have their great empire crumble, they were at fault. Great empires last because they have resiliance. The culture of blaming everyone else for your own fault is getting out of hand. If you're great empire crumble because you can't get oil, you have only yourself to blame for not planning ahead. Especially now that we all are aware of the importance of strategic resources.

Another point, the combat has been tweaked so that if you don't have special resources to build tanks and the like, you can survive an attack from modern army -- even if its tough. but we got a whole another batch of people whining about that.

Cyanide · November 12, 2001, 00:49

I love the idea of resources making more of a difference than in CivII. But the implementation in CivIII is horrible, at the best of times. Strategic resources are simply too important. Example: in my most recent game (huge map), I had advanced horseback riding (horses visible) very early, and, of course, there were none on the continent - a rather large continent. Okay, that's okay I figure, I'll find some sooner or later after exploring the map a bit more. But, there's some pesky Romans running about, trying to take everything over they see. So, no horsemen, no fast attacking force. Fine - I'll get them with swordsmen. Or so I thought. As you can probably guess, upon advancing ironworking, no iron. Now, it's essentially impossible for me to keep up with the Romanses, as it were. Without at least a decent attacker (archer not included at this point), I'm dead. I can at least no longer defend my property adequately (no pikemen), and I can't pose a real threat to anybody. By the time coal or oil come around, it's too late to matter.

This happens every F***ing game, too. Different resources, same story (well, the era changes, as well as which units I get screwed out of). I can't tell you how tired I am of this, and I've played enough games now to know that this is not a rare event. I have yet to play a game and have access to all strategic resources. Now, this is actually kinda cool. The other day, I launched the great rubber action - to call it a war is glorifing it too much. In an earlier game, I recreated desert storm. This was fun, and good, but when the AI attacks and expands without any sense of strategy or common sense early in the game, acess to strategic resources becomes much more necessary. I find it interesting that luxuries aren't much of a problem. I'm not saying that they're ever anywhere near my capitol or my initial area of influence, but I can usually find one easily. However, luxuries don't keep me from building important units. In my opinion, strategic resources are far more important than luxuries. And the AI, jerk that it is, will never - never - trade intelligently, so this is not the solution I hoped it would be.

This is truly enough for me to never play this game again. Realism arguments are fine, but they're pointless. This is a game - gameplay issues are more important than whether or not somebody would've attacked somebody in the real world. If I wanted the realworld, I'd watch CNN all the time, and wonder what the Taliban's Civ score would be right now. There are too many problems with this game that are difficult to fix to not address one that is easy. Don't be blinded by a love of all things Firaxis and Sid to not notice a bad game, with serious gameplay issues.

dexters · November 12, 2001, 01:05

Well, you don't live or die by not having horses. or oil. or steel.

There is usually a substitute resource you have that you can use to your advantage.

That's been my advantage. And if not, you probably have a luxury you have you can use to trade for that resource.

In one of my games, I didn't have coal, the civ to the north of me had coal. I massed my Rifleman (pretty decent units and no special resources required) and attack. I took the resource.

In fact, the game's best all round unit is Infantry, a unit you can get with no resource requirement.

Same goes for Rifleman. A good unit for the industrial age, no resources required.

Don't be so selective. Not having hourses has never broken anyone's game, save for the guy who gave up.

Cyanide · November 12, 2001, 01:21

I'm not talking about just not having horses, damnit. I'm talking about not having BOTH horses and iron. So, not only could I not attack, I couldn't defend. And I'm not talking about "giving up" either. When half of your cities are taken, regardless of the size of my army, the game is over - especially if it's early in that game. That's my point. Limited strategic resources early is deadly. You're absolutely right - lacking horses isn't the end of the world. But when you're screwed out of having several strategic resources at once, it's a huge disadvantage. No horses and no iron make Cyanide a pissed off boy. And as I've said before, this is not the only time this has happened. It's the most recent, and most likely the last. Until there's a patch or this issue is addressed.

Pyrodrew · November 12, 2001, 01:23

Quote:

Ummm.... The idea of the game is to have strategic resources be useful. If everyone had it and had access to it, it would be pointless.

Exactly. Strategic resources are fine... coal could appear a tad more often, but every civ shouldn't have access to every resource.

Quote:

Perhaps CIV3 needs new setup options in the world creation screen.

Strategic Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
Luxury Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
Bonus Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant

Gee I wonder where I've seen that before.

