Firaxis: why is there NO OIL in my game?

[bigvic]

Originally posted by DrFell
You could say it's realistic. After all the world didn't necessarily have to have a source of oil. It's not necessary for it to exist. Adds a bit of variety to the game I'd say.

Oh please, if I'm going to waste hours of my time as the Germans, gloating over the eventuality of panzers, then find out there is not one single lousy rotten drop of freakin oil in the whole bloody wolrld, I'm gonna be pissed. Pointless. I don't paly these games to be frustrated by stupid unfair limitations. Fair, sensible limitations, fine, thats called a challenge. No oil in the entire world, perhaps partly b/c THEY cancelled oil in plains, thats ridiculous.

[FrostyBoy]

I like the fact that there aren't much resources in the game, because it forces you to go to war to get it. which is real

I don't want the game to be too easy!

[monkeyman]

Yeah, but this is no resources. This type of thing cries out for alternative technologies. It's more science fiction, but as a previous poster said, if there wasn't oil, we would have come up with cadmium powered tanks or something. In a perfectly deep game, we could have entire lines of research technology that we never have a need or chance to explore. This possibility is the ideal way to spice up the game ala SnOOpy's suggestion.

So, OT, but we should have double the number of techs, some useful as tanks (i.e. potentially v. useful), some useful as communism (i.e. somewhat useful depending on circumst.). In a typical game, maybe any one civ researches 50-75% of these.

JM$.02

-mm

[Cort Haus]

If oil or other resource scarcity is a problem to anyone, they can adjust the Appearance Ratio up and the Disappearance Probability down on the Resources tab of the editor.

Or don't play the Germans on a small map.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by bigvic


Oh no...I was saying such good things about the patch on other thread. Why do they do this kind of thing? Well, you can still mod, right? Does it change in pre done mods? I gotta mod to really enjoy the game anyway, so no big deal.

The change was made prior to 1.21f. Plains didn't have oil in 1.17f either. I think the change was made in 1.61f.

It never made any sense to make the change though. Oil is not even remotely related to the present climate of the land above it. Mountains is about the only place its not found. A low hill can be an indicator of oil.

[gopher]

Originally posted by Ethelred


The change was made prior to 1.21f. Plains didn't have oil in 1.17f either. I think the change was made in 1.61f.

It never made any sense to make the change though. Oil is not even remotely related to the present climate of the land above it. Mountains is about the only place its not found. A low hill can be an indicator of oil.

Yep. It depends where all those dinos and plants died and were preserved. I think that it should be in any land tile in Civ3. After all, we can find an example for each situation.
Ex:
Grassland/Jungle: Venezuela and Nigerian oil patches
Plains: Alberta, Texas, Siberia
Tundra: Alaska, Siberia, Antartica?
Desert: Duh
Hills:....give me a bit to think...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gopher

Hills:....give me a bit to think...

Low hills not foothills that are the start of mountains.


Long Beach California. Signal Hill actually but the most of the oil is in Long Beach and Signal Hill is just one of a set of oil domes. I used to live right below the one that Cal State Long Beach is sitting on. Had a ground water injection station right in front of the house were fresh water was injected to stop incursion of sea water due to the oil that was removed.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
If oil or other resource scarcity is a problem to anyone, they can adjust the Appearance Ratio up and the Disappearance Probability down on the Resources tab of the editor.

Or don't play the Germans on a small map.

The problem is that you don't know your map is fubared until you''ve explored it all and reached the techs to reveal oil/rubber/uranium/whatever. If 99% of small maps are just fine but you're playing the exception, its too late by then to go back and redraw the map.

A warning message on map generation that some key resources are lower than normal or missing would help. Alternatively a system of allowing units to be built without the resource (say +50% extra cost for every missing one) would allow users the means of soldiering on.

[monkeyman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
If oil or other resource scarcity is a problem to anyone, they can adjust the Appearance Ratio up and the Disappearance Probability down on the Resources tab of the editor.

Or don't play the Germans on a small map.

