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.