strategic ressources

[The diplomat]

Thanks all for your interesting replies.

Sure, it is true that you could simply change the appearance rates for the ressources. But I don't like to muddle with things like that.

In most of my games, I do just "deal with it". I remember another game I played as the Romans, where I lacked iron, but I was able to trade for it, build some legions then conquer the poor civ that gave me the iron.

I was just wondering what people thought of this, since there were times when ressource distribution really messed up my games.

To further the debate, what if strategic ressources gave a bonus to a specific unit instead of being mandatory to build that unit? Thus, everybody could build swordsman without iron, but the civ that had iron would build better swordsman. This would keep ressources important but not doom a civ because of a bad starting position.

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by The diplomat
To further the debate, what if strategic ressources gave a bonus to a specific unit instead of being mandatory to build that unit? Thus, everybody could build swordsman without iron, but the civ that had iron would build better swordsman. This would keep ressources important but not doom a civ because of a bad starting position.

I think they should stay mandatory. Agreed, I was annoyed when I was Japan and didn't have iron to build my Samurais and nobody wanted to sell it either. But hey, that tought me that I should have expanded earlier...
The strategic resources stuff makes the game more challenging. You can for instance do major damage to your enemy by cutting off his trade roads to the iron, horses, etc.

[Txurce]

I like the resource system and, if anything, would occasionally enjoy at least one resource being even more rare, so that efforts to control it would have to lead to war.

Part of the fun of the game for me is rising to the occasion, once I get over my sense that the world has screwed me. If you lose, it sucks; if you ein, it's the best. The Emperor game I enjoyed most required me to invade another continent to saltpeter, even though I controlled my own land mass. My favorite Monarch game found me alone with the Aztecs on a good-sized island, so that the UU was totally wasted; later, I had to war against the #1 civ from my island empire to acquire not one, but two, resources.

[Theseus]

Exactly, Txurce.

And what overall strategic impact do those kinds of games have on your empire?

Meaning, did the lack of certain resources, and / or the nature of landmasses, change your "normal" balance between research, economics, building and warfare? Did it change the order of research? Did it change the military strategies you would have otherwise pursued?

[Txurce]

Theseus, the Aztec game was Monarch/standard v. 1.16, and early enough in my development that I particularly favored the Aztecs' super-fast start. I found myself on a good-sized, green island... alone. There went the UU's value, and pretty much the value of the militaristic trait. At that level/version, decent research was possible up certain tech trees, and I focused on making contact and starting little colonies all over the place - two things I otherwise never do. I was more-or-less even on techs by the start of the medieval era, and felt confident that, thanks to the human's huge focus advantage, I would win the space race. I focused on science (which of course makes you theoretically state-of-the-art militarily), and gritted my teeth as I got pushed out of some of my overseas holdings by the Romans, whose home continent it was. (Yes, I got even later.) All was going well, even though there was another fly in the ointment: I had no uranium. When the Persian superpower decided that I was the next neck to go on the block for their perpetually swinging miltary axe... and the closest source of uranium to my civ was across a channel in their sparsely populated, newly conquered territory... my strategy coalesced. I couldn't conquer Persia - but I could take the uranium and maybe fight them to a standstill that would eventually lead to peace. So I built some subs to protect my home island, enough transports to have every-turn unit transfers to the uranium territories, and cranked out tanks... all the while building the space ship in my biggest cities. My invasion caught the overly confident and over-extended Persians by surprise; I secured my uranium source, and set about taking enough cities that they would sue for peace. It was tough, because they were bigger and on their home continent with railroads (although I severed their lines [with JWs!] as often as possible, so as to hit their counterattack before it could hit me). I would lose some cities, but take them back, and make incremental progress away from the uranium and toward their original Persian cities. Eventually, they sued for peace and... a couple of minor wars later... I won the space race.

My Emperor game (standard everything, v.1.17) was my first success with the Iroquois. I was on a small continent with the Americans, whom I destroyed with the MWs, picking up the Pyramids and the continent by 90BC, at which point I switched to republic. Up until this point, I was playing my standard game, with the intent to switch to builder mode and win the space race with less than 20 cities. All I was missing was... iron. (Not saltpeter, as I wrote earlier.) The Persians were on the bigger continent next door, steadily having their way with the Zulu. I built a galley-borne invasion force of six MWs, and took the coastal city with the iron. I lost the city later, the stirred-up Persians would never leave me alone and... because I wanted less than 20 cities... eventually razed their continent. Yes, barbarians sprung up all over the place, dashing themselves against my tanks, which guarded a plethora of luxury colonies. I never stopped my standard space-race approach, however, even though I built my first major modern-day invasion force to take a couple of the German superpower's cities later on. The recurring theme here was that, because I refused to get big, people kept picking on me. It made the game a blast, because I had to constantly adjust my strategy. The research never varied much, though, and this is one of Civ3's weaknesses - it should have.

[notyoueither]

The diplomat. One of the best fan suggestions I've seen was based on the object of giving resource starved civs access to the neat toys. It was Vel's Mod with No Name (abandoned unfortunately). I think they were going to allow the civ without the resource to build the unit for double the shield cost.

Personally, I would favour slightly weaker versions of the units and keep the same or similar shield cost. Tank>LightTank. Battleship>BattleCruiser. And so on.

Resources would still be important, but not the killer they are now. The biggest reason I can think of to implement such a scheme is not to aid me BTW. I usually find a way to cope. However, it would make the AI much more of a challenge. If I never see a Longbowman built to counter my Tanks ever again it will be too soon.

[Denday]

the way they have tried to do it with resouces is they only have major depoits not little ones which would only last 1 turn remeber in one turn 50 years can go past and with so much time only a few deposits will go the distance.
but after that i still beleve the resouces are to scarce but that does give them reason.

