Love/hate relationship with strategic resources....

[a2b2c3]

Anyone else have one? I mean some games it's all good, you may actually have access nearby to some resource. Then in the next game you may have to fight a war for one. Next game ain't too bad. But the one after that what happens? All the oil is bunched up in egyption land, no chance of getting it without a big pricetag that always goes up. Game after that ok... Next game all the coal is bunched up on one island. I could go in and try to take out the egyptions and their 5 cities but if i did that i would surely face the wrath of the american army and perhaps roman army as well. And against that assult i would fail and the coal would probably belong all to the americans. So i ask what's up with that? It seems to messed that by random chance they would all be bunched up... it sucks i tell ya... arg, another long game...

[Acemo]

I think that the strategic resource concept adds a lot to the game. it forces one to be more creative and makes it harder to play the game the same way every time (a good thing AFAIK)

What pisses me off is when I discover steam power and I have no coal. I then trade stream power to everyone in the hopes of being able to trade for some coal, and lo and behold no one has any extra to trade

Usually sometime shortly after, I start a new game

[N. Machiavelli]

I think that the resource system was a good idea. My only problem is that they made it the center of the combat system. All warfare beyond late rennaisance has been watered-down to suite players and comps who wish to sit on their arses without expansion or aggressiveness untill the Spacerace. But the resource system itself is a good idea, though I make resources slightly more abundant in my maps to ensure that all the oil on the planet doesn't end up in a single 4 x 4 tile area.

[sophist]

One advantage of the new strategic/luxury resource system is that it can level the playing field. You may have been the top dog all the way through the ancient and medieval ages and are well on your way to global dominance until... no saltpeter. No coal. Uh oh. I guess you'll have to make friends real fast. Or it could be the opposite; you could have spent the game languishing at the rear, being the whipping boy for anyone who wants a bit of spare cash. Then the industrial age rolls around and you have all of the oil and rubber. Or say you sit on three kinds of luxuries in a 16 civ game and have the other civs eating out of your hand, making up for starting in all jungle tiles. Or whatever. Of course, that doesn't mean you won't sometimes just be screwed, but it does throw a monkey wrench into the works and force you to be a more dynamic and careful.

[GePap]

Set me free

I agree that the resource system makes the game more challenging and more realistic- but the amount of random bunching up is ridiculous! Can anyone tell me of any wars fought for coal? Any? And as for oil, yes, wars are fought for that but the person trying to get the oil ussually wants it to have a steady supply, meaning they already have some. Here's the Gulf War in Civ3 terms: Kuwait has oil, US does not (only reason to have US care about kuwait). Iraq, which does, invades with tanks. Now, US supply cut. The US moving units there to recapture, but back home new divisions of cavalry are being prepared! (since there is no oil left...) Now personally, I don't remember the part about the new cavalry divisions we created in 1991 but maybe thats just me. They way to 'fix' this while keeping the system is to say that you need more than just 1 supply for your whole empire. i.e., to upkeep said number of oil units, you need 1 oil. For more units, you need 2 oil, and so forth and make the resources more common so that having none at all is rare, and civs are more willing and open to trade (for a price of course). So, the resource is still vital (if you want a big army, you need lots of oil) but players still have options left: Hey, I have 6 oil but don't need a big army, you on the other hand are at war with 7 states. Hmm? That will be 300 gold/turn for 2 oil. Have a nice day.

[cassembler]

I can't wait until scenarios can be created with STRATEGIC resources placed in STRATEGIC places... I started a map and got about 1/2 way through and decided the Civ3 editor needs to be fixed...

[Dravin]

Now, US supply cut. The US moving units there to recapture, but back home new divisions of cavalry are being prepared! (since there is no oil left...)

But the US has at least two oil resources aside those gotten in trade, you forget Alaska and Texas.

[GePap]

But then

If you have the resource already, you don't trade for it, which means that in Civ3 there would have been no gulf war, since we would not have cared. Thats why I made my proposal.

[Moraelin]

Actually, the strategic resource idea in and by itself, I like. Yes, even if it can happen that a country doesn't have any iron. It could theoretically happen.

What I don't like are the inconsistent and sometimes utterly illogical requirements.

I would also have liked that some strategic resources can be manufactured. In fact, that some can ONLY be manufactured. Examples:

- Ammo factories. If I have riflemen that don't require saltpeter, I should have to have an ammo factory somewhere that supplies them with ammo.

- Refineries. Sorry, noone uses crude oil.

- Canned food. Maybe I don't want to grow one city that much, but trade half of its food surplus to other cities. Or export it.

- Computers and high-tech luxuries. Think about it. Most of the luxuries in the modern day are not simply harvested off trees. Your TV is such an example. So if I'm ages ahead of the competition, why can't I, say, make TV's and computers and export them? Or use them to keep my population happy.