2. Just because a square produces copper, doesn't mean that the whole square is full of copper, it means that the square contains area/s of important copper deposits.

3. Ancient crete became a powerful civilization because it was home to a number of copper preoducing areas. If no-one else had copper they would buy it off crete. Under a CTP like system, if no-one else had copper, then there is no reason for them to buy it, because they wouldn't get that monopoly bonus. Therefore under a CTP system, crete would never really be of importance.

When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

Basic sustainability issue

Plain +5 food
Plain(shield)+1 wood or +5 food
Plain(wheat) +1 wood or +8 food
Forest +4 wood or +2 food
Forest(tigar)+10 wood or +2 food
Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal
Note: other metals could be iron,copper,etc.

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 02-25-2001 02:26 AM When you don't have the right resource for a certain unit production, you can not build the unit. Then you will be forced to get the right resource eventually either by conquest or trade. Unless you are militarily prepared, conquest won't be a viable option thus making trade much more attractive.

This counter-argument just popped into my head the other night, and I don't recall seeing it in this thread: without a much more robust and human-like diplomacy system, I think a need-based resource system could be disastrous. Consider the following scenario:

I'm playing as the Germans, and I've managed to get into the modern age as the #1 world power, generally on a peaceful footing. However, as oil exploration has begun I discover I'm chronically short on the resource. I enter into an agreement with my neighbours the British to trade his oil for my, say, coal. The game progresses a few more turns and suddenly the British come a knockin' on my door making demands. "What the -- ?!" I think, as he's generally been cordial to me throughout the game. I refuse to turn over a new weapons technology. "Then we declare WAR!" scream the British, and cut off my oil. Since my reserves are low I can't outproduce the British in tanks, and over the next dozen turns he progresses to smash my armies to pieces under his guns.

You know what that looks like? An AI that decided to turn the tables on me arbitrarily because I was #1 at the time. And that's the big fear, that a resource system could end up deciding the game all by itself. The only counter is to have much more stable diplomatic relations, particularly in the modern age where turns take less calendar time and there should be a growing aversion to full-scale war on the part of the world's civilizations. But then if you've already got the lead and are racing for Alpha Centauri (or equivalent peace-victory), there's little threat to your victory! Catch-22, anyone?

(Obviously I speak of SP here, MP's a whole different ballgame and I don't play it anyway)

Why should "the resource model" be responsible for unreasonable AI behaviours in diplomacy? barking at the wrong tree fella.

WAR is dependent on trade, since you need resources just to build basic units.

DIPLOMACY is entirely centered on trade, and how to procure trade goods.

Any concept of a mandatory system is onerous, unrealistic, and MOST importantly would mak Civ an entirely trade-based game. Now, don't come rushing to me saying "but history is a trade based!" History is different from Civ, and If I want to play a trade based game Civ won't be it, and shouldn't be. You are putting too much importance and eemphasis on only one of this games' many facets.

I'll be happy when Sid drops this thread saying "no game within a game, boys."

Also, If you're playing Germany and the Brits cut off your oil, there's always the synthetic improvement, , also Ploesti in Rumania... I see there being multiple sources for different commodites, and cornering the market as a viable strategy. Some of you are worried by what others can do to your Civ with this sort of system, well, just think what you can do to others! As in everything worth anything, you will have to fight for it!

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 03-14-2001 01:58 AM cyclotron7 don't be so allegic to the word "mandatory". In fact, many of the game features are mandatory in nature. Take the examples from research and unit application. You don't have "Bronze Working"? No phanlanx allowed, period. Once you are allowed to build nuclear missiles with only "Steam engine" or "Iron Working", you know what kind of chaos will happen throughout the whole game. Right tech gives you right unit. What's so wrong with that "right resource gives you right unit"? By making the resource system mandatory in nature, we will treat resources more seriously.

There is a fundamental difference. ANY civ can research technology, so there is little luck involved and all strategy. All civs start out more or less equally in this respect.

With your resource plan, NOT EVERY civ can have a certain resource. To build everything, you must have all resources, and there is no way to get them save a) being physically there or b) trading for them. So, if you are stuck without a crucial resource from the beginning, you may not be able to trade or win this resource because you are so crippled from the beginning. Your plan introduces more luck and less strategy.

