The Resource System

[Cyclotron]

As many of you remember, I am one of those fanatics for civ2 style resources, who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling, and participated in many heated arguments. Most of you may not be interested in what I think of the resource system Firaxis has shown us with their newest update, but I decided I will tell you anyway.

Surprise... I like it!

The resource system laid out by Firaxis recently to me shows a compromise between people who think conservatively about new resource proposals (me) and others who have radical new ideas. It lays out that resources are needed to build units, something I disapproved of, but with colonies it looks like many of the concerns I had with mandatory resources will not be a problem. Hopefully, the ability to have colonies far from your actual cities will give everyone a fighting chance with resources.

It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron. Another plus...

And where my victory comes in, is in stockpiling. I hate the idea of doing math in civ, and I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units. It's more simple and still makes resources important.

And speaking of colonies, what a great idea! I love their colony system. The only thing I find too bad is that it looks like you won't be able to have overseas colonies.

So for me, I consider this to be quite a concession... proof that not only is compromise best for everyone, but a good indication that Civ3 is on the right track. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving "constructive criticism"... but I think that the resource system at least is a clear victory for most of us Civ fans (and fanatics!).

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[polymths]

While I'm not sure that stockpiling of resources may (or may not) be a good idea, I do hope (and this HAS TO BE THE CASE), that the number of such resources matter. For example you can build either more Legions or faster Legions because you have access to more iron mines.

[SerapisIV]

I'm all for it too. It's simple yet allows a lot of leeway. I especially like the idea that you can't see resources until their tech discovery.

Three questions though:

1. Does it take a worker or settler to build a colony, please say worker because wasting 2 pop on a disappearing colony wouldn't be good

2. As cyclo said, how do you have sea colonies? Harbors? Sea colonies are a must as the Europeans used colonies in such a way to harvest far off resources, especially since this system would allow a civ such as the British to finally become a world power, through resources and colonies, even if they only have a small land mass for themselves, yet can now control 1/4 of the worlds resources

3. There's mention of connecting the resource to the capital city (no other city is shown though) so do resources have to be allowed to travel to your capital before you can use them? Why not have almost two semi-independent regions, throw in culture and not being attached by roads/harbors for a while would lead a part of your civ to revolt, I like that option

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 06:25 PM While I'm not sure that stockpiling of resources may (or may not) be a good idea, I do hope (and this HAS TO BE THE CASE), that the number of such resources matter. For example you can build either more Legions or faster Legions because you have access to more iron mines.

I don't think this is gonna happen, Civ has never been about spreadsheet management styles (counting how many mines) its only a question of access. I prefer just having access to limiting by number, I think that although strategy options would increase, it would make Civ more of a long-term Avolon Hill simulation then fun and games Civ

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-11-2001 06:17 PM As many of you remember, I am one of those fanatics for civ2 style resources, who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling, and participated in many heated arguments. Most of you may not be interested in what I think of the resource system Firaxis has shown us with their newest update, but I decided I will tell you anyway. Surprise... I like it!

I wonder in the end if most of my concerns are met with similar experiences as Firaxis slowly rolls out plans for the game. I certainly hope so.

quote: It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron. Another plus...

I at first wondered if the reason everything is so abundant was because they needed to fit everything in one slide show. Then I looked at the maps in the screen shots. It is littered with gold, silver, pheasants, deer, whales, what looks like coal, and other resources. I certainly look forward to having to find these different resources and take advantage of them.

quote: And where my victory comes in, is in stockpiling. I hate the idea of doing math in civ, and I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units. It's more simple and still makes resources important.

I agree this is an important solution that Firaxis made to the concept. But the question is if resources are readily available will it be too easy to find resources during games, thus making them seemingly unimportant.

quote: And speaking of colonies, what a great idea! I love their colony system. The only thing I find too bad is that it looks like you won't be able to have overseas colonies.

It appeared that trade networks would be allowed through air travel (planes) and the sea through ships. If this is so which I believe I read on the Firaxis site (so much information so fast not sure where half it came from) I would believe that you would be able to build oversea colonies. But it would seem more than likely that it would be easier to defend a city overseas.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:28 PM 3. There's mention of connecting the resource to the capital city (no other city is shown though) so do resources have to be allowed to travel to your capital before you can use them? Why not have almost two semi-independent regions, throw in culture and not being attached by roads/harbors for a while would lead a part of your civ to revolt, I like that option

I read it as simply connecting cities by roads to share resources. Or simply connecting your colony to more than one city. Thats the way I understood what Firaxis is saying on their page.

