1 city needs as much as 100?

[ben04]

One thing that I find a bit bizzar is that resources are civ-wide. For example 10 civs with each 4 iron need 10 iron mines so that everybody has some. However 1 civ with 40 cities needs 1 iron mine to acheive the same. I find it strange as the consumation of iron hasn't changed.

[greenday_234]

sorry I'm a bit slow, not to sure what you mean. Could you clarify for me?

[Gangerolf]

2 civs can't share 1 iron

but 2 cities within a civ can.

[Ari]

I think he's getting at the fact that one iron can support a civ containing 1 city or a civ containing 40 cities. Which, when you think about it, is kinda weird. I've loved the concept of resources since they first were created, but I wish there were some more complexity to them. On one hand, having you oil disappear is a pain in the ass, but on the other, that *happens* in real life.

It's also slightly irksome that 99% of the time, you'll only trade one resource for another, rather than for cash (civs can never actually give you what your resource is worth in cash, and in turn charge ridiculous prices for their own). And unlike civ 3, you *can't* trade resources for other things (like tech, or diplomatic favors). Seems like a step backwards, gameplay-wise, imho.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Ari
I think he's getting at the fact that one iron can support a civ containing 1 city or a civ containing 40 cities. Which, when you think about it, is kinda weird. I've loved the concept of resources since they first were created, but I wish there were some more complexity to them. On one hand, having you oil disappear is a pain in the ass, but on the other, that *happens* in real life.

It's also slightly irksome that 99% of the time, you'll only trade one resource for another, rather than for cash (civs can never actually give you what your resource is worth in cash, and in turn charge ridiculous prices for their own). And unlike civ 3, you *can't* trade resources for other things (like tech, or diplomatic favors). Seems like a step backwards, gameplay-wise, imho.

How did you manage to get 1%? It's supposed to be removed.

There was an exploit that had to do with making a deal - resources for cash. Spend or depleat your cash. You get the rescource but they don't get no cash.

...well, something like that.

Tom P.

[Ari]

Trading resources for money's not an exploit. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not. If I see that some civ has 10 gold per turn, I'll offer them a resource for gold, and they'll usually pony up all the gold per turn they have available. I'm getting royally screwed, of course, since if you put even a non-strategic resource on the table and ask what it's worth, *they'll* demand 20-30 gold at least (more still for something strategic, if they'll offer at all). But at least I'm making money that I otherwise wouldn't get (and hopefully I can exploit an extra 10g/turn better than they can exploit the corn or whatnot).

But it's still irritating that your trading options are so boring, even compared with civ 3.

[RGBVideo]

Rant warning

It's also slightly irksome that 99% of the time, you'll only trade one resource for another, rather than for cash (civs can never actually give you what your resource is worth in cash,

Yep, it's goddamn stupid. I have no idea what the dev team was thinking about when they could've just ripped off the diplomacy model from SMAC but instead rolled the model back so it's practically less versatile than the one in Civilization II. Oh, and AFAIK it can't be modded, either.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Ari
Trading resources for money's not an exploit. At least, I'm pretty sure it's not.

I don't mean the concept is an exploit, I mean there is a way to exploit it. I forgot how, but I remember it was a big exploit.

Tom P.

[Qwertqwert]

I think if you loose the resource to give they'll still give you the money but I don't know. Something like that happened to me before but it was when I was new to the game so I could have been confused about something else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ari
I think he's getting at the fact that one iron can support a civ containing 1 city or a civ containing 40 cities. Which, when you think about it, is kinda weird. I've loved the concept of resources since they first were created, but I wish there were some more complexity to them. On one hand, having you oil disappear is a pain in the ass, but on the other, that *happens* in real life.

The resource model is fine as it is, maybe we just need a bit more variety in the specials.

Making things more realistic isn't going to make the game more fun, only more complexity and thus, micromanagement.

[ben04]

Still I think that every extra iron mine you control should get you some sort of bonus.

Perhaps one XP point for iron needing units per extra iron.

Or requier for each 4 cities an iron mine. If you don't have that then not all cities will be able to produce iron-using units.

Or units start damaged and heal a lot slower when there is an iron shortage. A shortage of pertrol could affect the movement points of tanks.

It's simply weird that you can supply half of the world with iron from one mine if you control that half. On the other hand when that half is controled by 40 different civs 40 mines are need to optain the same effect : supply each city.

I also often find myself discovering iron somewhere near my cities and then I no longer bother about other mines. In reality this has been very different. There have been wars to control an extra mine whereas in Civ4 it gives you near to nothing.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The resource model is fine as it is, maybe we just need a bit more variety in the specials.

Making things more realistic isn't going to make the game more fun, only more complexity and thus, micromanagement.

It seems to me like resources aren't as key as they were in civ III with the way resource trading is set up.

In Civ III, I'd be a democracy heading for the space race and be willing to start a war to steal 4 or 5 dyes I didn't even need, just so I could be the one selling dyes to the world. In civ IV, I'm not always even be willing to found a city to aquire some resources. I really liked the struggle for resources, but there's just so many and they're so easy to aquire and trade for, it hardly seems to matter.

If there was a limit on how far you can strech a resource(say, if you have 15 cities, you need 2 fish to feed them all; if you have 30 cities you need 3) that might make aquiring and trading for resources more interesting, by increasing the demand for "extra" fish later in the game.

[Urban Ranger]

The thing is this gets very complicated very fast. For example, not all specials are equal. Some oil fields have a lot more reserve than others.

[Overcast32]

Maybe my thinking's wrong, but I don't see any problem with it.

I mean, if a Civ has 5 Iron mines within their borders, there's no reason any other Civ should have access to it - unless, of course, they trade for the iron.

Am I missing something?

I agree 100% that extra mines should give you some sort of bonus; however. Maybe 1 turn per extra mine off production for any units using iron? So if you have 3 mines and make a Swordsman, you would get a 2 turn bonus on production of them? Perhaps the bonus would only apply to the nearest city as well.

That would make sense - the more iron mine you have, the easier it is for your Civ to refine it and get it to different destinations..

[ben04]

Originally posted by Overcast32
Maybe my thinking's wrong, but I don't see any problem with it.

I mean, if a Civ has 5 Iron mines within their borders, there's no reason any other Civ should have access to it - unless, of course, they trade for the iron.

Am I missing something?

A mine has a limited production capacity. In reality one mine simply can't produce enough iron to supply half of the world.

If there now are a great number of civs then this fact is being considered as 2 civs can't share one iron. However if there are only very few civs with lots of land then this economic fact is being ignored.