|
Author
|
|
Topic: Prereq for techs: having available resources |  |
|
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 07, 2000 11:23
   | 
 |
 |  |
One of the factors that sould determine what techs you can discover is the availability of the resources needed for that tech, ie. to research gunpowder, you need the ingrediants for gunpowder available. Or to research nuclear energy, or some tech like that, you need uranium. As I've said before in other posts, for some techs you need to know that such materials exist in order to research them, and having those materials would boost your science output for techs that use that material (hands on, rather than 3rd person knowledge). |
Big Crunch
Prince
Soon to be known by a Symbol...
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 07, 2000 12:08
|
|
| |
I'd agree in principle. The number of techs that this applies to is small though. The ingrediants of Gunpowder are fairly common for example. However Horse Riding and Nuclear Bombs and their related techs are good examples.
A better reflection would be resources required to build certain units. Such as Uranium required to build A-bombs.
------------------
Pax Vobis. |
Tical_2000
Chieftain
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 07, 2000 16:43
|
|
| |
I don't know. It would certainly make the game more realistic but would it make it more fun? I don't know about you but I usually put fun before realism. After all, isn't that the reason we play Civ in the first place??? Another thing, how do you suggest you accquire the goods needed to research certain techs? Would you need to buy uranium from another civ to build a bomb? What if no other civs have uranium? Or even worse, what if the civ that has access to uranium refuses to sell it because it wants a nuclear monopoly. Like I said, fun before realism! |
Ralf
Warlord
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 07, 2000 17:02
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 12-07-2000 04:43 PM
I don't know. It would certainly make the game more realistic but would it make it more fun? I don't know about you but I usually put fun before realism. After all, isn't that the reason we play Civ in the first place??? ....Like I said, fun before realism!
|
I agree completely! Realism should be an added bonus. NOT the prime sole argument for the whole suggestion. |
UltraSonix
King
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 07:13
  |
|
| |
I think the idea should be implemented for perhaps only the more important techs - which could be gunpowder, nuclear fission, and perhaps steel.------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!) |
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 09:46
|
|
| |
That is generally what I had in mind, I had in mind that only those techs that had resources tied to them, ie. gunpowder, bronzeworking, iron working, nuclear fission (somehow this one seems out of place in this list  ), etc. Not every single tech in the tree. And some resources, like bronze, would be available everywhere. |
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 09:48
|
|
| |
I just noticed this on this last post, but, Hey I'm a warlord ! |
hHydro
Chieftain
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 18:38
|
|
| |
I think maybe that's breaking it down a bit too much Airdrik. (ie: gunpowder, bronzeworking, iron working)And the problem with making materials necessary components for later techs, is what happens if you spend several hours building up your civ only to find that your closest rival has uranium and you don't. I think it's a creative idea, but I don't know if there would be any way to avoid the agony of losing the lead just because your otherwise invincible civ is the only one without any iron or oil reserves or uranium (or whatever.) |
OreoFuchi
Settler
New York, NY
Dec 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 20:14
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by hHydro on 12-08-2000 06:38 PM
And the problem with making materials necessary components for later techs, is what happens if you spend several hours building up your civ only to find that your closest rival has uranium and you don't. I think it's a creative idea, but I don't know if there would be any way to avoid the agony of losing the lead just because your otherwise invincible civ is the only one without any iron or oil reserves or uranium (or whatever.)
|
Then you have to trade for those resources or capture them from your neighbors.
|
hHydro
Chieftain
Vancouver, Canada,
Nov 2000
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 20:42
|
|
| |
Heh.. sorry. If it prevents them from having nukes, I'm not trading my uranium to ANYONE. Screw that!  |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted December 08, 2000 22:09
|
|
| |
Possibly this should be implemented- but it is complicated; however for nuclear missiles
(Uranium) would be good
and with general things such as that it may work, but horses for horseriding, that is getting a bit too specific... |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted December 08, 2000 23:48
|
|
| |
I like the idea of needing certain materials to build certain units. It adds to realism, but I think it also enhances gameplay. If you don't have a certain resource then you need to trade or fight to obtain it. If you have a certain rescource that others in your region don't, then you have them over a barrel. |
Belart
Settler
Moscow RusFed
Dec 2000
|
|
posted December 09, 2000 05:05
|
|
| |
I think you should be able to build units with those resoursec that are available to civilizations you know.
But only during peacetime and pay them a fixed sum for each unit once(automatically).
About refusing to sell uranium... Maybe only totalitarian regimes can restrict foreign trade while if you are democratic you cannot prohibit other friendly nations to autobuy it from you.
This would give people another reason to try to remove neighbouring totalitarian regimes. |
Deity Dude
Settler
Aug 2000
|
|
posted December 11, 2000 14:07
|
|
| |
i think the resource idea is great. another option to having to steal/buy/capture the resource, uranium for example, would be to have different classes of the desired result from the resource, in this case nuclear weapons. i'm not a scientist but do you need uranium to make a hydrogen bomb. maybe you would just have to get a more advanced tech for that. what about chemical weapons - the poor man's nuke. i think the problem with nukes in civ is that they are not powerful enough. in real life the fallout from nukes, even to the nation using them, makes them almost unusable. as for horseback riding - if you don't naturally have the resouce maybe you have to buy or steal some horses or, defeat a horseback rider, then develop stables to breed them. this approach could make the game very interesting because all players would have different natural resources thus creating local resource monopolies. oil would be another example. some areas may have it readily available. others may have to develop some more advanced tech (ie offshore drilling or deeper drilling) that civ could either a)trade for oil b) try and conquer oil producing lands c)wait for the advanced tech that allows them to produce it on their own (maybe at a higher cost) or d)try and produce an alternate energy source. another advantage to this approach would be that it would enable the AI to have more resources at higher levels to increase the challenge |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