[gozpel]

So now I know why the clever Babs plopped down their second city 8 squares away from their capitol. First I thought it was only to stop my expansion, but after researching Iron working, the only deposit on the visible map was next to their little city in the middle of nowhere...and the next turn they dare to ask to trade Iron working. So they didn't know that tech...hmmm...why build that city so far away from Babylon then? They even walked past nice pastures with a cow and a river...

I suspect cheating here

Oh well, i send my merry band of 15 horsemen and take the city, and great now I can build swordsmen...just to see the frigging mine being depleted in no time! From now on I set iron on zero disappearance, like horses.

[Dinner]

Yes, the AI gets to view the entire map, including resources, at all times. This was proved by anyone who ever used the multi cheat to watch the AI make beelines straight towards ever meaningful strategic resource including the ones they couldn't "see" yet.
Still if you get the needed tech before the AI you can still start a war with him and take the resource away from him.

[Ethelred]

Yes, the AI gets to view the entire map, including resources, at all times

Not entirely true. They do get to know where the strategic resources are, that has been confirmed by Firaxis. They may know the entire map but that has never been confirmed. They definitly don't know where everything is. They will send settlers to areas that are filled up with my cities. They don't turn back untill the unit can see the area is full.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Not entirely true. They do get to know where the strategic resources are, that has been confirmed by Firaxis. They may know the entire map but that has never been confirmed. They definitly don't know where everything is. They will send settlers to areas that are filled up with my cities. They don't turn back untill the unit can see the area is full.

All of which is why Firaxis killed the popular "multi.sav" cheat and why there is no Cheat Mode as in Civ 2 - it proves how much their AI CHEATS.

The AI does know the map and sends settlers arroganrtly wandering through my territory. After two turns of telling them to leave we finally get to the "declare war" or else phase. So what happens?? The AI settlers teleport themselves across my territory to the other side and wind up right in the middle of a handful of open tiles no one else should even know are there. That's a Cheat.

It is also stupid, this settler diarrhea flood, because those crappy towns never produce much, are very hard to defend during war, and sometimes Culture Flip, although that idea is so lame I try to give flipped cities back.

Yes, the AI CHEATS.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not entirely true. They do get to know where the strategic resources are, that has been confirmed by Firaxis.

The AI has definitely no clue about the map before it discovers it. This includes strategic and luxury resources, which are not "light spots on dark background". Once a site with a strategic resource is discovered, the AI knows, that there's something valuable, but probably not what it is, before it has the appropriate tech.

Coracle: Thanks... your post made my evening!

EDIT: Btw, I saw today an AI suicide galley attempt before my coast. The galley sailed out of my sight, but returned the next turn. I first thought, the AI settled on an island. But later, when I discovered the map there, I saw nothing there, but water. It seems to be just a blind try. If the AI knew the map, this move would not make sense at all. If the galley was "ocean going", it would not make sense to return the next turn and continue to sail along my coast.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Coracle


All of which is why Firaxis killed the popular "multi.sav" cheat and why there is no Cheat Mode as in Civ 2 - it proves how much their AI CHEATS.

Still waiting for some evidence of cheating Coracle. We allready know that YOU want to cheat.

The AI does know the map and sends settlers arroganrtly wandering through my territory.

If they knew the everything on the map they wouldn't send settlers into filled up territory.

After two turns of telling them to leave we finally get to the "declare war" or else phase. So what happens?? The AI settlers teleport themselves across my territory to the other side and wind up right in the middle of a handful of open tiles no one else should even know are there. That's a Cheat.

That can happen with you as well so its not a cheat. I just ignore those silly settlers. They can't hurt me unless I freak out over them. If I think they can bother me I just set one or two weak units to slow them down till I have the territory that they might want.

It is also stupid, this settler diarrhea flood, because those crappy towns never produce much, are very hard to defend during war, and sometimes Culture Flip, although that idea is so lame I try to give flipped cities back.

Yes, the AI CHEATS.

I am waiting for evidence Coracle. The only sure thing the AI knows is the resources. Everything else is just your own paranoia based on YOUR irratation at not being able to cheat yourself.

[Whoha]

"Don't expect to win every game. "

Coal is not part of any victory condition, what does it have to do with winning? Don't need coal to build the un, don't need coal to build the space ship, don't need coal to pop rush a bunch of horsies and win the game before coal is discovered. That is just not fun to be stuck in one era of the game ALONG WITH the ai, instead of being able to move forward. So I diserned how the resource information is stored in the save file,among other things, and it was no longer a problem.


"quote:


The AI does know the map and sends settlers arroganrtly wandering through my territory.



If they knew the everything on the map they wouldn't send settlers into filled up territory.
"

...

This is a known exploit, take a unit, cover up the 1 tile he KNOWS is not covered by your radius, watch him turn around, then move off the tile, watch him turn back, etc can't believe you called him on this one ethelred.

[Ethelred]

So I diserned how the resource information is stored in the save file,among other things, and it was no longer a problem.

So instead of accepting the fact that you can't win every game you decided to cheat. The rest of that was mere rationalyzing.

This is a known exploit, take a unit, cover up the 1 tile he KNOWS is not covered by your radius, watch him turn around, then move off the tile, watch him turn back, etc can't believe you called him on this one ethelred.

I have watched them continue on while I COVERED the spots. I had them blocked and on they came till they reached the same visual range that I have in the game. That is why I called him on it. I have seen that I was right on this. It surprised me considering just how many people were insisting on the opposite just like you are doing right now.

How about you test this yourself? I have done so allready.