AU Mod: Resource Scarcity

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You know, there are more players than you and me out there. Most of them never visits an internet forum, and most of them aren't typical warmongers either (at the countrary). Do you feel it just to impose your quest for a challenge on everyone who plays this game? Or do you want all of them to change the ratio in the editor.

Neither of us are qualified to speak for the Civ3 masses. I for one am not trying to. Insofar as you think that you're doing Civ3 (the game) a service by arguing that there should not be any resource scarcity, I suppose I feel I'm doing the same by arguing there should be. And yes, it happens to coincide with what makes me enjoy the game at this particular time.

I'm not particularly interested in dredging up the whole "the game should be designed for Chieftain-level players" again.

In terms of the topic at hand, I do expect everyone that uses the AU mod to have visited an internet forum (namely this one). This is a "take it or leave it mod", which we hope, with good design, most players that come here will "take" instead of "leave". It remains to be determined how many players here really do like resource scarcity (speak up!).


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Total War ("pure warmonger"): always at war with all civs.
Total Peace ("pure builder"): always at peace with all civs.

Hybrid falls between the two; being always at war with one civ only falls into the hybrid category.

There is no such thing as "always at peace with all civs" in Civ 3 if an AI decides to attack you. Therefore, I don't think comparing a builder style that refuses to engage in wars of aggression with quite such an extreme warmonger style is entirely fair.

Perhaps more importantly, consider how each of those two styles of play relates to the nature of human civilization. Try imagining a real civilization that would always declare war on every other civilization it meets and refuse to ever make peace. I find it extremely difficult to do so, and even more difficult to contemplate how such a blindly and stupidly aggressive civilization could possibly survive. (Not that I see anything stupid about playing that way in a game if that's what a player enjoys, but it is a style of play that should be expected to be exceptionally difficult if the game is at all realistic.)

In contrast, the ideal of never fighting wars of aggression is is much easier to contemplate. The issue of how a civilization might rise to become large and powerful without engaging in aggression is rather problematical, but if a civilization could do so, there is no inherent problem in its staying that way for however long it is willing to - unless a more powerful civilization or group of civilizations would succeed in conquering it. The game reflects that reality beautifully: a civilization that won't engage in wars of aggression (even in response to having been attacked) won't grow in territory, but can prosper to the extent that its ability to grow its economy permits.

Sir Ralph is arguing that the C3C resource scarcity takes away from the pure builder style of play. I'm arguing that inherent in that style of play is potential resource shortage. A hybrid player is not adverse to going to war to solve this resource shortage problem.

And Sir Ralph and I are arguing that there is no reason why the inability to obtain resources even through trade should be inherent in that style of play, except maybe on rare occasions when the map generator is exceptionally uncooperative. Even without the resource issue, a player who refuses to engage in wars of conquest is giving up a lot of potential advantage. It does not take resource shortages to make a hybrid style of play the most effective.

[nbarclay]

For those of us who don't follow all the discussions in Civ-land, does anyone know for sure whether the greater resource scarcity in C3C was deliberate or the result of a mistake?

[SirOsis]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that reduced resources result in the requirement to be a warmonger. Certainly you will not have access to every unit in the game I don't think there are many buildings that require a specific resource.

Your forces will need to be more varied (spear and longbowmen) without iron to defend attacks. The added bombard defense of the longbowmen will certainly help in defending your cities. You should be able to support a large defensive force to support your "builder" style without controlling all resources.

Is there an AU course that just requires building and defense with no active attacks? Such a course would certainly be interesting with the current resource levels.

[nbarclay]

From a builder perspective, the question of being able to build particular types of units is less of an issue than two other things. One is the fact that if coal (or, more rarely, iron) cannot be obtained either natively or through trade, the civ's production capacity will be seriously undermined because it cannot build railroads. The other is that if one or more of the resources needed for spaceship components is unavailable, a space race victory - which I understand to be the most traditional form of builder-style victory - will be impossible.

