Resources: How to handle

[Fosse]

There is some discussion going on in the trade thread about whether resources and luxuries should remain as-is, where access to a single unit of said resource is all that you need, or modified so that each access to a resource provides a limited amount of said resource.

The current system of ON/OFF resources can be modified to have additional instances of those resources provide bonuses to the civ, so as not to make them useless.

If changed, then one iron supply would provide enough iron to build perhaps 5 swordsmen per turn. If you only work on 3 in a given turn, then you put two iron into storage, which can be stockpiled for later use, or traded away.

So what is prefered her in Apolyton?

Post edited for spelling

[Fosse]

I voted for option 2. I feel that this would add a great deal to the game, and that the AI can be taught to deal with this relativly small wrinkle in mechanics that amounts to a huge amount of increased fun, realism, and strategic possiblity.

[notyoueither]

A very interesting proposal.

And so a single luxury could be shared between 5 or 10 or 20 cities?

Would you increase the number and/or frequency of resources and luxuries?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
A very interesting proposal.

And so a single luxury could be shared between 5 or 10 or 20 cities?

Would you increase the number and/or frequency of resources and luxuries?

I think so, yes. I realize that the above poll isn't about an entire proposal, but I wanted to get input before trying to write one out.

Yes, though, more occurances of would almost certainly be needed to get any sort of balance. For example, on an earth map there might be five occurances of oil in Texas, and fifteen crammed into the Middle East. East occurance would provide exactly the same amount - to forgoe any unneeded complication - so having more in one place represents a very rich supply.

[Senator]

seems to me it'll just complicate the game.

for luxuries it might be a good idea to increase the effect when you got multiple sources, that way it might add some extra things to think about when you're about to trade with another empire. It might even be an incentive to stop export before the trade agreement is over deteriorating relations with that other civ.

on strategic resources i don't think a system with one oil deposit being able to provide oil for like 10 cities is good. (cuz you got small villages and huge mass-production cities) It's not even the size of a city that mathers it should be related to the amounts of shields produced per turn that sets the amount of oil needed then.
keeping that in mind i think a system where a 'unit' of oil(for example) means you can produce 5 oil using units each turn as maximum is better. then again a tank uses less than an airplane, you'd need to set a number of oil that is needed for every unit.

In all i think the resource system works fine as it is in civ3 (even if it is somewhat crude and basic) and adding another system would just add more micromanagment that would be a pain in the ass for most players.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Senator
seems to me it'll just complicate the game.

for luxuries it might be a good idea to increase the effect when you got multiple sources, that way it might add some extra things to think about when you're about to trade with another empire. It might even be an incentive to stop export before the trade agreement is over deteriorating relations with that other civ.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

on strategic resources i don't think a system with one oil deposit being able to provide oil for like 10 cities is good. (cuz you got small villages and huge mass-production cities) It's not even the size of a city that mathers it should be related to the amounts of shields produced per turn that sets the amount of oil needed then.
keeping that in mind i think a system where a 'unit' of oil(for example) means you can produce 5 oil using units each turn as maximum is better. then again a tank uses less than an airplane, you'd need to set a number of oil that is needed for every unit.

That is, again, exactly what I'm saying.
As for tanks using less than airplanes or battleships... I would say that trying to model that is going to be going a bit too far for fun. Not a lot, but a bit. Now... seperate support costs for units.

As for the resources proposal I've outlined... I disagree that it would be micromangement. I think it would add a lot of realism and fun to resources, diplomacy (since that's how you'd get a lot of resources) and war (because a: resources are worth more; and b: There will be a limit on resource requiring units you can build at a time. The odds of building ten tanks per turn, and so not caring if you loose ten tanks per turn, are much slimmer.

I know that some do feel that this is micromangement, while I would say that it is simply "management." The current system is a bit too abstract for my tastes though, and I hope for Firaxis' tastes, too!

[Sandman]

The main problem, for me, is that the current resource system makes the resource shield concept meaningless.

In earlier civs, the resource shields that one could get from hills and deserts and so on were justified by the fact that stuff like coal, iron and oil was being extracted from them. But with the resource system we have now, all linked up cities can get all the coal, oil and iron they need. But production is still decided by the number of hills and mines. This makes no sense. I mean, what are all those mines on the grassland extracting? It's not coal, iron, aluminium, oil, etc.

