Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Verdict on Strategic Resources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Final Verdict on Strategic Resources

    There has been alot of suggestions regarding strategic resources and how there should be ways that civs could improvise and still survive if they dont have any say, oil, or coal.

    I agree that as far as gameplay balance and realism an implementation of a mod that could offset an unlucky lack of strategic resources on a player's land mass is a great idea.

    Im sure the programmers are heeding the advice of countless gamers who are frustrated by games where their great empire crumbled to no fault of their own because they had no oil.. Im sure the programmers are considering including a mod to the resource problem in their upcoming patch...

    I sincerely hope they do not. There are alot of good reasons to change the dynamics of civ3 and make it easier on civs who get unlucky with the resources, but, by reducing the desperate need for resources players have in Civ3, the game will lose that spark, that soul that it now has.

    There is no way I can describe the feeling of finally finding that precious iron resource and finally being able to build my first special unit. This feeling is why I play civ. Its being able to for just a moment here and there in your life, escape the realities we live in and actually lose yourself in your empire building.

    The strategic resource aspect of the game could very well be more realistic and balanced, but I hope they do not change anything about it.

  • #2
    Agree, except that the AI needs to be a little better about trying to get those resources. In my huge monarch game, the Romans have been without iron for thousands of years, all the while I had a little outpost city pretty much within their borders that I put there just to prevent them from getting the iron adjacent to it (I didn't have a territory connection to the city, but had several other sources myself. That's huge for you). Despite the fact that they could've easily taken it at any point, they never tried, nor did they ever even demand the city or try to trade for it. I didn't start seeing legions until like 750AD by which time they were no threat.

    My point is that the resource deal does kind of spice things up for the player, but eventually you just grab one of everything you need from some AI civs who don't seem to want them back very badly. In that sense, it's just another advantage for the player. On deity I'm sure you need every edge you can get, but on the lower levels it just makes the slaughter that much easier. Or would if it weren't for the completely random combat system...

    Comment


    • #3
      One way of addressing the issue would be to provide alternative units that can be built if the resource is missing. These would be less powerful versions of the unit that is available if the appropriate resource is present.

      For example, suppose that you have got an advance that allows you to build swordsmen. If iron is available, swordsmen might have a power of 3 because their swords are made of iron. If no iron is available, bronze swordsmen with bronze swords can be built, but these only have a power of 2. The iron swordsmen would be better, but your empire won't curl up and die simply because you lack iron.
      None, Sedentary, Roving, Restless, Raging ... damn, is that all? Where's the "massive waves of barbarians that can wipe out your civilisation" setting?

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello,

        My last game really had issues with resources, the only coal (2) on a large map 5 civs, were right in the middle of Japan's empire. It was a continent game and 4 of us shared one while Japan had it's own by the time I was able to find the 2 resources of coal Japan was the strongest empire and held both of them. The way I understand it there should be 2 coal spots for every empire on a large map. This really made the game suck because I had the highest tech level and Japan hadn't got to steam yet, so they couldn't trade with me. I ended up having to give them the techs to get there and then they still wouldn't trade with me even though we had great relations so I was stuck, and also gave them all the extra techs. So no Railroads for me to move my forces around the map quickly to battle the other civs on my continent. I survived but it still sucked. Only 2 resources of coal for 5 civs just doesn't seem right. Sorry to ramble but I love the resources and I think the way they are random is great but this could be a game halter if it was oil, rubber or aluminum.

        JKremer35

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree and I disagree. I do think that the resources allocation formulas and the chance of depletion needs to be reworked. HOWEVER, I do not agree with 'spending more gets me the same thing.' Let us take WWII as an example. Fought solely for resources. Germany need 'lebensraum' (living room). When the allies bombing the oil fields in Romania towards the end of the war, the German war machine ground to a crawl. The shortage of oil in the German military was a major factor in their defeat. Japan would have completely run out of oil in 6 months due to the allied economic embargo. That was the sole reason they attacked the US and took the East Indies.

          Their placement and depletion might need improvment, but that fact of the matter remains, oil is oil, and if you don't have it you can build all the tanks you want to but they won't run anywhere.
          A plane ticket to Afghanistan: $800
          A high powered sniper rifle: $1000
          A hotel with accessible roof and visibility: $100
          A shot at the head of a piece of **** like Osama bin Laden: Priceless. For everything else there's Master card.

