The main pronlem with Civ 4 is...

[Handel]

After a month of Civ 4 playing I found out (at last) what is troubling me with the game. And it is the game is too much "luck dependant". No, don't jump to me at once - it is not because my spearmen killed your battleship, but because of the resourses. Why this? Simple. You needed almost the same resourses in the Civ 3 - but your empire enlarged there much quicker. Lets start for example from the very beginning. Now you have at best 3 cities (probably only 2) when the hordes of enemy archers and axemen start to appear. And if you don't have a sourse of copper in those 3 cities you are doomed. Of course you may have iron or defend with horsemen - but probably you will not be able to research them at all. I am talking about the higher dificulties, of course. And the same is true later in the game. It is quite possible not to have coal or oil. Doomed again. Of course you may go warring and try to grab some, but without resourses you will not do much. And if your industriuos enemy has stone and marble, you probably will not be able to build a single wonder. Well - maybe you can manage to build 1-2 wonders with GE, but that's will be all. And later in the game even the GE will not be enough to build a wonder.
Well, that's all. I guess a lot of people now will start to prove why I am not right. And they will explain how the the WB you can give yourself any resourses and such. But actually if you are using a WB you need a resourses? You can just raise yourself 20 modern armors. But if a game needs any kind of cheating to be enjoyble this means something is wrong.

[Sirian]

Handle, you're right in one sense: the AIs are all but unwilling to trade Strategic resources, meaning that you either have some or you don't; that you acquire some by expansion or conquest, or you do without.

This isn't quite where I wanted things to be. I DO want the AI to be stingy with strategic resources, but I wish that your allies would be more willing to trade them with you. Currently, they want too much.


There are ways to compete when you are short on resources, though. Archers, Longbows, Catapults, Muskets... you can prioritize either obtaining some resources or obtaining unit types that don't need them.

Rifles, Infantry, Marines and Mechs are all available all the time, and these are enough to get somewhere. So while you are right about the problem, I don't believe the consequences are as deterministic as you suggest.

Perhaps at some point, the AI will be loosened up a bit on trading strategic resources. Hopefully not too much, but enough to open some diplomatic options for the resource-bereft.


- Sirian

[Drachasor]

The AI will often trade a strategic resource for either another strategic resource or two or so regular resources.

-Drachasor

[Handel]

I didn't say the game is unplayble. Quite the oppoiste - I played it for a month. But you need luck with the resourses if you are going to win. Yes, of course, you can go along with marginal means, if you don't have certain resourse. But do you play the game just to "move along"? And I am talking not about the warlords dificulty, but about monarch and higher. Actually on the higher difficulties even the forest becomes a "resourse" and you cannot win without chopping a tons and tons of wood. As someone said in this forum - if you don't have forests - start again.
In the previous Civ I didn't miss the resourses so much. And yes, the AI then traded strategic resourses. Now the trades seems completely random. I don't know why the AI don't trade his 5 "rice" and 3 "dye" - after all those resourses are not even strategic.
But again - somehow I didn't miss the resourses in the previous Civ so much.

[StarLightDeath]

Or here's an amazing idea, you could just take the luck out of the game and make it so everyone gets 1 of each resource without putting them down on the ****ing ice. Then again, apparently I missed the part where luck is supposed to be a huge part of strategy games. Maybe that's why other games get thousands of people playing online at any given time compared to Civ4's amazing 300 people total. Guess you guys still haven't quite figured out how to make a good MP game.

[opaque]

If everyone gets 1 of each resource, what's the point of having the resources at all?

Uneven spread of resources gives the possibility to fight wars for land and resources, which I think should be part of a strategy game like Civ.

[StarLightDeath]

Why? because you can still go attack the other guy to try and keep him off his resources. All uneven resources does is give lesser players like you a chance to win by simple luck of the draw. Age of empires gave everyone the same resources for the most part and the whole idea was to go attack the other guy's resources and mess up his economy. I fail to see the skill or strategy in screwing someone over simply because they have no iron on their map. Obviously you don't play MP.