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:30 PM I don't think this is gonna happen, Civ has never been about spreadsheet management styles (counting how many mines) its only a question of access. I prefer just having access to limiting by number, I think that although strategy options would increase, it would make Civ more of a long-term Avolon Hill simulation then fun and games Civ

So then whether you have access to 1 iron mine or 10 iron mines makes no difference as to how fast you can build Legions (or perhaps how many you can build them)?

This is not even how the pathetic "shields" system works! With shields, the more citizens you have to obtain shields from tiles the faster you can build units (and also the more units you can build since units required shields support).

At the very least the iron mines should work exactly like the way "shields" have worked in Civ1/Civ2!!!

[Roman]

The new resource system is certainly very pleasing. I wonder whether they allow stacking of resources of the same type for additional benefit.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 06:42 PM So then whether you have access to 1 iron mine or 10 iron mines makes no difference as to how fast you can build Legions (or perhaps how many you can build them)? This is not even how the pathetic "shields" system works! With shields, the more citizens you have to obtain shields from tiles the faster you can build units (and also the more units you can build since units required shields support). At the very least the iron mines should work exactly like the way "shields" have worked in Civ1/Civ2!!!

Polymths, the resource system in Civ3 is supplementing the shield system, not replacing it. Shields already limit unit speed. Having surplus iron does not make building things go any faster... that depends on the manufacturing capability of a city, which is represented in both Civ2 and probably Civ3 in shield form.

About sea colonies: Sure, building a city on a resource rich island is a solution... but even then, without roads, what is their method for transferring those goods to the mainland? Will different islands be able to share goods?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[polymths]

If merely access to a resource is sufficient, then I can't imagine there being any trade at all! Nor can I imagine that embargoes would ever work!

There must be lots and lots of these resource tiles everywhere and it probably takes little effort to build a huge, self-sufficient, trade network so that you are connected to all the resources you could need to build whatever it is that you need.

The screenshots seem to indicate that these resources will be abundant and will exist everywhere so everyone will have access to their own iron mines. If all you need is just access to ONE mine, then again, I ask how does trade come in???

I would think that if I have lots of iron but little oil and someone has lots of oil, little iron that we would then trade.

However if one oil is as good as 100 oil, then again how does inter-civ trade ever come into play???

[Youngsun]

sorry, double post
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 11, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

Firaxis said:

quote: However, certain goods, known as luxuries and resources, provide extra benefits to your cities. Luxuries, such as spice, silk, and diamonds, increase the happiness of your people. Resources, like iron, oil, and uranium, allow the construction of specific units and buildings. Therefore, resources become a source of strategic advantage and should be protected as such.

Dejavu?

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-14-2001 12:42 AM Lancer has brought up something that I will support fanatically. One thing that I was so frustrated from whole civ series was lousy aspect of international trade and no representation of industry. Actually those resources(wheat/oil)were there from the very beginning but the game did not use them up to their full potential. We don't need to have all the resources and commodities which are used in real life. Those things called "strategic resource" will do job especially oil,iron and coal along with some luxury and food items.

cyclotron7

quote: who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling

I know you opposed "primary resource system" but "stockpiling"? "stockpiling" was never been a major issue between usas we all know and we spent 90% of our argument based on the fundamental nature of resources, either "Primary" or "supplementary".

quote: the resource system in Civ3 is supplementing the shield system

Excuse me? not the other way around? Can you build a unit of legion without "iron"? Resources in civ3 are the critical, major, primary, key elements to build certain units not mere bonus factor you have hoped for. The shield system now serves as a maid of primary resource system by assisting building speed only which has the exact same concept as the "labour idea" ,which monolith94 suggested, in terms of what it does.

quote: It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron.

That was exactly what I was telling to you many times. but you weren't interested at that time. "Basic sustainability", "the varing accessibility of basic and strategic resources", don't they ring a bell?

quote: I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units.

So you now like the mandatory nature of the resource system. Will you call the civ3 resource system a "mandatory one" too? You wouldn't would you? Because now you understand how the resource system can work beautifully even if the nature of the resources are "mandatory". Please, don't tell me only my model was mandatory and civ3 one is not. Whether it's simple or not it is still mandatory, simple mandatory or complex mandatory. there is no supplementary...

quote: So for me, I consider this to be quite a concession... proof that not only is compromise best for everyone, but a good indication that Civ3 is on the right track. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving "constructive criticism"... but I think that the resource system at least is a clear victory for most of us Civ fans (and fanatics!).

