conquests--unit balance even more absurd? resources?

[Caligo]

I just got the conquests and a few things are killing me. First off, did the devs completely ignore the common sense of military units? I just had 2 elite guerrilla units killed by a single regular spearman unit in one turn. WTF?!?!?

Maps....why aren't there any resources? I had a huge map with 6 civs and one coal resource. Considering how well the a.i. system handles trade, that worked out well. You can't get any resources unless you control the entire map, but you can't control the map unless you have the resources to produce better units.

[Kuciwalker]

Unit balance hasn't changed. The RNG's just messing with your mind.

[Jaybe]

Re: conquests -- resource scarcity

Originally posted by Caligo
Maps....why aren't there any resources? I had a huge map with 6 civs and one coal resource. Considering how well the a.i. system handles trade, that worked out well. You can't get any resources unless you control the entire map, but you can't control the map unless you have the resources to produce better units.

C3C generates about 1/3 less resources than PTW/Civ3. While many people scream bloody murder about it, many people appreciate (i.e., enjoy) the new scarcity. Not everyone is going to be a "power", and you may have to do some warfare to get "needed" resources.

I suggest you play a few games before you condemn it. After that, if you still cannot tolerate it, go into the editor and multiply the appearance ratios of strategic resources by 1.33. Either save as a scenario or backup the original -- Hall of Fame scores are not stored when played with altered rules.

[Wittlich]

Well stated Jaybe.

[Dis]

Re: Re: conquests -- resource scarcity

Originally posted by Jaybe

C3C generates about 1/3 less resources than PTW/Civ3. While many people scream bloody murder about it, many people appreciate (i.e., enjoy) the new scarcity. Not everyone is going to be a "power", and you may have to do some warfare to get "needed" resources.

I suggest you play a few games before you condemn it. After that, if you still cannot tolerate it, go into the editor and multiply the appearance ratios of strategic resources by 1.33. Either save as a scenario or backup the original -- Hall of Fame scores are not stored when played with altered rules.

I did not notice this. But it does explain why I've been getting ass ****ed on my resources lately and losing so many monarch games.

I made a thread on this, but I'm still not sure.

What should I set the resource seed to, so I get approx. 1 resource per civilization?

[Kuciwalker]

1.33 times what it is now.

[Dis]

the default is 0

[Wittlich]

So wouldn't 1.33 times 0 still equal 0?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dissident
the default is 0

Oh, that number. No, the number you should change is the Appearance Ratio for each strategic resource - go ino the editor, go to the natural resources tab, and there it is.

[Petrus2]

Hmm, if they did cut the resource appearance by 33%, then you should multiply the current number by 1.5 to get the original value. Mathematically at least, unless their is some other weirdness in the editor/game values.

[Antrine]

Caligo, I actually agree with your opinion completely! However since there a very good and on some accounts great game editor. You can mod to taste. My Assassins (you see I rename a lot) do not die against spearman, but then, I beefed them up a little, .

And I have no resource scarcity issues, none. I beefed it all by hand to about 2000% with pre-built roads so the AI's would not miss getting things.

So what is the problem? It has only taken 10 months to accomplish the wonderful?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Petrus2
Hmm, if they did cut the resource appearance by 33%, then you should multiply the current number by 1.5 to get the original value. Mathematically at least, unless their is some other weirdness in the editor/game values.

The cut was determined by experimentation on what seemed a standard map, so it may have been 25% cut, not 33%. I had just quoted the author without studying the results chart. I would have provided the thread link (from Jan-Feb I believe), if I had had the sense to preserve it.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Jaybe

I would have provided the thread link (from Jan-Feb I believe), if I had had the sense to preserve it.

heheheh, no worries about going out of your way to find the link. I was really just pointing out you can't cut by a percentage, then raise by the same %, and get the original value.

I gotta admit, I like the reduced incidence of resources. At least the strategic ones, less luxuries isn't as enjoyable. But in a recent game, even though I had about 50% of my continent I had zero iron. Was paying off the Arabs for a supply for a long time until I dealt with the lesser nations near me. Then they got uppity and I had to forcibly remove their iron from their country. Well, I forcibly removed all their cities from their control too

But it was challenging and fun keeping them appeased while I dealt with other problems, knowing that sooner or later, they'd have to pay...

[Dis]

at least you were able to pay them off. I couldn't secure iron and coal at the same time until 1934! So I couldn't build railroads until 1934. Needless to say I lost the game . See my no iron thread in the general forum.

Now I don't expect it to be in my territory every time. but at least have some fairly close so you can take it by force. In my case the iron was so far away, I would have lost the game trying to get it. I lost anywas, but my point is the lack of iron was a game breaker.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Petrus2
Hmm, if they did cut the resource appearance by 33%, then you should multiply the current number by 1.5 to get the original value. Mathematically at least, unless their is some other weirdness in the editor/game values.

They cut the resource appearance by 25%. The 33% statement is false. By the way, this was not done by purpose, but is a result of the new bonus resources like sugar and tropical fruit, which take away some slots from the strategical resoures. This hasn't been corrected, which means it is a bug.

You need to multiply everything by 1.33, as was stated correctly. Set all what is now at 160 (all early resources) to 213. Set all what is now 120 to 160. Set Uranium to 140 (not exactly +33%, but 140 gives better results than 133).

Another option is to get rid of Conquests. Ebay is your friend. I hope you got it as best buy. Everything more than $5 is overpaid.