strategic resources

vee4473 · February 11, 2003, 21:06

The following scenario happens more often than I would like, and it's the reason that I hate the inclusion of startegic resources in Civ3, even though I like the concept:

There have been many times when I play a game and there is no oil or aluminum etc... in my territory that I need in order to build certain units.

Now, they are randomly scattered on the map and other civs may have double or triple of a resource, but many times they only link ONE to their empire! Via road or rail...you know.

Now, that means I am effectively cut off from that resource because even though let's say the Germans have 2 oil tiles, they only link one, so I can't even ask to trade oil with them, because they have no surplus.

So many times I have wanted a resource that I don't have access to, and I notice another civ has the resource just hangin' in the breeze.

I sit there saying to myself, "am i supposed to just let the turns pass until they decide to build a road on that oil tile so I can ask them for an oil trade? Or must I go to war for it?

Perhaps a patch that makes strategic resources available to an empire if the resource is within their boundaries is in order. (instead of having to actually have a road on it.)

I think this is a good way to make the random access to strategic resources more of a viable game play mechanic.

Because it will always give you a diplomatic option to obtain the needed resource.

As it is now, you have to hope that all the civs build roads on all their startegic resource tiles, otherwise you are cut off and have no choice but to either wait or go to war, or decide to live without the resource.

This is the single biggest factor that makes me dislike civ3, and get tired of playing it.

I have since made a custom game of civ3 where resources are more prevalent and do not expire to combat this.

Catt · February 11, 2003, 23:56

I actually very much like the concept of strategic resources and the way they are implemented in the game -- but I may be well out of the mainstream, because I don't even like the suggestions of many posters that resources should be of defined quality and should deplete with absolute predictability instead of randomly.

But I understand your frustration.

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
There have been many times when I play a game and there is no oil or aluminum etc... in my territory that I need in order to build certain units.

Now, they are randomly scattered on the map and other civs may have double or triple of a resource, but many times they only link ONE to their empire! Via road or rail...you know.

I usually only see this with extra luxuries, and then only in the very early game. In my experience, by the time of oil and certainly by aluminum, the AI has usually RR'd all territory (at least that which it hasn't recently acquired after bombardment of terrain improvements

).

Quote:

So many times I have wanted a resource that I don't have access to, and I notice another civ has the resource just hangin' in the breeze.

I sit there saying to myself, "am i supposed to just let the turns pass until they decide to build a road on that oil tile so I can ask them for an oil trade? Or must I go to war for it?
[. . . ]

Because it will always give you a diplomatic option to obtain the needed resource.

As it is now, you have to hope that all the civs build roads on all their startegic resource tiles, otherwise you are cut off and have no choice but to either wait or go to war, or decide to live without the resource.

May I suggest that there is already a diplomatic option? Offer a Right of Passage Agreement, and then send some of your workers to connect the resource to their trade network. Then propose a trade.

Catt

wilbill · February 12, 2003, 09:32

I think the strategic resources pose one of the more interesting challenges in Civ 3. When stuck without one, the choice of how to deal with it really forces you to weigh the options.
Just one more way in which the game presents challenges to which there may not be a single, obvious solution.

Jawa Jocky · February 12, 2003, 19:19

I've only seen this happen when they don't have the tech to see that they have the resource. I've given gunpowder, and often many tech before that, so a backward civ could trade me saltpeter.

If they have the tech, give them some of your slaves. The AI will start RR everything quickier if you help them out a little.

theNiceOne · February 13, 2003, 05:28

I will add to the voices that enjoy this feature. The few times I noticed that I lacked oil or rubber has changed those games into a lot more challenging and interesting games.

Datajack Franit · February 13, 2003, 05:36

Trade-less games for sure

joncnunn · February 13, 2003, 14:05

Some of my more enjoyable games involved not having a strategic resource and working around it.

Bluefrog · February 13, 2003, 15:00

I don't like the idea of "as long as the resource is in your boundaries, it's automatically hooked up." In fact, I hate that idea...there are times I don't want to hook it up. The one that pops to mind, of course, involves my curretn game, AU204. The only other civ on my continent are the Greeks, and I know I'm going to need swordsmen to effectively take them out. I'd much rather build up vet warriors, then upgrade...but I want to make sure I have iron inside my borders, to hook up when I want to upgrade.

vee4473 · February 14, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
I actually very much like the concept of strategic resources and the way they are implemented in the game -- but I may be well out of the mainstream, because I don't even like the suggestions of many posters that resources should be of defined quality and should deplete with absolute predictability instead of randomly.

But I understand your frustration.

I usually only see this with extra luxuries, and then only in the very early game. In my experience, by the time of oil and certainly by aluminum, the AI has usually RR'd all territory (at least that which it hasn't recently acquired after bombardment of terrain improvements

).

May I suggest that there is already a diplomatic option? Offer a Right of Passage Agreement, and then send some of your workers to connect the resource to their trade network. Then propose a trade.

Catt

you give a good option Catt, but I have always had a problem with right of passage, i hate giving any ai civ the right to go where they please in my territory, but of course that means i go where i please in theirs.

