AU Mod: Resource Scarcity

[alexman]

C3C has changed the appearance ratio of luxury and strategic resources; there are now 25% fewer strategic and luxury resources than in PTW.

Some like the change because it increases the value of resources, forcing players to adapt their strategy to their environment, and increasing variability from game to game. They like to make good use of whatever resources they have, and not use the same strategy that always works for them. What is the point of a resource, they say, if it is readily available to everyone?

Others dislike the change because it encourages warfare. When there are fewer resources than players, some players are left without even the ability to trade for resources, so the only option is war. Peaceful players are handicapped when they lack resources for their rail network or for a spaceship launch. They claim that resource scarcity actually reduces variability, because every game turns into a fight to secure resources.

Which of the above are you? Do you like the C3C more scarce resource distribution, or did you prefer it the way it was in PTW? Should we increase resource appearance ratio? If you think we should make a change, for which resources should we do so, Luxury, Strategic, or both? Or perhaps we should increase the appearance ratio only for resources necessary to support a peaceful empire? Maybe we should even remove resource requirements for actions essential to peaceful builders, like iron from railroads?

What do you think? Any ideas?

[ducki]

They claim that resource scarcity actually reduces variability, because every game turns into a fight to secure resources.

The flipside of this is that if there is never a scarcity of resources, then a game never turns into a fight to secure resources.

I'd like to see resource scarcity-abundance be a range with C3C at the bottom and PtW at the top, with the RNG to determine where in that range the distribution will fall on a per game basis. Maybe even on a per resource per game basis. But that's probably not something we can do.

Maybe trying out 12.5% fewer than PtW would still have strategic resources actually be strategic without every game always being the same(fight for resources or not).

Also, I didn't know railroads required Iron.

[jshelr]

Let me be clear. I personally like, or even need, the scarcity seen in C3C because it allows me to better compete with the AI at demi level despite some weak builder skills compared with other guys who may post here. Lack of resources definitely favours the human warmonger and by a larger and larger margin as the game goes along.

Given that we want to make the AI competitive, I don't think we need to do much for AU games except make sure that the AI is not likely to be screwed when creating the map and resource placements.

But for the mod as a whole, it would be a useful change in the direction of helping the AI if resources were more readily available, IMO.

[pvzh]

I think we can safely increase appearance ratio of strategic resources because in C3C resources tend to claster more than Civ3 or PTW. In Civ3 or PTW continent of 3 players without an iron or coal was a real exeption. In C3C it happens often even if there are almost enough of copies to go around. In my recent game my coninent of 5 civ has no coal and anoher with 3 civ had like 6 copies of coal, but only 2 saltpepper, the other 4 were on mine. The trade could have been possible if I wanted so (all civs on my continent were reduced to outline islands or destroyed), but it was game for dominatination and I did not trade for coal.

Besides, lack of resources is hurts AI more than human.

[Harovan]

The appearance of luxury resources is sufficient as it is. They've been rather too abundant in the previous versions, given the power of Marketplaces.

The ratio of strategic resources should be restored to the PtW level. Reasons given below, in the form of statements I saw on the boards, and related answers.

---

"The resource scarcity makes the game much more challenging."
Does it really? What problem can anyone have to beat the crap out of the AI to get the resource he lacks? Fact is, warmongering is much, much easier in SP-Civ than building. To beat a level by largely peaceful means is harder and thus, more challenging than by sole warfare. If you can barely master emperor by warfare, you probably won't master it by peaceful means. The same is true for me at deity. I have played and won a few games, but all by warfare. I failed so far with all my attempts to play deity peacefully, at least on a random map.

"But isn't it yet more challenging if you win by peaceful means without a resource than with it?
Yes, it is, if I am seeking the occasional challenge. But to have such a situation forcably in every game, is rather boring. Also remember please, that games are supposed to provide not only challenge, but also fun.

"I don't care where the resources are located. I'm going to win by conquest or domination no matter what."
Have fun. You can do so with or without resources. You might look out for other wargames too, there are excellent ones out there, with even more strategical choice and historical accuracy.

