Whats up with resources?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The name of the game is "Conquests", plain and simple, and not "Kumbaya Singing Wacko Peacenick".

[Arrian]

Preach it, Frater Ralphus!

-Arrian

[Krill]

Heh, SR, come back to Gathering Storm! At least that is still PTW...

[Antrine]

Chronic lack of resources, creates ‘AI wimps’ not ‘human wimps’. Humans are generally aggressive, conniving, and clever or ***** here a lot.

[Solomwi]

Sir Ralph, now you're getting it.

[vmxa1]

I beleive SR was be facetious.

[Solomwi]

As was I.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The name of the game is "Conquests", plain and simple, and not "Kumbaya Singing Wacko Peacenick".

What!? But my version is called "Civilization: Kumbaya Singing Wacko Peacenicks". I've got to stop buying my games from guys wearing trench coats working out of dark alleys.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that lack of resources reduces the options for the 'havenots'. Conquering is fine and all, but I'd like the option to attempt a peaceful means to acquire a resource (i.e. buying). By the way, Conquests refers to the scenarios, not the 'epic' game (at least that's my opinion).

[Cort Haus]

Xorbon, I agree with you that having to go to war to secure resources limits options, reduces the scope for peaceful play, and cripples the resourceless AI.

Many players like this though, as (a) it makes their wars more meaningful if they have to go and conquer a resource and (b) it does make for more killer AI's, which war-intensive players like/need to keep the game interesting for them. Personally I find knocking over Spearman-Civs with Cavalry to be rather unsatisfying, but people who use this a lot seem to disagree. The debate has raged on both the Strategy and AU forums with passion and the odd dose of acrimony.

I'm not sure whether the scarcity was intended or not. More bonus resources were added to C3C for marketing reasons and I think that the map generator has less space for strategic resources as a result. Check the box - "New resources to fight for control over - Tobacco, Jade, Sugar, Exotic Birds". Yeah - like we've all had those decisive tobacco wars. Maybe it should say "Less resources to fight for - scrap for the single source of Saltpeter on your continent".

[Xorbon]

I'm not so sure the new resources (from Conquests) have anything to do with the lower appearance rates of the other resources. I ran a test of randomly-generated C3C maps using the default rules and a modded ruleset in which I deleted the new resources. The appearance rates of the luxury and strategic resources weren't any different between the two sets of rules. That leads me to believe the resource scarcity is by design, and is not because of new resources 'crowding out' the old.

[Solomwi]

The only way I can see the new resources having anything to do with it is in the design phase. Game mechanics-wise, it's obviously by design, since it's so easy to correct in the editor. Design-wise, though, I can see the thought process of "Well, we have x number of new resources, so let's cut the appearance of the old resources so the map isn't too rich."

[Antrine]

Bless them wonderfully, for sublimely giving us such control via the game editor. That said, 'resource rich'? Have you seen 'resource pollution'? Now that is a map!!!

[Solomwi]

Yeah, but I prefer a map where a bonus grass is cause for mild celebration.

[Theseus]

IIRC, the decrease in resources was an unintended consequence of the introduction of volcanoes.

[Solomwi]

Please explain, T. I'm having trouble piecing that one together.