Resources - The old way rules

[Nexus VI]

I've tried to play a few times before coming to this conclusion.

I embraced the introduction of strategic resources with curiosity and I played with them to try and learn how to enjoy myself the best way I could.

Eventually I decided to eliminate the resources. Now I play without limits. I can build everything without the nightmare of getting a resources shortage which could limit my enjoyment a lot.

I believe the true nature of Civilization doesn't permit the existance of resources. They should be used only in RTS games.

I can't accept to fight for obtaining a resource and then, eventually, seeing it disappear in a few turns (thing this is calculated randomly).

You could object the disappearing of resources can be disabled; this is true and I believe that is a parallel solution to my own. If one really wants to fight for resources he/she should be sure once he/she gained them, he/she can keep them until his/her militar power is able to protect them.

However, removing the necessity of resources, made me find again the old beloved way-to-play Civilization I liked so much with the past two chapters.

This is my opinion. I would suggest you to try it out and tell me what you think of it.

Aloha...

[Nakar Gabab]

I kind of like resources. Don't love, don't hate; it at least makes you think a little bit about building cities in places you might never imagine one could go looking.

That said, I agree that the disappearing thing is really, really stupid. Sorry to say this, but iron buried in a mountain does NOT run out very quickly. When two iron resources peter out in 10 turns (maybe 100-200 years? I assume resources represent a saturation of that resource; i.e. horses don't mean there aren't horses many places, just not enough to be used for practical military purposes; similarly, I figured iron in a mountain meant that section of the range was particularly iron-rich), that's a bit much. Uranium isn't needed in such huge quantities that a supply of it would poof over 20 years (uranium may not be plentiful, I'll concede that's modeled well, but I've seen the specs on uranium mines versus stuff you can make with it, and you don't need buckets of the stuff to get enough radioactive stuff from 'em). Oil reservoirs are HUGE, oftentimes etc.

I propose the following: Resources ought to have a RANGE of time at which they're useful. For instance, iron should be plentiful but die out in 40-60 turns (takes a lot of iron). HOWEVER, iron in a more 'natural' place might last longer - in a mountain as opposed to a hill. Similarly, oil in a desert or in a tundra region will last longer than oil on plains (Texas has a lot of small oil wells 'cause none of them seem to last a long time; Saudi Arabia and Alaska can pump tons of the stuff). So there'd be a range of usefulness based on location. Makes the concept of 'strategic reserves' even more important - save that iron on the mountain until your two hill sources poof, so you can have a buffer while you seek a couple newer, more secure sources.

And horses (you can RAISE new horses), aluminum (the civilopedia even mentions it being the most plentiful metal; this stuff doesn't GO anywhere), rubber (it really DOES grow on trees!) and possibly saltpeter (once you've figured this stuff out, it isn't all that hard to make) needn't go anywhere, ever. Thus allowing "non-critical" resources to appear in slightly smaller quantities but last longer, while iron, coal, etc., the stuff people always want as soon as they become available, will be somewhat easy to find but prone to run out fast unless budgeted.

[Smash]

I think that was the whole idea with strategic resources.Trying to create late and mid game interest with a constantly changing situation.I like this part of civ3 quite abit.There is some frustration potential though.

It would be nice to have some kind of estimate as to how much supply there is.Then at least you could make an informed decision whether to start something or not.But I don't see how they could make it random and static at the same time.Unless each resource had a set amount of turns until depletion.That might hurt more than help.

It also adds an element of luck.Every half decent game has an element of luck.

[Nakar Gabab]

I was thinking something like a semi-random time, longer in 'better' locations, that ONLY depletes if the resource is in use. Would be a bit more strategic; do you trade that extra oil patch for cash now, running the risk of losing it in your own territory, or do you hold it, and try your darndest to keep people away from it?

I can see stealth worker raids to make you use the resource up without using it. Maybe that is a little nuts.

[David Weldon]

I believe that the idea of resources is tremendous, but that the penalty for not having them is _way_ too high. This is the same mistake Firaxis made with culturally reverting cities. The idea adds interest to the game, but the penalty of losing _all_ units within that city is just too large.