Bluefrog:

maybe I didn't uns\derstand your post, but having the resource automatically available if it's in your borders doesn't mean you have to use it to upgrade. Just like if you have a road on the square...you don't have to upgrade, it's an option.

if you want to upgrade, fine, if not, then fine.

i may be wrong here. maybe it's more of a realistic simulation to have other civs with the resource in their territory, but if they don't connect to it, then it isn't available to anyone.

Jaybe · February 14, 2003, 21:17

vee4473,
Bluefrog was referring to being ABLE to build more Warriors (and then paying gold to upgrade) rather than HAVE to build Swords at 30 Shields because Iron is connected.

vee4473 · February 14, 2003, 21:30

ah, you mean where obsolete units are removed from the build list?

that sucks too.

Jaybe · February 14, 2003, 23:06

No it don't! Can you imagine having to scroll through all those units to get down to MI or MA?

vee4473 · February 21, 2003, 10:16

Well, it sucks if you are someone who likes to build obsolete units.

I never wanted to build a warrior if a swordsman is available, but to each his own.

Bluefrog · February 21, 2003, 11:01

vee, building obsolete units may seem a little backward, but there are advantages. Chiefly, it allows your border cities to be more of an active part of your empire in the early game, where 10 shields for a warrior isn't a huge investment, but 30 shields for a swordsman would take a prohibitively long time. In addition, gold in this game is a fluid commodity, in that all gold produced, outside of corruption and science, is put in a treasury that can be used in any city. Shields cannot do this.

So, while a city may not be able to produce swordsmen effectively, it could produce warriors with the intention of upgrading them through gold collected from the entire empire, once you decide to hook up the iron.

Some may consider this an exploit, because the AI would never think outside the box, as it were, and do this itself.

On occassion, yes, I prefer to build older units, then upgrade them. But, having the entire list of obsolete units in the build list would not only be cumbersome, but it would be highly, highly exploitable.

vee4473 · February 21, 2003, 11:15

interesting.

i never thought of doing that.

Maybe because if I have new cities that can't produce the better units quickly, I just produce them at the more advanced cities and send them to the border towns.

of course that ties up my more advanced cities with building units for the smaller towns, which means they can't spend time building wonders, etc..

badams52 · February 21, 2003, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Bluefrog
Some may consider this an exploit, because the AI would never think outside the box, as it were, and do this itself.

I see it as an exploit since the real world doesn't work that way.

Hmmm, let's see. I want to have a large army of MAs, so let's disconnect all aluminum from our cities, build masses of tanks, reconnect the aluminum, then pay a little gold to retrofit them and make them into MA.

edit: added the aluminum for clarity...

Mazarin · February 21, 2003, 11:43

upgrading units is absolutely ok as long as it isn't performed excessively (I don't see any problem in upgrading defensive units or a couple of horsemen, but it is an exploit when you upgrade 30 warriors to swordsmen and rush an opponent who is clearly superior technologically)...what you actually do is rushbuying at the price of 2gold for 1 shield...they should fix the upgrade costs to 4:1

Bluefrog · February 21, 2003, 13:51

Actually, badams52, that logic is slightly flawed. Modern Armor doesn't require any more resources than tanks to build...it's just an advance in technology, more advanced methods of using what you have. Most upgrade paths are like that (chariots-horsemen, archers-longbowmen, et al.)

You can train people to fight, though, and not have iron available. Once you get iron, you outfit them with swords, shields, and armor, and they are considerably more battle-ready. At the cost of gold, of course. That's not unrealistic.

What is unrealistic, though, is a civilization willingly not mining ores its people could use for other purposes aside from battle, heh. (In fact, it could be argued that Iron should be a prerequisite for most city improvements.)

badams52 · February 21, 2003, 14:36

ahem, *cough cough* aluminum *cough cough*

Bluefrog · February 21, 2003, 14:41

Oh, yeah, there's that. Heh. My bad. I have all my territory RRed by that time, so unless I'm completely bereft of a resource, I don't know I need it for something, heh.

badams52 · February 21, 2003, 14:44

Blue, but seriously, training people to fight without swords and armor, and then giving them to them is different than training people to fight with swords and armor. And I'm fine with it costing gold to make warriors into swordsmen.

Quote:

What is unrealistic, though, is a civilization willingly not mining ores its people could use for other purposes aside from battle, heh.

This is the point I was trying to make by saying real life doesn't work this way.

And on your first point, the upgrading from Airplanes to Jet Airplanes truly shouldn't happen. Let's take this old prop plane, add some jet engines and Boom, jet aircraft

joncnunn · February 21, 2003, 16:25

Would anybody still build fighters if they couldn't be upgraded to Jet Fighters later (and in case of the Americans, the F 15?)

As it is, Flight is one of the last Industrial Era techs I reserach. (I have a mod that turned the typically bypassed Ampheous Warfare & Advanced Flight techs into requried techs for advancement.)

When I'm a Scientfic Civ, there is over a 90% chance that the free tech granted will be Rocketry.

Chemical Ollie · February 21, 2003, 22:01

Edit: Posting when drunk is not recommended.

Master Zen · February 23, 2003, 00:45

It's not just a question of "upgrading" a piece of machinery. IMO, the upgrade represents a makeover of equippment. Look at a fighter squadron with P-51's suddenly gets new P-80s and later F-86s... that's upgrading.

And being behind in resources has its advantages. I usually make a huge 30+ horseman army for the sole purpose of upgrading it to knights when the time comes and start a war then.