By making the resource system mandatory, you may very well make people treat resources more seriously. But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start. I would rather have my sucess depend on my ability, not randomly generated resources.

quote: so there is little luck involved

Oh! Really? What about a civ starting near riverside compared to those which starts from arid grassland so no early irrigation allowed? 5~6 times more beakers for the civ which starts with river, no? You call that little luck? It's not the accessibility of the trade arrows that matters but the amount, you know? Now I really doubt you even glanced at my latest post which deals with "basic sustainability issue" you bring up every time. From my latest proposal, almost every resource is accessible to every civ but those civs which hold special resource squares can get more resources.

quote: NOT EVERY civ can have a certain resource

Of course, that's the way it should be othrewise civs will not trade at all! and that's the time for our little minor civs & local tirbes(huts) come quite handy. Are you advocating 7 civ limit, 16~32 civ or more? I wouldn't have supported the resource model unless there are numerous civs exist during the whole game so the market becomes pretty steady(no monopoly until very last stage of the game)

quote: But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start.

Wait a minute... if every Civ has almost every resource... aren't we just back to the shield system? Civ2 handled it this way: There are so many resources in the world, and people have so many of them, that it would be simpler just to lump them all into one unit (shield) representing raw manufacturing power. Your "resource sustainability" idea just sounds like the Civ2 shield system with a few choice resources that are a bit rarer. If everybody has varying amounts of each resource, isn't this just like shields in that it's, as you say, "quantity and not quality" that counts (or something like that, forgive me if I misquoted). It's kinda like political extremism... once you get radical enough, right and left are esentially the same.

I think that the idea that if resources are not mandatory there will be "no trade at all" because even in Civ2 advanced players know the only way to suceed on higher difficulty levels is to trade profusely. It seems that even without making resources mandatory, Civ2 did sucessfully encourage trading. I certainly make trade a high priority when I play Civ2, as without it is quite difficult to flourish (and survive, at harder levels).

quote: But this will mean the total dependence of every part of the game on trade, and will doom not a few civs to death from the start.

This is not a set of a condition and conclusion, but rather two seperate conclusions I believe would result from the "condition" of a mandatory resource system.

quote: Wait a minute... if every Civ has almost every resource... aren't we just back to the shield system?

No, not at all. Countries like people need balanced diet of resources for growth. Shields represent perfect mix of resources like "super food" which contains protein, fat, carbonhydrates and vitamin all together whereas under the resource model, certain resource represents certain nutrient.

The shield system
CountryA total shields:110
CountryB total shields:110
CountryC total shields:110

CountryA,B and C don't need to trade and they are all at the same power level. Plain,boring and uninspiring..

Now the shileds get diversified as resources. The three countries do have access on three major resources but the outputs vary.

The resource system
CountryA oil:100 coal:5 Iron:5
CountryB oil:5 coal:100 Iron:5
CountryC oil:5 coal:5 Iron:100

CountryA get advantages during modern era(after "combustion")
CountryB get advantages during industrial/late colonial era(after "steam engine")
CountryC will be steady throughout the two eras.

CountryA will import coal & Iron while selling off oil.
CountryB will import oil and Iron while selling off coal.
CountryC will import oil and coal while selling off Iron.

1) All civs must have at least one large and valued quantity that is always pertinent to trade. Country B in your scenario would be sunk after the industrial revolution, as oil would become much more valued than coal. If I was country C with the iron in the modern age, I would trade with country A for the better resource and **** country B. At this point Country B would have nothing to trade, and would be left with its meager supply of other resources.

2) All civs must have a trade advantage with one commodity. If there are going to be more than 8 civs, it is almost certain country D could come along and upstage countries A, B, or C. I would personally rather trade with a partner who has a secure investment, ie. lots of the quantity. People will only trade with the guy who has the most goods and has the most reasonable price, i.e. the big country rather than the small one. Quickly, only a handful of civs from the original 8, or 16, or 32 are now viable civs with opportunities for winning.

3) All civs must have at least mediocre quantities of every good. If I was that guy with the iron, why not squash the iron-deprived civs and take their stuff? Your 5 to 100 model is unrealistic, since the iron civ would always come out on top. If the quantities were 40 to 60, for instance, then it would be reasonable. But wait... if everybody has the quantity, some more, some less, than isn't this just representing shields from Civ2 or a supplementary system, as everybody can build everything? At this point resources become merely production boosts.