Good idea, great minds think alike.

yin26 · November 12, 2001, 01:24

When the vital resource is on your same stretch of land but in another's civ's yard, taking it by force is always a rather easy option. In one game, Japan had the only horse resouce on our small continent ... and so he used it like crazy. Of course, my spearmen and catapult-fortified cities wore him down and I have now stripped him of his lands and can now produce the Chinese special unit: The Rider.

But when these resources are on another continent entirely, the difficulty goes up exponentially. The jury is still out on that one, but I think you've just got to suck it up and trade like a madman if you can or go to war / make do if you can't.

I rather enjoy that dynamic, but I don't have enough enough games under my belt to see if it's a tweaking problem or a player problem.

yin26 · November 12, 2001, 01:28

Cyanide:

I had similar issues until I decided that my nearest neighbor HAD TO DIE at all costs. So now I kill his settlers coming my way. I build toward him, fence him in. I have lots of warriors early only. I expand expand expand then expand again for good measure, skipping most any infrastucture early on.

With my neighbor crushed, I can relax.

I'm not saying this is always a 'fun' way to play ... but it is, actually.

I play on Monarch level BTW, for what that's worth thinking about AI aggressiveness.

Libertarian · November 12, 2001, 01:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyanide
I'm not talking about just not having horses, damnit. I'm talking about not having BOTH horses and iron. So, not only could I not attack, I couldn't defend. And I'm not talking about "giving up" either. When half of your cities are taken, regardless of the size of my army, the game is over - especially if it's early in that game. That's my point. Limited strategic resources early is deadly. You're absolutely right - lacking horses isn't the end of the world. But when you're screwed out of having several strategic resources at once, it's a huge disadvantage. No horses and no iron make Cyanide a pissed off boy. And as I've said before, this is not the only time this has happened. It's the most recent, and most likely the last. Until there's a patch or this issue is addressed.

Once you learn how to play, you'll grow to like this great aspect of the game.

dexters · November 12, 2001, 01:46

Cyanide, there may be some tweaks that can be done to calm you down. I believe Firaxis is actually considering tweaking the map generating engine to cut down on strategic resources going on one place leaving some players screamings.

But in anycase, I find that it is actually fun to play from behind. As I've said, the game have plenty of non resource units that hold their own. You may need a few extras fortified, but its not hopeless. And from experience, if the game is such that you don't have many strategic resources close to you, you'll probably find luxureies instead, and believe me, the AI will want your luxuries once the game gets going.

Again, strategic resources give one a strategic advantage, but not an absolute advantage. You can get around it, and believe me, knights do have a hard time cracking spearmen in cities. If you lack iron and horses, you can fortify your cities, build them up to get defensive bonsese, and build an army of longbowmen to attack while your spearmen defend.

No offense, but I find all this complaining a little counterproductive. You have a point, but I think it is more a challenge than the game being unfair. I;ve played games where I've gotten horses and iron, or saltpeter and iron, so i know for a fact the game engine doesn't discriminate. just tone down the rhetoric if you're dealt a bad hand. Rome wasn't built in a day, so goes the famous saying. What people miss is that Rome didn't have much of a strategic resource either. It was just another city state in the Italian peninsula. It was strategy that helped the Romans consolidate their power, and that applies to the game just as well. You can have all the goodies in the world, but if you're strategy suck, it won't do you much good.

Hans2 · November 12, 2001, 02:04

Playing random maps your going to get screwed once in a while, deal with it. If you must have a perfect game every time, play only pre-made maps.

On the number of resources available, my jury is still out on this one. On the one hand I agree they should be scarce-ie not enough for every nation. But on the other hand, I think there should be enough to at least trade around. In times of peace I don't think there's ever been a time when one country refused to trade a resource as vital as say oil or aluminum to another. If there's less than on oil per civ, everyone else is going to be screwed no matter what, especially if more than one of the few oils are under the control of the same civ.

smellymummy · November 12, 2001, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
In fact, the game's best all round unit is Infantry, a unit you can get with no resource requirement.

Same goes for Rifleman. A good unit for the industrial age, no resources required.

Infantry is a fantastic unit, but it does require rubber!

Rifleman is also a great unit, and requires no resources... Good on defense, cheap to build, and can keep you in the game.

