Resources - The old way rules

[Nexus VI]

I've tried to play a few times before coming to this conclusion.

I embraced the introduction of strategic resources with curiosity and I played with them to try and learn how to enjoy myself the best way I could.

Eventually I decided to eliminate the resources. Now I play without limits. I can build everything without the nightmare of getting a resources shortage which could limit my enjoyment a lot.

I believe the true nature of Civilization doesn't permit the existance of resources. They should be used only in RTS games.

I can't accept to fight for obtaining a resource and then, eventually, seeing it disappear in a few turns (thing this is calculated randomly).

You could object the disappearing of resources can be disabled; this is true and I believe that is a parallel solution to my own. If one really wants to fight for resources he/she should be sure once he/she gained them, he/she can keep them until his/her militar power is able to protect them.

However, removing the necessity of resources, made me find again the old beloved way-to-play Civilization I liked so much with the past two chapters.

This is my opinion. I would suggest you to try it out and tell me what you think of it.

Aloha...

[Nakar Gabab]

I kind of like resources. Don't love, don't hate; it at least makes you think a little bit about building cities in places you might never imagine one could go looking.

That said, I agree that the disappearing thing is really, really stupid. Sorry to say this, but iron buried in a mountain does NOT run out very quickly. When two iron resources peter out in 10 turns (maybe 100-200 years? I assume resources represent a saturation of that resource; i.e. horses don't mean there aren't horses many places, just not enough to be used for practical military purposes; similarly, I figured iron in a mountain meant that section of the range was particularly iron-rich), that's a bit much. Uranium isn't needed in such huge quantities that a supply of it would poof over 20 years (uranium may not be plentiful, I'll concede that's modeled well, but I've seen the specs on uranium mines versus stuff you can make with it, and you don't need buckets of the stuff to get enough radioactive stuff from 'em). Oil reservoirs are HUGE, oftentimes etc.

I propose the following: Resources ought to have a RANGE of time at which they're useful. For instance, iron should be plentiful but die out in 40-60 turns (takes a lot of iron). HOWEVER, iron in a more 'natural' place might last longer - in a mountain as opposed to a hill. Similarly, oil in a desert or in a tundra region will last longer than oil on plains (Texas has a lot of small oil wells 'cause none of them seem to last a long time; Saudi Arabia and Alaska can pump tons of the stuff). So there'd be a range of usefulness based on location. Makes the concept of 'strategic reserves' even more important - save that iron on the mountain until your two hill sources poof, so you can have a buffer while you seek a couple newer, more secure sources.

And horses (you can RAISE new horses), aluminum (the civilopedia even mentions it being the most plentiful metal; this stuff doesn't GO anywhere), rubber (it really DOES grow on trees!) and possibly saltpeter (once you've figured this stuff out, it isn't all that hard to make) needn't go anywhere, ever. Thus allowing "non-critical" resources to appear in slightly smaller quantities but last longer, while iron, coal, etc., the stuff people always want as soon as they become available, will be somewhat easy to find but prone to run out fast unless budgeted.

[Smash]

I think that was the whole idea with strategic resources.Trying to create late and mid game interest with a constantly changing situation.I like this part of civ3 quite abit.There is some frustration potential though.

It would be nice to have some kind of estimate as to how much supply there is.Then at least you could make an informed decision whether to start something or not.But I don't see how they could make it random and static at the same time.Unless each resource had a set amount of turns until depletion.That might hurt more than help.

It also adds an element of luck.Every half decent game has an element of luck.

[Nakar Gabab]

I was thinking something like a semi-random time, longer in 'better' locations, that ONLY depletes if the resource is in use. Would be a bit more strategic; do you trade that extra oil patch for cash now, running the risk of losing it in your own territory, or do you hold it, and try your darndest to keep people away from it?

I can see stealth worker raids to make you use the resource up without using it. Maybe that is a little nuts.

[David Weldon]

I believe that the idea of resources is tremendous, but that the penalty for not having them is _way_ too high. This is the same mistake Firaxis made with culturally reverting cities. The idea adds interest to the game, but the penalty of losing _all_ units within that city is just too large.

My solution is simple: treat resources as exceptionally pure locations. Assume all areas have trace amounts of needed resources, but that their extraction is much more costly than extraction from such 'pure' locations. This also makes the idea of a disappearing resource much more understandable, as it isn't totally gone, it's just that all of the easily accessible stuff is used up.

Mechanically, I use the editor to create duplicates of all units that require resources. The cost of these units is three times the cost of normal units (adjust the multiple to suit your tastes). I then remove resource requirements for things like building railroads. Of course if I have a resource I'll choose to build the cheaper units, but if I don't have it, then I at least have the option of building the more expensive equivalent units.

