Who hired Greenpeace to do the resource management??

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by GodSpawn


It's called "signing up to the Kyoto Treaty"...

Oops, bit of politics crept in there. Sorry.

No, in game terms the Kyoto treaty would be more like turning workers on shield-producing squares into entertainers (presumably of the Hollywood PC-Environmentalist sort) until all the yellow pollution triangles on the city screen go away.

Turning off global warming is more like assuming the scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming are in fact correct, so no matter how many pollution triangles your cities make the bad thang never happens. Civ2 had a way to do that, but it also disabled the appearance of pollution on any of the map squares. Since pollution in Civ3 also messes up the productivity of the map square it is in, turning off global warming while permiting pollution as a localized problem would be a nice compromise - you would have to clean it up to get full use of your territory but there would be no global disaster. I'd also be OK with having pollution (either the triangles or the actual pollution on the map) make people unhappy - that would model all the Green protester types quite accurately.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Roman
Lol, I believe you can change the percentage chance that resources will run out in the editor.

You can set it to 0 if you like, and they never run out. You can also set strategic resources to be much more common if you like. Both are done on the "natural resources" tab in the rules editor.

Also, on the "units" tab you can change it so you pet unit (or all of them) don't need strategic resources at all.

Firaxis has said that they made the primative units stay viable precisely so you would not be completely hosed for lack of strategic resources. In another thread, I opined that historically people always find expensive work-arounds, so a better choice would have been to make units requiring strategic resources just cost say 3 times as much if you don't have the good stuff. It occurs to me that once they patch the editor so you can add units(or if you use Gramphos's copy tool now), we can do that ourselves.

Copy the unit in question, rename it slightly so you can tell the difference, turn off the resource dependency and triple the shield cost (leave evetrything else like the tech that enables it the same). See the editor help about renaming units for a watch-out here - and since your adding a unit rather than just renaming and existing one you probably have to copy the files referenced in the editor help to the new unit name. What I would probable do is append (E) to the original unit name (for "Ersatz").

I would probably do that as part of an overall mod to systematically increase the effectiveness of later units (like maybe multiple the attack/defense factors by 2 for gunpowder units and by 3 for modern units). One concern is that the AI might build the (E) units instead of the regular ones when it has the resources, because maybe it just uses the attack/defense factor to see what is "best" in a given category of unit and will ignore the cost difference. I think that could be prevented by making the (E) units slightly less effective than the real one, which would not be a big deal if the diiference between units of different eras was substantial. Think of this as, for example, reduced combat effectiveness due to tight fuel supplies.

[WhiteElephants]

Barnacle Bill -- I don't have the game, but I must commend you on your "triple the cost if you don't have the resource idea" nonetheless. If the cost was enough you'd surely still want to find the resource or trade for it, yet it wouldn't be a total black out of certain units.

[siredgar]

I agree. Cleaning up environmental and moral degradation is simply a hassle. Can we ease this up a bit, Sid? Thanks.

[mathgoulet]

I like the resource system. Luxuries really boost population's happiness and usually you can trade strategic resources... unless all other civs decide to declare war to everybody like it happened with my Babylonian Democracy

[yeesh]

2 things:

1. The editor claims that a resource can disappear even if it has never been used. I see no reason to assume that it matters if you build a road to it, or if you can even see it. For all we know, uranium could be bouncing around all over the place before we know it's there. But if anyone has specific proof that this isn't the case, I'll just shut up.

2. Resources "appearing" are actually (according to the editor) just resources relocating, i.e. when you fail your depletion check for a resource, it doesn't disappear so much as it goes to live somewhere else.

[TimTracey]

Originally posted by yeesh
2 things:

1. The editor claims that a resource can disappear even if it has never been used. I see no reason to assume that it matters if you build a road to it, or if you can even see it. For all we know, uranium could be bouncing around all over the place before we know it's there. But if anyone has specific proof that this isn't the case, I'll just shut up.

Ahhh a classic case of "...if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound."

The TAO of Resource Management by yeesh

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by yeesh
1. The editor claims that a resource can disappear even if it has never been used. I see no reason to assume that it matters if you build a road to it, or if you can even see it. For all we know, uranium could be bouncing around all over the place before we know it's there. But if anyone has specific proof that this isn't the case, I'll just shut up.

I can have a road attached to oil & "never use the oil". Until 2 or more people here claim that resources have disappeared in their area when no roads were attached I see no reason to assume that a road is irrelevant. As TimTracey explained it could easily be assumed either way. Again those who have complained of their resources disappearing have never said "but I had no road attached to it" nor have they come back later to post "the resource still disappeared."