Dividing Oil

[VonSharma]

For the most part, the resource system set up is pretty good but it doesn't really make sense once a civilization adopts free market. The reason I mention this is because I lacked oil and it was only one square beyond my border and before I could procure some on the continenta Azteca, Washington came in with a couple of tanks and artillary and annihalated my valiant cavalry. It didn't really make sense that I couldn't even obtain a single barrel of the stuff.
So first of all, for example, even with a single iron deposit, its use should not be infinite. How that would be implemented, I'm not sure. With oil today, any country can obtain it on the world market as long as their is no active embargo imposed on the country. And even though the US has its own oil deposits, it still has to rely on others for its oil.
I think like religion, this could open up another possibility to really elevate gameplay, where if you have deposits of oil, you could choose not to join the free market, but once you do, your oil would be available to other countries on the free market. Of course you'd make a crap$oad of money from your oil. However, if you want to deny access to a potential rival, you could choose not to benefit from the $ you'd get from joining the free market and keep your oil for yourself. And in fairness, those countries that don't have valuable commodities to trade, would maybe lose out some in the free market, to balance things a bit.
I mention this idea as well, because many modern countries policies do not inevitably lead to free market, free speech and so on, but in civ this is what ends up happening. There should be more incentives to take the disincentives of authoritarianism.

[patcon]

What a neat idea! A country with excess amounts of a resource could trade it for other resources or gold! Of course you'd have to have to some way of transporting the goods back and forth, so maybe you should have to have a "trade route" between your capitals - either roads, or rivers, or coastal tiles, or even sea or ocean once you got a tech which allows you to cross those.

[rah]

Hmmm can't you already trade your excess resources for other resources or money?

[Tattila the Hun]

You misunderstand his idea.

[Garth Vader]

His idea incorporates an "amount" to resources which I think is long overdue. One source of Oil is enough to build and run any number of units? I think not!

[MikeH]

Maybe not, but from a 'fun' point of view having amounts of resources would add a lot of micromanagement that I don't think would add much fun. Also, you've potentially got a situation where whoever has the most copper/iron/oil wins because they can have a bigger army. It'd skew things even more towards the warmonger than they already are.

[VonSharma]

Well, the idea I proposed has been suggested in some form before, with having finite/tradeable resources (I don't think anyone suggested a transition though with free market).
It shouldn't really be micromanaging though. If you have excess, or a lack of something, it could indicated somewhere and you could trade it like you have excess gold. I think this would be best implemented after entering the modern age and after choosing a civic (say free market), that would allow your commodities to enter a commmon market (other civs that are also free market economies.. or other civs that have signed up for some other trading bloc). There should be heavy incentives and penalties for making the decision either way, as many countries face today. I feel this would add another dimension to the modern era game play and reflect what has played out in our world today.... If countries trade becomes so interlocked, no matter what their differences, they will never go to war (ie all of Europe, Europe and the US, even the US and China which will never actually fight because their economies are so interdependent). And there will not be a global free market for sometime, and no country is completely a free market today. Even the US has tariffs on foreign steel and sugar.
Regardless, the one thing that needs major overhall in Civ5 would be trade. It has continuely been neglected from earlier civs, and trade and economics has been more important to human civilization than culture, diplomacy or warfare.

[Dis]

the views seem contradictory. You say in the OP that iron should not be infinite.

But then you expect the AI's 1 oil resource to be infinite enough that he could trade excess away on the free market.

But others are wrong saying 1 oil resource should not power your entire army. There simply aren't enough oil sources in this game!! At least not on my maps. I'm lucky to get one. Though I usually get 2 (only because of my large empires). The ai's often don't get any. There isn't enough oil in this game. Until they give us more resources, oil should be infinite.

[VonSharma]

That's exactly my point though. Countries that don't have oil are able to obtain it in the real world without mortaging their entire country away (in civ it either costs you an insane amount or any country can just deny you) but in reality, countries purchase commodities at more or less market value (and some give others discounts, which wouldn't be abiding by the free market civic).

With iron, i was just making the point that this should be civic related. In ancient times, civs did trade resources like that.

