1 city needs as much as 100?

[JackRudd]

Originally posted by padillah


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.

Sell the AI a per-turn item and get a one-off item in exchange. Then declare war on said AI. You still have the one-off item, but are now getting it for nothing.

[Ari]

That's stupid. Even SMAC, which is close to 10 years old now, had resuming of payments after ceasation of hostilities.

[JustAnotherUser]

Originally posted by 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.

A possible idea could be that in a turn you can build only one unit that need a resource for every resource of that type that you have.

for example, if you have 1 copper mine you can build an axeman only in one of your cities, if you have two mines then you can build two at the same time in two different cities, and so on. Now building a city near that second copper source become more interesting.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ben04
A mine has a limited production capacity. In reality one mine simply can't produce enough iron to supply half of the world.

It depends on what half of the world uses. Considering that IRL, most resources are used by civilians, not military. How much iron would an axeman unit use? Very little.

[Yaga]

I do like that they've kept the micromanaging to a minimum, but agree with the general sentiment that there should be some sort of bonus for having multiple instance of each resource. Granted, most (all?) resources give a bonus to the city that has them in their fat cross *if* they're worked...

As for the diplomacy side of things, I wish the AI treated war as *both* one-time and a recurring. I'd like to be able to bribe civs with my extra strategic resources, even gold, to maintain their wars against a common enemy.

e.g, "Monty, I'll give you Guilds for declaring war on Catherine, and I'll supply you with Iron, Horses, and 5 GPT while you maintain a state of war with her."

This would also be useful to broker deals against enemies: "Alexander, I see that in addition to an open border agreement with Catherine, you're paying her 4 GPT for Cows and Copper from her. If you stop allowing her troops to cross your civ to attack me, I'll supply you with Cows and Copper for free..."

And, finally, it would also help in *declaring* war, and brokering peace: "Hey Toku, you see these Cavalry? Unless you *give* me your Dye, and, oh, some Gold too...yes, I know you only have one on each, but unless you give it to me, I will have my Cavalry come and take it from you..."

And, of course, if he refuses and war is declared, he can sue for peace under the original terms.

[johnmcd]

If you make rewards for multiple resource sources warfare and agression is even more powerful than it is today - you would absolutely need to create a check on growth and then we fall back into the Civ 3 pitfalls.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by JackRudd


Sell the AI a per-turn item and get a one-off item in exchange. Then declare war on said AI. You still have the one-off item, but are now getting it for nothing.

That has been nixed in Civ 4--the AI will now only accept one-off for one-off and per-turn for per-turn.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my thoughts on this subject are:

1) If you connect up a single source of iron-great, you now have iron and can build lots of neat stuff.

2) However, if-for example-your city has 12 cities but only a single source of iron, your iron dependant units/buildings are built more slowly-or your overall levels of production are lower.

3) At the same time, if you have 6 cities and 3 sources of iron-for example-you get bonus hammers and/or a bonus to building iron-dependant units/buildings (my money is on the former).

4) The upshot is: A small nation with lots of iron could trade iron to a larger nation-even IF the latter civ already has a source of iron of its own (but wants more for the production boost).

5) This is a very simple and effective means of implementing a 'semi-quantitative' model for resources.

Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, just thought I would clarify:

Dependant on map size, you might say that a single non-food resource can supply the needs of 4-6 cities.

For every city you have above this, your hammers per turn drop by 1, 2, 5 or 10% (maybe difficulty dependant?)

By the same token, for every city you have BELOW this amount, your hammers per turn are boosted by 1, 2, 5 or 10%.

Now, even if it was only a 1-2% penalty per resource, consider how many resources you may potentially have access to (copper, horses, iron, stone, marble, whales, oil, coal) and you can see that it can add up quickly-especially if you have a large empire.

Potentially, earlier resources, like stone and marble, might become redundant once you have an appropriate tech-like Steel, for instance.

Not only does this put a further dampener on rapid expansion, it also would create a more vibrant trade system, for the reasons I mentioned in the previous post.

Additionally, this model could work just as well for luxuries and food resources. Though the former might be that 1 source of a luxury can only boost the happiness of 4-6 cities and no more, wheras multiple sources of a resource could grant a bonus happy face. Food resources could give penalties/bonuses to food per turn and/or health.

Aussie_Lurker.

[padillah]

How about rather than be city-based it be population-based.

I.e. a single wine will add +1 happy face for 15 (or so) population points. This way you can have that winery supply three pop 5 cities or 15 pop one cities or one pop 15 city.

This will keep someone from comming back and saying " 1 iron can satisfy 4 cities of size 1 and 4 cities of size 32. This is unrealistic."

Tom P.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by johnmcd
If you make rewards for multiple resource sources warfare and agression is even more powerful than it is today - you would absolutely need to create a check on growth and then we fall back into the Civ 3 pitfalls.

That's why I said it would be good to need more of each resource as your empire gets bigger, if you want all of your cities supplied.

That both helps warmongers (by increasing the value of extra resources) and hurts them. It also keep trading useful and interesting, even late-game when there's only a few civs left.

[samspock]

Make each resource generate a variable amout of goods per turn and each city require an amount per turn based on population for luxuries and production based on what you are building. Suppose that an iron mine produces 4 units of iron per turn and to build a swordsman requres two units per turn. That would limit you to building two swordsman at a time. For thinks like stone and marble it would be one unit per turn making it so that you would get the build bonus on only one wonder at a time.

Luxury item could work on a one to one basis. You have 5 dye units being produced from a plantation and it will give a happy to each city up to size five. For bigger cities you would need more dyes.

More complicated but more realistic and give you a reason to trad and trade for resources that are already in use.

[ben04]

Or how about a resource "bag"? Each turn each iron mine adds a certain amount into this bag. To finish a unit you will need to spend resources out of this bag. If there aren't enough the unit can't be finished.

How about rather than be city-based it be population-based.

I don't think this is a good idea. You have a pop 15 city, you see 16 happy faces so you let it grow. Once it reaches 16 pop it suddenly is beone the cap to get the happy face from the wine and one civilian strikes.

[padillah]

Originally posted by ben04
Or how about a resource "bag"? Each turn each iron mine adds a certain amount into this bag. To finish a unit you will need to spend resources out of this bag. If there aren't enough the unit can't be finished.

This is probably the better of the suggestions thus far. It's not dependant on the number of cities or how many are producing what unit - if you have the iron SOMEONE can produce the unit.

Originally posted by padillah
How about rather than be city-based it be population-based.

I don't think this is a good idea. You have a pop 15 city, you see 16 happy faces so you let it grow. Once it reaches 16 pop it suddenly is beone the cap to get the happy face from the wine and one civilian strikes.

Yes, that's how it should be - that's how it is now. A resource adds +1 to a city, once you grow beyond that cap people start getting unhappy. How is that different?

What I'm suggesting is that a resource makes X pop points happy, when you need more happy - get more resources. But don't tie it to a city because the pop in a ciy can range from 1 (a couple hundred) to 32+(a few hundred thousand).

Tom P.

[Veritass]

This all seems like unnecessary micro-management to me. So instead of worrying about getting some wine along with all of my other luxury specials, I have to worry about how much wine I get, to make sure everyone gets enough!?

If you want to factor it in anywhere, factor it against inflation. Maybe you could raise the inflation a little if your resources are spread too thin, and lower inflation if you are abundantly supplied. That way it could have some effect, but not require a lot of serious micro-managing.