Do you see what I am getting at here? I call it a mandatory resource system because you absolutely need a commodity to build a unit. Now, if everybody has at least a portion of every commodity, as per your example, there would be actually no limit on what units you could produce. Wouldn't then that extra 95 just be a boost to production? Which is exactly what a supplementary resource system does! Just like in your model, in a mandatory resource system the extra commodities are just for a production bonus, since everyone can build everything!

At this point, you have completely negated the central point of a mandatory resource system, which is that some units can't be built without certain resources, since everybody has every resource.

Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

quote: Country B in your scenario would be sunk after the industrial revolution, as oil would become much more valued than coal.

It entirely depends on how the leader of countryB responds to the changing environment. Also I did not set the tech variance among these three nations thus it's up to who is the leader of tech race. If CountryB is the only country which holds "combustion "related tech, the only active oil buyer will be CountryB. CountryA has high chance of being exploited by CountryB, if that was the case. Thus high tech civs without much resources will outperform low tech civs with abundant resources. Just like 19C European civs colonising other parts of the world.

quote: All civs must have a trade advantage with one commodity.

That's not the way the World works. Some may have several advantages while some have zero advantage . However, those advantages should be earned throughout the game. Everyone starts with one city so it's up your exploration and conquest to acquire and maintain sizable territoy which provides you with enough resources.

quote: I would personally rather trade with a partner who has a secure investment

If you find someone, who can have mutually beneficial trade with you, a partnership will be formed naturally not the other way around. It is difficult to maintain rock solid relationship with other nations for eras due to constant change of political environment. Today's friend can be tommorow's adversary.

quote: If I was that guy with the iron, why not squash the iron-deprived civs and take their stuff?

Do I have to tell you everything? That kind of action is quite forseeable/predictable, don't you think?

quote: Your 5 to 100 model is unrealistic, since the iron civ would always come out on top

Can't you think better than that? Do you reckon those countries will be like that forever? Furthermore, that example was simplified for easy understanding and many people will see the principles beneath it but it seems you take every word quite literally. How come you judge the whole resource model based on one example which is very limited in variables and conditions? An example is to demonstrate a principle by showing a simple case within a limited environment not to describe whole things. Number "5" and "100" unrealistic? Don't you see the intention of mine to represent small number by 5 and big number by 100? Take everything literally then you will never be able to see the whole forest.

quote: as everybody can build everything?

quote: Now, if everybody has at least a portion of every commodity, as per your example, there would be actually no limit on what units you could produce.

You're guiding yourself to the cliff with your limited imagination.
With the supplementary system, it doesn't matter what resource you have. You can build whatever units. Resources act as only production boosters but not essential for unit building. BUT! with the resource system, there is one condition which has to be satisfied. You need right resources. Country A,B and C have earned their resources throughout the game since they all started with one city. If you have planned to acquire oil rich terriroty along with your tech advance, good for you. If you haven't planned any and remained complacent all along, your civ deserves the downfall.

Resouces become relatively crucial as the game progresses since the so-called key/strategic resources like oil can be used only later stages of the game and are rare in nature whereas basic resources like wood and stone, which are in extensive use during primitive and ancient eras, are naturally abundant and quite evenly distributed.

In civ, shields represent all kinds of resource mix plus labour points. The supplementary resource model doesn't define what is a shield. so now I ask. Is it the same thing as Civ series has defined or is it something new? What is it? What is a shield for your model cyclotron7? If it is the same thing, why the resources appear in redundant manner? once as a shield and next as a certain resource.

quote: At this point, you have completely negated the central point of a mandatory resource system, which is that some units can't be built without certain resources, since everybody has every resource.

