Stop Complaining About Resources

[Kaesar]

So many people have complained about the resources in civ3. Can't people accept this as one of the challenges in the game? Do they really expect that each civ in the game will get their own deposit of coal, oil, alum, and uran? Look at it this way. If the game was like that then why bother with strategic resources? For that matter, why doesn't everybody get their own patch of luxury resources as well? And if only the human lucks out and is the only one that gets the resources then the game is easy. It is this random aspect that makes the game dynamic. If everybody gets the resources in their own backyard then it wouldn't be called "STRATEGIC RESOURCES".

So, if you don't have it, trade for it, fight for it, or else, you lose and start a new game. Cause if you haven't won without oil in your own backyard, you haven't completely beaten civ3

[sachmo71]

I don't know if you can simplify their arguments to just not having them in their territory. There does seem to be an issue with quantity of resources on certain map sizes and/or with the number of civs played with. Also, the random generation may have a bug, also. This can be very frusterating, as many people don't like to get deep into a game only to find that there aren't enough resources to go around, not to mention on civ having access to all of them. So, I would cut them a little slack on that front.

[Capt Dizle]

I had no oil and Catherine said a trade couldn't be done.

I offered gems and steel and she caved.

It is way to easy to trade and peacenik your way through the game.

I would rather have had to rape her.

[Green Giant]

People haven't figured out how to adapt yet, they use the same tired strategies over and over again, and when they don't work they complain the feature is broken. Here is a tip for the strategy impaired among you.

If you don't have oil or some other vital resource, here is what you do:

1)find the nearest source, probably in enemy territory
2)find a another civ with that resource and an excess of it. Be willing to pay out the yin-yag for it.
3)build up a large military.
4)invade the enemy civ with the goal to take that resource you need.
5)problem solved, given that your military campaign succeeds you will never have to pay for that resource again

this has worked for me time and time again.

Note:If everyone is lower than you in tech and can't trade that resource yet, build the unit that comes before it and then all you have to do is upgrade and invade.

[GePap]

We should complain!

To Kaesar:
There are problems with the placing of resources in this game (it seems that in Civ3 random is not random). Certain resources tend to clump heavily, giving one side a massive monopoly many times, of one resource. (interestingly enough, its ususally the A.I.). Now, maybe its fine to win without oil- since its really only needed for various units and you could always win much earlier by killing everyone. But lets say you want to build the spaceship. Well, no uranium, no aluminium, no rubber? Sorry, no spaceship....
Yes, in real life one has to fight to secure key resources, and sinlge peices of land become common battlegrounds for the resource that exists there- but tell me when any nation has had to fight a world war, fight to the middle of an entire continent while battling most other civs, just to be able to build RR's? Should everyone start with these resources conviniently outside their capitol, ready for harvesting? No. But should a player, through realistic effort that still allows for multiple strategies, be able to secure and item crucial to win? Yes! It's like in an RPG were you need X item to beat the main bad guy, but hey look, you can't! Sorry for the last 20 hours, our bad

[Fistleaf]

I discovered steam power first and traded it to the French. The combined land area of both our civs is about 50% of the continent, yet I don't find a single patch of coal anywhere. The year is 1300 AD. Could it be certain resources do not appear before a certain date?

[War4ever]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I would rather have had to rape her.

hehe i wonder if she would have preferred that the frumpy *****

seriously though, if you don't have what you need....find a way to get it..... the resources are screwy.... but thats the beauty of it and one of the only replayability aspects of the game...

this game would be waaaaaaaaaaay to easy otherwise

[Kaesar]

I guess the whole arguement comes down to the fact that we're really really used to winning. Firaxis has given us a game that's not going to roll over so easily. Unlike most other games where if you follow a bunch of pre-described steps YOU WILL WIN, civ3 may decide to flip you the finger after you have done everything right and decide not to give you any oil. Suddenly the player has to change all his strategies or lose. As I said before, it is this dynamic nature of this game that I like.