About resources on different continents, look at horses and the real world: America had no horses while the europeans, etc, had them. look at the difference of power, culture and advancement between the two continents. and what happened when the cultures met in the 1500's. So it's not unrealistic to not have all the resources and can very well happen. Oil is just another example...

also, you may want to try the indians as a civ. They can't build knights (theres your horses and iron) but they can build war elephants, which require no resources at all. All you need to do is tuff it out until you discover chivalry

LaRusso · November 12, 2001, 03:25

resources are awesome. sometimes, however, i would like AI to behave like it should, that is, be desperate.
france was leading in the score and started a war with iroquise. that was my only chance. now i give iroquise some cool techs for modern armor, give them rubber (they had oil). french do not have rubber but have oil. i have excess rubber.
now i would NOT trade them rubber anyway coz i wanted iroquise to pummel french while i build the ship. however, french wanted to give one measly tech for rubber. cmon! they had to field cavalry and rifleman against iroquise modern tanks. they should give me 1000+ gold, tech AND per turn gold for that. needless to say, they quickly lost a couple of cities.

soren, do you have any idea how this can be tweaked? it could really add to the game....

cort · November 12, 2001, 03:54

come on guys.
do not complain about the resource system. you are NOT SUPPOSED to have every one resource within your territory. This is what the game is all about right? if you dont have one, you should get it through TRADE. make strategic allies and buy what you need.
Not any one nation in the world has gone through the single rambo guy style and been successful, ok.

fraxis please do not listen to these little boys complaining, they will learn.

LaRusso · November 12, 2001, 03:56

i am not complaining. i love the resources system.
the only thing i would like to see is AI being desperate for them when it should (that is, when survival is at stake)

Sikander · November 12, 2001, 04:24

I have a quibble about the realism of the resources chosen for the game. Horses are organic, and should be available to anyone who can trade for or steal a seed herd. The American Indians are a great example of a people who started on a continent without horses, and who relatively quickly created their own supply. This is a bad example of a resource, as it can be quickly replicated in whatever numbers are necessary.

Iron, how can their be a shortage of iron on a continent? Another bad idea for a resource as far as realism is concerned.

With the later resources, I would rather have seen a market driven system, where oil, aluminum etc. is available if you are willing to spend more than next guy for it. During war time you might be able to cut off an enemy from his supplies, but it is next to impossible to keep a state completely shut off from these major resources during peacetime if they are willing to pay the required price. Unfortunately everyone is a major player in Civ, there are no desperate third world countries whose economic survival depends on their ability to sell a strategic commodity. One of the things that is broken in the game is the fact that by the age of imperialism every bit of land has long been controlled by one of the major empires. This might be realistic to some extent for the relatively short period of history where colonial powers were able to wrap up a large percentage of the earth's surface, but that did not last very long, as these same powers were forced to give up most of their acquisitions in the late 20th century. There is nothing like this in the game.

LaRusso · November 12, 2001, 04:30

the only real issue is: does the resources thing make the game competitive and fun? i think it does, big time
wonders of the world are also highly arbitrary thing, but they are fun. i mean, does JSBach's cathedral really make 10% of population content or is sun tzu's academy really a virtual barrack per city. abstractions, but fun abstractions
resources system makes you really fight and hold on for territory and your empire does not look like confederation of cities anymore. plus you really feel what embargo means

Gdiguy · November 12, 2001, 04:35

for the most part, i think the resource system is increadibly cool, and adds a very interesting depth to civ3...

having said that, a few of them need to be made a little more common... especially coal. For some reason, i've found coal to be one of the hardest resources to get, and while not being able to build a few units isn't all that bad, not being able to build any railroads at all is increadibly devastating, especially late in the game...

Grumbold · November 12, 2001, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Gdiguy
for the most part, i think the resource system is increadibly cool, and adds a very interesting depth to civ3...

having said that, a few of them need to be made a little more common... especially coal. For some reason, i've found coal to be one of the hardest resources to get, and while not being able to build a few units isn't all that bad, not being able to build any railroads at all is increadibly devastating, especially late in the game...

Yep the rarity of these things is a big surprise to me. Earlier indications had made it sound like the resources would be limited and finite, so you might have to weigh up the importance of building railroads against the number of ironclads you wanted to build. It seems to have become more of a random lottery as to whether you get any at all and how long they last.

Grim Legacy · November 12, 2001, 05:22

Some notes:

1) Military-wise, there is no substitute for lack of resources. Being stuck without Oil and Rubber means the best troops you can muster in the modern era are rifleman (4/6) and artillery (0/(12)). If you are in the lucky possession of Iron and Horses you may also build knights, otherwise Longbowmen will have to do (lol).
With these units, you have little chance against Tanks (16/10) and infantry. And never mind modern armor, bombers/fighters or radar artillery coming at you.
With coal, you can still build Ironclads to fend off the enemy battleships.

