strategic ressources

[The diplomat]

I applaud Firaxis for introducing strategic ressources to civ3. It improves trade, since civs will actually have something worth exchanging. Furthermore, ressources become something worth fighting over. Civs are going to have real reasons to start wars rather than just "well, I have to in order to win, don't I?"! In civ3, civs might decide to start a war to gain a precious ressource.

So, I definitely am extremely pleased with the addition of strategic and luxury ressources.

However, I have found myself in situations where I was basically screwed right from the start simply because my starting location lacked an important ressource. Specifically, I remember a game where I was playing as the Romans. I expanded fairly well, but there was no iron in sight. I was basically screwed because there was no way to get iron.

Some of you will probably respond that it is just the nature of the beast. It is part of the game and the player is suppose to just deal with it.

So, I ask the question: is this a problem or should the player just deal with it?

[ShredZ]

Without some of the important resourse it can spell utter doom.

-Attack until you have it.
-Trade for it with luxuries etc.
-Be happy with archers only. ;P

[zulu9812]

Well, the key to civ3 is early expansion - the more territory you cover the more likely the resource will be within reach once you get the tech.

[Coracle]

Are You Serious?

I can't believe anyone is still playing with the ridiculously low appearance rates Firaxis concocted.

The rates Firaxis threw together are totally non-historical and screw up the entire game forcing civs to constantly go to war to get that needed resource - which sometimes disappears soon after you get it. Iron and coal especially were never that rare.

Edit up the appearance rates for resources to make them rare but not absurdly rare. I have iron at 177 and coal at 170, for instance.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Well, the key to civ3 is early expansion - the more territory you cover the more likely the resource will be within reach once you get the tech.

A basic flaw in the system. In reality, pewking out crappy little towns all over the map as the AI does would result in eventual failure as they produce so little (due to corruption and bad terrain, and need for harbors) and can't be well defended during wars.

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by Coracle


A basic flaw in the system. In reality, pewking out crappy little towns all over the map as the AI does would result in eventual failure as they produce so little (due to corruption and bad terrain, and need for harbors) and can't be well defended during wars.

So why is the AI so sucessful with this strategy then? (Don't tell me it cheats. I know that already.)
And please (please!), don't tell me anything about culture flipping any more...

[Cyclotron]

Re: Are You Serious?

Originally posted by Coracle
I can't believe anyone is still playing with the ridiculously low appearance rates Firaxis concocted.

The rates Firaxis threw together are totally non-historical and screw up the entire game forcing civs to constantly go to war to get that needed resource - which sometimes disappears soon after you get it. Iron and coal especially were never that rare.

Historical precedence is irrelevant. The gameplay is better without resources available to all... otherwise there would be no reason to have resources.

[FrantzX]

Am I the only one who has Coracle on ignore?

[Ethelred]

Re: Are You Serious?

Originally posted by Coracle
I can't believe anyone is still playing with the ridiculously low appearance rates Firaxis concocted.

I can't believe that one apearance for each civ would be considered ridiculously low by anyone.

[notyoueither]

Re: strategic ressources

Originally posted by The diplomat
Some of you will probably respond that it is just the nature of the beast. It is part of the game and the player is suppose to just deal with it.

So, I ask the question: is this a problem or should the player just deal with it?

Well. My most satisying game yet was one where I was Rome. Had no Iron and later no Coal. I traded for them. In short, I dealt with it. Sorry.

[Whoha]

A better way would be to have the resources everywhere(like historical play) but have extraction costs and amounts vary from place to place so while you might have oil, it would be more economical to purchase it from someone who has a lower extraction cost and more of it.

And no, the random values do not simulate this, I do not want my resource supply dependent on which milisecond I end the turn on.

And Ethelred that one appearance used to mean 1 coal on the map, its on a 1 tile island, and that tile is a mountain tile. Not fun.

[Skanky Burns]

Am I the only one who has Coracle on ignore?

Probably not, but I need some humor in my life. Which he provides

Regarding lack of resources, you basically deal with it. Lack iron, trade for it, or prepare a group of the best units you can build without it, and take the site. Challenges of that sort are fun.

[Ethelred]

And Ethelred that one appearance used to mean 1 coal on the map, its on a 1 tile island, and that tile is a mountain tile. Not fun.

Not used to mean. It can still happen that way. However if one civ is eliminated that means there is a enough again. Usually some civs have been eliminated by the time coal becomes available. Consequently there is usually a surplus of coal. Early in the game a shortage due to oddities like the one you mention is more likely than it is for coal.

The first game I won on monarch I had resource problems and had to wait till later before I could go to war. Don't expect to win every game. If you do want to win them all play on a lower level than the highest you can win on. I am thinking of doing that myself. I can win on Emperor as a builder-opportunist but its not as fun as Monarch was yet so I am thinking of playing on easier levels in the future.

For one thing on Emperor playing as a religious civ is very helpfull for a builder but I don't like being religous because I personally am NOT religious. Scientific just isn't as good an advantage in Civ.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Probably not, but I need some humor in my life. Which he provides

Well, if that's what you want to call it.

Sounds less like humor to me, and more like "I hate everything Firaxis or Civ related and I must constantly make this fact known to all the civilized world at least twice per hour."

[Theseus]

I think that strategic resources SHOULD be less evenly distributed.

Think about RL distribution of iron (or the tech for it), horses, oil, aluminum, etc., and the impact on various civ's development.

Now apply that to the game... get creative.