What you are left with is what I think Firaxis intended... an interesting addition to gameplay that makes it very important to accuire resources, but not absolutely essential. Remember that they made the design decision to make older units more capable vs. newer units specifically to enable resource-poor nations to stay at least somewhat competetive. That was an interesting choice which lead mostly to a lot of newbies *****ing about abnormal combat results. Personally I think my solution is much more appropriate.

[Allemand]

After losing two squares of the same resource in a very short time (happened more than once, too) I don't think the resource disappearances are all that random. I also seem to lose a resource just before I need it, again it's happened too often. So there must be something else at play here besides a 1% chance each turn.

One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal.

Still, I like having to go to war to get resources. Just don't like losing them to a "random" event.

[Spearthrower]

Sorry for a "newbie" question
If you build a city directly on top of a resource, will it still have the chance to run out?

[MadWombat]

I think each source having a number of turns of utilization applied to it when it's generated would be best. After that time it vanishes and a new one appears elsewhere.

And no, building on top of a resource doesn't make it stay.

[DK36]

I simply adore resources. In my opinion. it is one of the greatest additions to Civ3. However, I agree that seeing it immediately dissapear even though you didn't really use it up yet is quite silly. I think the calculation should include how many thing you have done that are associated with that resource (such as how many musketmen you built (or are maintaining per turn?)). Though I am not deeply disturbed by this particular part of the game, the addition of a better formula would be a bit better.

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by David Weldon
Mechanically, I use the editor to create duplicates of all units that require resources. The cost of these units is three times the cost of normal units (adjust the multiple to suit your tastes). I then remove resource requirements for things like building railroads. Of course if I have a resource I'll choose to build the cheaper units, but if I don't have it, then I at least have the option of building the more expensive equivalent units.

You've missed an important point, though. You dont _Need_ the highest tech unit to win the game. Because of the way the combat system works you can easily get by making hordes of cavalry rather than tanks (especially of you are using artillery in good amounts) If you triple the number of shields (or even double) to build a tank then you are placing the price to performance ratio squarely on the side of building cavalry. Dont be so squeemish about using lo-tech units.

[Venger]

I have suggested in the General forum that resources be modified thusly -

A much BETTER system for strategic resources would be that having oil or copper or iron would allow construction of a slightly better VARIANT of a unit, rather than making the unit dependant on it.

Example:

Tank - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Superior Tank - can be built with oil and iron - has +1 attack and +1 defense.
Battleship - as soon as you research the tech, you can build it.
Improved Battleship - can be built with oil, iron, and uranium, + 2 defense and +1 move.

This would give you a nice bonus if you secured these resources, but wouldn't totally f@ck you if you don't. This REALLY helps the AI, because they are ridiculously easy to conquer (like the French). But securing a resource can give you a slight but sometimes crucial advantage.

This type of smart thinking with resources gives you a nice palpable bonus, without making the the spotty resources totally make or break a game (and let's be honest, these "resources" are found all over the world, to pretend that oil is only found in a couple spots is goofy).

Venger

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Allemand
One solution is to not connect the resource with a road, then it will never disappear. If I am down to my last oil well, I station a worker and a military unit on the resource. When I want to build tanks/aircraft the worker builds a road (one turn, use more workers if it takes longer), then after giving the production orders I have the military unit destroy the road before the turn ends. My cities still build the units, but this means I have to micro-manage production a lot more than normal.

That's not true. I wish I could remember which thread it was in, but someone had information showing that it did not matter whether or not a resource was connected to a road, it's just a random chance that the resource will disappear and show up somewhere else.

[Nexus VI]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
That's not true. I wish I could remember which thread it was in, but someone had information showing that it did not matter whether or not a resource was connected to a road, it's just a random chance that the resource will disappear and show up somewhere else.

Exactly. If you want a sure source of information about it go and take a look at the popup help of the editor: section "Resources".

There's a field which specifies the chance a resource has to disappear: eg. Coal = 800 means there's a chance over 800 that Coal will disappear and eventually reappear in another tile on the map.

So, there are no tricks to keep resources, they just disappear randomly during the game.

ByeZ.

[Zanzin]

I personally really like the resource system. The only problem with it resources disappearing...this wouldn't be such a problem either, as resources do get depleted from time to time - it was just a situation I came across in my last game -

Just discovered oil...I had 3 deposits in my empire. Within 1 turn, one of the deposits was depleted!!! The annoying thing about this is that I hadn't even used this oil to build anything! Really, quite silly.

[Matthevv]

I really like the resources idea. I'm not so sure about the random dissappearance, but it doesn't affect things much, and its a welcome random element in the game. I don't find any problem with not having resources in my patch of the world. I just trade for what I need, and have never had a problem obtaining it so far. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll focus on cities with resources when attacking an AI Civ, but going to war just to try and grab a resource would probably lead to you getting into some wars at a bad time, and not in the way that you want.