C3C : Strategic Resources Scarcity Sucks! - Page 4

Catt · January 22, 2004, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
I don't know what to think of it yet. My initial reaction was positive -- i.e., the scarcity imposes additional challenges. But I'm not sure that the scarcity isn't too much -- it could unduly hinder a peaceful game by the human, and it could really mess up AI performance. For the undecided, like me, it is certainly something to keep an eye on as the collective experience with C3C grows.

Well, the C3C resource scarcity now sounds like a bug that will most likely be addressed in the end-of-February patch, so I expect it will return to PTW levels unless a strong show of support from the fansites likes the new scarcity.

I haven't had a lot of free gaming time so I still haven't played enough to express a concrete opinion, but my "soft" opinion is that the resource scarcity makes for a slightly different game, but one that I wouldn't characterize as better or worse, nor one that I would characterize as demanding warfare or demanding extensive additional trade efforts. I'm still worried about its effects on AIs, but I am less concerned about its effects on the human player.

Catt

Aqualung71 · January 22, 2004, 22:42

I think Sir Ralph makes some good points. I guess I was referring to the human's ability to set an objective (ie, capture that iron!) and build enough of whatever units are available to do so, whereas the AI may not have that determination.

Still, I agree that the resource scarcity has changed the game and made a peaceful game much more difficult - which of course reduces your options and hence the strategy component. Perhaps Firaxis may look at this for the next patch as it seems to be a common viewpoint.

I think the resource system needs more fundamental changes than just more available resources.....but that's for the Civ4 thread, not here!

MrWhereItsAt · January 23, 2004, 04:09

I too would agree things are just too scarce now. That may be fine for lux, as it encourages you to maybe conduct diplomacy to get them or to think of other ways of keeping people happy, but with no horses or iron from the start it has certainly forced me to war early - previously nearly unheard of! It also does a lot to make the SoZ as powerful as it is.

Harovan · January 23, 2004, 04:19

To enforce wars doesn't exactly make the game more difficult. Once you got a grip on the AI tactics, it's even easier than builder games. One can beat with ease one or even more difficulty levels above his builder limit by pure warmongering. AI economical bonuses won't work once the AI is gone or crippled to a measly vassal.

The forced wars make the game boring by taking options out of it. I for instance like to limit myself to be a considerable, but not overwhelming power, and I strive to keep as many AI civs alive as I can. I don't mind at all to have to trade for a resource. But trading for resources is next to impossible, if there are less deposits of it on the map than civs alive. What remains? Either wage war to secure a deposit, or wage war to reduce the # of civs. A war game, and not even a good one.

Mountain Sage · January 23, 2004, 04:33

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. On a pure builder's mode, you can get away with not having iron if you are very nice with everybody. Doing without saltpeter proves more difficult (no musketman and no frigates). To get any, you'd better have by then at least a 1 tech lead to trade it away. By the time you realize you don't have rubber either, it's either a try for a diplomatic win or an infantry/artillery war, which just spoils the game. By the time you don't have uranium and/or aluminium, you curse yourself by not having gone to war in the Ancient times and your fun is really over.
The lack of luxuries is not that bad, since you can compensate it with temples, marketplaces, cathedral etc, but one your cities hit size 12 (and often before), you lose at least 2 pop points for entertainers, or have the lux slider at 30%, which means less gold and therefore a longer tech research.

Harovan · January 23, 2004, 04:43

I'm perfectly fine with the reduced luxuries.

Cort Haus · January 23, 2004, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. On a pure builder's mode, you can get away with not having iron if you are very nice with everybody. Doing without saltpeter proves more difficult (no musketman and no frigates). To get any, you'd better have by then at least a 1 tech lead to trade it away. By the time you realize you don't have rubber either, it's either a try for a diplomatic win or an infantry/artillery war, which just spoils the game. By the time you don't have uranium and/or aluminium, you curse yourself by not having gone to war in the Ancient times and your fun is really over.

Excellently put. What a difference a month makes, eh MS?

Here's what you said back then to my complaint about peace-play being removed from the game, suggesting that I should perhaps be posting on the 'why am I losing?' thread.

There are some great features and improvements in C3C - for example the specialists and naval mods, but perhaps for the sake of the Marketing Department, something got screwed in the game balance.

"New Resources: fight for control over Tobacco, Jade, Sugar, Exotic Birds and more" sings the box. Yeah right - we've all had those game-clinching tobacco wars haven't we? Perhaps it should read "Less Resources : Fight for control over the sole source of Saltpeter on your four-civ continent".

Theseus · January 24, 2004, 22:25

I've posted this elsewhere before (prolly in this thread, even): My biggest issue with resource scarcity is less re the human player, and more re the AI civs. This all but guarantees significant imbalance among the civs, much more so than basic terrain ever did, and will inevitably produce the strong / weak cycle that generates KAIs.