The resource shields should be replaced by a raw material x productive power figure. Raw materials would be extracted from squares instead of shields, and productive power would be calculated by the population of the city, and any industrial improvements.

You'd also need some sort of market to allow raw materials to flow to where they're needed.

[Kuciwalker]

Sandman - that system is far to complicated for Civ. C3 worked well with it's system, and shields are tried-and-true. Stick with 'em.

I like a suggestion made in another thread, where each additional source of a resource you had gave a +1 shield in all cities when building something that required that resource.

[Sandman]

But shields make no sense at all. Just because they're tried and true doesn't change the fact the justification for them is largely gone. Why should a city with lots of hills be better at making stuff than a city without, when they are both supplied with the same raw materials?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sandman
But shields make no sense at all. Just because they're tried and true doesn't change the fact the justification for them is largely gone. Why should a city with lots of hills be better at making stuff than a city without, when they are both supplied with the same raw materials?

I'd be a bit afraid of getting rid of shields. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea... just that I would have to think long and hard about doing so.

I agree with ou 100% that just because the system is already in Civ it should automatically be in Civ 4. Some of the mechanics we have were abstractions made because Civ 1 is an OLD game. There is no reason that we shouldn't take a good long hard at those mechanics and decide if something new wouldn't be better.

Or even something that used to be in but is now out (hitpoints and firepower, anyone?).

[Solver]

I like Senator's ideas... adding the quanity concept will probably make the game more fun. As long as it's balanced so that the entire game dosn't become about the harvesting of these quantities.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
But shields make no sense at all. Just because they're tried and true doesn't change the fact the justification for them is largely gone. Why should a city with lots of hills be better at making stuff than a city without, when they are both supplied with the same raw materials?

The fact is, the system works, and it works incredibly well. Why do you think it has existed unchanged from C1 to C3 (even including SMAC!). AFAIK it is the only feature to do that (including the combat system). The remove shields is a HUGE departure.

[Sandman]

I'd be a bit afraid of getting rid of shields. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea... just that I would have to think long and hard about doing so.

We don't have to get rid of them. Just change the way in which they are derived. To reflect population, for example.

The fact is, the system works, and it works incredibly well. Why do you think it has existed unchanged from C1 to C3 (even including SMAC!). AFAIK it is the only feature to do that (including the combat system). The remove shields is a HUGE departure.

The phalanx vs battleship was (and is) a problem, even though the system worked. It's also a problem that a 6-pop city with hills can outproduce a 12-pop city with grassland, even though they are both recieving all the iron and coal they need. It's a question of realism.

[MrFun]

I disagree with the idea of more severe limitation of resources.

There's only so much you can do to make the game more realistic, before you start taking away the fun factor.

[Fosse]

Okay Sandman, I'm game.

I haven't played it, so I am not sure, but didn't CtP 2 work the entire productive radius of the city at a reduced rate according to the population?

But you are also saying we shouldn't simply say "You're in a forest, that means industry!"

Okay... how much impact to you want terrain to have on industry? How much impact do you want resources and the like to have?

I'm interested, but I'm not sure what to replace (or augment) shield generation with.

[filix]

Originally posted by Senator
seems to me it'll just complicate the game.

on strategic resources i don't think a system with one oil deposit being able to provide oil for like 10 cities is good. (cuz you got small villages and huge mass-production cities) It's not even the size of a city that mathers it should be related to the amounts of shields produced per turn that sets the amount of oil needed then.

Very good but only when there are more resources in the game. The number of resources occurrence should be bigger. The citys where the oil is delivered should be choosen in the trade manager, for exaple with caravans.
And there should be an gold income benifit for citys where strategic resources are sended.
(I like the idea to steel uranium with an agent
just a crazy idea)

Originally posted by Senator
keeping that in mind i think a system where a 'unit' of oil(for example) means you can produce 5 oil using units each turn as maximum is better. then again a tank uses less than an airplane, you'd need to set a number of oil that is needed for every unit.

If you have 20 or 30 citys 5 units wich need oil per turn isnt much. (more wells)
What is if a a city have enough shields for a unit but no oil, not enough recourses can slow down your whole production then. I like mikromanagement but to plan for every city in wich turn a unit is ready is too hard

Originally posted by Senator
In all i think the resource system works fine as it is in civ3 (even if it is somewhat crude and basic) and adding another system would just add more micromanagment that would be a pain in the ass for most players.

exact, access is all you need or really a lot of resource wells
but i like the caravan idea

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Fosse
Okay Sandman, I'm game.

