Resource Levels in C3C vs PTW/Civ3

[=DrJambo=]

Basically I wanted to set up a poll to help the Firaxians decide on the best method to deal with the current resource situation.

Do you like having the current level of resources in C3C or would you prefer the plentiful resource levels in PTW/Civ3? OR would you prefer somewhere in-between the two, if that's a possibility.

Personally, my view is a positive one on the current resource levels. With the lower levels of strategic resources, it's forced me into making decisions I would not necessarily have followed giving the plentiful supply of resources in previous versions. It's forced me into wars againt bigger nations that I would have always avoided and forced my to adopt new strategies based on resourcce limitations - all of which have added to a highly varied gaming experience.

You might be unfortunate to lack iron or coal, but when rubber, oil or aluminium arrive, you might be the lucky one! Fortunes change and the Ages come and go and nothing is guaranteed simply because you may be biggest civ. Look at the US in real life and oil!

It can allow a potentially smaller civ take on a bigger civ should they not have an important resource like rubber or oil. In previous versions this was never a likelihood.

With the units like archers, longbowmen, riflemen, guerillas and TOW infantry, new wonders like the Statue of Zeus and Templar Knights, and a constant change of important resources in each of the Ages, it's always possible to compete even given the shortage of any particular strategic resource.

However, I would also not be against a resource level somewhere in-between those found in C3C and PTW/Civ3, if that was also a possibility.

Opinions and votes most welcome as always.

Regards

[Fatwreck]

I like most if it like it is now... but there should be more coal otherwise a civ can get really far behind by not building RRs

[furrykef]

I'm with a couple other people who said there should be enough resources for everybody, but they're clustered like luxuries, so they can still be monopolized if the lucky owner desires (though of course that carries the risk of the whole world declaring war in an effort to survive...)

- Kef

[Shogun Gunner]

I like the C3C model of resource distribution.

However, in the Civ Future section where the Civ 4 lists are hopping. Someone posted a great idea about "resource levels" which would more evenly distribute coal around the world, but some countries would have an abundence and other's would be lacking. Trade would be a bit more interesting. Also sophistication in using your resources gives the opportunity for a bit more strategy.

[Fatwreck]

that´s a nice idea, it really is rather silly that one supply of coal (or any other resource) can supply your whole empire...

[Xorbon]

Where's the "All the resources should be bananas" option?

Actually, I think the luxuries are a bit too clustered now. I know it's supposed to encourage trading, but it's a pain when each luxury has just one civ who controls it. (And that civ is the one you're at war with. ) Monopolies are bad for competition, as I always say.

[Donegeal]

Somewhere inbetween. I have as of yet (in about 15-20 games) had a game with Iron in my core. I have either always had to fight for it or trade.