Or don't play the Germans on a standard map, 'cause that's what mine was

--mm

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by monkeyman


Or don't play the Germans on a standard map, 'cause that's what mine was

Well, that is unlucky. Was there no desert or tundra in the whole map? It may be worth noting early in a game after the world is visible.

[SirSebastian]

responding to...
"Plains: Alberta, Texas, Siberia"

Is it really that much of a stretch to say that Texas leans towards desert and Alberta and Siberia lean towards tundra? I don't really think so. They are plains in a sense, but with so few terrain types, it's not outrageous to classify these as desert/tundra IMMHoO

[Cluk]

Originally posted by Coracle

As far as I am concerned, they lied by omission when they marketed the game WITHOUT telling us that THIS Civ had NO SCENARIOS or Cheat Mode.

What? No oil sounds like a scenario to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by SirSebastian
responding to...
"Plains: Alberta, Texas, Siberia"

Is it really that much of a stretch to say that Texas leans towards desert and Alberta and Siberia lean towards tundra? I don't really think so. They are plains in a sense, but with so few terrain types, it's not outrageous to classify these as desert/tundra IMMHoO

Yup. There's no one here in my igloo except me and the polar bears...

Alberta is NOT Tundra. Unless you consider some of the best agricultural land in the world to be Tundra. There is far more oil in Alberta south of the permafrost line than in all of Saudi Arabia. Some of it is very thick gumbo, but it is still oil to run industries.

[Capt Dizle]

If you accept as a given that the whole game is fubar you can squint real hard and embrace Civ3 not as a game, but as satire. As satire, its actually hilarious.

In other words, Civ3 is a classic.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If you accept as a given that the whole game is fubar you can squint real hard and embrace Civ3 not as a game, but as satire. As satire, its actually hilarious.

In other words, Civ3 is a classic.

Jimmy you are a classic.

A classic ******. What kind cheese goes best with you.

The game is not fubared for many. It simply isn't the game you wanted. Go play Civ II. It will be much easier for everbody and you can go back to playing on deity instead of chieftan.

(astericks in place of actual word due to Greek censorship, a vile a perniscious habit).

Originally posted by Ethelred


Jimmy you are a classic.

A classic ******. What kind cheese goes best with you.

The game is not fubared for many. It simply isn't the game you wanted. Go play Civ II. It will be much easier for everbody and you can go back to playing on deity instead of chieftan.

(astericks in place of actual word due to Greek censorship, a vile a perniscious habit).

It may not be "fubared", but the game is seriously flawed. Civ III is not worthy of the Civ name and that is what makes a lot of people upset with the product being marketed as the third iteration of a great game series. I doubt Civ 3 is the game that anyone was expecting. Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6


It may not be "fubared", but the game is seriously flawed. Civ III is not worthy of the Civ name and that is what makes a lot of people upset with the product being marketed as the third iteration of a great game series. I doubt Civ 3 is the game that anyone was expecting. Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

I see that God has given you the awesome responsibility to inform all of the lesser humans what their opinions should be. Good luck.

[Flight]

most oil comes from dead sea things, hence the off shore rigs - pity they couldnt think of a way to include that.
and wheres the natural gas in civ3

who cares if the random map maker has ****ed up once, its made millions upon millions of maps that have plenty of oil in them, just start a new game or play with what the game throws at you
i was, however, under the impression that the map maker could'nt give you a map with resources missing completely, so that should be looked at.

In the mean time, stop complaining; its hardly stopping you from playing another game.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by number6
Why do people staunchly defend a game that is so flawed?

Because they are playing Civ III and enjoying it instead of complaining that it isn't:

CII THE SECOND COMING OF BRIAN REYNOLDS GOD KING OF TBS GAMES.

Its a different game. Civ II had enormous flaws but was more flexible. Those that are only interested in the flexibility prefer it. Those that are interested in the single player game mostly prefer Civ III.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


I see that God has given you the awesome responsibility to inform all of the lesser humans what their opinions should be. Good luck.

I am sorry if you read into my post that I was pushing my opinion. I was simply stating my opinion like others do here. I was not aware that this forum is fact based only. Get off your high horse already and take my post for what it is worth. "Good luck" yourself.