And to solve the problem of the dearth of resources, there should be more scattered around everywhere, and like someone suggested before, each iron deposit could supply X amt of swordsmen, Y other units, and so on. Also, mentioned before, hammers and wheat should be tradeable between cities.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well an idea I had was something along these lines:

Based on map size, a single resource deposit can support X cities. So, as an example, lets say a single resource deposit can support 4 cities.
If you have fewer than this number of cities, then you get a bonus. If you have more than this number of cities you get a penalty. Again, as an example, an Empire has 3 seperate iron deposits, this means that this iron can support 12 cities in total. If the empire has only 10 cities, then it will get a bonus. If the empire has 15 cities, then it will get a penalty.
The bonus/penalty will depend on the resource type. Resources like Iron, Copper, Marble etc will effect production times.
Resources like fish, wheat, corn etc will effect population growth.
Resources like incence, gems, gold etc will effect maintainance costs.
Resources which have double effects (like gold, whales and cattle) will impact on more than one area.

Now this idea, I feel, will have a number of benefits:
1) It will be another nail in the coffin of ICS.
2) It will make diplomacy/trade more important.
3) It will open up new strategic options for player.
With the last two points, instead of a straight "oh I already have iron, so we have nothing to trade with you", it will instead be a "we have insufficient iron reserves to meet our needs, may we have some of your surplus?" Does the player refuse as he is enjoying his bonus, or does he instead recognise the importance of having this guy onside (and having his money ) and do a deal? The only problem I have is-could the game be modded to include such a system?

Aussie_Lurker.

[MikeH]

You can mod pretty much anything with the SDK, I'm sure that'd be possible. Training the AI to be able to work it out would be tricky though.

It sounds like more economic micromanagement to me, which I'm not keen on.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

But it really is no different from making sure you have the food resources necessary to grant your city health. You would simply pass your mouse pointer over the City Growth bar-for instance-and it would tell you what resources are benefitting or harming your growth rate (the number you have vs the number you need). As I said, no great MM involved there, yet so much benefit.

Aussie_Lurker.

[MikeH]

But if you are losing out due to lack of resources you have to locate them, so what's the benefit? I have to go to war more for more resources? I get attacked more when I have them?

[VonSharma]

Originally posted by MikeH
But if you are losing out due to lack of resources you have to locate them, so what's the benefit? I have to go to war more for more resources? I get attacked more when I have them?

Well, sometimes history has played out like that. Right now in Iraq for example. Its actually no coincidence that only one country in our world that has enough oil for export is not completely messed up.

For resources, they should be more abundant and limited. That way your economic and military growth can't completely stagnate or you can't become a modern age military powerhouse from one oil well. It would be different for earlier ages too.

And along with some kind of change in resource access, they need to change the movement system as well. There should be more commerce available in the land, but there should be coin costs to movement in unpaved terrain outside your borders (lesser costs for paved). This way one can accurately move more than the length of switzerland in 50 years.

[SFADAMS44]

If you want the game to be more realistic, finite resources should run out, like in Civ3. Of course, I hated the way that worked with no warning and no inclination that it would happen. Here's a solution, though it in itself is not all that realistic.

Finite, non-renewable resources (coal, iron, oil, gems, etc) should have a number on the map indicating the relative size of the deposit (maybe the number doesn't show up until after you start working it?). The bigger the number, the more there is. This could then translate into what you have to trade. If you have coal(3) mined, you have 1 coal for yourself and 2 to trade.

The more the resource is used, the quicker it runs out. So with your coal(3), if you used it just for yourself, it might run out in 300 turns, but if you traded your excess to 2 others, you might each get 100 turns before it runs out. I don't think it should be quite so pretty as 100 turns/resource number, it should depend on how much the resource is actually being used (building railroad tracks/coal plants/using your rail system, etc) but this is just the basic idea.

Then when the resource is down to what would amount to coal(1), you start getting messages that your resource is dwindling. This would give you a chance to break off your trade and work a little on preservation if possible. Or look for another source somewhere else on the map. Resources should cause wars, and anyone with a big resource should have a target on their back. If you don't want that target, the AIs will likely get some cheap resources from you.

The concept could even be applied to somewhat renewable resources like seafood, ivory. These would be consumed much more slowly, or depending on their use, never, regardless of size. I guess they wouldn't even get a number at first, not until their use exceeded the availability. At that point, a number could be put on the map with a message indicating it.

This would make some technologies more valuable. Recycling could prolong the life of some resources. A new tech of "conservation" (which could be available much sooner than recycling) could preserve both renewable and non-renewable resources.

Just a thought. A little long winded (sorry).

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
1) It will be another nail in the coffin of ICS.
Aussie_Lurker.

btw - I've seen this in a number of posts - what's ICS?