If you lose access to a resource, do your units stop working?

[Alfonsus72]

Well, at least in Civ2, wars uses to lenght a lot, your initial forces uses to be killed easily (if you have a competitive enemy, I mean), and constant replacements are needed, so resource embargoes tends to be quite effective in that case.

Anyway, I would prefer some realistic aditions like that of the "need oil to move tanks", cause its historical and not so complicated to simulate. "Need men to muster units" is also a must.

The example of the 1:1 map is simply ridiculous, with that logic you would prefer a game when every civ have a dize, and the one who more scores wons the game. Some simplification is badly needed, but realistic details make the game good and funny.

[Skanky Burns]

At the very least we know that an embargo + attrition = an enemy without tanks.
IMO if an enemy has already ammassed 100 tank units, its a bit too late to try stopping them then with diplomacy.

BTW Provost, nice new signature

[Tjoepie]

I like these idea's because no-one can ignore the fact that in modern times the presence and availibility of oil was and still is one of the most decisive factors in global economy and warfare.
Two good examples are the fact that in WW2 Germans wanted to capture Southern Russia for its oil and then got in throuble at the end ( see the battle of the Buldge in the Ardennes) when they where short of it and their panzers ran out of fuel while they could have pushed back the allies out of Antwerp with there surprise attack and change the strategic theater by splitting up the allied forces . And most recently I don't think the Gulf War would ever been fought by the US if oil was not a strategic factor.

That being said to relate the importance of oil in the game I would put it like this : Resources should be kept simple.
1 oil well = 1 "oil" per turn.
To produce 1 oil combusting unit = 1 "oil" is consumed.
To move 1 Oil combusting unit = use of 1 "oil"
And if a civ has no more oil availible, all oil consuming units move 1/2 of there normal movement.
The rest is stockpiled evenly in every city and can be used in time of need or lost is the city is lost.
That could be done for all resources to build the idea of strategic reserves, wich I for one would love to see implemented.
Lets face the fact , modern wars are won depending or your ability to massivly produce weapons in a well "oiled" industry. (see US during WW2)
Anyway all depends on the availability of those resourses during the game, and I suppose it is too late now to implement these chenges in the game now.

BTW does anyone have an idea by what way to get Civ 3 the fastest in Belgium ? By ordering online in the US, or waiting for it to come in local stores ... I'm allready drooling you see :-) LOL

[Pagan]

I like the idea of requiring oil for support. Of course oil producing countries would sell me oil at a reasonable price, or would find themselves conquered faster than they could say “I surrender.”

There is always alcohol. Grow corn, make war! Oil crops could be used to make synthetic diesel. Expensive yes, but needed only until you move your army to an oil producing country and pound some sand up the @#$ of the leader who forgot to sell you oil at a “reasonable price.”

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If handled properly restrictions on resources will add extra dimensions to diplomacy and strategy without bogging the game down. For example, in the case of oil, make it that every country has a 3 turn strategic reserve. When your civ gets cut off, you have 3 turn to re-establish supply or face the consequences

Makes perfect sense to me. You will have to renegotiate to acquire more oil, perhaps temporarily at great cost from someone else (profiteering on a restricted good, perhaps he could source your oil from your enemy, but then sell it back onto you at great profit ) until your military power comes to bear on your belligerant enemy and then *wham* you have the oilfields, you have all the laughs. Providing your military is up to it!

[Frugal_Gourmet]

GIANT thumbs down!

Big thumbs down for this idea.

Contrary to what is being stated here, this idea DOES add an extra level of complexity to Civ. One that, I might also add, does very little to make the game more strategically interesting.

Try this experiment: write out -- in complete detail -- how *exactly* this idea would be implemented and how it would work in the game. You'll find that it's much, much more difficult from a gameplay standpoint than it sounds.

Fortunately, anyone who's ever heard Sid talk about his game design philosophy should know this has a 0% chance of ever being implemented. Generally speaking, Sid doesn't add levels of complexity -- however seemingly minute -- unless those levels of complexity add a bevy of interesting choices and strategic variations as well.

Just be happy that a loss in oil means no new tanks can be produced. This is as complex as it will ever get in Civ.

[Fiera]

I think it will work the way you put it, but I still don't see the complexity in the "no oil, your tanks don't work anymore" scenario. How's that complex?



It's not like you'd be drawing supply lines. It's just a frigging simple rule that everyone could understand, and it would add strategic depth.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

... but I still don't see the complexity in the "no oil, your tanks don't work anymore" scenario. How's that complex?

Well, to be fair, that isn't really the idea I was arguing against. And if the idea simply is: you lose ALL your oil and your tanks stop working, well, that really makes no sense either. Surely your tanks just don't stop working the minute oil supplies are cut off.

This idea really adds very little to the game, in my opinion.

But if you want to add a more "realistic" version, that's when it starts becoming unncessarily complicated. That's kind of what I was railing against.

[Gramphos]

I want to clarify myself a little.

I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: GIANT thumbs down!

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Try this experiment: write out -- in complete detail -- how *exactly* this idea would be implemented and how it would work in the game. You'll find that it's much, much more difficult from a gameplay standpoint than it sounds.

My suggestion is aburdly easy to implement.

For example: on turn n you're cut off from oil supply. You have turns n+1, n+2, and n+3 to secure a new supply of oil, either by conquest or diplomacy. If you fail, all your units requiring fuel can't move [or maybe some other forms of penalty] from turn n+4 on. All it needs is a check of supply status at the beginning of a player's turn, and start a counter if certain conditions are met.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

And one way to implement that (without undue complications) is to allow civs to move their tanks/etc around, using an alternate fuel (assumed knowledge - they dont need to research it), but only give them 2/3, 1/3 or 1/2 movement points due to the less efficient alternate fuel.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

Why? That just runs against the idea of making most modern units dependent on fuel. It makes oil fields of paramount strategic importance, and wars will be fought over them - like what happened in the real world.

[gremalkin]

Why play around with movement? Surely a nice simple rule like when you lose a required resource you cannot produce or repair the relevant type of unit. This will recreate attrition and suggest a certain amount of stockpiling..

This is not remotely an attempt at realism, at all, and it would add tremendously to game play.. You would have to defend certain resources.. If you have managed to upset all your opponents a total world embargo against you would really hurt, which means you have to keep at least one ally..

It wouldn't surprise me if this is in Civ3.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why? That just runs against the idea of making most modern units dependent on fuel. It makes oil fields of paramount strategic importance, and wars will be fought over them - like what happened in the real world.

Sweden has no oil. During World War II all cars were driven by wood-gas. We still have no oil, and we are working a lot on both using Ethanol and Methanol as fuel.

[Kc7mxo]

I think the simplest solution has already been pretty much said.

If you lose all your oil resources, then all units that requrie oil lose 1 movement. This owuld represent that they're now running off their stockpiles and what they can loot.

And its not a big deal to implement. A simple flag in your civ, and a simple flag on the unit and whenever you try to move a unit when you don't have oil, it will only go twice.

And this would defiently slow down those germans with their hundred tanks, without stopping them in their tracks. Caus anyone who bothers to build 100 tank divisions is also going to have stockpiled some oil.