Resources allocation rigged??

rid102 · November 26, 2001, 08:17

OK I've played several games of Civ3 now but I've noticed something very interesting about where and how strategic resources are allocated.

What seems to happen in the game will actually not allocate you new resources (e.g. Saltpeter) when you are either very powerful or very advanced. Instead, it seems to allocate proportionally more specials to the more backward nations. I assume this is encourage trade and propogate a "better" game.

E.g. I played a recent game as the Egyptians. After a lot of war early on, I settled down owning about 1/3 of the entire map (a big chunk of the major continent). I had a bunch of luxury resources (wines, incense, furs etc.) which came from all over my empire, as well as a couple of sources of Iron and Horses. Great I thought. So, I then discovered Gunpower. Low and behold, not a single square of Saltpetre emerges. However, the Germans to my North, have 3 squares of Saltpetre, maybe all within 10 squares or so of my border. Similar scenario occurs when I discover Steam Power (now, I know Coal is rare...). Again, I get none, the Germans get 2 squares. Discover Refining and get Oil, I get one square, which dries up pretty quickly, the Greeks to the East have 3 squares of Oil etc.

This is just one example of a trend I've seen occuring in other games before. I don't think it's just the case that I'm being unlucky. I am beginning to suspect that the game deliberately makes resources rarer in your territory when you're doing well. So, my question is: Are the resource squares pre-determined (i.e. at the beginning of the game) or does the game allocate them during the game (i.e. are they weighted towards the weaker Civs to encourage gameplay)?

LaRusso · November 26, 2001, 08:27

no, resources are distributed on the outset.
one tends to think that it is rigged, but it all really depends. there were games where i was sitting on piles of rubber and mountains of aluminium....so go figure

Grumbold · November 26, 2001, 08:28

I have not experienced the problems you describe in any game so far (I've sometimes lacked a resource, but only early on before I have expanded). In my most recent game two of my smaller opponents have effectively been out of the running since the ancient age because they have had the techs but none of the resources to support industrial age or modern age construction. Needless to say, I have not been trading my large surplus to them.

Chronus · November 26, 2001, 08:32

Quote:

What seems to happen in the game will actually not allocate you new resources (e.g. Saltpeter) when you are either very powerful or very advanced.

I disagree.

I was the very powerful Aztecs in my last game. I was the undisputed king militarily, monetarally, technologically . . . everything.

I had the largest land mass . . . but not a drop of oil. I struck a pricy (135 gold per turn) deal with the Greeks for this valuable commodity to build my tanks, infantry and air force.

Many turns later, long after my deal with the Greeks expired, oil appeared on my land and I was able to upgrade to Mech Infantry, Modern Tanks, etc.

Why, oh why, must people claim that the game is rigged or broken just because they don't have access to resources? This is the best part of the game!

mrbilll · November 26, 2001, 08:33

Unlike the corruption, I don't think resources are rigged, but you DO get some funny results. On a huge map, I wound up with a vast stretch of continent, mostly plains and grassland. It was understandable that I had to strain to get at the coal in the mountains, but there was nary a horse in sight. What's up with that? I know the plains Indians didn't have horses until the Europeans brought 'em, but this isn't a historical recreation, is it?

LaRusso · November 26, 2001, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Chronus

I disagree.

I was the very powerful Aztecs in my last game. I was the undisputed king militarily, monetarally, technologically . . . everything.

I had the largest land mass . . . but not a drop of oil. I struck a pricy (135 gold per turn) deal with the Greeks for this valuable commodity to build my tanks, infantry and air force.

Many turns later, long after my deal with the Greeks expired, oil appeared on my land and I was able to upgrade to Mech Infantry, Modern Tanks, etc.

Why, oh why, must people claim that the game is rigged or broken just because they don't have access to resources? This is the best part of the game!

yup
i dunno if i like more if i have it (so that i can be mean) or don't( so that i have to beg). the best bit was english sitting on most of it and me arming and tecching zulus to declare war on english (they were too far away for me, and it looked like afghanistan, my bombers from my carrier providing air cover while zulu mujahedeens advanced. once we got the wells, they happily traded the oil to me

rid102 · November 26, 2001, 09:37

Thanks for all your replies.

Seems as though the answer's "no" but I was just a little interested as from my personal experience with the game, this seems to be the case. I thought perhaps the idea was to stop really powerful nations cutting themselves off and running away to build huge militaries etc. by adjusting the distribution of new resources inside their own territories.

I might try playing a few games and stay weak, to see what resources I get then. AFAIK, the distribution is entirely random but I think as someone's pointed out, you can get quirky results relatively easily.