Yes, I agree. As long as people like it, it is everyone's victory.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:28 PM1. Does it take a worker or settler to build a colony, please say worker because wasting 2 pop on a disappearing colony wouldn't be good

It says in the tutorial that you need a worker unit not a settler

[Sava]

If the game is going to be at all realistic, you need to have units dependent upon resources. How can you build a battleship without steel or oil? Having a system NOT based on resources would be retarded.

[java4me]

I think that the new resource system is good, but I am still wondering on if you have more than one sqaure of that resource that you could speed up production on the units that require that resource? Also if you have a colony, it says that it has to connect to your capitol city, can it connect to another one of your cities or does it have to be to your capitol city?

[Mathphysto]

I really wish that there would be varied, finite amounts of resources on resource tiles. So oil would dry up, a mountain be mined out, etc. More like the real-time "strategy" games already on the market (Warlords, Total Annihilation, etc).

This would compell players to colonize, conquer, and trade more than they would otherwise. Finite resource tiles would make the protection of colonies and trade routes a matter of survival for any growing civ, not just a matter of supplementary gold and units. Because one could lose access to iron, without being at war, then be unable to produce any units requiring more than a stick for a weapon.

This is related to the idea that the max number of units be dependent upon the population of a civ, since military units require two things: people and weapons/armor. In general, I think that imposing finite resource tiles makes for a much more competitive and realistic game. Just look at how much it forces conflict upon players in the real-time "strategy" games.

[Cyclotron]

Ah, so we meet again...

quote: I know you opposed "primary resource system" but "stockpiling"? "stockpiling" was never been a major issue between usas we all know and we spent 90% of our argument based on the fundamental nature of resources, either "Primary" or "supplementary".

True, but in the other resource thread where you were not an active participant I spoke a lot about keeping stockpiling and numbers out. In our original discussions you are correct, but remember you weren't my only sparring partner on this issue!

quote: Excuse me? not the other way around? Can you build a unit of legion without "iron"? Resources in civ3 are the critical, major, primary, key elements to build certain units not mere bonus factor you have hoped for. The shield system now serves as a maid of primary resource system by assisting building speed only which has the exact same concept as the "labour idea" ,which monolith94 suggested, in terms of what it does.

Youngson, it is also so that shields are neccessary to construct units, and shields are still the deciding factor in building speed. So far, it looks like resources are more important, but still playing second fiddle, as once you have a resource it ceases to be important as long as you hold on to it. It would appear that the actual production rate and speed of building is still the main determinant... here, resources are just something you have to check off before building. How does that make shields supplementary to resources?

quote: That was exactly what I was telling to you many times. but you weren't interested at that time. "Basic sustainability", "the varing accessibility of basic and strategic resources", don't they ring a bell?

Haha, yes. But I am actually beginning to get worried about seeding... as polymths was saying, if resources are very abundant as they seem to be, and you only need one and a bunch of roads, won't that make resources too easy to get? Hmmm, improper seeding of resources, could be a problem... does that ring a bell? One of my complaints about mandatory resources! I hope they do seeding correctly, but polymths brings up some good points...

quote: So you now like the mandatory nature of the resource system. Will you call the civ3 resource system a "mandatory one" too? You wouldn't would you? Because now you understand how the resource system can work beautifully even if the nature of the resources are "mandatory". Please, don't tell me only my model was mandatory and civ3 one is not. Whether it's simple or not it is still mandatory, simple mandatory or complex mandatory. there is no supplementary...

Actually youngson, this quote

quote: I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units.

...was commenting on the fortunate lack of stockpiling. I said nothing about likeing to have resources be mandatory, what I said was I am glad that ONLY having iron, not having 25 or 34 units of iron, appeared to be the Civ3 way.

I still would prefer to have a supplementary resource system. I don't recant that. I think there is definitly a difference. Of course, I could buy the game and suddenly realize the error of my ways... and I think there is an equal chance of you doing the same. We'll have to wait and see, but until then since I am stuck with mandatory resources, I'm just giving my input and making a point that I am glad Firaxis didn't turn resources into a computational nightmare.

quote: Yes, I agree. As long as people like it, it is everyone's victory.

I like it... for a mandatory resource system

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 06:42 PM So then whether you have access to 1 iron mine or 10 iron mines makes no difference as to how fast you can build Legions (or perhaps how many you can build them)?