Alexman's idea for a possible compromise was to increase the frequency of the resources involved in those two issues but leave the other resources at their lower C3C values.

[ducki]

My goodness!
So much I want to reply to, particularly Nathan's posts, but I am too tired to actually do the cut & paste routine from so many different people's posts, so I'll just stick to the one argument that struck me the hardest and the one argument that tempers is the most.

nbarclay finishes with: (4) In the real world, I can only think of two times when nations that do not have a strategic resource natively are unable to obtain what they need (especially for military purposes) through trade: (a) if they are cut off by war or embargo and (b) if they cannot afford to purchase the resources. I've never heard of a nation that couldn't build infantry no matter how much they were willing and able to pay because the world did not have enough rubber to go around, or that could not build tanks because the world had too little oil, or that could not build spaceship components because the world had too little aluminum. Thus, while I consider the local and sometimes regional shortages found in previous versions realistic, I regard the worldwide shortages in C3C as highly unrealistic.

Dominae later one responds to a different post with: Civ3 is a hybrid game:

Nathan, that one piece won me over more effectively and was far more convincing than anything else in this entire thread having to do with balance, playstyles, gameplay, anything.

By the same token, Dom is right. It is a game. About building an empire. And winning or losing or learning. Emerging victorious over all other empires in the game.
It's not really a sandbox, though it serves as a fair substitute. It is a game. With warfare, diplomacy, resource management(!), commerce, development, strategy, tactics.

And I think alexman has found a fair middleground. Don't forget, the AU Mod is a changing thing. Sometimes we think that if we "lose" a debate on a change now that we'll never get another chance to argue the point. But that's why we have the AU Courses(in part) - so we can have a semi-controlled environment to test the changes we make, to see if they fit our mission.

And Sir Ralph - I'm apologize if I/we made you feel unwelcome - we get pretty heated on some of the issues, and this issue in particular is very polarizing. Just because we argue/debate against what you say doesn't mean we're not listening or that there's noone else that supports your viewpoint - today it probably just meant that they were still at work/school and don't get to post during the day.

So, to sum up, Nathan's "realism" argument won me over to the peaceful player's side, but not completely, because it is a game and needs conflict of some sort some of the time, and alexman did a nice job of splitting the issue down the middle and finding something I think is at least worth trying out in the next version of the mod.

Good arguments all.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
One is the fact that if coal (or, more rarely, iron) cannot be obtained either natively or through trade, the civ's production capacity will be seriously undermined because it cannot build railroads.

So? Ever won a game without Coal? Me neither...I sometimes had to work my butt off to get a source, and it was fun. Ever organized wars among the AIs so that an extra source would free up, available to you by trade? It's fun. Coal appears to be the one Strategic resource that most players must-have else they complain. So it's not really strategic, is it?

The other is that if one or more of the resources needed for spaceship components is unavailable, a space race victory - which I understand to be the most traditional form of builder-style victory - will be impossible.

Yes, that is annoying. Then again, expecting to win the Space Race is just like expecting to get Coal. It's perfectly within one's grasp to rectify the situation (or just avoid it...win by UN), but players choose not to.

In short, SirOsis has the right idea in that the game is not "ruined" because you have to work for your resources. At least, not for me.


Dominae

[Theseus]

I'm with ducki... damn, this thread and all of the intensity of arument came outta nowhere!

Good stuff, but, fer chrissakes, calm down.

Considering where we are, let's just go back to the original goals of the AU Mod (and yes, remember that the target audience is, in fact, those who are the audience by virtue of finding this fourm ).

[This thread, while interesting and engaging, just wore me out... g'night.]

[Ision]

I for my part do not see any need to tinker with resources - the so-called resource scarcity is highly overblown. The moderate resource change made from PTW to C3C was a positive and welcome step by the designers. Let us not be so quick to forget our PTW experiences which if anything - indicated an over abundance/availability of resources. Changes to the resource % should not be considered for the purposes of any particular person(s) play style preferences. Pure warmongers, pure builders, pure... anything... playing at the extreme end of the game - will always result in a desire to tinker with the game in order accentuate the enjoyment of that particular 'extreme'...