Not everyone will get access to every resource type. If they can, they deserve it since they have earned it. Sizable territory which produces satisfacory amount and mix of resources doesn't come cheap. You have to fight for it.

quote: Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

however i dissagree with both of you.
youngson. i like the part about different resources but i dont want to have to have one thing in order to build a unit becouse its unrealistic, all civs throughout time have used different resources to make the same thing , so why make me half to find wood, iron,ect to buildf a legion when realistically legions were made COMPLETLY different around the world.

cycletron. i agree with the idea of still using sheilds to make units but the old system is very stupid and unrealistic. i wont ressourses that give both production boosts and make the unit different. so maybe a jappenese phalanxe(sp?) is faster than a chinese one but isnt as damaging.

in closing what i want are different resources that make production faster and make units different but arent needed to make units.

however i dissagree with both of you.
youngson. i like the part about different resources but i dont want to have to have one thing in order to build a unit becouse its unrealistic, all civs throughout time have used different resources to make the same thing , so why make me half to find wood, iron,ect to buildf a legion when realistically legions were made COMPLETLY different around the world.

cycletron. i agree with the idea of still using sheilds to make units but the old system is very stupid and unrealistic. i wont ressourses that give both production boosts and make the unit different. so maybe a jappenese phalanxe(sp?) is faster than a chinese one but isnt as damaging.

in closing what i want are different resources that make production faster and make units different but arent needed to make units.

quote: That's not the way the World works. Some may have several advantages while some have zero advantage. However, those advantages should be earned throughout the game. Everyone starts with one city so it's up your exploration and conquest to acquire and maintain sizable territoy which provides you with enough resources.

No, but that's how your system does. How can one earn an advantage if they are randomly scattered? This is just as unfair as civ-specific traits, as your performance in a game should be based on your ability rather than which resources happen to be immediatly next to you.

quote: Do I have to tell you everything? That kind of action is quite forseeable/predictable, don't you think?

Predictable? That doesn't matter if I can get away with it. If I can use my superior iron to squash somebody and take their resources, why do I care about being unpredictable? An unforseeable strategy is irrelevant here, a nation with iron would just sieze the resources of others.

quote: Can't you think better than that? Do you reckon those countries will be like that forever?

According to your model, yes! What would make them change? Deciding to up and trade cities with eachother? Most countries in Europe since, say, the 16th or 17th century have remained geographically the same, with of course some exceptions. Would you mind telling me how a country experiences a sudden reversal, and suddenly is a big oil producer instead of iron?

quote: Furthermore, that example was simplified for easy understanding and many people will see the principles beneath it but it seems you take every word quite literally. How come you judge the whole resource model based on one example which is very limited in variables and conditions? An example is to demonstrate a principle by showing a simple case within a limited environment not to describe whole things. Number "5" and "100" unrealistic? Don't you see the intention of mine to represent small number by 5 and big number by 100? Take everything literally then you will never be able to see the whole forest.

The reason I used your model literally is because I have nothing else to work with; You have failed to show me any literal and concrete examples of your system in action. How do you expect me to judge your system any other way? Why don't you give me a realistic and usable example, so I can more effectively evaluate it.

quote: in varing quantity. I mentioned the difference between the two systems several times already with "food" example. Even the pre-school kids will have no problem to understand the difference.

Careful, Youngsun. I think the only thing "preschool" going on here is your namecalling. I'm here to debate Civ3; if you are here to make childish insults this is most definitly not the place to make them.

quote: You're guiding yourself to the cliff with your limited imagination. With the supplementary system, it doesn't matter what resource you have. You can build whatever units. Resources act as only production boosters but not essential for unit building.

Isn't production essential for building? As much so as resources, certainly. You say that a limited amount of resources means you can only build so many units, but isn't that the same as shields? With a limited amount of shields, you can only build so many units, too. Production is as necessary as a mandatory resource, so why would any player pass up a resource just because technically it isn't necessary? See the comparison:

Mandatory system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like oil and iron, which are mandatory for tank building).
Shield system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like coal or oil or iron, only certain resources like these give shields).

quote: BUT! with the resource system,there is one condition which has to be satisfied. You need right resources. Country A,B and C have earned their resources throughout the game since they all started with one city. If you have planned to acquire oil rich terriroty along with your tech advance, good for you. If you haven't planned any and remained complacent all along, your civ deserves the downfall.

