Since we're going crazy about resources...
Here are my thoughts on the subject.
It seems to me that there is a lot of focus on making the resource dependencies model how things "really were". What about what could have been?
For example, ship cannons. Ship cannons in Europe were principally made of iron, because iron is cheap. Bronze (which is copper based) makes much higher quality cannons, but at a much higher price. So if there was no iron available to, say, the British, its not like they wouldn't be able to make cannons. They would simply figure out how to use something else.
Is it possible so set the resource requirements to either/or?
For example, spearmen can be made with copper OR iron.
Or, you could simply add another unit to the game that shows up with the same tech advance, but requires different resources.
I think it would be possible to be very creative with this.
Example: "horseback" riding. (probably should be "stirrup")
Civs with the "horse" resource (central Asia) can build horsemen.
Civs with the "elephant" resource can build mounted elephants (higher powered and slower, but higher cost)
Civs with the "reindeer" resource can build reindeer cavalry (the Finns had these, I think. I'm serious)
Civs with the "llama" resource can build llama cavalry (which move across mountains faster).
Subsequent upgrades (like knights and cavalry) should use the same resource. (Llama knights!! You know you want one!)
Confine each resource to different locations, the way luxuries are now, so it is very unlikely that one civ would have both. Result: very interesting battles between Egyptian reindeer and French llamas. It'd be great!
Other examples:
* spearmen that use bamboo instead of copper.
* cannon that use petroleum instead of saltpeter? (is that impossible?)
* electronics that use gold instead of copper (I think gold is actually better for this.)
What do you think, sirs?
Here are my thoughts on the subject.
It seems to me that there is a lot of focus on making the resource dependencies model how things "really were". What about what could have been?
For example, ship cannons. Ship cannons in Europe were principally made of iron, because iron is cheap. Bronze (which is copper based) makes much higher quality cannons, but at a much higher price. So if there was no iron available to, say, the British, its not like they wouldn't be able to make cannons. They would simply figure out how to use something else.
Is it possible so set the resource requirements to either/or?
For example, spearmen can be made with copper OR iron.
Or, you could simply add another unit to the game that shows up with the same tech advance, but requires different resources.
I think it would be possible to be very creative with this.
Example: "horseback" riding. (probably should be "stirrup")
Civs with the "horse" resource (central Asia) can build horsemen.
Civs with the "elephant" resource can build mounted elephants (higher powered and slower, but higher cost)
Civs with the "reindeer" resource can build reindeer cavalry (the Finns had these, I think. I'm serious)
Civs with the "llama" resource can build llama cavalry (which move across mountains faster).
Subsequent upgrades (like knights and cavalry) should use the same resource. (Llama knights!! You know you want one!)
Confine each resource to different locations, the way luxuries are now, so it is very unlikely that one civ would have both. Result: very interesting battles between Egyptian reindeer and French llamas. It'd be great!
Other examples:
* spearmen that use bamboo instead of copper.
* cannon that use petroleum instead of saltpeter? (is that impossible?)
* electronics that use gold instead of copper (I think gold is actually better for this.)
What do you think, sirs?
Comment