Quote:

Why, oh why, must people claim that the game is rigged or broken just because they don't have access to resources?

I wasn't claiming that the game was broken because of this (go back and read what I posted before) rather I thought the game was trying to dynamically balance resource allocation to prevent one large, domineering civ getting all the important resources (Iron, Coal, Oil etc.) to itself and not needing to trade.

Guess I was wrong by the sounds of things, oh well. Maybe I just really am that unlucky after all!

Kekkonen · November 26, 2001, 09:48

I have a theory about what's going on with the resources.

I truly believe resource allocation is random. It's not the game. It's you, the player.

Imagine a situation where you have a nice little -- or large -- empire going. You've got horses, you've got iron. You've got saltpeter, you've got rubber. Then you invent refining, and notice that you've got oil, and later you find out you've got uranium. Then you research rocketry and find out that you don't have a single source of aluminum. However, most other nations have plenty of it.

Now, the question is this: what do you remember from this game? Do you remember all those resources that you got for free without lifting a finger? No. What you do remember is the aluminum you had to hunt for in the map and all those negotiations you had to go through to get it. In general, you tend to spend much more time worrying about those resources you don't have than thinking how lucky you are to have everything else.

That being said, someone will always be the most resource-poor empire in the game. Sometimes it IS you.

Dev · November 26, 2001, 09:58

Create new game.
Save game.
Invent iron working and scout some.

Reload game.
Invent iron working and scout some.

The iron will always be in the same spots.

Case closed

/dev

rid102 · November 26, 2001, 09:58

Quote:

Do you remember all those resources that you got for free without lifting a finger? No.

Yes, but if you had, say, 1/3 or even 1/2 of the entire land mass of the world under your control, you'd certainly expect to have a large proportion of the resources also, and not be short of resources that an opponent a few squares away has abundance.

Besides, it still takes someeffort to harness resources in your territory (e.g. building roads/cities and defending them).

I noticed in one game though, that although I didn't have many strategic resources, I did have bundles of luxury resources, so the old maxim of "you always have something to trade" is very true.

Drives a stake through the heart of anyone wanting to play isolationist, though...

Capt Dizle · November 26, 2001, 11:31

Okay. I also have a pet theory. I think that the game is rigged to put a disproportionate amount of strategic resources on islands off the main land masses.

I have seen this is several consectutive games.

Anyone else have this experience?

MariOne · November 26, 2001, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Dev
Create new game.
Save game.
Invent iron working and scout some.

Reload game.
Invent iron working and scout some.

The iron will always be in the same spots.

Case closed

/dev

I mostly agree, but

to properly close the case you should truly generate different conditions.

If you meant:
get on the verge of discovering Iron, save and attempt multiple reloads, the overall strength ratio would be the same, and the test wouldn't be definitive. It would still leave room for an overabundant seeding of Iron "germs", only some of them would be "activated" using a deterministic pattern depending on the strength and borders at the moment of discovery.

If you meant:
Start a game and save right out at turn 1.
Play two games starting from there, in one you let yourself get bigger before you discover Iron working, in one play keeping yourself weak but rush for it, and compare the locations.
If they will be the same, then the case would be closed.

Of course, you know that resources can appear and peter out. That could alter their disposition dinamically too.

For instance, when you discover Iron before someone else weaker than you, you can see the ore even in his territory. So that other player *has* Iron but he can't see it. What if due to other game factors, he becomes stronger than you before discovering Iron on his own? Or he will find out that he has lots of Iron, contradciting the hypotesis, either the game will have not only to dynamically determine the initial seeding of resources, but also to dynamically *adjust* them taking them out of the big bosses, and giving them to the poors...

MariOne · November 26, 2001, 11:57

Hey JT!
are you up for a Multiplayer CivIII?

yours
MoSe

Capt Dizle · November 26, 2001, 12:11

MoSe!

Yeah, I am ready. But I dread the rules workarounds that we will have to adopt to deal with the bugs. Have you heard anything about PBEM being included in an early patch?

jt

rid102 · November 26, 2001, 12:45

I think dev's approach is correct and would resolve this problem.

However, I am not entirely convinced that just doing it with Iron is enough, as when you initially discover Iron, most Civ's are roughly equal. I'd be more inclined to wait a bit longer.

I think I'll go back a few saves in my current game tonight and deliberately lose half/two-thirds my empire to the AI, then discover Gunpower and see where the Saltpeter appears....

AnnC · November 26, 2001, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick Yeah, I am ready.

Until something more interesting comes along.

Wulfram · November 26, 2001, 17:32

I think this effect comes from Humans being more discerning in picking city sites, I usually go for grassland and plains which can't have Iron or Coal, which seem to be the ones I have problems with.

