Oil is not well

[Warhammer]

Don't forget at the end of the war the Japanese ships lacked the oil to mount any operations (or very limited ones) against the allies.

The point is, you can get the resources, if you want them. It may not be as you would like to, but if it is that important you will get it.

Example:
As the French, I discover steam power. First civ to do so. I look at the map, and I have 0 coal, but the Russians have some excess, as do the Iroquois. So I GIVE them the requisite advances, and voila, I make the trade and I get coal. Not only that, but my generosity makes some game long friends.

The one item regarding resources I would be open to, is a toggle on the world selection screen for few/standard/tons for resource settings...

[Frito]

If you don't have a certain resourse then its up to to you as a leader to find one. I just beat the game on diety and my main island did not have iron, coal, saltpeter, rubber, or urainium on it. I guess they could put an option into the next patch to remove resourse requirements and revert back to civ2 style.

[Dalai Lama]

I like the concept of waging war on a civ because of resources very much. The game proves to be a lot more challenging. BUT, a little more resources and tweaking can`t hurt, I think.
Example in ancient era and middle ages: I`d say the chances you have and horses, and iron, and salpeter on your continent should be very very very small. And when you would have them all, you should get `punished` later on in the game with for example, no oil and no rubber.
On the other hand, I believe that every civ should have a more or less equal number of resources.
Example (overall view, late in a game): all the civs have had 3 or 4 resources on their home continent.
Like this:
- Greeks; horses, iron, rubber
- Romans; iron, saltpeter, oil
- French; horses, saltpeter, uranium,
- etc
- AND a civ with 4 (or even 5) resources, should be the envy of other civs, especially if they won`t trade. Alliances against that civ should also be easier to forge. The AI should wage war then (also see topic `Fun without war is pretending`) on that i-have-more-resources-than-the-rest-civ.
Anny comment????


By the way: the very first game i started (Germans), i was on a medium size continent (good for 15-20 cities), but there was no fresh water anywhere... This is really annoying, u can`t wage war over water or trade it...

[Zizka]

Frito. Not your main island .. but what about the rest of your empire?
But the point here is not all resources but oil. All of the other resources have more limited scope and are, by technology and obsolecence, rendered no longer needed. No saltpeter.. no problem.. get nationalism. No Horses then just wait for better unist (besides cavalry and chariot are pretty crappy units). NO Coal. Just ironclads are affected.

Again and again I repeat I am not asking for free oil but the possibility that liek the earlier techs .. there is (albeit costly or labour intensive workaround.) In general peacetime economies are not as constrained in their access to resources.

I am also getting a bit enough of the Japan analogy. Yes Jaspan had limited fuel AFTER she invaded China and attacke dpearl harbour. she had many natiosn INCLUDING the US trading for oil. yet in Civ III I could be teh kindest and most benevolent ruler to my neigbours and still be left with no-one wnating to (if they have any at all) trade for it. Its too much of dead end technologically. Indeed trying to get teh AI to trade resources even at lower levels is an absolute impossibility. The only 1 time i have managed to get coal i had to trade 3 techs, 300 gold and 20 gold per turn. If a nation "invested" that much into alternative resources and or exploration.. would they be able to find it.

Lets also not foget the silliness that resources are needed to BUILD the units.. not to mainatin the, You only need coal to build your railways .. but after you ahve built them you dont need any at all. same for Oil based units. LOL the Japan scenario fall sflat on its face by that logic the Japanese should have been able to keep their fleet running indefinately at full steam!

Lets leave history in the history boosk and lets talk about game balance.

Z

[Barchan]

True, Germany and Japan both had access to oil prior to the war. But once war broke out and trade on the international market all but ceased they had little to run on but reserves. Neither Japan nor Germany produces any oil worth mentioning domestically; it's all imported. Both countries wartime strategies involved securing their own supply of oil (Germany in Romania, Russia and the Middle East, Japan in the Dutch East Indies). Both ultimately failed.

I'd like to point out that the entire German plan "Wacht am Rhein" (aka the Battle of the Bulge) hinged on the Panzer divisions moving quickly enough to capture Allied fuel depots to seize enough gas to reach the English channel. They didn't, and the whole drive literally ran out of gas well short of the channel.

But Zizka has a point: this is a game, not a history lesson. But the game is supposed to have some connection to history, doesn't it? After all, it's not chess. It's not all abstraction. It charts history from the beginning to now, with you in the driver's seat. And throughout history, not every nation had it as easy as the other. Fair or not, that's how it is.

And I don't think you can argue that because your territory lacks a strategic resource that you don't have any of it. You simply don't have enough of it to matter. For example, the US produces quite a bit of oil itself, but is still largely dependent on foreign imports. Sure, we could carry on for a while on our reserves and domestic production, but the US economy and military would be severely damaged by an extended embargo of foreign oil. WWII Germany was in much the same boat for Iron and was heavily dependent on Swedish imports (arguably, the sale of Iron ore to Germany was one of the few things that ensured they remained neutral; otherwise they probably would have been invaded). German steel output would have dropped dramatically without these imports.

