Finite Resources

Patroklos · October 14, 2002, 10:37

Hey Everyone,

Once again a topic that has probobly come up, but one that I will discuss because I haven't seen it and don't feel like rumaging through months of threads to avoid pissing off an "old hand" at the forum.

While I do like think the Civ III resource system is superior to older ones, I find one problem with it. every source of a resouce gives you an infinate amount. If I have one oil tile, it is just as good as having fifty. Basically the only advantage of having a resouce in multiole locations is that you can keep an enemy from taking away your only source.

I think, however, that a resouces location should only be able to support so many units. This makes trade a much more important component of the game. If a single oil tile can only support lets say 25 oil using units, then a major power would have to trade for more oil to expand it's military. This would also make civs that happen to have multipe sources of a resource make a killing on the market, which is also true to real life. Also, it would make the first/thrid world relationship in the game more realistic, with weak civs selling the resources it doesn't need off to the powers that can actually use them.

What do you all think?

statusperfect · October 14, 2002, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
If a single oil tile can only support lets say 25 oil using units, then a major power would have to trade for more oil to expand it's military.

Great thinking!

Maybe this can be done in the new PTW scenario editor???

alexman · October 14, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
If I have one oil tile, it is just as good as having fifty. Basically the only advantage of having a resouce in multiole locations is that you can keep an enemy from taking away your only source.

That's not the only advantage. The idea is that you can trade your excess oil to civs that don't have any, and become insanely rich.

This might not exactly model real-world trade, but I think it's OK for Civ3, which is a game of abstractions anyway.

Lucarse · October 14, 2002, 11:21

I like the thinking behind this, but doesn't oil dissapear like coal/iron after a while suggestiong it is finite (although it may be a 100 yr supply)

Patroklos · October 14, 2002, 11:47

Your right, you can trade resources in the current game. The problem is that since you only need one source of anything, it isn't really necessary. You can almost always find at least one of every resource within your borders. The times you can't are frustrating, but admittedly rare.

Resources do deplete, but while it is there it will supply your whole civ no matter how much you use it. I think resources should still deplete randomly on top of the new finite idea. I also think the discovery of new sources should occur more often. Or maybe the achievment of new techs should bring on a rash of new sources, reflecting the ability to find the resource in previously unaccessable areas?

JohnM2433 · October 14, 2002, 14:21

I personally liked the system Colonization used. Harvesting resources, turning them into goods, using them, and moving them around were all things the player was actively engaged in, rather than being abstracted away. The whole game was pretty much based on trade and resource management. Civ III, on the other hand, is pretty much based on war. That's not to say that both weren't important aspects of both games, but the emphasis was different.

wilbill · October 14, 2002, 15:19

Am I just having a streak of bad luck? I seem to run into games that leave me without a resource fairly often. Trading to get oil or coal isn't always that easy - AI knows the value of those resources - and you're the only one without iron, going to war to get it may not be an option.

Recently I got a lesson in trading those surplus resources away. I had 3 sources of uranium. Russia offered me about 200 GPT for one and I just couldn't turn that down. 3 turns later one of my sources ran out. About 5 turns after that, another ran out, making the uranium count Kathy - 1, me - zero. Of course a couple of turns later, the last uranium mine ran out and Russia declared war, since I'd reneged on our trade deal.

I'm going to just hoard my surplus resources for a while, I think.

Ethelred · October 14, 2002, 15:31

Uranium depletes FAST. I like to connect only uranium tile a time because of this. Of course that means the workers can't be automated like I have been doing lately however lately I have been warmongering and ending the game about the same time as I get uranium.

If going the builder route however I don't have a so many workers and running them manually isn't so bad since by then they are mostly sitting around waiting to take care of pollution. So as a builder I would pillage the roads on extra uranium and even park some workers on the space so if the connected tile depleted I could immediatly reconnect with the workers allready in place.

Trifna · October 14, 2002, 15:37

Just to say I really think this idea is worth implementing, in PTW or later if not possible...

vmxa1 · October 14, 2002, 16:05

If you don't make nukes, do you care if you run out of it? Often they pop back up some where soon anyway.

Ethelred · October 14, 2002, 16:18

I don't normaly make nukes. Made a couple after the AI did but I have never launched one. I have started a nuke as a placeholder for the Party Lounge SS module. You need uranium to start nuclear power plants but not to run them. One of the SS modules needs uranium. I have even had all my uranium disconnected a upon occasion when I didn't need any till the SS module came up.

ChrisiusMaximus · October 14, 2002, 18:22

A good idea this but what would happen if you had two oil and fifty tanks as per your description,would you suddenly lose 25 of your tanks? or would 25 of them not move?if the latter which 25 and who would choose you or the computer?and my final question how long would all this take to sort out in game?

Maybe ok for a mod if this is possible but I think it would entail more micro management than I would want,or should I trust the govenor to sort it all out.

Patroklos · October 14, 2002, 18:45

The loass of resources would be like it is now. If you lose a source it doesn't mean you lose units, just that you can't make any more untill you restore the sourse. So if you lose half your oil reserves your tank production would stop until you found more, or until you lost enough tanks to again give you a surplus.

vmxa1 · October 14, 2002, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't normaly make nukes. Made a couple after the AI did but I have never launched one. I have started a nuke as a placeholder for the Party Lounge SS module. You need uranium to start nuclear power plants but not to run them. One of the SS modules needs uranium. I have even had all my uranium disconnected a upon occasion when I didn't need any till the SS module came up.

That works for me as I do not use space victories or make nuc plants or nuke missiles in most of my games. But if I did I would have so much land by them that a new mine would pop up soon, not not the same turn as I lost it.