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

[Frugal_Gourmet]

I see what you guys are saying and -- believe me-- I understand the viewpoint completely.

You guys think it would be fun and add another (real-life) element to game play to have "oil" (and struggles to control oil) be a strategic element in the game. Surely it would be fun to have "oil" be at least a tactical consideration like it is in real life. And it wouldn't be complicated.

However, what I don't think you see is that this tactical element falls outside Sid's "focus" for the game and a very narrow focus for games is something Sid strongly believes in.

What you have here is a bunch of "resources" that are all treated equally by the game. And then you add one that is treated (and hence valued) differently. I don't know how you can't see that -- no matter how simple it is to implement -- this undeniably broadens the focus of the game. It loses some of the simplicity.
There are resources... and they are all treated the same.. except one has additional strategic value and is -- hence -- necessary to value differently. No matter how simple the change is, the complexity of GAME STRATEGY that must be used increases.

It may not be difficult to understand, but anytime the value of something changes in a strategy game -- the overall strategy for playing the game changes. So, you now you have players who have to take into consideration: resources, happiness, culture, technology, military, population, AND... (yes, AND) OIL. Why Oil AND resources? Doesn't the mention of resources cover it?

I submit that oil must be now considered separately from resources because OIL is no longer a generic resource. It's something DIFFERENT, and therefore it requires ADDITIONAL tactical consideration.

I still don't know if I'm communicating myself clearly, but this is why I think with almost 100% certainty that Sid isn't going to implement this feature...

In fact, I'll even make a small wager on it with you guys This is not going to be in the game because of the reasons just stated. Anyone wanna take the challenge?

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by 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.

Sounds good, but I still hope that we at least can edit and define alternative resources.

[Alfonsus72]

I agree Frugal Gourmet. That kind of things won´t be implemented.

The most complicated resource management system of a Sid´s game, I think it was colonization (you have to commerce with concrete goods to earn 1 gold). Later Sid´s games, has been less complicated. I guess Firaxis is trying games based on "solid rules" (but the few and less complicated possible).

[Provost Harrison]

Colonization was a fine art to get the right resources in the right place at the right time, and then process them all, ship them and maximise profits...but yeah, this will be a lot simpler, although I still do not think that this will detract from the game. If you don't have the resource, you should be able to repair your unit, simple as that...