"Resource scarcity helps the AI, since it sees the resources from the beginning, while the human doesn't. It can even lead to Killer AIs."
When there are less instances of a resource on the map than active players (and this is true in C3C for all resources beginning with coal), a number of civs remains without the resource. If I recall the numbers correct, on a standard map there are now about 6 instances of coal. That means, 2 civs can't build railroads. Will the human be among them? Not likely, he will get his coal by all means. The result are 2 AIs either dead or deadly screwed. Did the coal scarcity help the human or the AI? As for Killer AIs: Have you ever seen the AI waging a war for resources it lacks? Not really, at least not intentionally. An AI to attack another AI because that other lacks a resource? Again, no. The human? Always, in both cases. If he sees a civ without iron or saltpeter, it is dead. Resource scarcity doesn't lead to killer AIs. The enforced warfare leads to killer humans.

"What point do strategic resources have, if everyone has everything?"
To restore the PtW ratio doesn't mean everyone gets all resources, or did you always get all resources in PtW? But since there are enough resources for all on the map (at least till very late in the game), trade remains an option and a valid alternative for warfare. Additionally, even if you steal a resource from an AI by warfare, it doesn't remain screwed, because it probably can trade it from the other AIs pretty cheap (at least cheaper than the human would get it). With scarce resources, it is screwed, no matter what.

"I like scarce resources!" (without explanation)
Why?

"I like scarce resources to piss off Sir Ralph!"
That's a valid reason!

---

That's only a few, I may add more points later, perhaps even on statements I see in this thread.

Please remember, that your decision here probably will have a large impact on the decision of Firaxis whether it is a bug or a feature. I know that the number of warmongers here is bigger than the number of builders. Please keep in mind, that restoring the full PtW ratio wouldn't spoil the fun for the warmongers. They still can get their conquest. But those who enjoy more peaceful, geopolitical, strategical games, would be screwed by a game, that enforces warfare.

[Risa]

I LOVE C3C resources ratio.
In PtW, after wonder race in middle age, I often found I was in lack of next object: I was in lead of tech, had enough land to ensure I would have every strategical resources and 4 to 5 luxury and could trade for last 3 relative easy, but far from large enough to win domination victory. What left to me were attack AI for no reason other than "I need more land to finish" or sit there and built my country like numerous times before, waiting for UN election or space launching.

In C3C I actually have a reason to wage industrial era warfare. That makes the second half of the game back interesting. When I go for builder approach, I have to think carefully about when, where and how I get the resources I want. That kinds of decision-making brings the game back to being interesting.

Moreover, resources are not that scarce. I had played a 5CC and got every strategical resources from the beginning to cultural victory at the end of industrial era. Though it's an 80% water archipelago map and I was lucky, it should be able to illustrate that there is possible to win without major conquering every 3 or 5 game.

[Dominae]

Sir Ralph, you seem to casting the "warmonger/builder" distinction as an all-or-nothing thing. The fact of the matter is, Civ3 was designed to encourage a mix of both, and indeed most players adopt a hybrid strategy.

Refusing to go to war when you cannot trade for a resource seems like a pretty extreme position to me. You have a perfectly good option in front of you: prepare a short campaign to secure a resource from another civ. There's no need to become an all-out warmonger.

Such short campaigns are exciting because they're goal-oriented. Without the resource "scarcity", these campaigns are unecessary or inefficient; it's easier to just trade for a resource. Sure, this is great for those pure builders among us, but for everyone else it's just an easy way out.

You say that builder/peaceful games are much more challenging than warmonger games. I would like to propose that it all depends on how much you straightjacket yourself. If you're unwilling to go to war, surely pure builder is more difficult because you may not get access to those critical resources. But this is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with how you like to play the game. For someone who likes a difficult game, it's funny that you want to take the easy way out by trading for resources.

And again, pure builder is a pretty extreme method of play. Civ3 was not designed to be a diplomatic game, it was designed for a good mix of both peace and war.

Edit: I like your new avatar.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Incidentally, I think one of the big problems with Civ3 is that it's too easy to be a warmonger under the builder-type forms of government. With Republic and six Luxuries, and it's difficult to justify not conquering the world.

This is in contrast to the SMAC system, where if you wanted to be a builder it was much much more difficult to go on the offensive (and, in the case of the Morganites, it was pretty hard to even defend yourself adequately!).


Dominae

[Harovan]

[ducki]

How about the scarcity's effect on the AI?
Is it acceptible, even desirable, to have resourceless AIs.
As an example, I offer the Sumerians from my playing of AU 501 - they were Coalless, maybe even Saltpeterless.

