Resources

[Blaupanzer]

Word is 1 resource = 1 unit in Civ V. So, more units of the same type require more supporting resources. This makes sense for horses and may make sense for fuel-based units (tanks, destroyers, et al). However, it makes no sense for the metal-based units that dominated militaries for the most part for 6,000 years. Units that use metals do not need the resource to survive, only to be built. One iron would mean you can only BUILD one iron unit at a time, but would not limit the number that can exist with completed weapons in hand. Loss of iron would anger those units but not disarm them. Again, without horses, your mounted unit would attrite quickly, but not pikemen, swordsmen, etc., with no iron.

Early units using stone (warriors, early spearmen) would be unlimited I would think, unless there is a population component in the units. If there is a population component, that would allow for militias -- people who draw weapons from armories in case of war, but do more useful things in peacetime.
Emphasis is on "IF." Just thinking out loud.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

What is this "word" exactly? Like citation?

[Proteus_MST]

It doesn´t seem to be clear how many units are supported by a single source of a resource...
IGN for example speaks of 5 units per source of iron:

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html

I assume the step is purely for gameplay purposes and, to be honest it seems to make sense:
Lets assume that your enemy gets iron (or saltpeter) first while you don´t have any access to said resource...
in previous parts you often would be doomed as sooner or later the enemy could build up an army full of units much more sophisticated than your own (thanks to the resource) and would sooner or later apper at your doorsteps. Well, now with just around 5 sophisticated units per resource he might have to plan his invasion into your country much more carefully

[Kropotkin]

The same resource that's needed to build a unit is propably in most, if not all, cases also needed to maintain them. The timeframe of Civilization is years, decades, centuries and even millenia. People die of old age, weapons decay in one way or the other. With the obvious exception of that annoying militia-unit that could stand close to your capital in the old Civ - that unit was actually manned by 3000 year old men with the same stones and wooden spears that they left home with in 2300 BC.

[Felch]

I'm guessing they'll balance this by making the strategic resources more common. So instead of there being one iron resource per player, there could be 3. Then it's more of a matter of "My opponent has twice as much iron as I do" instead of "He's got iron, and I don't." So it's less of a game ruiner. Missing a strategic resource now can be intensely frustrating. With this, I'm guessing it'll just be a minor hurdle.

[giblets]

I guess if they wanted something that makes sense they could say one iron source means you can have one city producing an iron unit at any given time.

[Ming]

It will be interesting to see how they handle the distribution of resources. However, they have favored the "fight for resources" mentality in the past, so it will probably be continued in Civ V.

I really hate it in Civ IV when you race through the tech tree... just ahead of your opponents, and finally get to SM and find out you don't have any oil... and there is no really good place where you can take it from another civ.

[Cort Haus]

I really hate it in Civ IV when you race through the tech tree... just ahead of your opponents, and finally get to SM and find out you don't have any oil... and there is no really good place where you can take it from another civ.

This is why I love Standard Ethanol Corp

[Brael]

I like the idea gameplay wise. Since civ 5 seems to be going with fewer more important units it makes sense to limit them by resources. One thing I was thinking though, is that I hope there's some sort of diminishing returns on resources.

For example say 1 iron gives you 5 swordsmen, then 2 iron gives you 8, 3 iron gives you 10, and each iron after that only gives you 1 more. The reason I'm hoping for something like this is, otherwise it would become too easy to just overpower your enemies. Say there's 3 civs and you each have 3 iron, take 1 from each and you go from a 1:3 fight to 1:1. It just seems like it would too heavily favor a gigantic empire.

[rah]

If they do that, i'll be interested to see if they allow sabotaging a resource. Imagine your enemy poised with a spy on every one of your irons and on the first turn he is successful in sabotaging all of them and WHAT, would your entire army disappear?

[wodan11]

Better would be more like how RifE does it. Resources can be used two ways (and the designer can make an intelligent decision based on realism and gameplay, for each case, between #1 alone, #2 alone, or both).
1) required to build
2) combat bonus while in play

So, if you lost the resource (lost the trade, or sabotage), you would simply lose the bonus.

[rah]

That would be better

[Ming]

Yeah... since it seems like you will be limited to the number of units you can build per resource, I don't see why you should lose them once they are built if you lose the resource.

Granted if a spy trashes a resource, or if you lose it due to enemy action, you should no longer be able to continue building the unit, just like in Civ IV.

[rah]

The only exception that would make sense would be Oil. How many battles were lost due to lack of fuel?

[Ming]

A good point... but losing oil doesn't mean your unit should disappear... Run out of fuel and be stuck somewhere, yeah... but lose the unit... I don't think so