No war for oil

pigskinwriter · March 26, 2003, 13:04

I keep seeing these "No war for oil" signs of war protesters and think how stupid they're being. Then I come home, start up my Civ3 game and realize that I'm in a war for rubber!

vmxa1 · March 26, 2003, 13:30

Always rough to be with out a key resource and have to become beligerent. If only those civs would except my kind over of a nice world map.

Alex · March 26, 2003, 13:55

I often have to start a war for oil because I need to keep pumping out military units in order to crush my enemies.

Hmmm....

Dida · March 26, 2003, 16:40

in my current game, i'm on the smallest continent, i have to wipe a guy off to control the whole continent, but still the smallest, and no oil. So, i'm in the same situation as Japan in WW2. I'm forced a to launch surprise attack on a guy way more powerful than me to get oil.

MPatton · March 26, 2003, 19:33

Me on the other hand I get the oil hog. My enemy Japan lost its access to oil and must attack me with marines. While I roll over em with my tanks.

Jethro83 · March 26, 2003, 21:58

I've only ever warred over oil when I have 2 supplies or less due to the unreliability of all supplies.

The resource I war over the most on the other hand is uranium. I don't want other civs manufacturing their 'weapons of mass destruction'. Having your primary commerce/science city, your capital and several other primary cities nuked in one of Gandhi's sneak attacks is no fun.

And it pays tremendously to be able to build nuclear plants while everyone else is stuck with coal, hydro or solar plants.

Skanky Burns · March 26, 2003, 23:07

I'm wondering why Iraq haven't built more tanks, they have plenty of oil to do so.

Tattila the Hun · March 27, 2003, 07:30

Maybe they haven't researched the tech yet...

Deathwalker · March 27, 2003, 07:32

In the game war is caused by the need for resources

Flandrien · March 27, 2003, 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I'm wondering why Iraq haven't built more tanks, they have plenty of oil to do so.

Their cities are built in desert, so they don't produce enough shields.

Sava · March 27, 2003, 11:47

Remember, they are Despotism so they have rampant corruption, waste, and their workers aren't effective. Plus, they don't have factories so it would take them 120 turns to build a modern armor.

badams52 · March 27, 2003, 12:35

Let's not forget that they have a very small civilization with few cities so if they are following AI strategy, they're probably trying to build Cure for Cancer in one city, Longevity in the other, and still have settlers to around spread out their empire.

Dida · March 27, 2003, 14:24

Can't they just rush buy with citizens?

pedrojedi · March 27, 2003, 22:36

They did!

"Torture".

Cyclotron · March 27, 2003, 23:00

They've spent all their money on building palaces. Haven't they realized yet that building a palace only relocates it from one city to another?

badams52 · March 27, 2003, 23:37

I'm sure you meant spent production on palaces as they can't buy palaces.

Dida · March 28, 2003, 12:56

Seemingly, what the American uses in the war is Modern Armor and the Iraqi is still fighting with tanks and regular infantry, no wonder they lost so badly.

However, Baghdad has population of about 5 million, that means it's a size 34 city. It would a defense so high the Americans would have heck of a time trying to take it out.

How the hell did they manage a size 34 city in the middle of desert is really beyond me. Saddam must be a very good player.

Cyclotron · March 28, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
How the hell did they manage a size 34 city in the middle of desert is really beyond me. Saddam must be a very good player.

I have a suspicion that Saddam may still be playing Civ2, in which case he can achieve that growth with food shipments from other cities.

mrmitchell · March 28, 2003, 14:31

The resources system in Civilization III is kind of screwed. I mean, it's better than nothing, but still.

For example, America has oil fields in America. In Civ3, one tile of oil anywhere on the nation would supply to the entire nation. In Real Life, one tile of oil anywhere on the nation would be about as effective as...uh, can't think of a good one right now. But that's enough of my whining.

(It's also one of my only wines about the game.

)

---
I usually don't have to war for resources in most of my games. Of course, I always remember fondly one of my best games (the India Rubber Campaigns, as I call it.

)

Flanker · March 29, 2003, 06:23

Quote:

How the hell did they manage a size 34 city in the middle of desert is really beyond me. Saddam must be a very good player.

With Euphrat and Tigris right in the desert that wouldn´t be so tough. Lots of flood plains there! However, I think Saddam plays as the AI with very many not so good but plenty ground units. When US is using precision attacks the woun´t damage the ground units either...

x Krelian x · March 30, 2003, 17:17

You guys are funny.

King_Henry · March 30, 2003, 18:36

I never get any saltpeter, which I need for my cavalry. I wind up attacking with knights and pikes, which are slaughtered by cavalry and musketman. I got saltpeter in the peace deal.

TheStinger · March 31, 2003, 06:15

I often trade for oil at some ridiculous cost to myself and then bulid up my forces and then take it. Doesn't do much for my rep though

Lord Merciless · April 1, 2003, 01:53

Actually I go to war in order to deny other civs from having the resources.

In my civ games, peace will only occasionally break out.

Zachriel · April 1, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by pigskinwriter
I keep seeing these "No war for oil" signs of war protesters and think how stupid they're being. Then I come home, start up my Civ3 game and realize that I'm in a war for rubber!

It's the random map generator. Who else would put "our" oil half-way around the world! The fault belongs with Firaxis.

Prince · April 1, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Actually I go to war in order to deny other civs from having the resources.

In my civ games, peace will only occasionally break out.

"This will cause peace with the English, sire. Are you sure?"

1) No, we should reconsider
2) Yes, the scum deserve it!

badams52 · April 1, 2003, 10:51

Lucarse · April 1, 2003, 11:26

The worse thing a CIV can do in my game is have a resource i want or need.

'If i was you i'd put that city somewhere else, it'll be better for you'

Thirgaral · April 1, 2003, 15:33

Coal...I need coal...all other civs always seem too get plenty when I get none...I want railroads!!!!

HAND · April 3, 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Thirgaral
Coal...I need coal...all other civs always seem too get plenty when I get none...I want railroads!!!!

Yes...In my present game i'm dominating a continent without any coal! I'm going to have to invade a much smaller continent to get 3 coal resources!

Having railroads is like a smaller golden age!