Dominae is completely correct in stating that the game was designed primarily as ' hybrid' builder/warmonger game. That standard should always act as the 'center point', with the players that choose to play the extreme end of either spectrum, having to adjust to the 'standard' - what is being proposed is a change to the 'standard' in order to adjust to the extreme end player.

Ision

[Aqualung71]

While I enjoyed the approach that the strategic resource scarcity in AU501 forced me to take, I'm a little ambivalent about the issue overall. Luxury resource scarcity is fine.

I played 2 demigod games back-to-back recently: in the first I lacked Iron, Saltpeter and Coal and given that I'm not a regular demigod player it sucked to say the least. In the second game I fortunately had the resources I needed. However, the second game was substantially more difficult due to other factors such as inadequate territory size, terrain and the relative closeness of a nasty KAI.

My point being, there are other random game factors that probably play just as big a part in the overall game experience you will enjoy. I am not saying the resource scarcity has no impact on strategy in the majority of case - it clearly does. Just wanted to weigh in with another angle, since I think both sides of the argument have already been pretty well documented.

[Aqualung71]

As an aside, this debate illustrates that the resource aspect of Civ3 is ridiculously simplistic, and something I hope is addressed in Civ4.

Nathan's comment about resource acquisition in real life is spot on. The resource model should be changed so that it's not simply a case of whether or not you have a particular resource to build a building/unit/improvement, but how much of that resource you have available. And there are plenty of RTS games that can show the way in that regard.

I know that doesn't help the current debate, so it's merely an observation.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
In terms of the topic at hand, I do expect everyone that uses the AU mod to have visited an internet forum (namely this one).

You forget, that the decision of the "experts" here will most likely have impact on whether the bug will be fixed by Jesse or not. He lost the support of his company and will somewhat rely on what's spoken here. So you probably will impose your understanding of "fun" on every new player until Civ4 comes out.

This is a "take it or leave it mod", which we hope, with good design, most players that come here will "take" instead of "leave".

No, it is not. It is a "take it as basis and mod it until you like it" mod. I modded back Alexmans nerfed Republic in the PtW versions, because I couldn't bear it. I will have absolutely no qualms to mod the current version, too. I am aware, that in this case I can't participate in AU courses and post in comparison threads, but this is a downside I take with ease.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

No, it is not. It is a "take it as basis and mod it until you like it" mod. I modded back Alexmans nerfed Republic in the PtW versions, because I couldn't bear it. I will have absolutely no qualms to mod the current version, too. I am aware, that in this case I can't participate in AU courses and post in comparison threads, but this is a downside I take with ease.

Another approach would be to put up with aspects of the AU Mod that one strongly dislikes in AU games but play with a modified version of the Mod the rest of the time.

[Arrian]

Yikes, this can get a little... abrasive at times.

I still agree with SR & Nathan, although I have my own "I don't know why I'm fighting this" thing: I have used the AU mod all of once, in a PTW game. That being said, I think I'm going to use it in the future.

The key issue here that sways me is that, from the builder perspective, it's not so much that you have a right to expect to HAVE coal or some other resource, but that you want a decent shot at TRADING for it.

Personally, I will almost always elect to go fight for the resource, but that's my choice. I wouldn't like it forced upon me because there were a total of 5 sources of a resource in the world and they were spread amongst 5 AI civs (thus, no trade possible).

I like the idea of increasing half of the strat resources, per alexman's proposal. Give that a try and see how it works.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Right. The fun part is not the fighting per se, it is to meet the right choice in the right time. Dominae greatly misunderstands me here. In the right situation, i.e. if I want to cut the wings of that particular civ to prevent to get it too strong, I will also rather take the resource than by all means trying to trade for it. On the other side, if the civ in question is small and weak, I may not want to weaken it more.

It's the process of decision-finding, what makes this game exciting. But you can't meet decisions, if you don't have options. Leave more options in the game, people. Firaxis has streamlined it enough.