It works well as was intended. Your way they'd have to count the # of cities & city size vs. # of iron resources for game balance. Or you'd actually have to move the resources around, as opposed to having it done automatically, which is too much micromanagement for my tastes.

The only thing needed to balance this version is to allow resources to dry up- that way having more allows a little insurance against such a disaster.

Plus I'm sure that the iron itself provides a bonus to shield production- and possibly one to trade.

[polymths]

All I'm saying is that using the "access to one iron mine is sufficient" model where 1 iron mine or 100 iron mines makes no difference in production capacity or production speed, then again I ask how does inter-civ trade come in? Why would anyone need to trade?

Does anyone have an answer?

If everyone has easy access to all necessary resources then what is the big deal?

How is this a real meaningful improvement to gameplay???

[Cyclotron]

Polymths,

Remember pillaging? If you realy on only one mine, one errant enemy unit couls cut off the supply of iron to your entire civ. Road systems are fragile, and if you rely on only one or two colonies and a maze of roads you will be crippled by just a few pillagers!

In addition, it could be that the seeding of the maps in the tutorial is different from how it will be in the actual game. Maybe th seeding will be more sparse in Civ3, making resources more vluable. Seeding is a tough one...

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

Nobody should EVER have access to all the goods they need. Goods are comprised of three things. The first type of good is the 'bonus' tile, which functions like the resources did in Civilization II (had to put a worker on it, bonus trade or whatever). In Civilization III all goods share this benefit, but can also have further advantages. The next type of good is luxuries, which enable your civilization to improve the quality of life of it's citizens. A neat element of luxuries is that diversity increases it's impact, and a few city improvements boost the effect of a 'great hand' to almost wonder like potency. The last good type is a resource, which tends to be enabled by technology (aluminum is but horses aren't), and make certain city production options available. A custom world rule will be goods diversity and number, but the default will usually ensure each civilization has around 2 luxuries and 2 resources in surplus. This ensures an interest in trading since if you have native access to the good, chances are you have more than you can use. One of war's most devistating downsides is the disruption of these stabilizing and profitable arrangements. I've had to delcare war on diamond resource competitors because I needed the income to pay for my high culture play style.

Jeff

[java4me]

That is very intersting, but I still want to know if you can have over sea colonies? I also want to know how you can get the resource like Fish when it is out of your cities borders?

Otherwise, keep up the good work Firaxis!!!

[Youngsun]

cyclotron7

quote: it is also so that shields are neccessary to construct units, and shields are still the deciding factor in building speed. So far, it looks like resources are more important, but still playing second fiddle, as once you have a resource it ceases to be important as long as you hold on to it. It would appear that the actual production rate and speed of building is still the main determinant... here, resources are just something you have to check off before building. How does that make shields supplementary to resources?

You can get "shields" from any city. Can you get certain type of resource from every city?

There is one island and there are 50 men and 1 woman who live there. It doesn't matter if 2 or 3 men die from diesease(or even 10 or 20) to maintain the human exsitance on that island but if the woman dies, there will be no hope. In this case, who is decisive factor? A man or a woman.
The woman!

Every city get at least one shield so a shield is a fixed factor for unit production whereas resources are the decisive factor whether to allow to certain unit production. Building speed doesn't have any overriding influence to decide whether a certain unit can be built or not.

quote: if resources are very abundant as they seem to be, and you only need one and a bunch of roads, won't that make resources too easy to get? Hmmm, improper seeding of resources, could be a problem... does that ring a bell? One of my complaints about mandatory resources! I hope they do seeding correctly, but polymths brings up some good points...

Please, read Jeff's latest response.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 13, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Nobody should EVER have access to all the goods they need. Goods are comprised of three things. The first type of good is the 'bonus' tile, which functions like the resources did in Civilization II (had to put a worker on it, bonus trade or whatever). In Civilization III all goods share this benefit, but can also have further advantages. The next type of good is luxuries, which enable your civilization to improve the quality of life of it's citizens. A neat element of luxuries is that diversity increases it's impact, and a few city improvements boost the effect of a 'great hand' to almost wonder like potency. The last good type is a resource, which tends to be enabled by technology (aluminum is but horses aren't), and make certain city production options available. A custom world rule will be goods diversity and number, but the default will usually ensure each civilization has around 2 luxuries and 2 resources in surplus. This ensures an interest in trading since if you have native access to the good, chances are you have more than you can use. One of war's most devistating downsides is the disruption of these stabilizing and profitable arrangements. I've had to delcare war on diamond resource competitors because I needed the income to pay for my high culture play style.