I haven't played it, so I am not sure, but didn't CtP 2 work the entire productive radius of the city at a reduced rate according to the population?

But you are also saying we shouldn't simply say "You're in a forest, that means industry!"

Okay... how much impact to you want terrain to have on industry? How much impact do you want resources and the like to have?

I'm interested, but I'm not sure what to replace (or augment) shield generation with.

Um...

How about having population as the main source of shields, with strategic resources and terrain giving factory-like percentage bonuses, rather than discrete numbers of shields?

[filix]

Originally posted by MrFun
I disagree with the idea of more severe limitation of resources.

There's only so much you can do to make the game more realistic, before you start taking away the fun factor.

You are right too scarce resources can make starting positions too important for the game, more resources,...!

[Fosse]

Sandman:
Ha, that's basically what you said before, and I didn't get it. But, this post is clearer and I thank you for it.

Now... if we combine that idea with having population growth based more on potential jobs (ie, good farm areas bring a lot of people in the ancient era, and fewer in modern, lots of industry and well developed cities bring more people, and the more commerce in a city the bigger it gets) than on food storage... we would have a VERY good system of generating cities food, population, production, and commerce. Cities would become hugely more realistic, unique, and alive.

Careful balancing would have to be done, of course. But when that was done the player would have so many routes to impact the output of a city. Want more production? Maybe you can build a factory, sure... but you could also build a bank. Multiple layers of approach, all with more far reaching consequences... thus cities never become "perfect," are always in flux, and your approach can constantly vary.

Good God... it sounds perfect.

I will now brace myself for the barrage of "It's not Civ! Computers can't do that (Sim City does), it's not Sim City!, too complicated! Too radical!" that will come.

But I believe that those statements are wrong, and that this idea sure would be a great Civ, wouldn't it?

Thanks, Sandman.

[Fosse]

I just realized that I helped to threadjack my own poll. Sigh.

[filix]

Originally posted by Sandman


Um...

How about having population as the main source of shields, with strategic resources and terrain giving factory-like percentage bonuses, rather than discrete numbers of shields?

I think thats a bad idea, i dont like it because its not civ than anymore.
Mountains for shilds plains for food thats civ
I dont like the idea that food is more important fpr production than raw material and i dont mean strategic resources


Hey Fosse well play a game if civ4 is out

[Fosse]

Originally posted by filix


I think thats a bad idea, i dont like it because its not civ than anymore.
Mountains for shilds plains for food thats civ

That's okay with me. I'm not going to be happy with another graphics update.

Make the game groundbreaking, or else just make a third Civ 3 expansion and stay out of the way while another company makes the game that will take the genre to a new level.

Though filix, I understand wanting to stick to old ways to make it "still Civ," some old ways should be reexamined and chucked if they are no longer the best ways. If the this is one of those ways, it should go. If not... well, not.

[filix]

Originally posted by Fosse


That's okay with me. I'm not going to be happy with another graphics update.

Really i dont care for graphics

Originally posted by Fosse
Make the game groundbreaking, or else just make a third Civ 3 expansion and stay out of the way while another company makes the game that will take the genre to a new level.

I think civ a very succsessful game, So why change a winning team? I mean the basic consept.

Originally posted by Fosse
Though filix, I understand wanting to stick to old ways to make it "still Civ," some old ways should be reexamined and chucked if they are no longer the best ways. If the this is one of those ways, it should go. If not... well, not.

Right we have just some ideas thats all.

[Dis]

I don't want it overly complicated.

though the current system is a bit simplistic as well.

Perhaps you could build up base units of material as in Rise of Nations. Yes I know that is a RTS. But perhaps civ4 could take some notice of some of that games better points (there aren't many ).

In fact I would like to see a better trade system like in rise of nations. But even rise of nations trade could better (though I only played the demo- so I'm not fully versed on that system).

But you should build up base units of material. Say having access to two irons would build up twice as fast as one iron. this material would be used for units and buildings/wonders and any amount the player doesn't want can be sold off- if they have access to other civs via roads/harbours/airports

[Kuciwalker]

That's okay with me. I'm not going to be happy with another graphics update.

C3 was not just a "graphics update". It implemented groundbreaking concepts that nevertheless stayed within the boundaries of civ. That is the key. In civ, you have food, shields, and trade. That isn't something that can change without making it a completely different game, and so it has no right to be called "civ".