Because they are playing Civ III and enjoying it instead of complaining that it isn't:

CII THE SECOND COMING OF BRIAN REYNOLDS GOD KING OF TBS GAMES.

Its a different game. Civ II had enormous flaws but was more flexible. Those that are only interested in the flexibility prefer it. Those that are interested in the single player game mostly prefer Civ III.

I could also say that a majority of the people who did not like the game simply stopped playing and are not bothering to voice their dissatisfaction in the direction that the franchise has taken.

If they wanted to make a "new' type of game with less options then they should have made a new series and said something like "from the developers who brought you Civ I and II". I still play the game, I just find it very dissapointing. I find Civ III moderately enjoyable, but nowhere near as fun as Civ II. Maybe it did have something to do with Brian Reynolds. I really don't care to speculate why the game is so blah to me. It's just not as good as its predecessors In my opinion (bolded for asleepathewheel).

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6



I am sorry if you read into my post that I was pushing my opinion. I was simply stating my opinion like others do here. I was not aware that this forum is fact based only. Get off your high horse already and take my post for what it is worth. "Good luck" yourself.

Ok, I will take your post for what its worth: another whinefest "why can't it be like civ2" blah. get off your high horse. You say that you are not pushing your opinion, but you call the game seriously flawed, etc and question why people would like game. Get over yourself.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6

In my opinion (bolded for asleepathewheel).

Thanks for that, the subtleties of the English language have always evaded me.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Thanks for that, the subtleties of the English language have always evaded me.

You of course never complain about anything do you? You are so above being critical. I am simply here pointing out that the game is flawed and people have a legitimate reason to voice their complaints. That is a fact not whining. So instead of you flaming me about every little thing that pops into your infantile brain why don't you play your precious Civ III that you love so much. If you doubt that this game is flawed I suggest you go back and read the topic of this thread.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by number6


You of course never complain about anything do you? You are so above being critical. I am simply here pointing out that the game is flawed and people have a legitimate reason to voice their complaints. That is a fact not whining. So instead of you flaming me about every little thing that pops into your infantile brain why don't you play your precious Civ III that you love so much. If you doubt that this game is flawed I suggest you go back and read the topic of this thread.

I don't see what my infantile brain has to do with this. did i ever say that people can't complain? no. And you said that the game was seriously flawed, not that it merely has flaws. I would say that there is quite a difference there. Everygame has flaws, nothing is perfect. Does Civ3 have flaws, sure. Are there things that irritate me about the game? sure. You said there were "serious flaws" and that is really what I take issue with. Especially, since those serious flaws are probably preference based. Is the lack of oil in a game a bug? Perhaps. it is called a "random map", that's pretty random, wouldn't you say?

[Grumbold]

None of this faction fighting has anything to do with the oil problem. Can we get back on topic please?

[Inverse Icarus]

on topic: firaxis fawked up. no more to be said. FLAME ON!

[notyoueither]

Actually... This probably only happened due to the Wet and Warm combo. And even then would be incredibly rare.

I myself use Warm. Cuts down on Tundra, but I've never seen none.

I assume Wet eliminated the desert. Wanting more fertile land is understandable. However, you also give up many of the resources that are found in desert.

Lesson is, don't play Wet and Warm unless you just love the Ancient and Medieval units.

[Denday]

Originally posted by heidlejohn
I am playing my first 1.21f version of Civ3 with a standard random map. I am in the industrial age having researched refining and now motorized transport. BUT there is NO OIL anywhere in the
world! NONE AT ALL! I can see the entire map (no black spots) due to my getting maps or exploring (I conquered the Great Lighthouse). I have scanned several times with the map revealed.

I myself think coal is the most important resourse ( getting railroads) and I had none on a normal map ( eg Pang, temp nor, temperate not wet or dry and 4 billion years)
and still there was no coal.
and in real life coal is a very common resourse eg we have a couple of large mines which were used to power our own trains and export a little bit.

and i think simalar of oil having quite alot around the world so.

it just seems silly not having resouces because it ruins the game.

[Grrr]

There should be work arounds for resourseless worlds.