The same could be said about CivIII's resources. Sure, you may have some coal here and there, but not enough to base a railroad industry on. You'll have to import it, do without, or take someone else's. Sure, the game would be simpler if strategic resources were evenly distributed to everyone. But then why even have them in there at all, save for useless eyewash? I think the added complexity is worth the frustration of getting totally shafted by circumstance every few games.

[Fromage]

Hmm. Resources aren't problem if you have some idea how to play this game. At least I haven't had any (too) serious problems.

I have played four games and I have won three of those. Last one was with monarch difficulty and that wasn't too hard either. I never had all the resources on my continent, but I can't see how that can ruin anyone's game.

Sometimes I had no rubber or oil. First I built factories and coal plants in cities. When production was ok, I paid over 2000 gold just to get oil and rubber for next 20 years. That is enough time to build a large force and capture some resources. Problem solved.

Just wondering, are you guys playing on deity level? Or perhaps you just suck too much

[Venger]

I like that I may not have resources in my Civ, but oil should be somewhere on my continent. This isn't some tiny island, it's stretches the entire length north and south of the map.

Question - if oil doesn't appear right away, can it be "discovered" on your land at a later date? That would be pretty cool, and actually somewhat in keeping with reality.

Also - Germany produced massive amounts of synthetic oil during WW2...

Venger

[Stuie]

I like the resources as is. If they make any changes, I hope it is a toggle or some other method that I can control/ignore.

My favorite game so far was one in which I had NONE of the Middle, Industrial or Modern Age strategic resources except Uranium. In order to secure resources I had to:

Saltpeter - pay exhorbitant amounts.
Coal - pay exhorbitant amounts; build as much railroad as possible in 20 turns and then live without it.
Oil - pay exhorbitant amounts, alleviated somewhat once I cornered the Uranium market.
Rubber - fight a war.
Aluminum - fight a war.
Uranium - fight a war to corner the market and then deal it for other resources.

By the way, I was the Chinese and didn't have any native source of horses either. So I had to pay out the nose to build my Riders. Funny thing is the entire game went by with only one major conflict until I started the Rubber War. Then the whole world picked sides and went up in flames. It was almost constant warfare from there out.

Anyway, I find the placement of resources quite enjoyable. I was afraid they would wimp out and make things too accessible, thus eliminating any strategy whatsoever involving resources. I'm glad they didn't take this lesser route.....

[Jack_www]

In Civ3 you have a small chance every turn to discover a new source of any given resource. Personally I have never had much of a problem getting any resource I did not have, I have also found a solution to the problem one way or anther. If you want to increase your chances of finding oil put some cities in the desert, that is were it is most likely to apear. Also if you want a map with lots of oil in it try the world map that comes with the game, trust me it has a lot of oil in it. You can also edit maps and put the resouces on the map yourself were you would like them to be. I like how the resouces work in the game, it is fun.

Zizka the reason why nations always seem to have been able to secure their own source of oil is if they didn't have they traded for it or went out and look to find were it is and get it. That is what you have to do in Civ3, if you want oil and it that important to you in the game then go out their and find a way to get it. If want to trade for oil, you got to have something worth trading. If the computer does not want to trade or ask to high a price their are still things you can do.

Fromage has a good idea, you can raise porduction in your cities, agree with the computer's high price and build up massive amounts of tanks, bombers and battleships and lanuch a attack the computer player that has the oil and have it all to your self.

I also find that if the computer player is weaker than you, when you renogiate your peace treaty with them they are more willing to give you a lot of things. I read on the message broads here that one person bought a city with a wonder in it for only 2000 gold when doing this.

So Zizka why dont you try some of these things out and see if this will get you the oil you seek instead of saying the game needs to be fixed because you didn't get any oil.

[Jurassic Joe]

I'm playing the Romans and I just discovered Gunpowder. I don't have any saltpeter and the nations that do, refuse to trade it to me (resonably anyways). I started the Saltpeter War against the Russians. I am allied with the English and the Greeks, and the Russians are allied with the French. My first operation was against Vladvistok which had 2 saltpeter locations. Guess what? I now have 2 saltpeter resources. My point is the same as everyone elses in this thread. If you don't have it, go and get it fast. Don't wait for them to get the tech that allows them to use it.
I think a lot of other people are doing this too. I mean starting wars for a needed resource. The funny thing is that I never play as a war monger. I am always trying to maintain the peace with my neighbors, but now I find myself stabbing my friends in the back for Incense. Oh Well, hehe

[Kramer]

Okay, thoughts on the whole oil matter.

