C3C : Strategic Resources Scarcity Sucks!

[Cort Haus]

3 saltpeter and 3 coal on a 6-civ continent. Interesting perhaps for the wargame, but more like death for the trading game, and a PITA in MP I expect.

In fact, this mod has blown away one of the few viable peace strats in Civ 3. By removing likelihood of any strategic resources coming onto the market, war is now almost mandatory.

A better implementation would have been a user option on the startup - like aggro factor or barb level.

[Theseus]

Do we have any hard data on this?

I've read a bunch of anecdotes, and in the one epic game I've played mostly through, I had some real issues as well... no friggin' horses!

[vmxa1]

I can only add my perspective and it seems to be rarer than before C3C. I like the idea of sometimes having to get one resource by hook or crook, but I do not be missing several and they are not on the land mass either.
I want to be able to take them or trade most of the time. It is fair to not get them at all from time to time.

[chequita guevara]

I like it rarer.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I like it rarer.

Ditto. I think it is inappropriate to always be peaceful. The resource scarcity applies pressure that is often not "comfortable", as IRL.

For a thread at CFC with the "facts" on the new distribution, see
Distribution of resources in C3C is TOTALLY different (details)

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I like it rarer.

More interesting when there's not enough to go around.

[nbarclay]

The biggest problem I see with the new system is that there is no opportunity to try to outbid an existing trade partner for a resource. Barring war, deals between AIs tend to keep getting renewed even if the human player could (and would like to) offer a vastly better deal.

Many wars have been fought because one nation wanted to get something another had without paying for it. But having to fight a war just because the game's economic system isn't complex enough to let you outbid another civ for something you need or want is another matter entirely. That feels too artificial to me.

Nathan

[alva]

Barring war, deals between AIs tend to keep getting renewed even if the human player could (and would like to) offer a vastly better deal.

Maybe more of an Civ4 thing but some auction type deal cold be nice.
-
I do prefer the scarcity way

[Jaybe]

WHAT I like about the resource scarcity is how, in my current game, I had to take extra care to avoid rioting when I had only 1 luxury. Now I am sharing tech in exchange for 2 more lux, and what a relief!

An added little bit to chase away any tedium....

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Jaybe
I think it is inappropriate to always be peaceful. [URL]

Well, I think it inappropriate to always have to fight wars for resources.

Most countries in the world don't own or control oil regions - they buy their oil on the market. What's wrong with that?

[Donegeal]

I have now twice played an epic game all the way through. All settings random (except raging barbs) on Regent. Both times I have ended up on a medium sized continent with some mountians, a little desert, some turndra and a mix of plains/grass (with a fair amount forested). In both cases, no Iron, no Horse, no Saltpeter, no coal, no rubber and no oil (I did have uranium but I always won before aluminum became visable). Frustrating? Without a dout. Interesting? It adds an entire level to the game that you just don't experince if you have the resources. I think I like it.

[Donegeal]

BTW, I think it lends itself to be more peaceful if you don't have resources than the other way around. No Iron means no Swordmen. No Horse means no Horsemen. No Sword/horse means no offense. No offense means no war.

In both the cases above, the situation forced me into a builder mentality (I bee lined for lit to get the GL then sent out curraghs to get contacts. While I was slowly working on contacts, I built up my treasurey to rush buy nearly everything I could. By the time I had contact with everybody and got Education, all my cities had built all improvements and were then working on Uni. The tech race was over. The AI could not keep up with perfect cities. Since I had no resources, I just made sure everyone liked me and never fought.)

[Mountain Sage]

I just played a few games so far but I must confess I like the scarcity of resources (for now, that is).
No horses? go for swords.
No iron? go for horses.
No iron and horses? archers and play it nice.
No saltpeter? play it VERY nice.
No aluminium? take your old cavs out the mothballs.
No uranium? become Secretary-General.

As for the luxuries, it makes the game more challenging. How many times were you able to trade for all of the luxures and have more happy smileys in your city than pop points?
Now you have to think carefully what you want to trade and with whom. Marketplaces and the Sistine become more mandatory (!).
And if you feel yo're screw...?
well, play differently and post on the 'I might be losing' thread

[Cort Haus]

No coal?

[geniemalin]

Needing iron and coal to build Railroad means if you don't have and can't trade for either of them, you're in trouble (as developing through the industrial/modern era basically assumes you have railroads - not to mention the military advantages they convey....)

In the games where I haven't had Coal (I've funnily enough never had a no-iron game) I've been forced to launch a war to get it.