[Brendruis]

Maybe it is infact different in multiplayer when you choose custom map environments and situations. I've played alot of singleplayer and some multiplayer; I usually have about 3 oil resources (although not always with a well on them by this time) by 1900... On Prince difficulty expanding rather rapidly.. Iron seems to be more of a rare commodity that you will actually fight over in the early game... I know this is by design, and it's even fun trying to stop Julius Caesar from having any Iron. Those Praetorian units will decimate you otherwise. Strangely enough, coal seems to be my biggest limitation and I can never build those useful coal plants

[Diadem]

First of all, the early resources aren't *that* important. Okay, if you have neither horse, copper or iron you might be in trouble. But that's extremely rare, unless you don't expand at all. And even then, digging in with archers and beeling for better units is still a viable option.

The late age resources are plentyful enough to basicly guarantee access to them once you discover them. Unless your empire is still only 3 cities, in which case you only have yourself to blame.

Secondly there is the 'balanced' map option. If you don't like the risk of not having specific resources play balanced. You'll always have them all close at hand.

Balanced has only one flaw. Sometimes it generates resources just outside 'legendary' culture radius of your starting city. That's no problem normally, but if you play OCC it is annoying. Playing balanced to have all resources, then not having them after all.

[Shaka II]

Resource strategies, including luck are some of the things that make Civ so much fun. I love early exploration to acquire resources, huts, tech advances, meet new civilizations, to discover copper and iron, in the midst of dangerous lands filled with barbarians.

Variety in life is fun. The same things every time would not be much fun. Don't you like surprises? Or would you rather know what you're going to get all the time?

[Handel]

Originally posted by Diadem
First of all, the early resources aren't *that* important. Okay, if you have neither horse, copper or iron you might be in trouble. But that's extremely rare, unless you don't expand at all. And even then, digging in with archers and beeling for better units is still a viable option.

Obviously you didn't play at higher difficulties. Or played with barbarians turned off. The earlier resourses are not "that" important. Tha's absolutely true. Because they are ABSOLUTELY important. Without bronze you simply have no chances to research iron working or horse riding. The barbarian axemen will wipe your archers just for few turns.

As for the later resourses - in one of my games I had more 18 cities and had just 1 coal. And I got this coal by pure luck - it was in a desert and the AI didn't build a city there, so my cultural expansion "stole" the coal from the enemy. In the same game I had no oil at all. There was an oil in the sea, but first - you have to research plastics to use sea oil, and second - it was in a culture contested waters, so this square moved in different hands several times.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Shaka II
I love early exploration... ...to discover copper and iron, in the midst of dangerous lands filled with barbarians.

Variety in life is fun.

You like variety. Right. Providing this variety gives you copper and iron, right? And what when just for variety you don't get copper?

[Sirian]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Or here's an amazing idea... Guess you guys still haven't quite figured out how to make a good MP game.

The Balanced map script provides all military strategics to all players, guaranteed.

So here's an amazing idea. If that's what you want, why don't you actually use this option instead of bloviating with the intent to make yourself look good at somebody else's expense?

While I'm on the topic, here's another question for you. Is the Balanced script the most popular map for MP? If not, why not? (It would seem that most MP players are content with the way resources are handled by default. This evidence seems to clash with your theories.)


- Sirian

[vee4473]

Sirian,

Is a balanced map always pangea? or how does it choose what layout to create?

I noticed the balanced type as a map choice, but is there a setting that i'm missing to choose balanced resources on any of the map types?

or do I need to just use balanced map and get what i get?

[polarnomad]

Personally, I don't think it would be any fun whatsoever going into a new CivIV game knowing that I am guaranteed to have access to all the necessary resources. Finding out that I'm lacking in an area just gives me a reason to try to work around it, and if I am overpowered because of said lack... well, it happens! Having access to some resources and not others actually shapes the civ I'm playing into something unique.