ok, i take bakc most of the bad things i've ever said about strategic resources...

[a2b2c3]

ok, time to finish the story... so i've taken out the two cities. i had to replace my troops that were sitting on the iron. after taking out the two cities i crossed the ithmus and proceded north... rome was west, but i wanted to capture that city. i headed north and took out two more cities.. rome was using only archers now. headed a little farther north and captured the roman city their, used it to heal my troops. Knights proved to be very useful in this campaign. Head back south take out another 2 cities, capture another... capture one more roman city south, then i headed back east and took rome... It was time for peace... Rome now only has 4 cities left. One came to me culturaly. Ignored rome eveer since. However germany has become an annoying problem... They are big an powerful, but they lack resources. so they wanted war with me however they are an ocean away so i can't do too much except sink their ships... oh, and ironclads are annoyingly worthless against firgates... they are too equal.

[ak]

The more I play the game the more I like the resource implementation. As is. It took me a few games to get used to it. The balance of power can be tipped at almost any point in the game. If it upsets your best laid plans, get over it. You need to be ready to acquire crucial resources whether by diplomacy, colonizing distant lands or military force if you are to remain a "player" in the game.

I find that if you maintain a strong Civ that is respected by others, you can often, not always, get a resource fix by diplomatic means - without having to give the store away. Then you stockpile whatever you need for that time frame.

As far as history goes, an example that comes to mind is in WWII. Germany had to change it's strategy considerably when the Allies bombed it's primary oil source, the Romanian oil fields. Countries with access to coal had an unfair advantage in the industrial era. Etc. Etc.

Well done Firaxis.