I'm not dreaming, right?
Ouchh! it hurts!(I just pinched my thigh)
Hurray! Hurray! Hurray!

This is exactly what I have dreamed about! Resources become the subjects of political intrigue, war and trade.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 13, 2001).]

[Russian King]

Most of all this sounds very very very good
YESS

[Roman]

I love the resource system as preesented , but I do have some questions about it:

quote: Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS on 05-12-2001 10:05 PM A custom world rule will be goods diversity and number, but the default will usually ensure each civilization has around 2 luxuries and 2 resources in surplus. Jeff

Will it be possible to place resources on a map in the map editor by yourself, or will we still be forced to use the resource seed like in Civ 2? Custom placement of resources is very important for making scenarios.

quote: Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS on 05-12-2001 10:05 PM This ensures an interest in trading since if you have native access to the good, chances are you have more than you can use. Jeff

I assume this means there will be no stacking of resources of the same type for added benefit. Is this a correct assumption?

[Maniac]

cyclotron7

quote: Shields already limit unit speed. Having surplus iron does not make building things go any faster... that depends on the manufacturing capability of a city, which is represented in both Civ2 and probably Civ3 in shield form.

Shields representing the manufacturing capability of a city? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if I don't, I think you have a wrong image of what shields are.

What affects the manufacturing capability of a city? First of all, the population size of your city. The more people, the more workers. The work one person can do, can be increased by several things, such as animal power, mills, factories, etcetera. In short, the manufacturing capability is the same as the amount of 'Labour' a city has. Something you discussed about with raingoon, by the way.

Unlike what you seem to claim, shields has nothing to do with Labour. As is shown by forests and mined hills, shields represent the resources, the raw materials needed to construct things. But wait, isn't that exactly what Firaxis' 'goods'-system is meant to represent? Yes, it is! So, actually the old shields-system and the new goods-system are almost the same. The only difference is that in Civ3, the goods-system represents specific resources, while the shields-system represents basic everywhere-available resources. In other words, unlike what you claim, having shields, nor goods, doesn't make building things go any faster. It's Labour!

But it's unlikely such a 'radical' system will make it into Civ3. However, a few weeks ago, I thought of a way, by modifying some rules, to realisticly represent Labour (+ food, population growth, recruitment and diseases)in Civ3, even if it keeps the old Civ2 food&shields-system (the goods system should be needed though for my 'modpack'). The only problem is, I need a Labourer specialist for that purpose. So you can imagine I was disappointed when I read somewhere on the Firaxis site that the player would be able to convert his citizens into taxman, scientist and entertainer specialists. No mentioning of a Labourer specialist, giving you a certain amount of shields. Therefore I would like to propose the following, small, not radical, not difficult to program addition to Civ3: (I really hope Jeffrey Morris, Dan Magaha or Chris Pine read this)

GIVE US A LABOURER SPECIALIST!!!!

I will start an unofficial poll on this. Please vote.

[Seeker]

I just went through their little mini-tutorial and I thought it rocked. i especially liked the idea of the 'colonies' to harvest distant resources.

[El hidalgo]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that you have to discover a tech (iron working) before you can see the resource (iron)? Wouldn't a civ find the iron first, then figure out what to do with it? How can you research iron working if you don't know what iron is? Maybe I'm missing something...

[Admiral PJ]

I am reminded of the system in Birth of the Federation (and maybe other moo like games) where you had a resource of Deuterium or something to build ships.. much like what Civ3's system sounds like.
What was interesting was that the more deuterium solar systems you had, the same amount of ships could be built at once.
So maybe the amount of resource squares you have determine how many vehicles etc could be built at once, otherwise if they aren't contributing to shields(though i don't see why they shouldn't anyhow) having multiple resources is a waste of time.
You get more Shields in coal and iron Resource squares so it seems civ has always shown shields as more than just city manufacturing, but also the amount of city resources available for building, but the latter sounds less realist in fact.. so perhaps this new system will indeed replace the mines increasing production speed problem.
I may be going around in circles here, but the way my game is solving this problem is to have build times and resources needed for builds as 2 sepearate things, so even if you have 100's of tonnes of steel it still takes a while of Technical construction to build a Battleship.

I suppose you could have the more luxuries helping the more cities in a similar way..

Admiral Pete
Head of 3d God game Mantra by VIRE tech.