And yet, in the mid-late game, they were a fairly healthy competitor, a runner in the space-race and quite competitive Research-wise. Not quite a KAI, but definitely no slouch. If they had had coal, possibly they could have been more troublesome, but does every single Nation in every single game need to be competitive?

In 501 there were some remarks about Japan being our own personal punching-bag and predictably, the vast majority of the DARs I can recall used them as such, even if it took multiple attempts. They didn't have anything we "needed". No required resources, no strategic land holdings. They were the Mt Everest of the game. We killed them simply because they were there.
I'd have to go reread, but I wonder how many of us that were upset about the resource distribution and "required war" in 501 are also among those that elected for an "unnecessary war" with Japan...

Just some thoughts. Not everyone's Sumeria turned out like mine, or even made it to the end, but even a coalless AI can be a strong competitor, a believable obstacle - remember, the AI isn't intended to win, simply to provide an overcomeable(is that a word) obstacle on the player's road to victory.

[Harovan]

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
... and leave the AI without the resource, removing a part of the challenge out of the game, since it can't trade it back.

So what you want is for all the AIs to have access to all resources for trade to you? You can always trade the resource back to the AI when you do not need it anymore.


Dominae

[Krill]

"I like scarce resources!" (without explanation)

To be honest, I did not notice the change in either the corruption or resource distribution until it was pointed to me here on Apolyton, three months (or thereabout) ago. It has not changed my playstyle, or the amount of fun I take away from the game. And I do play builder more than is good for me.

You have suggested modding the game, so why not do so if it makes the game enjoyable for yourself?
You said games were supposed to be fun, so make the game fun

[Harovan]

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Trade aluminium and uranium away after I built my units, only to take them away again when I build the spaceship, thus excluding the AI from the race?

You have to gain an advantage over the AI at some point! Yes, warfare means that you improve your position at the expense of the AI's. It's just a means to the whole point of the game (i.e. to beat the AI).


Dominae

[Harovan]

[ducki]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Ummm... well, if weakened AIs are acceptable, I rest my case.

The AI sometimes behaves as a whole and sometimes as several distinct entities, and we talk about "AIs" as a whole and in general terms.

When talking about resource scarcity, the point I was making, the question I was asked was :

Is it acceptible, even desirable, to have resourceless AIs?

Perhaps a better phrasing would be:
Is it necessary for every Nation to have access to every Resource in every Game? Is it more interesting, more fun, more strategically deep to have a one-to-one relationship between Nations and Resources or to have some haves and some have-nots? Is an AI necessarily doomed to destruction if he is missing a resource? Is it possible for an AI to be competitive and engaging if he is missing a resource? Should every AI be a KAI?
Most generally, how does resource scarcity affect the AI and the AIs(purposefully separate).

That's what I meant to ask, anyway. I just didn't word it well.

[Harovan]

[alexman]

I was wondering if a compromise would we feasible.

A builder needs Iron and Coal for railroads, and Iron is not very scarce. So we should increase the appearance of Coal.

A builder would like to win by spaceship, but if he doesn't have Rubber, Aluminum, or Uranium, oh well, he should be able to win easily by a UN vote.

All other strategic resources are required just for units, which should not concern the pure builder.

So the only resource that needs an urgent boost is Coal. Would this be satisfactory? If not, what others?

As for the AI, I'm not convinced that the strategic scarcity hurts it too much, as long as it can build railroads. The AI relies on quantity of units anyway, and the units that don't require resources are usually strong enough for its purposes. If we want to help the AI, luxuries are probably more improtant than strategic resources, because of luxury slider limitations, but I think that we agree that the scarcity there makes the game more interesting.

[Dominae]

Was it really necessary to erase all your posts on the topic, Sir Ralph?

[pvzh]

I have a "fun" solution for that: what if we would double disapearance ratio and add disapearance ratio to resources that do not have one?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by pvzh
I have a "fun" solution for that: what if we would double disapearance ratio and add disapearance ratio to resources that do not have one?

I was actually thinking of that myself, but as a "serious" solution. Makes the game more random though, so I doubt people would go for it.


Dominae

[alexman]

Sir Ralph, could you please add back your first post at least? And your avatar, of course!

