Resources...annoying, but a good thing

[Jaundice]

I hear a lot of complaints about resources and their lack of abundance or location. Yeah, I'll admit that I get frustrated when my Empire covers a large land mass and my neighbor with only 5 cities has like 4 ore deposits and I have none. But....this makes game play more interesting and realistic. For the first time in Civ, city placement and strategic value is VERY important. And as in real life...oil and other resources aren't found in every location. It makes you use diplomacy and sometimes causes war to seize a resource. Plus, the more militaristic civs can't just role over those who are scientific or pacifist if the latter are in control of the oil and rubber deposits. It makes holding onto a key city imparative. Comments?

-JD

[Grunthex]

Agree, completely. Every war in my current game (for me at least) has been over resources. I am NOT an evil warmonger, I swear (even though I have like 35% of the land now).

I had to kill the English for their Iron. They wouldn't trade. I had to invade the Iroquois for Coal. I was gonna kill the Egyptians for it, but they beat me to it, leaving themselves majorly overextended.

Then my coal dried up, and I was forced to take on the tough guys, the Americans. Several razed cities later, I had access to a new supply of coal, and coincidentally, the Americans had lost access to saltpeter, so they can choose between knights or riflemen on the attack for a while. Slowed down their expansionist ways. They'll have infantry soon though, and tanks soon after. Poor Romans.

And I'm getting tired of trading 4 excess luxuries for the Greek wines my people love, so another short war might be called for soon.

[Jaundice]

Yeah, trading luxuries/resources does become a pain later in the game. It becomes a slowly rising ladder of extortion on thier end.

-JD