Tweet
I have the solution to the resource issue. If you lack a resource, make units that require it cost 2X or 3X as much. This would be much more realistic... I mean, look at the real world. Does Japan have oil? Iron? Uranium? Saltpeter? Rubber? Generally, the answer is "no" - not enough to supply their needs, anyway (not that saltpeter is used anymore). So they have to import it, and it is more expensive that way.
When Japan and Germany ran out of oil in WW2, it caused a lot of problems. They could still use tanks and planes, just not nearly as freely as before... in other words, it was more expensive. What did NOT happen was for either of them to start resorting to phalanxes. Furthermore, Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons now. Do either of them have uranium deposits? I have no idea, but let's pretend they don't. Uranium can still be purchased on the black market (read: Russia and China) or mined from exceedingly low grade ore. The result is that both countries have nukes, but not many because it is way more expensive for them than it is for the US. Iron and aluminum are mined from rich ores (ferrite and bauxite) cheaply. However, they can be mined anywhere in the world - aluminum is one of the most common elements in the crust, and any reddish dirt has iron in it - it is just prohibitively expensive compared to importing it from a country with good deposits.
The idea that a country can be left in the stone age because they don't have rubber trees is silly. However, it DOES make sense that a lack of local coal or oil would make battleships and jets more expensive (to use - but it is easiest to reflect this in their build price).
Perhaps the cost multiplier should be x1 if you have a resource, x2 if you don't have the resource but someone you are not at war with does, and x3 if you don't have the resource, and everyone that has it is at war with you.
At the very minimum, I would appreciate the ability to alter strategic resources (which I like) so that instead of the default property of allowing things to be built, they could alter the cost of those things.
-Saber Cherry
Edit: Clarified subject.
When Japan and Germany ran out of oil in WW2, it caused a lot of problems. They could still use tanks and planes, just not nearly as freely as before... in other words, it was more expensive. What did NOT happen was for either of them to start resorting to phalanxes. Furthermore, Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons now. Do either of them have uranium deposits? I have no idea, but let's pretend they don't. Uranium can still be purchased on the black market (read: Russia and China) or mined from exceedingly low grade ore. The result is that both countries have nukes, but not many because it is way more expensive for them than it is for the US. Iron and aluminum are mined from rich ores (ferrite and bauxite) cheaply. However, they can be mined anywhere in the world - aluminum is one of the most common elements in the crust, and any reddish dirt has iron in it - it is just prohibitively expensive compared to importing it from a country with good deposits.
The idea that a country can be left in the stone age because they don't have rubber trees is silly. However, it DOES make sense that a lack of local coal or oil would make battleships and jets more expensive (to use - but it is easiest to reflect this in their build price).
Perhaps the cost multiplier should be x1 if you have a resource, x2 if you don't have the resource but someone you are not at war with does, and x3 if you don't have the resource, and everyone that has it is at war with you.
At the very minimum, I would appreciate the ability to alter strategic resources (which I like) so that instead of the default property of allowing things to be built, they could alter the cost of those things.
-Saber Cherry
Edit: Clarified subject.