[Krill]

More random=greater strategic choice when they do disappear

[nbarclay]

(1) Having luxuries be scarcer makes the game more interesting, albeit not always (for me at least) more fun. The need for luxuries can even provide a rationalization for late-game wars for those who actually feel a need for such rationalizations. Also, luxury scarcity makes Navigation more important because the first civ to establish cross-ocean trade gets the first chance to set up deals to obtain all those nice luxuries from across the ocean. (Consider the implications if the other continent only has one of something to spare!)

(2) I agree with Sir Ralph that on the whole, scarcity of strategic resources is far worse for the AIs than it is for human players. An AI without iron, or saltpeter, or rubber is relatively easy prey for human knights, or cavalry, or tanks. An AI without coal cannot hope to keep up in production even if it is fairly big and powerful otherwise, and is therefore a lot weaker economically, militarily, or both than it would be if it had coal. Human players can almost always deal with such problems by finding someone to invade and planning a military campaign specifically around the goal of acquiring a needed resource, but AIs aren't nearly as good at that type of thing.

(3) If two or three luxuries aren't available, that can provide an excuse for war without pushing players into wars they really don't want. In contrast, shortages of strategic resources do provide fairly strong coercion for players to fight whether they want to or not, especially if the resources in question are not available for trade. While players who always enjoy a good fight as part of their playing style might enjoy being consistently pushed into fights for resources in game after game, not everyone does. I think the level of scarcity in C3C seriously messes up the balance of being able to choose what style of play you enjoy most. (And note, by the way, that I am definitely not of the peaceful builder persuasion, although it's not rare for me to have games where I decide I've conquered enough territory and want to play peacefully from then on if it is practical to do so.)

Dominae, you say Sir Ralph could go to war for the resources he needs if he were willing. I say, why should he have to? Why should fighting be the only way the resources can be obtained? The game does not force warmongers to stay at peace when they would rather fight, so why should it be common for players who want to play peacefully to find themselves forced to attack someone?

(4) In the real world, I can only think of two times when nations that do not have a strategic resource natively are unable to obtain what they need (especially for military purposes) through trade: (a) if they are cut off by war or embargo and (b) if they cannot afford to purchase the resources. I've never heard of a nation that couldn't build infantry no matter how much they were willing and able to pay because the world did not have enough rubber to go around, or that could not build tanks because the world had too little oil, or that could not build spaceship components because the world had too little aluminum. Thus, while I consider the local and sometimes regional shortages found in previous versions realistic, I regard the worldwide shortages in C3C as highly unrealistic.

Conclusion:

I think the best option from a gameplay perspective would be to leave the reduced availability of luxuries in C3C intact but to increase availability of strategic resources back to PtW levels.

[Harovan]

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

As for the AI, I'm not convinced that the strategic scarcity hurts it too much, as long as it can build railroads. The AI relies on quantity of units anyway, and the units that don't require resources are usually strong enough for its purposes.

I strongly disagree. AIs that rely only on quantity are dead meat for a human player with a qualitative advantage and sufficient numbers. Knights (or MedInf/trebuchet stacks), cavalry, and tanks make mincemeat of spears, pikes, and riflemen, respectively. That is especially true of the situation with tanks in the industrial era because the cost difference between infantry and riflemen is so much smaller than the difference in defensive capabilties. Certainly, AIs can make up for quality with quantity to some extent (and I've been surprised at how hard backward AIs were to take down in some situations), but is there anyone here who has not salivated over seeing an AI that was vulnerable because it couldn't build modern defenders?

[Arrian]

For the record, I agree with Sir Ralph and Nathan on this one. Not necessarily vehemently, but I do agree.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Krill
More random=greater strategic choice when they do disappear

More random = carefully chosen and planned strategies being thrown into chaos when resources disappear. Having resources appear and disappear occasionally adds flavor to the game, but I would not enjoy it at all if my plans kept getting messed up on a regular basis by having resources move around.

In addition, having resources move around more would undercut comparison games because different players who control the same territory would have access to diferent resources at different times.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay

AIs that rely only on quantity are dead meat for a human player with a qualitative advantage and sufficient numbers.

The key here is 'sufficient numbers'. I think playing on a low difficulty level for your ability (like those here who argue against resource scarcity usually like to do, as far as I can tell) allows you to get those sufficient numbers.