The AI however builds his cities all over the place, including with loads of mountains all over, places which are very likely to have useful strategic resources.

I must admit that I almost always have to trade to build my Railroads (Until I march my mighty armies in and seize it by force!)

Boracks · November 26, 2001, 18:53

Since food seems to be plentiful (except in the desert), I often build cities to include some hills and/or mountains. This way, when new resources appear, I can REALLY curse about having 14 mountains, with mines on all, and still have to trade for iron AND coal.

And I HATE jungle!

Lorizael · November 26, 2001, 19:21

I think maybe you're being a little paranoid. I have had games where I got many strategic resources and then games where I had absolutely none.

However, the placement is not completely random. There is a trend.

Most of the strategic resources (of one type) will be clumped together in one area. This way you can have a sort of OPEC thing where one civilization (I know it's more than one country but you get the point) controls all of the Oil, or Saltpeter, or whatever. In reality, you do get areas in the world that will have more of one thing than another, so this is not unrealistic, either.

Pyrodrew · November 26, 2001, 21:50

The best strategic resources don't go to the weaker civs... they exist in areas where it is hard for a civ to be strong.

Example - Oil is found in desert & tundra. Desert also has saltpeter. How many AI Civs can turn themselves into superpowers starting there??? And I would guess some human players don't even bother trying if they start in the desert or tundra. Jungle is also hard to thrive in... yet jungle can have coal (rare & good for coal plants & railroads), jungle can also have rubber (10 defense infantry). Mountains have gold, iron, etc.

So it's not that the good resources go to the weaker civs, but rather the bad terrain tiles, of which no superpower can be created from... yet a civ can start in. The only exception to this is hills.

Chronus · November 26, 2001, 21:54

Quote:

the best bit was english sitting on most of it and me arming and tecching zulus to declare war on english (they were too far away for me, and it looked like afghanistan, my bombers from my carrier providing air cover while zulu mujahedeens advanced. once we got the wells, they happily traded the oil to me

Cool story! I like reading about these kinds of ideas.

Quote:

I noticed in one game though, that although I didn't have many strategic resources, I did have bundles of luxury resources, so the old maxim of "you always have something to trade" is very true.

This was very much like my second game. I was on a small contenent w/ only horses and lots of silk. Didn't get any other resources until much later. When I finally discovered the other civs, I was able to trade out my silk for techs & other resources. It's amazing what you can do with what appears to be so little.

Quote:

I wasn't claiming that the game was broken

I know you weren't. Your thread title implied that the feature was "rigged". Another thread out there uses the word "broken". Still others use similar, yet different, words. The best word I could think of to refer to all of you collectively was the word "people". I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Lorizael · November 26, 2001, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
The best strategic resources don't go to the weaker civs... they exist in areas where it is hard for a civ to be strong.

Example - Oil is found in desert & tundra. Desert also has saltpeter. How many AI Civs can turn themselves into superpowers starting there??? And I would guess some human players don't even bother trying if they start in the desert or tundra. Jungle is also hard to thrive in... yet jungle can have coal (rare & good for coal plants & railroads), jungle can also have rubber (10 defense infantry). Mountains have gold, iron, etc.

So it's not that the good resources go to the weaker civs, but rather the bad terrain tiles, of which no superpower can be created from... yet a civ can start in. The only exception to this is hills.

You know that actually makes a lot of sense. It's all in the eye of the beholder, or something to that effect.

Oncle Boris · November 26, 2001, 22:37

In my own game at regent with 16 civs, in which I have always been in the lead (between 2nd and 5th, but never first), I found ressources to be extremely balanced: I had no horses, but loads of iron. Plenty of saltpeter, but no coal. 3 aluminiums, 2 rubbers, 2 uraniums, but no oil.
Plenty of Wines, but no other luxuries.
In sum, I didn't have all that I wanted, but at any time I had enough to trade with other civs.

VDmitry · November 27, 2001, 02:25

BEFORE game starts - map is generating. Landscape, than places resources and starting locations.

In game there is only resource random events. Are they fully random or not - it is a question.

rid102 · November 27, 2001, 05:49

To confirm, I went back to one of my old games and played from an old save.

I started a war with the Germans, let them capture a couple of my cities then gave them another half-a-dozen cities or so as part of a peace deal. I did the same with the Greeks also.

Mosied along for a while with my empire about 1/3 the size it was. The Germans look dominant. Discoverd Gunpowered, and low-and-behold, the Saltpetre appeared in exactly the same squares as it did before (i.e. German territory).

Conclusion: There is no balancing of strategic resources. It all seems to be 100% pre-determined.