PBEM Mod: Resource Distribution

[snoopy369]

History: Resource distribution can often ruin a PBEM game for one or more players. For example, if you don't start with iron or horses, you have a much reduced chance to win unless you are playing a Builder game.

Problem: Iron particularly in the AA is vital to military adventures. It can be found very early on - within 1 or 2 techs, if you choose - and gives you a unit greater than that of the best (common) defender, the 3/2/1 swordsman. If you don't have Iron, however, you are limited to 2/1/1 archers or 2/1/2 horsemen, which pre-C3C would have been fine (retreat) but now aren't nearly as strong.
Horses, on the other hand, are vital once you get to Cavalry. Perhaps this is not a problem for most people, as if you make it to cavalry without trying to trade for or capture horses perhaps it is your own fault; but nonetheless the problem exists.

Specific problem: Low resource distribution generally gives one or more player a start without iron, preventing early age military success

Solutions:
- Increase resource rate
- Strengthen other units (such as horsemen)
- Weaken swordsmen, or make them more expensive

[snoopy369]

Personally, I like the idea of strengthening horsemen. I think the resource scarcity is generally good - giving you a good reason to go to war, or to trade. BUT, that doesn't mean you should be screwed over either, if you don't get ONE resource.

First off, I think that there should be one available resource of each type for each player in PBEM, at least until coal. The resource formula (lessening the distribution of each resource as you go further) assumes a decrease in the number of civs. I think in PBEM the vital resources - iron, horses, saltpeter, coal - should be available such that, if it's a peaceful game, all players have one.

Second, I think Horsemen should be strengthened to 3/1/2, but made more expensive (and possibly make chariots 2/1/2). Make Horses a more valuable resource again - that lessened when retreat was made non-automatic. Horsemen cost 30, same as swordsmen, for 2/1/2 vs. 3/2/1 - and nobody in PBEM uses then on offense (much) unless they have no iron. Make them 3/1/2 but 40 gp, and it's worth it; they still have lower defense value, so you have to bring something else along for defense and/or 'blitz', and they're still only 2 mp so you can't blitz all the time (assuming some cultural growth has occurred), but they're more useful on offense. 40 shields makes them more expensive than swordsmen, meaning people will still USE swordsmen, but people w/o iron aren't totally screwed...

Some other units, like Mounted Warriors, would have to be modified slightly - although a 30 shield 3/1/2 UU wouldn't necessarily need modding, now that I think about, since it's cheaper, and belongs to a favorite civ and an Ag civ anyway.

[punkbass2000]

I think some should be increased for game balance, while other reduced for intrigue. Iron, in particular, should be increased. Not having Iron can be almost certain death. Maybe even 1.5/civ so that anyone REXing reasonably well and playing against people of comparable strength will be virutally guarantedd. This would take out some of the fun, as discovering IW early may be less useful and also the overall mystery of the game may be hindered. I think later resources should be reduced, to make strategic resources actually strategic, especially as their tends to be fewer civs around, needing a resource. I would consider reducing Horses, in order to offset Iron. Making Horsemen/Knights/Cavs a bit more of a luxury would be an interesting twist. Maybe only 0.5/civ. Saltpeter seems fine to me. Rubber/Oil would be one's I might reduce. I don't play enough past this point to have much to say on modern resources.

[snoopy369]

0.5 horses per civ would be harsh - Cavalry, unless we reduce them, would be worth their weight in any 3 luxury resources at that point, as at MOST 1/2 of the civs would have them. Perhaps 0.75 or something?

Definitely later resources, other than coal, should be reduced; but they don't happen much anyhow. What about reducing luxury resources even further?

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Personally, I like the idea of strengthening horsemen.

As an experienced multiplayer, let me assure you that horsemen absolutely RULE the ancient age in MP games. Any seasoned vet would rather have horses than iron for ancient age warmongering.

Why? Because SPEED KILLS. The element of surprise and the ability to get from point A to point B quicker than your opponent can move his defense is what wins the day in MP games.

If anything, the true worth of iron comes much later in the game. It really hurts to not be able to build railroads and/or factories. Much more than it hurts to not have swordsmen or pikemen.

Sorry if I'm not supposed to post here; just trying to give you the MP perspective on this.

[UnOrthOdOx]

SHHH!

They were going to give us warmongers Iriquois UU's as a standard!

/me salivates for Zulu...

I agree Swords are stronger than horsies, but upping attack is not the answer.

Perhaps making them 25 shield, maybe chariots 15?

This also begs the question what to do with Iriquois and Egypt if you change horsies/chariots, though.

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

* UnOrthOdOx salivates for Zulu...

Wow.

::shakes head::

Wow.

Swords better than horsies? Puh-lease.