          Comment


          • #6
            Perhaps CIV3 needs new setup options in the world creation screen.

            Strategic Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
            Luxury Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
            Bonus Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant

            Scarce might be 0.7 resource per civ, Normal is 1 resource per civ, Abundant is 1.5 resources per civ. Multiply as necessary for each "common" resource like coal and iron, and apply different rules for Bonus resources.

            Forgive me if this is already present, I don't have the game yet.

            New resources should also be created at a slightly faster rate than they run out (say 5 to 4), and their creation should be much more likely if the number of each strategic resource is less than the number of civilisations. There shouldn't be only 2 Coal on the map if there's 8 civs.
            None, Sedentary, Roving, Restless, Raging ... damn, is that all? Where's the "massive waves of barbarians that can wipe out your civilisation" setting?

            Comment


            • #7
              Ummm.... The idea of the game is to have strategic resources be useful. If everyone had it and had access to it, it would be pointless.

              If people have their great empire crumble, they were at fault. Great empires last because they have resiliance. The culture of blaming everyone else for your own fault is getting out of hand. If you're great empire crumble because you can't get oil, you have only yourself to blame for not planning ahead. Especially now that we all are aware of the importance of strategic resources.

              Another point, the combat has been tweaked so that if you don't have special resources to build tanks and the like, you can survive an attack from modern army -- even if its tough. but we got a whole another batch of people whining about that.
              AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
              Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
              Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

              Comment


              • #8
                I love the idea of resources making more of a difference than in CivII. But the implementation in CivIII is horrible, at the best of times. Strategic resources are simply too important. Example: in my most recent game (huge map), I had advanced horseback riding (horses visible) very early, and, of course, there were none on the continent - a rather large continent. Okay, that's okay I figure, I'll find some sooner or later after exploring the map a bit more. But, there's some pesky Romans running about, trying to take everything over they see. So, no horsemen, no fast attacking force. Fine - I'll get them with swordsmen. Or so I thought. As you can probably guess, upon advancing ironworking, no iron. Now, it's essentially impossible for me to keep up with the Romanses, as it were. Without at least a decent attacker (archer not included at this point), I'm dead. I can at least no longer defend my property adequately (no pikemen), and I can't pose a real threat to anybody. By the time coal or oil come around, it's too late to matter.

                This happens every F***ing game, too. Different resources, same story (well, the era changes, as well as which units I get screwed out of). I can't tell you how tired I am of this, and I've played enough games now to know that this is not a rare event. I have yet to play a game and have access to all strategic resources. Now, this is actually kinda cool. The other day, I launched the great rubber action - to call it a war is glorifing it too much. In an earlier game, I recreated desert storm. This was fun, and good, but when the AI attacks and expands without any sense of strategy or common sense early in the game, acess to strategic resources becomes much more necessary. I find it interesting that luxuries aren't much of a problem. I'm not saying that they're ever anywhere near my capitol or my initial area of influence, but I can usually find one easily. However, luxuries don't keep me from building important units. In my opinion, strategic resources are far more important than luxuries. And the AI, jerk that it is, will never - never - trade intelligently, so this is not the solution I hoped it would be.

                This is truly enough for me to never play this game again. Realism arguments are fine, but they're pointless. This is a game - gameplay issues are more important than whether or not somebody would've attacked somebody in the real world. If I wanted the realworld, I'd watch CNN all the time, and wonder what the Taliban's Civ score would be right now. There are too many problems with this game that are difficult to fix to not address one that is easy. Don't be blinded by a love of all things Firaxis and Sid to not notice a bad game, with serious gameplay issues.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, you don't live or die by not having horses. or oil. or steel.

                  There is usually a substitute resource you have that you can use to your advantage.

                  That's been my advantage. And if not, you probably have a luxury you have you can use to trade for that resource.

                  In one of my games, I didn't have coal, the civ to the north of me had coal. I massed my Rifleman (pretty decent units and no special resources required) and attack. I took the resource.

                  In fact, the game's best all round unit is Infantry, a unit you can get with no resource requirement.

                  Same goes for Rifleman. A good unit for the industrial age, no resources required.

