The Resource System

[Cyclotron]

As many of you remember, I am one of those fanatics for civ2 style resources, who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling, and participated in many heated arguments. Most of you may not be interested in what I think of the resource system Firaxis has shown us with their newest update, but I decided I will tell you anyway.

Surprise... I like it!

The resource system laid out by Firaxis recently to me shows a compromise between people who think conservatively about new resource proposals (me) and others who have radical new ideas. It lays out that resources are needed to build units, something I disapproved of, but with colonies it looks like many of the concerns I had with mandatory resources will not be a problem. Hopefully, the ability to have colonies far from your actual cities will give everyone a fighting chance with resources.

It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron. Another plus...

And where my victory comes in, is in stockpiling. I hate the idea of doing math in civ, and I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units. It's more simple and still makes resources important.

And speaking of colonies, what a great idea! I love their colony system. The only thing I find too bad is that it looks like you won't be able to have overseas colonies.

So for me, I consider this to be quite a concession... proof that not only is compromise best for everyone, but a good indication that Civ3 is on the right track. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving "constructive criticism"... but I think that the resource system at least is a clear victory for most of us Civ fans (and fanatics!).

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[polymths]

While I'm not sure that stockpiling of resources may (or may not) be a good idea, I do hope (and this HAS TO BE THE CASE), that the number of such resources matter. For example you can build either more Legions or faster Legions because you have access to more iron mines.

[SerapisIV]

I'm all for it too. It's simple yet allows a lot of leeway. I especially like the idea that you can't see resources until their tech discovery.

Three questions though:

1. Does it take a worker or settler to build a colony, please say worker because wasting 2 pop on a disappearing colony wouldn't be good

2. As cyclo said, how do you have sea colonies? Harbors? Sea colonies are a must as the Europeans used colonies in such a way to harvest far off resources, especially since this system would allow a civ such as the British to finally become a world power, through resources and colonies, even if they only have a small land mass for themselves, yet can now control 1/4 of the worlds resources

3. There's mention of connecting the resource to the capital city (no other city is shown though) so do resources have to be allowed to travel to your capital before you can use them? Why not have almost two semi-independent regions, throw in culture and not being attached by roads/harbors for a while would lead a part of your civ to revolt, I like that option

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 06:25 PM While I'm not sure that stockpiling of resources may (or may not) be a good idea, I do hope (and this HAS TO BE THE CASE), that the number of such resources matter. For example you can build either more Legions or faster Legions because you have access to more iron mines.

I don't think this is gonna happen, Civ has never been about spreadsheet management styles (counting how many mines) its only a question of access. I prefer just having access to limiting by number, I think that although strategy options would increase, it would make Civ more of a long-term Avolon Hill simulation then fun and games Civ

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-11-2001 06:17 PM As many of you remember, I am one of those fanatics for civ2 style resources, who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling, and participated in many heated arguments. Most of you may not be interested in what I think of the resource system Firaxis has shown us with their newest update, but I decided I will tell you anyway. Surprise... I like it!

I wonder in the end if most of my concerns are met with similar experiences as Firaxis slowly rolls out plans for the game. I certainly hope so.

quote: It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron. Another plus...

I at first wondered if the reason everything is so abundant was because they needed to fit everything in one slide show. Then I looked at the maps in the screen shots. It is littered with gold, silver, pheasants, deer, whales, what looks like coal, and other resources. I certainly look forward to having to find these different resources and take advantage of them.

quote: And where my victory comes in, is in stockpiling. I hate the idea of doing math in civ, and I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units. It's more simple and still makes resources important.

I agree this is an important solution that Firaxis made to the concept. But the question is if resources are readily available will it be too easy to find resources during games, thus making them seemingly unimportant.

quote: And speaking of colonies, what a great idea! I love their colony system. The only thing I find too bad is that it looks like you won't be able to have overseas colonies.

It appeared that trade networks would be allowed through air travel (planes) and the sea through ships. If this is so which I believe I read on the Firaxis site (so much information so fast not sure where half it came from) I would believe that you would be able to build oversea colonies. But it would seem more than likely that it would be easier to defend a city overseas.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:28 PM 3. There's mention of connecting the resource to the capital city (no other city is shown though) so do resources have to be allowed to travel to your capital before you can use them? Why not have almost two semi-independent regions, throw in culture and not being attached by roads/harbors for a while would lead a part of your civ to revolt, I like that option

I read it as simply connecting cities by roads to share resources. Or simply connecting your colony to more than one city. Thats the way I understood what Firaxis is saying on their page.

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:30 PM I don't think this is gonna happen, Civ has never been about spreadsheet management styles (counting how many mines) its only a question of access. I prefer just having access to limiting by number, I think that although strategy options would increase, it would make Civ more of a long-term Avolon Hill simulation then fun and games Civ

So then whether you have access to 1 iron mine or 10 iron mines makes no difference as to how fast you can build Legions (or perhaps how many you can build them)?

