Whats up with resources?

[Demiurge2332]

Since I bought the new Conquests exp. Resources are VERY hard to come By! It seems to be much harder to find resources that are Vital- Saltpeter, Oil and Rubber.

I have played maybe 6 games with the Conquests exp. All But 1 time did I bnot have all the resources I needed. It was never like this before! Did they make it harder to find resources in this expansion? If so does any one know why? It become ridicules when I am 5-8 tech advances ahead of my nearest rival, only he can smash me because he has salt peter and Rubber.. I am trying to defend cities against takes with Pike men.... I think they went a bit far with this and it makes the game less fun. Well that and the Insane Corruption levels! Don't get me wrong, obviously I love the game. I just don't see the need to make resources THAT scarce? Anyone have any good stratigies to help with this?

I am sure this has been mentioned before... But I cant find anything about it.

[Dis]

resources are harder to come buy in Conquests. This is not a bug, this is how they intended it to be.

Personally, I don't like it. There are ways to change this back...

[Aramis]

Use the editor (be sure to save game seperately). Multiply resources by 1.33. Gives roughly the same distribution as PtW, which had much more resources as Conquests.

[Demiurge2332]

Thanks. It is Ironic that as I write this I am playing hte first game where I am not out of a stratigic resource.. LOL. I ended up with every one 'em this time. Even a surplus of rubber, Oil and horses. But I have to say they (Firaxis/Sid) went way to far with this. I have ended so many Promising games becouse there was really no way I could get the resources I needed. Often The AI would take advantage of that fact-- More than three would declair war at once and devide up my broken empire.

It looks like I am going to have to go into the editor to make something a little more balanced. I havent yet done this ( Never even been in the program) But I want a more enjoyable game. The corruption issue needs fixed badly as well.

Thanks again

[Dis]

Some say it's more fun with less resources. I don't say so.

I don't mind it if they are at least on the same continent. That way I can go get them using warfare if need be. But sometimes there's not one resource on my entire continent (which admittedly isn't real large- I play small and standard worlds), but still... There should be at least one resource on every continent.

[Kuciwalker]

Without fewer resources, there's no competition.

[Whoha]

I've noticed that in Vanilla if the AI doesn't start with the resource it needs, it won't make the effort to go find it like a player will. This part of the game really hurts the ai if resources are scarce.

[Antrine]

Well I am continuing to test the game configured opposite of 'scarcity' for purpose of;

-general playability, replayability
-fun
-challenge

So far, very playable and replayable
fun, yes mostly sometimes needs addition of other factors. Such as, limiting settlers, beefed up undeclared war via a good assortment of 'hidden nationality' units. Many other factors play in here, however it would be digressing.
And lastly, a challenge, absolutely, the AI's are all always formidable and deserving of respect. So much so, that fewer the AI Civ's the better.

My conclusion here now? A sharp lack of critical resourses (ones used to make units or improvements) makes for a more predicably shallow game, often not fun or playable.

DISCLAIMER This is my opinion not meant to slam anyone, this is my opinion based on MY game playing prejudices! Albiet, backed by lot of test time and other player observations. Though I still note many like 'vanilla'. I used too, now it is the darkest possible chocolate, the darkest possible coffee, intense flavored berry ice cream etc, etc...

[Whoha]

Having a no settler game is pretty fun, but also 1 sided.

[Antrine]

Actually, handling settlers is a very exciting topic, with a twist this thread will do?

Each starts with a predetermined amount of setters. Currently it is 12/6. Twelve for each AI and 6 for the human. (few AI's though)

Next, the pyramid wonder is made small and an easily available build in the capitol only. It produces a settler every 7 turns.
Deeper into the game a tech allows city building of settlers at a very high price both in shields and pop.

Additionally there are two units available in measured quanities at first, that can spawn settlers during battle via the enslavement tag.

As well, there is a spider unit that can 'kill' settlers in short stacks, like unto an assasin.

Gameplay, the settler is a the true 'king' unit. Especially, because the map is so resourse rich, equivilant to double or accelerated games.

The tech tree is mult-branched; you can go for building settlers direct, it is expensive. You will/must build the Pyramid first off. You can trek down somewhat easier tech limbs so you can build units that spawn settlers via battle in a on-going undeclared war or declared war. One settler spawning unit is regular and the other in hidden nationality.

This way a deep game culture is created all around 'settlers' and holding/controling key sites. Also 'undeclared' war via hidden units is at least half a wild as regular wars. But not always as barbarians are heavy duty and require a lot of attending.

This way the game play is not one-sided, instead very dynamic and only 1/3 of the CIVs get overly large. These AI's are routinely strong enough eat each occationally, completely. Or the human, if they are not clever and careful!

Anyways, game testing continues...

[Dis]

limiting settlers. interesting. I may try that.

[Xorbon]

Less available resources, while increasing competition, makes buying and selling resources less of a viable option. Too few resources means fewer surplus resources for a civ to sell. In C3C, there are many times where the only way to get a resource is by capturing it from another civ (usually by military means). 'Havenot' civs are frequently stuck with just one method of acquiring access to resources: by conquering.

[gunkulator]

Agree with Xorban. The solution however is not to increase the frequency of resources. A better answer is for strategic resources to clump like luxury resources do. So instead of, say, 2 iron resources on a continent, there should be 5 or 6, but clumped in 2 areas.

[Harovan]

The name of the game is "Conquests", plain and simple, and not "Kumbaya Singing Wacko Peacenick". Who lacks resources, should do exactly what the name suggests, have a nice conquest and get some. It's that simple. And with the time you will learn, that it's much more fun to defeat a resourceless AI than one with resources.

Stop complaining about lacking resources, people! You ruin the game for us true fans.

[Jethro83]

Its more interesting being a 'have not' civ. Conquering a neighbour with a better equipped military is far more satisfying than punching away at a technologically inferior neighbour like a common bully. Whether it is by strength of numbers or a war of attrition I can look back and be satisfied with having triumphed against the odds.

One time as the Greeks, I started without iron and without horses. All three of my closest neighbours were traditionally aggressive civs who did manage to acquire iron and horses. Naturally, they teamed up and picked on me and I had to fight off their swordsmen and horsemen with warriors and archers, using more than just basic tactics, exploiting the advantages the spectacular terrain around me had to offer, as well as avoiding any engagements that would send my hoplites into action and trigger a premature golden age. It was one of the greatest moments I had playing this game when my conquest of all three of them was complete (even though by then, I could match them knight to knight).

Had I started with iron and horses just like them, it would be a very bland and boring experience. I'd still need to use tactics that would prevent them from attacking my hoplites, but it would be too easy to do so with horsemen.

Victory is worthless if you have it handed to you on a silver platter.