This of course assumes that every player has an opportunity for such resources; if I simply cannot get that oil field due to random map placement, do I still deserve the downfall? Of course not! Games that doom players from the start are frustrating and not fun to play.

quote: In civ, shields represent all kinds of resource mix plus labour points. The supplementary resource model doesn't define what is a shield. so now I ask. Is it the same thing as Civ series has defined or is it something new? What is it? What is a shield for your model cyclotron7? If it is the same thing, why the resources appear in redundant manner? once as a shield and next as a certain resource.

Yes, a shield for both Civ2 and most supplementary resources would be a shield. I actually have no model, because I see the flaws in a supplementary resource system as well as in a mandatory once. I think Civ2 needs to be improved upon, but I feel your system is the wrong way to do it. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "redundant manner," please clarify.

quote: Not everyone will get access to every resource type. If they can, they deserve it since they have earned it.

Huh? Somehow a player "earns" fortunate random map placement? This, as you can probably tell, is where I find the most problems in your model. Using random-map placement for resources increases luck and sucess based on a favorable condition. Civ should not be entirely dependent on your initial map location.

quote: Huh huh, It is you who is having understanding problem. Roman and other people finally understood and accepted my proposal while you're having problems to understand what I'm saying. Who have you convinced so far for your supplementary system? People will see who is acting like a boy all the time. and very civilised and constructive of you cyclotron7, this time.

Oh, I see. So if I don't agree with you, it must be because I have an "understanding problem?" I understand what you are saying, Youngsun. Has it ever occured to you that I am against it because I disagree with it, and not because I just can't understand you? And youngsun, I son't have to have support. You are the one introducing the new idea; and so far very little support has been generated here for your proposal. But support doesn't make you or me right; so I am wondering why you are using it as a qualifier for who's ideas are more valid?

Acting like a boy? Well, I am one, so I'll take that as a complement. But if it is meant as an insult, let me warn you that the only childish thing here is your pety insults. If you are so sure of your ideas, why not save your breath insulting me and give me some good examples of your ideas in action?

Keep it together, Youngson. People who insult won't get much support at all, will they? I am arguing about the issue, I frankly don't care about your feeble attempts to put me down. I want to debate; you can do whatever you want, but let's keep the childish name-calling to a minimum, shall we?

quote: Understand? Boy, I'll expect a scathing reply to this one...

So if you say something like this, it is a debate and if I say anything similar to it, it becomes an insult eh? Why don't you jusy say the world revolves around you? I had responded to you in very civilised manner until you started this nonsense.

quote: How can one earn an advantage if they are randomly scattered?

By expanding your territory wisely.

quote: a game should be based on your ability rather than which resources happen to be immediatly next to you.

So will you stay as one city state all along, complaining "I ain't got a resource"? you wouldn't, would you? At least 10~15 cities you will have, no?

quote: An unforseeable strategy is irrelevant here, a nation with iron would just sieze the resources of others.

A civ which has "Iron working" tech & "Iron" not a civ which has only "Iron". So the technology comes first.

quote: What would make them change?

Superior technologies and leadership.

quote: The reason I used your model literally is because I have nothing else to work with;

Rules and application. I have set the conditions and variables and it's your job to work out based on those. However, I will kindly re-demostrate the how the model works.

You got two hills within your territory.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

If you want your economy to go insular, you need more metals. So two hills are dedicated for metal production. Now you got two units of metal every turn.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

If you are in active trade with someone who got several metal mines, you will specailise in coal production. Now you got a unit of metal and 10 units of coal per turn.

Hill +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal
Hill(coal) +2 wood or +1 food or +1 other metal or 10 coal

You are basically a coal trader in peace time but if diplomacy fails and metal supply from outside is cut off, you can switch the coal mine to a metal mine even if it yields you less. It is your choice whether to go insular or not but you know specialisation and trade bring you more good.

quote: Shield system: I need to build tanks, so I'll need some special resources (like coal or oil or iron, only certain resources like these give shields).

Grassland(shield) also gives a shield as well as forest.

quote: if I simply cannot get that oil field due to random map placement, do I still deserve the downfall?

This kind of thing happens in civ all the time. Look at the Chinese civ in the earth map. The civ really suffers from lack of shields every time since it's territory is composed of vast plain. What about the Russian civ? This civ almost every time rocks due to blanced web of forest and plain within its territory. If you are playing the chinese civ, you wouldn't let your territory confined within the plain only , would you? To get more shields, you will expand to the regions with lots of hills and mountains, right? The same thing happens with the resource model. You pursue the resource despite you're lacking the resource and the careful planning is required for that process.

quote: I actually have no model, because I see the flaws in a supplementary resource system as well as in a mandatory once.