The problem with Oil is not only is it a late-game resource, it's a nearly essential one. Unlike most of the rest of the resources for which there are decent substitutes, going without Oil will pretty much screw you and end your game.

I don't think different units is the answer, there's no real historical precedent, and unlike SMAC, we're trying to stick at least fairly closely to the real world.

I think a real-world solution to the problem exist. Ethanol. For those that don't know, ethanol is a form of alcohol which is often considered as a cleaner burning alternative for Gasoline. The most interesting part of the Ethanol solution would be that it wouldn't require Oil. Ethanol is generated with vegetable matter --typically corn.

Now this makes things interesting -- players would be able to make an ethanol refinery in a city, then that city (but not ones connected to it by roads) would be able to make gas-powered units. The down side should be loss of food -- I'm thinking an ethanol refinery should consume about 4 food. It should be a signifigant hardship to run an ethanol refinery, players should still consider oil a great benefit, and it should be worth fighting over, but it shouldn't kill your game if you just can't get your hands on it.

[Zizka]

>>So Zizka why dont you try some of these things out and see if this will get >>you the oil you seek instead of saying the game needs to be fixed because >>you didn't get any oil.

You are wrongfully assuming that I have not. Thank you for the patronizing advice. Your magnificent insighst leave me in awe. SInce when is it considered to raise an issue considered to indicate you "are not playing thd game right." That is as much holier than thou whining than anything you can accuse someone of.

Each game CAN be different, but i find that there is fine line between the challenging and the absurd. I wonder how many peopel would defend cheating on the grounds that 'it provided a challenge. Not everyone is a play-civ-16 hours a day on deity without breaking sweat type of person. All I am pointing out for my benefit as well those who may not be as experienced civ'ers that the primacy of oil feature may cause a lot of unneeded frustration and could use a tweak.

Moreover all of teh examples above basically degenerate into "don't have it.. go to war and rip it from your neigbours.." Gee that really helps to "develop unique and varied play styles" Perhaps if the AI was more willing and reasonable with trading of strategic resources. But I dont know about you I have not playe d game where i have 2000 gold per turn to spend on a single resource.

Nor do I ask that resources be left out of teh game. I whole heartedly love the idea. Indeed trying to overcome thos eshortgaes can be challenge, a sort of bread or butter decision. Unfortunately My issue is with Oil .. IMHO in game terms its too much of a developmental and game play funnel. It makes war, especially if you have no oil the first place, must-do type of thing and if you have no oil a near death sentence. Especially if you are playing peaceful civ.

To those who wil proudly declare " i have not had any problems with this." Fine to each their own.. enjoy the game. But let us not forget context a bit here. We have neither played nor seen each others games so our experiences will surely be different. I dont mind losing a good game or hard fight, but as one poster pointed that it is inevitable "to get shafted every few games." I dont reacll ever feeling that in a game of Civ II, SMAC... that to me suggests a bit of an imbalance.

Z

Z

[Fromage]

Does peacefull civilization really need oil? If you dont't fight with anyone, you propably won't need oil before you start building space ship. Then you can buy oil for 20 years, build the ship and win the game. Peacefull solution and you will win. Happy?

If you aren't "play-civ-16 hours a day on deity without breaking sweat" -person, just play with warlord level until you learn the tricks. There are easy levels for newbies and harder levels for..hmm. me
In SMAC 95% of players were "play-civ-16 hours a day on deity without breaking sweat" -persons. It's great that CIV3 has some kind of challenge.

There is also one realism point. If your civilization happens to born in Sweden, do you really expect that it would rule the world? Some civilizations just have bad luck and they are located in bad places. **** happens...

[Jack_www]

Zizka sorry if I offended you. Just trying to say that there are solutions to the problem of have no oil or other resource. I can under stand that you dont like to go to war to get oil or if the computer is really unwilling to trade it, of course I would be unwilling to trade any extra oil I had to Civs that didn't have it as well. History is filled with many war being fought over limited resources.

I think if we put we all put enough time into this we can find a peacefull solution to the problem of not having a certain resource in the game. Of course again I say you can always play on an edited map were you put the resources where you want them or play on map you now has a lot of oil in it.

But has anyone tryed the trick of renogitating a peace treaty with a weeker neighbor to get something you want( like oil). That is how I was able to get horsesin one game.

[JerryK72]

I like the resources the way they are! Its what makes strategy games strategic. Geez, I think thats why they are called strategic resources. I had a game with no oil in my territory. But I was able to buy some from an ally, before I stabbed him in the back and started bombing him. I had to send a transport over the ocean to fight the Russians for an oil resource. When I lost it, I had to make nice with a former ally, and trade for some.

After reading this thread, I found out I could edit my favorite units to not require a certain resource. That kinda takes away the strategy of the game..


Jerry