My solution is simple: treat resources as exceptionally pure locations. Assume all areas have trace amounts of needed resources, but that their extraction is much more costly than extraction from such 'pure' locations. This also makes the idea of a disappearing resource much more understandable, as it isn't totally gone, it's just that all of the easily accessible stuff is used up.

Mechanically, I use the editor to create duplicates of all units that require resources. The cost of these units is three times the cost of normal units (adjust the multiple to suit your tastes). I then remove resource requirements for things like building railroads. Of course if I have a resource I'll choose to build the cheaper units, but if I don't have it, then I at least have the option of building the more expensive equivalent units.

What you are left with is what I think Firaxis intended... an interesting addition to gameplay that makes it very important to accuire resources, but not absolutely essential. Remember that they made the design decision to make older units more capable vs. newer units specifically to enable resource-poor nations to stay at least somewhat competetive. That was an interesting choice which lead mostly to a lot of newbies *****ing about abnormal combat results. Personally I think my solution is much more appropriate.

[Allemand]

After losing two squares of the same resource in a very short time (happened more than once, too) I don't think the resource disappearances are all that random. I also seem to lose a resource just before I need it, again it's happened too often. So there must be something else at play here besides a 1% chance each turn.

One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal.

Still, I like having to go to war to get resources. Just don't like losing them to a "random" event.

[Spearthrower]

Sorry for a "newbie" question
If you build a city directly on top of a resource, will it still have the chance to run out?

[MadWombat]

I think each source having a number of turns of utilization applied to it when it's generated would be best. After that time it vanishes and a new one appears elsewhere.

And no, building on top of a resource doesn't make it stay.

[DK36]

I simply adore resources. In my opinion. it is one of the greatest additions to Civ3. However, I agree that seeing it immediately dissapear even though you didn't really use it up yet is quite silly. I think the calculation should include how many thing you have done that are associated with that resource (such as how many musketmen you built (or are maintaining per turn?)). Though I am not deeply disturbed by this particular part of the game, the addition of a better formula would be a bit better.

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by David Weldon
Mechanically, I use the editor to create duplicates of all units that require resources. The cost of these units is three times the cost of normal units (adjust the multiple to suit your tastes). I then remove resource requirements for things like building railroads. Of course if I have a resource I'll choose to build the cheaper units, but if I don't have it, then I at least have the option of building the more expensive equivalent units.

You've missed an important point, though. You dont _Need_ the highest tech unit to win the game. Because of the way the combat system works you can easily get by making hordes of cavalry rather than tanks (especially of you are using artillery in good amounts) If you triple the number of shields (or even double) to build a tank then you are placing the price to performance ratio squarely on the side of building cavalry. Dont be so squeemish about using lo-tech units.

[Venger]

I have suggested in the General forum that resources be modified thusly -

A much BETTER system for strategic resources would be that having oil or copper or iron would allow construction of a slightly better VARIANT of a unit, rather than making the unit dependant on it.

Example:

Tank - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Superior Tank - can be built with oil and iron - has +1 attack and +1 defense.
Battleship - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Improved Battleship - can be built with oil, iron, and uranium, + 2 defense and +1 move.

This would give you a nice bonus if you secured these resources, but wouldn't totally f@ck you if you don't. This REALLY helps the AI, because they are ridiculously easy to conquer (like the French). But securing a resource can give you a slight but sometimes crucial advantage.

This type of smart thinking with resources gives you a nice palpable bonus, without making the the spotty resources totally make or break a game (and let's be honest, these "resources" are found all over the world, to pretend that oil is only found in a couple spots is goofy).

Venger

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Allemand
One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal.

That's not true. I wish I could remember which thread it was in, but someone had information showing that it did not matter whether or not a resource was connected to a road, it's just a random chance that the resource will disappear and show up somewhere else.

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
That's not true. I wish I could remember which thread it was in, but someone had information showing that it did not matter whether or not a resource was connected to a road, it's just a random chance that the resource will disappear and show up somewhere else.

Exactly. If you want a sure source of information about it go and take a look at the popup help of the editor: section "Resources".