On the one hand, GOOD. But on the other, it completely overrides the 'balance' of the AI civs, and thus, to me, the balance of the game. This includes, among other things, leaving the weak AI civs TRULY weak, and thus a boring target for warmongering.

Can;t wait for the patch, if as we suspect it will put things a-right.

vmxa1 · January 24, 2004, 22:28

You know what "T", I wonder if that is what is making the game stiffer? Not my doing wihtout this or that, but some of the others.
This gets them rolled and makes the KAI, sooner.
In a two landmass game, you will get a KAI often anyway, but now it is sure and it may be sooner.

Theseus · January 25, 2004, 00:08

Yup. It ain't about the human player suffering... heck, I've pulled off Archer comebacks. It's the AI civs that are suffering or benefiting.

Heck, there were all but religious wars over the combat model both here and at CFC... I think resource distribution is about a thousand times more important for the AI civs.

Iroquois · January 26, 2004, 03:24

I like to play LAN game with my friends.
Usually Continents, 8 players - 3 human and 5 AIs.
PTW was a nice balanced game. But I found only one!!!!!! saltpeter in our recent C3C game on my huge continent which I shared with another Human player and 2 AI. Another one saltpeter I found on the next continent were live third Human and 2 AI.
Total TWO saltpeters for whole world!!!!! in LAN game. Terrible. Absolutely unbalanced game.

CerberusIV · January 26, 2004, 06:29

I have now progressed to the modern age and a standard map 8 civs game has 2 uranium across the entire map.

I'm lucky enough to have one of them and luckier still that the Romans don't have the other but there is a strong chance it will disappear before I have the techs to take advantage of it.

Mountain Sage · January 26, 2004, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Excellently put. What a difference a month makes, eh MS?

Here's what you said back then to my complaint about peace-play being removed from the game, suggesting that I should perhaps be posting on the 'why am I losing?' thread.

Did I really said that?

Ah well, in the meantime I'm having fun with my Berserkers

I only need iron. Saltpeter and muskets won't help my victims and by the time coal is around the game's over anyway...

justjake73 · January 26, 2004, 08:45

I'm playing now on a mod where I increased the chance of resources and eliminated the possibility of them disappearing. Yeah, it may be seen by some as "cheating", but I want to have fun, not screaming beacuse there are only two Rubber in the entire world!!

Harovan · January 26, 2004, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Did I really said that?

Ah well, in the meantime I'm having fun with my Berserkers

I only need iron. Saltpeter and muskets won't help my victims and by the time coal is around the game's over anyway...

For a playstyle like this resource scarcity doesn't have any importance indeed.

Mountain Sage · January 27, 2004, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

For a playstyle like this resource scarcity doesn't have any importance indeed.

Well, I still need some victims, errr, civs. Can we say that other civs are the Berserker's resources?

UnOrthOdOx · January 27, 2004, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Did I really said that?

Ah well, in the meantime I'm having fun with my Berserkers

I only need iron. Saltpeter and muskets won't help my victims and by the time coal is around the game's over anyway...

And I have found a whole new appreciation for the War Elephant myself. Nice to have a knight with an extra HP and no resource requirement under the current situation.

Cort Haus · January 27, 2004, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

And I have found a whole new appreciation for the War Elephant myself. Nice to have a knight with an extra HP and no resource requirement under the current situation.

Damn right UnO. I look forward to playing India after AU501.

TheArsenal · January 27, 2004, 13:15

I’ve started playing around with the Editor and have been for a few weeks now. After creating a Large Map and allowing the editor to place the resources randomly, it is shocking how little iron is on the map that size (and how few resources in general, but few resources are as important as iron IMO). I may be wrong, but I am of the school that this is a definite bug as it really reduces your game play options. I was going to war anyway, its my style, but I’m sure its limiting to other players who don’t wish to.

Harovan · January 28, 2004, 10:17

India is a fun civ for a game not emphasizing warfare, and rel/com a good trait mix.

SirOsis · January 28, 2004, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
India is a fun civ for a game not emphasizing warfare, and rel/com a good trait mix.

Tell that one to Snotty.

I did some testing on a tiny map and there were 4 iron deposits on most maps which means 1 for each civ. Of course the placement would preclude some civs from getting iron except through trade. Saltpeter seemed to be the least abundant resource. I used map seed
666

and these are the results:

Resource - #
Horses - 4
Iron - 4
Saltpeter - 2
Coal - 3
Oil -3
Rubber - 3
Aluminum - 3
Uranium - 3
Wines - 2
Furs - 3
Dyes - 3
Incense - 2
Spices - 2
Ivory - 2
Silks - 2
Gems - 3
Whales - 6
Game - 4
Fish - 6
Cattle - 2
Wheat - 4
Gold - 0
Sugar - 2
Tropical Fruit - 3
Oasis - 2
Tobacco - 1
Goody Hut - 12