[Sandman]

I don't see my suggested system as a serious deviation from the norm, really. Shields are still around, but they're just determined more by population than terrain, although terrain still plays a strong role.

Advantages:

It's more realistic. Big cities are more productive; it's that simple. Productivity is determined more than just hills and forests.

It avoids the problem of 'lame duck' cities; you know, where you have a size-12 city that has only grassland and ocean, and struggles to build a colosseum, and is of no use for military production.

No more mining deserts or grasslands. No more forest cities cranking out wooden spaceships.

Terrain is still useful. A worked forest square could yield a resource % bonus, or another (better) idea would have it yield an extra bonus resource, which would not be affected by factories, etc.

Disadvantages:

Less resource-boosting terrain improvements. It was always satisfying to see a cities production rocket when you finished a mine on a hill.

To counter this, I'd go for a numerically based resource system, with most hills and some other areas having resource deposits that you could develop with mines and so on. The city with the coal would still get an excellent resource boost, but the formerly lame duck city could also get a good boost if it had a port and railroads to import raw materials. If it was in a particularly sweet spot, it could even outproduce the coal city, since it could import other kinds of raw materials.

Food becomes all important.

To counter this, I'd make it much harder to get food. It's much to easy to reap massive harvests in ancient times in Civ3. I'd also make agriculture more interesting, with more kinds of terrain, more technologies relating to agriculture, different kinds of cultivation, and so on. A decent system of trading food is a must as well. And, as Fosse already suggested, I'd weaken the link between food and population growth.

[Kramerman]

i liek some of sandmans ideas. And i disagree with skywalker here. just because its 'tried and true' doesnt mean it cant be made better. i dont wanna play civ 4 if its just gonna be civ 3 with new graphics. i want innovation.

As far as food production, try out the double your pleasure mod for PtW. I like there system of food production but i think it should be made more professional instead of just getting around the game engine.

basically you should be able irigate at some point early in the game. without irrigation your cicites hsould not be able to get much bigger than size 3.

then when you discover crop rotation you should be able to farm. this will allow cities to get up to a point were aquaducts would be needed to allow the pop to increase significantly beyond the limit set without aquaducts.

then there should be something, like the tech fertilizers or somethn like that that would allow you to make an 'advanced farm' (i dont know what to call it) that would allow the metropolis sized cities of today (with a few megaopolises in very fertile regions).

and finally there should be some kind of near future tech, like hydroponic labs or something that could be a further improvment to allow megalopolis (Blade Runner sized) cities in the near future times.

hmm perhaps i should post this in the improvements thread instead of resources... but i support any attempt at innovationg the resources system.

[Kuciwalker]

Sandman - let me just say here that the system you are suggesting I have advocated in the past, and in fact I think is a very good, realistic model.

That said, I don't want to see it in C4. It seems to me to mark a radical departure from the previous games. I would love it in another game, but not C4.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Sandman
The main problem, for me, is that the current resource system makes the resource shield concept meaningless.

In earlier civs, the resource shields that one could get from hills and deserts and so on were justified by the fact that stuff like coal, iron and oil was being extracted from them. But with the resource system we have now, all linked up cities can get all the coal, oil and iron they need. But production is still decided by the number of hills and mines. This makes no sense. I mean, what are all those mines on the grassland extracting? It's not coal, iron, aluminium, oil, etc.

I couldn't agree with this more. I think the counter argument has always been about avoiding making things "too complicated". That has to be weighed, but I think this idea is too good to not explore a method to make it work in a clear and understandable manner.

The nuances that could be added to the game are tremendous. Can you imagine only having enough aluminum to build airplanes in two cities? Now the opponent can target your industry, or specific cities, in an attempt to stop war material from reaching the front. Finally we could have some version of strategic bombing. That is still a big missing part to the civ conflict model.

It seems to me that if you are mining aluminum and you go to build a fighter, but you are not mining enough to start another production using aluminum, you could consult the Economist Advisor (or whatever) to see what's going on. If you have enough aluminum, you can just select the build and not bother with the screen.

This would make the trading subsystem much more important. You would think carefully about parting with some resource for a lousy 20 gpt.

[Shogun Gunner]

and regarding shields, they have to stay in the game. If we move to an abstract system of production that moves away from the cities and to a national aggregate, which is then dispensed to production centers...well that sounds like communism first... but seriously, that gets too far away from what Civilization has always been...the city has been the center of the empire.