                  Don't be so selective. Not having hourses has never broken anyone's game, save for the guy who gave up.
                  AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
                  Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
                  Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not talking about just not having horses, damnit. I'm talking about not having BOTH horses and iron. So, not only could I not attack, I couldn't defend. And I'm not talking about "giving up" either. When half of your cities are taken, regardless of the size of my army, the game is over - especially if it's early in that game. That's my point. Limited strategic resources early is deadly. You're absolutely right - lacking horses isn't the end of the world. But when you're screwed out of having several strategic resources at once, it's a huge disadvantage. No horses and no iron make Cyanide a pissed off boy. And as I've said before, this is not the only time this has happened. It's the most recent, and most likely the last. Until there's a patch or this issue is addressed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ummm.... The idea of the game is to have strategic resources be useful. If everyone had it and had access to it, it would be pointless.
                      Exactly. Strategic resources are fine... coal could appear a tad more often, but every civ shouldn't have access to every resource.

                      Perhaps CIV3 needs new setup options in the world creation screen.

                      Strategic Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
                      Luxury Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
                      Bonus Resources: [ ] Scarce, [ ] Normal, [ ] Abundant
                      Gee I wonder where I've seen that before. Good idea, great minds think alike.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When the vital resource is on your same stretch of land but in another's civ's yard, taking it by force is always a rather easy option. In one game, Japan had the only horse resouce on our small continent ... and so he used it like crazy. Of course, my spearmen and catapult-fortified cities wore him down and I have now stripped him of his lands and can now produce the Chinese special unit: The Rider.

                        But when these resources are on another continent entirely, the difficulty goes up exponentially. The jury is still out on that one, but I think you've just got to suck it up and trade like a madman if you can or go to war / make do if you can't.

                        I rather enjoy that dynamic, but I don't have enough enough games under my belt to see if it's a tweaking problem or a player problem.
                        I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                        "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Cyanide:

                          I had similar issues until I decided that my nearest neighbor HAD TO DIE at all costs. So now I kill his settlers coming my way. I build toward him, fence him in. I have lots of warriors early only. I expand expand expand then expand again for good measure, skipping most any infrastucture early on.

                          With my neighbor crushed, I can relax.

                          I'm not saying this is always a 'fun' way to play ... but it is, actually. I play on Monarch level BTW, for what that's worth thinking about AI aggressiveness.
                          I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

                          "Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cyanide
                            I'm not talking about just not having horses, damnit. I'm talking about not having BOTH horses and iron. So, not only could I not attack, I couldn't defend. And I'm not talking about "giving up" either. When half of your cities are taken, regardless of the size of my army, the game is over - especially if it's early in that game. That's my point. Limited strategic resources early is deadly. You're absolutely right - lacking horses isn't the end of the world. But when you're screwed out of having several strategic resources at once, it's a huge disadvantage. No horses and no iron make Cyanide a pissed off boy. And as I've said before, this is not the only time this has happened. It's the most recent, and most likely the last. Until there's a patch or this issue is addressed.
                            Once you learn how to play, you'll grow to like this great aspect of the game.
                            "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum." — William of Ockham

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cyanide, there may be some tweaks that can be done to calm you down. I believe Firaxis is actually considering tweaking the map generating engine to cut down on strategic resources going on one place leaving some players screamings.

                              But in anycase, I find that it is actually fun to play from behind. As I've said, the game have plenty of non resource units that hold their own. You may need a few extras fortified, but its not hopeless. And from experience, if the game is such that you don't have many strategic resources close to you, you'll probably find luxureies instead, and believe me, the AI will want your luxuries once the game gets going.

                              Again, strategic resources give one a strategic advantage, but not an absolute advantage. You can get around it, and believe me, knights do have a hard time cracking spearmen in cities. If you lack iron and horses, you can fortify your cities, build them up to get defensive bonsese, and build an army of longbowmen to attack while your spearmen defend.

                              No offense, but I find all this complaining a little counterproductive. You have a point, but I think it is more a challenge than the game being unfair. I;ve played games where I've gotten horses and iron, or saltpeter and iron, so i know for a fact the game engine doesn't discriminate. just tone down the rhetoric if you're dealt a bad hand. Rome wasn't built in a day, so goes the famous saying. What people miss is that Rome didn't have much of a strategic resource either. It was just another city state in the Italian peninsula. It was strategy that helped the Romans consolidate their power, and that applies to the game just as well. You can have all the goodies in the world, but if you're strategy suck, it won't do you much good.
                              AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
                              Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
                              Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X