This is not even how the pathetic "shields" system works! With shields, the more citizens you have to obtain shields from tiles the faster you can build units (and also the more units you can build since units required shields support).

At the very least the iron mines should work exactly like the way "shields" have worked in Civ1/Civ2!!!

[Roman]

The new resource system is certainly very pleasing. I wonder whether they allow stacking of resources of the same type for additional benefit.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-11-2001 06:42 PM So then whether you have access to 1 iron mine or 10 iron mines makes no difference as to how fast you can build Legions (or perhaps how many you can build them)? This is not even how the pathetic "shields" system works! With shields, the more citizens you have to obtain shields from tiles the faster you can build units (and also the more units you can build since units required shields support). At the very least the iron mines should work exactly like the way "shields" have worked in Civ1/Civ2!!!

Polymths, the resource system in Civ3 is supplementing the shield system, not replacing it. Shields already limit unit speed. Having surplus iron does not make building things go any faster... that depends on the manufacturing capability of a city, which is represented in both Civ2 and probably Civ3 in shield form.

About sea colonies: Sure, building a city on a resource rich island is a solution... but even then, without roads, what is their method for transferring those goods to the mainland? Will different islands be able to share goods?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[polymths]

If merely access to a resource is sufficient, then I can't imagine there being any trade at all! Nor can I imagine that embargoes would ever work!

There must be lots and lots of these resource tiles everywhere and it probably takes little effort to build a huge, self-sufficient, trade network so that you are connected to all the resources you could need to build whatever it is that you need.

The screenshots seem to indicate that these resources will be abundant and will exist everywhere so everyone will have access to their own iron mines. If all you need is just access to ONE mine, then again, I ask how does trade come in???

I would think that if I have lots of iron but little oil and someone has lots of oil, little iron that we would then trade.

However if one oil is as good as 100 oil, then again how does inter-civ trade ever come into play???

[Youngsun]

sorry, double post
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 11, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

Firaxis said:

quote: However, certain goods, known as luxuries and resources, provide extra benefits to your cities. Luxuries, such as spice, silk, and diamonds, increase the happiness of your people. Resources, like iron, oil, and uranium, allow the construction of specific units and buildings. Therefore, resources become a source of strategic advantage and should be protected as such.

Dejavu?

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-14-2001 12:42 AM Lancer has brought up something that I will support fanatically. One thing that I was so frustrated from whole civ series was lousy aspect of international trade and no representation of industry. Actually those resources(wheat/oil)were there from the very beginning but the game did not use them up to their full potential. We don't need to have all the resources and commodities which are used in real life. Those things called "strategic resource" will do job especially oil,iron and coal along with some luxury and food items.

cyclotron7

quote: who opposed mandatory resources, stockpiling

I know you opposed "primary resource system" but "stockpiling"? "stockpiling" was never been a major issue between usas we all know and we spent 90% of our argument based on the fundamental nature of resources, either "Primary" or "supplementary".

quote: the resource system in Civ3 is supplementing the shield system

Excuse me? not the other way around? Can you build a unit of legion without "iron"? Resources in civ3 are the critical, major, primary, key elements to build certain units not mere bonus factor you have hoped for. The shield system now serves as a maid of primary resource system by assisting building speed only which has the exact same concept as the "labour idea" ,which monolith94 suggested, in terms of what it does.

quote: It also appears that the resources are well seeded, with even one city having an abundant supply of such things as silk and iron.

That was exactly what I was telling to you many times. but you weren't interested at that time. "Basic sustainability", "the varing accessibility of basic and strategic resources", don't they ring a bell?

quote: I like that merely having iron lets you build these iron units.

So you now like the mandatory nature of the resource system. Will you call the civ3 resource system a "mandatory one" too? You wouldn't would you? Because now you understand how the resource system can work beautifully even if the nature of the resources are "mandatory". Please, don't tell me only my model was mandatory and civ3 one is not. Whether it's simple or not it is still mandatory, simple mandatory or complex mandatory. there is no supplementary...

quote: So for me, I consider this to be quite a concession... proof that not only is compromise best for everyone, but a good indication that Civ3 is on the right track. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop giving "constructive criticism"... but I think that the resource system at least is a clear victory for most of us Civ fans (and fanatics!).

Yes, I agree. As long as people like it, it is everyone's victory.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-11-2001 06:28 PM1. Does it take a worker or settler to build a colony, please say worker because wasting 2 pop on a disappearing colony wouldn't be good

It says in the tutorial that you need a worker unit not a settler

[Sava]

If the game is going to be at all realistic, you need to have units dependent upon resources. How can you build a battleship without steel or oil? Having a system NOT based on resources would be retarded.

[java4me]

I think that the new resource system is good, but I am still wondering on if you have more than one sqaure of that resource that you could speed up production on the units that require that resource? Also if you have a colony, it says that it has to connect to your capitol city, can it connect to another one of your cities or does it have to be to your capitol city?