Strategic resources... too strategic?

[Martinus]

How do you guys see the way strategic resources (coal, iron, copper, uranium, horses etc.) are handled in the game?

I am pretty happy with the other resources, however I think the strategic ones were made too important, to the point of being able to ruin the game. This may be less of a problem in single player games on "realistic" maps, such as terra - as you can always haggle some resource from the AI or found a city near it, but in multiplayer games on "artificial" maps (such as hub), lacking an important resource can make or break a game, essentially making it dependable on a totally random factor. For example, in my recent MP game as Russians, I had bad lack not to have horses, coal, uranium or oil on my territory at all - they were all on the territories of my enemies.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea (possibly for a patch or an expansion pack - I know it can be modded,but once again mods are something more appropriate for SP, rather than MP) to downplay their role, by making them work in a way similar to stone or marble for some wonders - reducing the production of some units if you have an access to the resource, not making it impossible to build whatsoever (of course, with a corresponding increase of a production cost of the same unit - so if you had a resource the unit would take about as much to build as right now, while if you didn't it would take twice or three times as long).

Thoughts?

[Senethro]

Its a problem, but one that can largely be overcome by good reconaissance and spreding your religion about for espionage.

Its practically a necessity at Prince or above, running about the world and smashing anyone even beginning to exploit a resource is exhausting.

[Dr,ape]

They put the concept of strategic resources in the game SPECIFICALLY to force players to start wars, in specifically the situation you've described in the original post.

[LordShiva]

The problem with this is that you need advanced units to beat those damn longbowmen, for which you need the very resources for which you're fighting...

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Strategic resources... too strategic?

Originally posted by Martinus
How do you guys see the way strategic resources (coal, iron, copper, uranium, horses etc.) are handled in the game?

I am pretty happy with the other resources, however I think the strategic ones were made too important, to the point of being able to ruin the game. This may be less of a problem in single player games on "realistic" maps, such as terra - as you can always haggle some resource from the AI or found a city near it, but in multiplayer games on "artificial" maps (such as hub), lacking an important resource can make or break a game, essentially making it dependable on a totally random factor. For example, in my recent MP game as Russians, I had bad lack not to have horses, coal, uranium or oil on my territory at all - they were all on the territories of my enemies.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea (possibly for a patch or an expansion pack - I know it can be modded,but once again mods are something more appropriate for SP, rather than MP) to downplay their role, by making them work in a way similar to stone or marble for some wonders - reducing the production of some units if you have an access to the resource, not making it impossible to build whatsoever (of course, with a corresponding increase of a production cost of the same unit - so if you had a resource the unit would take about as much to build as right now, while if you didn't it would take twice or three times as long).

Thoughts?

This is why God invented the Balanced map type.

[Dr,ape]

That's why they made it possible for spearman units to beat tanks by chance. You just need a whole lot of them if you don't have the advanced units. So, if you find yourself not having some critical strategic resources, and your neighbor does, then start building a bunch of units and gamble your whole empire's future on a bitter (and desperate) war. It sound like fun!

[Gunter]

I still have to try Civ IV but I perfectly recall the same issue on civ III where I was always forced to mod the single player in order to have more resources because otherwise it was simply a matter of pure luck,no uranium ? No oil ? You were dead meat on higher levels...

Gunter

[Solver]

In my experience, you will almost always have a good surplus of resources, but almost never all of them. That is why resources are there in the first place - to force you toe xpand aggressively for a metal if you need to, or go to war for Coal, or do diplomacy, etc.

By the way, you can also very successfully run strategies that don't require resources. In the early game, you can hold of an assault with only Archers and Catapults, possibly even stage a decent assault. In all ages you have units that don't require resources. Note how the defender units (Archers-Longbowmen-Musketmen-Riflemen-Infantry-Mech Infantry) don't require resources - you can aways defend if you have the tech. Likewise, siege units don't require any techs. Plus, post gunpowder, you can build decent offensive units without resources. No Oil and no Uranium? Tough luck, but with Cannons and Riflemen/Infantry, you can have enough power to sieze a deposit.

[Dis]

I think it's a lot better than in civ3. As copper can help circumvent the problem of having no iron.

Oil is still very important, but you can still defend without it (just can't attack).

Coal is annoying. As I said in the other thread. Now days most locomotives are diesel, so we shouldn't need coal after the ability to build oil wells comes along.

[Lucilla]

The game would just be boring if you had access to all the resources without a good strategy.