There's a field which specifies the chance a resource has to disappear: eg. Coal = 800 means there's a chance over 800 that Coal will disappear and eventually reappear in another tile on the map.

So, there are no tricks to keep resources, they just disappear randomly during the game.

ByeZ.

[Zanzin]

I personally really like the resource system. The only problem with it resources disappearing...this wouldn't be such a problem either, as resources do get depleted from time to time - it was just a situation I came across in my last game -

Just discovered oil...I had 3 deposits in my empire. Within 1 turn, one of the deposits was depleted!!! The annoying thing about this is that I hadn't even used this oil to build anything! Really, quite silly.

[Matthevv]

I really like the resources idea. I'm not so sure about the random dissappearance, but it doesn't affect things much, and its a welcome random element in the game. I don't find any problem with not having resources in my patch of the world. I just trade for what I need, and have never had a problem obtaining it so far. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll focus on cities with resources when attacking an AI Civ, but going to war just to try and grab a resource would probably lead to you getting into some wars at a bad time, and not in the way that you want.

[Allemand]

Badtz Maru, Nexus VI, the rule (in the manual) is there is a chance the resource will disappear when it is connected to your trade net, meaning there is a road to the resource. When there is no road the resource will not disappear. I've tested this and found it to be true.

Anyhow, I'm happy. Haven't lost any oil lately.

[David Weldon]

Nadexander:
I didn't miss the point. In fact, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted addressed that point explicitly. I thought it did a pretty good job, even.

Venger:
We seem to agree in spirit: Resources good, pelnalty for lacking them bad. After that it is of course a matter of personal taste, but I think that your solution is too soft. It makes the possesion of resources not really matter. Tanks with +1? That's an almost irrelevant bonus. Of course the bonuses could be tweaked to taste, but I think that the real effect of not having plentiful resources is that things are more difficult to make, not that they are of inferior quality. Thus my concept of more expensive equivalent units.

I totally agree with you on the real problem being if you have a monopoly, not if you are missing a particular resource. I'm not sure what to do in that case except to make all of the AIs recognize that you have a monopoly and try to tear you down. If only one or two make the attempt, that'll just give you extra GLs as you eat them up, but if the whole world got angry at you, perhpas it would be different...

Others:
I love the concept of resources, and I think the random movement is very important to prevent a stagnant end-game. I actually increase the disappear/reappear chances in my games. I wish that they would move around even without roads built to them. I assume that your society makes use of the resource even if your military is not. The gameplay idea here is to give you something important to do once expansion is over. If you just go get what you need and then never worry about it again, then the idea didn't work in reality.

[MarshalN]

Again, as someone who likes to play large/huge maps, the resource problem show up more prominently. Currently, my game seems to be lacking in rubber, except on this small patch of forests deep in the French Empire... and they have 3 of it. Right now we're still early enough so the rubber doesn't matter much, but I can just see it later on being a pain in the @ss when I need it to build improvements, etc. It's not exactly the easiest spot to get to either, seeing how the French has an empire of about 50 cities, and it's almost smack in the middle of their land.

I guess you can trade, but the thing is, the AI doesn't always want to trade with you unless you give them everything, and even then, you might not be able to trade seeing how sometimes they sell it to another AI before you get a chance to buy it. Worse is, the French in my current game decides that it's ok to just connect one of the rubbers for themselves.... so I can't even buy even though I definitely have the money.

[ranald]

Originally posted by MarshalN
I guess you can trade, but the thing is, the AI doesn't always want to trade with you unless you give them everything, and even then, you might not be able to trade seeing how sometimes they sell it to another AI before you get a chance to buy it. Worse is, the French in my current game decides that it's ok to just connect one of the rubbers for themselves.... so I can't even buy even though I definitely have the money.

That's what colonies are for.

[David Weldon]

ranald:
I'm sorry, but colonies won't help the situation he describes because you can't build one on a resource that is in another civ's "territory".