2) Otherwise, you have some options. I have so far been able to secure a short spree of resources from the opponents every time. In a particular game I lacked oil and rubber and only got coal very late (bonus resource sprung up), but I managed to trade all I needed. Dumb dealing on the part of the AI, because they could have slaughtered me easily before I got my hands on the oil and rubber I needed. Now, my cities are stacked with Mech Inf, Modern Armor and I have already built a fleet of Carriers, Battleships and transports. My airforce is building up too. All this in the limited timeframe (20 turns) I've been trading for the resources.

3) Resources seem to be more balanced that it seemed at first. I got some Ancient resources (iron, horses), but no industrial ones... but then I got Aluminum and Uranium (muhahaha two pieces even), giving me some edge back late in the game.

4) The AI knows. Watch where it builds its lame size-1 border cities next to you. They came with Caravels, with Galleons to found their bordertowns... and lo and behold: 500 years later it turns out there 'happened' to be uranium and aluminum in the territory those towns used to occupy. Hmmm.

cort · November 12, 2001, 05:29

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
i am not complaining. i love the resources system.
the only thing i would like to see is AI being desperate for them when it should (that is, when survival is at stake)

oh!
i was not talking to you guy. they know themselves.
i agree that AI should be more willing to get a resource it desperetly needs. more aggressive, willing to pay more, etc.

dexters · November 12, 2001, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Some notes:
.

2) Otherwise, you have some options. I have so far been able to secure a short spree of resources from the opponents every time. In a particular game I lacked oil and rubber and only got coal very late (bonus resource sprung up), but I managed to trade all I needed. Dumb dealing on the part of the AI, because they could have slaughtered me easily before I got my hands on the oil and rubber I needed. Now, my cities are stacked with Mech Inf, Modern Armor and I have already built a fleet of Carriers, Battleships and transports. My airforce is building up too. All this in the limited timeframe (20 turns) I've been trading for the resources.

I believe that's what the Japanese and Germans did. They imported oil and steel for their warmachines, and boy did they build a mighty warmachine.

Jolard · November 12, 2001, 18:20

I agree that strategic resources should stay the way they are. They are one of my favorite things about the game. This works so well, and is a welcome addition. I love the fact that your whole strategic plan can change overnight, because you woke up one morning and realized you have no access to Saltpeter. Or you are doing great ignoring everyone else, and then have to start trading or invade to get a resource. Adds a whole extra layer which adds complexity and depth. Plus, I love the fact that you only need one resource of each type and can trade the rest away. Simplicity in appearance, but lends itself to complex interactions. I also like how this makes your civ's infrastructure so much more important. You have to have links between your cities, and you have to protect those links in war. Also allows for great new strategies when attacking other civs, cut them off from their resources, and they are crippled. Very nice

Please oh please do not change the resource system.

Venger · November 12, 2001, 19:47

The original sentiment to the posts is pretty much where I fall - as long as normally abundant resources are indeed abundant (iron should be on every continent) and in reasonable quantities, I think it's a very good gameplay add on. Of course, in my one game ( STILL playing it ) I have access to everything but a few luxuries...

Still all in all it's likely a great move - nations like Japan have no oil and must import it. It changes how they act and interact with others (must maintain good diplomacy with oil producers, also will go to war to obtain it's own supplies).

Resources =

Venger

Ludwig · November 12, 2001, 20:06

I only have one complaint about the resource system:

As it stands, if I have the required resources for long enough to START constructing a unit, it doesn't seem to matter if I subsequently lose the resource.

Example: During turn X, I have a single horse resource, and have all my cities building cavalry. At the beginning of turn X+1, I lose a city, and lose the horse resource along with it. Despite this fact, all of my other cities merrily continue along building their cavalry units.

If you lose the resource, you should lose the ability to build the unit, even if the unit is under way. I actually would favor having you lose the invested shields - but I know many people would find that too punitive. I'd settle for being forced to change to producing another unit.

My only other complaint is the opposite of the general complaint here: I think the resources are slightly too common. If you play on a huge map, the resource locations are coded into the map at the point of generation. If a couple of Civ's die before, say, Oil becomes visible, there's enough Oil on the map for the original number of Civ's. In my current game, I was dying to see the donnybrook that would erupt once the race was on to secure Oil supplies - among the 13 surviving Civ's out of the original 16, there's currently a lot of parity as well as some long-standing deep antagonisms. Unfortunately, there's 16 Civ's worth of Oil out there, allowing everyone to have plenty, so it's a big yawn so far. I'm hoping the wells start to run dry soon.