Maybe I'm just a masochist or something, but I now play civ3 and I don't take any resources for granted. I expect that I'm going to fight someone for it. I went through the last game without horses and so I mass produced swordsman to give myself a chance. Oil wasn't in my territory so I mass produced infantry until I took a city with oil. I guess what I want to say is that players need to be more flexible and expect to lose to the game once in a while.

RPG's are notorious for being able to do everything correctly and winning everytime, that's why most rpg's don't have great replay value. Also, people love multiplayer because human's unpredictability. Firaxis has given us a game that has unpredictability and it is an uphill battle. I just wish people can see it as such.

[Ruiner]

Re: We should complain!

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
To Kaesar:Certain resources tend to clump heavily, giving one side a massive monopoly many times, of one resource. (interestingly enough, its ususally the A.I.).

Well, this in itself makes sense. If you are playing with four other civs, and someone has a majority of the resource, theres only a 20% it would be you!

adam

[GePap]

Loose how?

My main argument is that there are two reasons one could loose:
1. One's opponents were superior or ones strategy was inferior. Either way, you played and were in control, but the challenge was too great.
2. The rules and or situtation is such that you could not, or can't win. The game makes something impossible or nearly so.

I have no problems if a game is challenging (the A.I. here is much better than even SMAC's) and thus forces a player to adapt. I don't like it when some random (again, not so random) event undermines all that you have done. It's like a game of 'Axis and Allies' (the original boardgame) in which your strategy was sound, but you rolled all sixes...
There is a simple fix to the resource problem, and that is to fight clumping so that resources, if not given to all players in their territory, at least are present in most major landmasses. (I know about horses and the Americas, if anyone is going to point this out, which actually is the only reason I can see for horses being a 'strategic' resource. Look at all the others and you find a far more even worldwide distribution)

[Fidel]

Re: We should complain!

Originally posted by GePap
To Kaesar:
There are problems with the placing of resources in this game (it seems that in Civ3 random is not random). Certain resources tend to clump heavily, giving one side a massive monopoly many times, of one resource. (interestingly enough, its ususally the A.I.).

Well, 7 out of 8 civs are AI.
I am currently happily sitting on coal. Have one rubber (just enough) and have a feeling that I will have no oil once it pops out. I hope to research it first and to strike preemptively.
Resources system is GREAT.

[ElBone]

I have to agree w/kaeser. The strategic resources are the defining change in this iteration of civ games, and a welcome one. And the tough AI is a fun to wrange with, advantages for the AI make it even tougher, but it's more engaging that way IMO.

bone

[Trifna]

So, if you don't have it, trade for it, fight for it, or else, you lose and start a new game. Cause if you haven't won without oil in your own backyard, you haven't completely beaten civ3

The thing isn't that we are not winning. We don't have a game simply to win.

The thing is:
-it's not balanced
-it's not historically realistic (for those who give an importance to it)
-it's not logical
-other?...

[Raleigh]

I think Soren has said that resources do CLUMP together but that was on purpose so that each civ would get a near monopoly on them and force others to trade with it.

This is not unrealistic nor unenjoyable. After all, the Japaense started WWII largely to get rubber and oil in Southeast Asia, which the British mostly controlled physically and the Americans economically.

[Venger]

In my current game, I now own almost 50% of the entire planet, and still no oil. Which means I cannot build:

Destroyers
Battleships
Tanks
Fighters
Bombers

Which my opponents all can. Everyone has oil but me. Nobody will trade it to me. So I have to go and take it, if I can.

Oil has been created as such an important late game resource that it should absolutely appear on every continent.

There are three continents in my game. On the largest continent, shared by four Civs, ALL of them have oil in their land. The Aztec but soon to be Roman continent, there is a single patch of oil. And on mine, there ain't diçk. Not having oil all over the place is fun. Not having it any place but here isn't. I conquered the continent for the express purpose of having access to resources, and now I get the shaft. Screw that.

Venger