Multiples of the same resource

[nato]

Here is yet another idea to throw out there, coming from Trip's resource thread...

Because they are all-or-nothing, having 2 or more of the same resource is worthless (if it cannot be traded). Conquering a new source is worthless, and denying an enemy some-but-not-all of his source is worthless. This problem becomes worse as the game goes on and civs are eliminated, but the number of resources does not.

I think some sort of bonus for having multiples of the same resource is needed. This way each new source would have value, instead of just stacking up uselessly.

How about, for every additional tile of a strategic resource beyond the first, that is not traded, you get 10 gold per turn.

(Another idea is units that require that resource to be built cost 10 shields less, but this might be too powerful.)

One problem with this is that it would discourage trading the resource. To fix that, perhaps trading the resource would give you a bonus 5 or 10 gold per turn, in addition to what the other civ is paying. This would represent the increase in commerce and trading that the trade deal is creating.

I feel that the strategic resources are one of Civ3's best features, might as well make the most of it instead of the "yay, yet ANOTHER source of Iron" effect.

[Inverse Icarus]

i still think that it should be "1 resource per 15 cities" or something, and you should have the ability to trade multiples of resources to other civs...

[Jethro83]

I actually like having multiple strategic resources as they are. The exception of course being horses and rubber, since they don't deplete.

I'd like to still have some iron left when one source depletes right in the middle of my upgrade spree from spearmen to pikemen and horsemen to knights. I'd like to still be able to keep cranking out tanks even when one of my sources of oil depletes.

So to me, having multiple supplies of a single resource is sort of like having a safety net, that prevents me from ending up dry of them when I really need them most.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
So to me, having multiple supplies of a single resource is sort of like having a safety net, that prevents me from ending up dry of them when I really need them most.

And at the same time, making the resource system of Civ 3 basically useless.

[Sava]

I still think it should be more of a capacity type thing, say for instance, if you have 1 iron, you can only build 1 unit requiring iron per turn (or 2) I don't know. It would be like the airport in Civ II. It can only be used once per turn. That way, if you have 10 iron, you can build 10 swordsmen per turn.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Trip

And at the same time, making the resource system of Civ 3 basically useless.

Not really, it does take considerable effort to have one of every resource. Im not sure how this is done in huge maps though.

[nato]

I'm with Trip on this. If resources are very common they might as well not be there. In the vast majority of your games, do you ever NOT have tons of horses and iron?

It really is like musical chairs with more chairs than people.

Resources are a great feature in Civ3, one of its major game features. They should be even more important. When I already have 4 of everything, they don't seem very important. And anyone who expands or conquers a large area (effectively ALL human players) will have 4 of everything.

I like Sava's or Uber's ideas too ... to be honest, I like Trips idea best, but possibly something simpler like this would have a better chance in Civ3.

[Theseus]

I hate to beat a dead horse (pun intended), but I think the key issues are:
1) average % of resource tiles per total land tiles
2) clustering (from 3B years)

I would even prefer to see clustering of strategic resources. There are too many horses and too many iron... we should have to fight for them.

[Pyrkaige]

If you want a certain level of resource scarcity, there is an easy way to play around with the available resources, just by the options chosen when creating a game. I often choose a wet and warm start on a pangaea, since you get a lot of jungle which give plenty of coal and other resources/luxuries. Since I often use Egyptians or other industrious civs, it is easy to clear off the jungle for fine terrain underneath. However, if your pangaea doesn't touch either pole, you will have little to no tundra or desert. Overall this is nice for city building, but it does limit certain resources, such as oil.

The often quoted statistic for depletable resources of one per civ in the game, is only true as a maximum. I have had a large game with 8 civs that had only one oil resource on the entire map. This makes for some very interesting wars to get to the unique resource!

[The Viceroy]

Another way to get that is to change the map settings so that a huge map - 255x255, and then pick only a few players .. you get hardly any Iron at all ..

Is there a way to increase the % of Iron ?? as I never seem to be able to find it on that huge maps unless I play against 16civs ..

Personally, I love the way resources are handled in Settlers (but then, thats settlers not civ) .. I simply like Resources being linked to demand .. no point in having multiple Iron resources if there is no demand for it ..

[Sava]

The problem with messing with stuff like this is that it changes the purpose of the game. If you get rid of resources, or make them harder to get, you might as well rename the game "War for Resources". I think that the game should be called, "Make Irrigation" because that's mostly what you do.

[Theseus]

War for resources... yup, that IS the point.

Do you really irrigate all that much? I only do for plains... for me, it's Civ3: The Mining Game.

[Sava]

Civ3 :the mining, irrigating, ICSing, resource war game

[nato]

I would not mind making "war for resources" more important. Resources are one of the major game features for Civ3 ... they should be very emphasized, I think. Its a lot better than "everyone gets some, so don't worry about it".

About Iron ... I must be playing a different game. Iron, along with Horses, are the two WORST resources if you ask me. There are tons of them! Laying around all over the place! I have never had a game where I didn't have multiple sources of them very early, without trying. They very much might as well not exist for me, they are so automatically acquired.

Also, while it doesn't have to do with resources, I very much agree with Sava that mining, irrigating, and roading comprise too much of the game. If only I could get my idea for zero workers, zero public works accepted...

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

did you guys jack up the frequency that these resources occur? I' like to play between 12-16 civs and theres rarely a game in which every civ gets every resource. iron seems to be my archilles heel as I'm almost never near any and either am forced to expand in a way I dont want or forced to attack a neighbor before they get too strong. If you own half the world and only have 4 or 5 of a resource, that doesnt leave much left for the rest of the civs to fight over. In one game won by domination, there was a LARGE continent, and a smaller one about 1/6 its size. i controlled the entire large continent and did not have more than 9 of any single resource and I was playing with 16 civs.