MarshalN:
In the past I've signed an RoP, and then sent a settler to connect it for them, just so I could trade for the resource I just connected. There are a lot of drawbacks to this approach, but it is a possible solution if you really need the rubber bad enough. The other thing is that they will _eventually_ get around to connecting it, because automated workers will _eventually_ build a road in every square.

I guess you get to decide whether you want to wait or to watch his units roam all over your territory for a few minutes per turn...

[Allemand]

In one game, I used all my cavalry units to create a wall along the border, then did an RoP with my neighbor. He couldn't easily get into my country but I sent dozens of tanks through his to attack the next country.

[ranald]

I'm fairly sure the only requirement for a colony to be
successful is that the tile it's built on not be worked.

ISTR having colonies inside the cultural radius of foreign
cities and not having any problems. Or maybe my memory is
going... Guess I'll have to reload some old saves when I
get home, to check.

[Allemand]

I recall that I wasn't allowed to establish a colony within the AI's city radius. Within the cultural radius should be okay.

[David Weldon]

I recall that I wasn't allowed to establish a colony within the AI's city radius. Within the cultural radius should be okay.

This would be a _very_ important distinction if it's true, even though I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a spot in an AI empire that isn't within a city radius...

I know that when my own cultural border overtakes a colony, the colony disappears even though it's outside of a city radius. It's possible that a different mechanic is used for "enemy" colonies, however, and this should absolutely be tested.

[CampedCrusader]

The nature of being a colony implies that there is no whatsoever culture radius present. As you (and the AI) can work any resource thats in your CR by connecting with a road the only need for a colony is ouside such.

Therefore a colony vanquishes as soon as it lies inside ANY CR.

At least that is what I experienced so far.

Of course i still can be wrong but im pretty sure of this...

[JayKay]

Originally posted by CampedCrusader
The nature of being a colony implies that there is no whatsoever culture radius present. As you (and the AI) can work any resource thats in your CR by connecting with a road the only need for a colony is ouside such.

Therefore a colony vanquishes as soon as it lies inside ANY CR.

At least that is what I experienced so far.

Of course i still can be wrong but im pretty sure of this...

Yes...i think your right, because that's my experience too!
_________________________________________________



Portugal
Nation of: Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition);
Vasco da Gama (Discoverer of the Maritime path to India);
and Pedro Álvares Cabral (Discoverer of Brazil in 1500)

[MarshalN]

Yeah, they did get around to it all right. I'm lucky I got some luxuries that the French want and now am swapping luxuries with them for the rubber (paying them like 10 gold a turn, not too bad). I can see it being worse though if I'm not lucky -- and there's still the problem of the possible and eventual war. Then I'm out of rubber for the duration.

[CubsFan915]

Originally posted by CampedCrusader
The nature of being a colony implies that there is no whatsoever culture radius present. As you (and the AI) can work any resource thats in your CR by connecting with a road the only need for a colony is ouside such.

Therefore a colony vanquishes as soon as it lies inside ANY CR.

At least that is what I experienced so far.

Of course i still can be wrong but im pretty sure of this...

I can confirm this - I lost a crucial iron resource when a French city's border expanded in one of my early games.

[narmox]

I _adore_ resources, even their disappearance. Makes things more interesting, and their disappearance has never been too much trouble for me - except in my latest game where it made things even more interesting, and here I was impressed with civ3:

I was playing on Satya's huge world map, as the Romans, and I had all of europe (except scandinavia and england). Then, in the mid-middle ages, my resources were starting to die out, and I had not many luxuries other civs wanted, and they asked for too high prices for theirs. Result: colonization of america and australia was a _must_ for european nations, just like in the real world! And yes, the world was big enough that still in 1500 it's not all covered in cities...

This made me like the resources even more

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by David Weldon
In the past I've signed an RoP, and then sent a settler to connect it for them, just so I could trade for the resource I just connected.

I guess you get to decide whether you want to wait or to watch his units roam all over your territory for a few minutes per turn...

Actually, you probably don't need a RoP. The AI is pretty tolerant of non-combat units in its territory. Though it will ask you to leave ocassionaly, I've never seen it give you an ultimatum over workers. Thus, you don't have to endure watching the AI "units roam all over your territory for a few minutes per turn...."