Once you understand the difference between the two system, you will see no flaws since the flaws come from your misunderstanding.

quote: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "redundant manner," please clarify.

Resources appear twice as a shield and as a certain resource.

quote: Huh? Somehow a player "earns" fortunate random map placement? This, as you can probably tell, is where I find the most problems in your model.

If you have a problem with that random placement puts a player in disadvantageous position from time to time, blame CivI and CivII. It's they which have used the system like this and I'm simply using CivII as a background for explaining the resource model.

quote: Using random-map placement for resources increases luck and sucess based on a favorable condition. Civ should not be entirely dependent on your initial map location.

I don't get it why you think this such a big deal. If you don't like the position around you, you begin with, leave and settle somewhere else. I do that all the time and it might takes few turns but the right position compensate the lost turns more than enough.

quote: but let's keep the childish name-calling to a minimum, shall we?

I was the one who brought up Sid's prohibition against having a "game within a game," and I was referring to Firaxis' own statements. I can't remember if it was Sid himself or another designer, or which interview, but it was one of the website interviews within the last six months or so.

IIRC the "game within a game" prohibition was specifically mentioned in the context of requests for tactical combat systems but the principle applies. If diplomacy grew to the point of fixed "adventure game" story lines that would be a game within a game. If Wonders were entities to manage like cities and units that might be a game within a game.

quote: This kind of thing happens in civ all the time. Look at the Chinese civ in the earth map. The civ really suffers from lack of shields every time since it's territory is composed of vast plain. What about the Russian civ? This civ almost every time rocks due to blanced web of forest and plain within its territory. If you are playing the chinese civ, you wouldn't let your territory confined within the plain only , would you? To get more shields, you will expand to the regions with lots of hills and mountains, right? The same thing happens with the resource model. You pursue the resource despite you're lacking the resource and the careful planning is required for that process.

How are the Chinese in this case going to get units to take that territory from the russians, if the russians have a more powerful military from the outset due to their high production?

The prolem with a mandatory resource system is it

a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

These things being said, I must say that the idea of a resource system is a good one in general. You say I don't agree just because I don't understand... the reason I don't agree is because I see the above 4 flaws in the system. I am sure if these were corrected I would support your ideas.

Speaking of which, looking back on this thread I remember that the purpose of a resource system as you put it is to "make trade more important." I am wondering, wouldn't it be easier AND achieve the same goal to just give trading items more value? Like, make it so when you trade for fish you get food along with trade, and with iron you get additional production along with trade. If you make trade items valuable enough there will be no need to make them mandatory, since a player would be foolish not to trade. This solves all of the above problems: it does not restrict possible units, is not based on luck since just lke in Civ2 everybody will have some commodities, does not make trade the centerpiece of other facets like war and diplomacy, and is as simple as the Civ2 system. This makes trade vitally important and crucial to any war effort. Any country that wishes to wage a war or build a wonder quickly will need to trade for lots of iron and coal and other production-giving resources. It isn't quite as realistic as a mandatory system, but I think that would be excessive. Realism isn't always good for a game.

Youngsun, I'm a tolerant person, but I really don't understand where you are coming from about me starting it. I did not call you anything, my comment on "expecting a scathing reply" was just an ironic joke, as I was comparing your system to the shield system which your system was designed to get away from. I apologize if you took this the wrong way, but this is no reason to call me names.

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 03-19-2001 06:22 PM The prolem with a mandatory resource system is it a) reduces tactical possibilities, since you are restricted to certain units

quote: b) is based on luck, due to random map placement

quote: c) centers too much of the game around only one facet; trade

quote: d) is too complicated and tedious, and would discourage some players. I want to play a game, not go on a shopping trip for resources!

Here is how it works:

You have a stockpile of the following resources:
Oil: 50
Iron: 100
Coal: 125
Uranium: 5
Bronze: 500
Wood: 1000
etc.

a Neuclear missile costs 5 Uranium, 20 Iron, and 5 Oil to build. Since you only have 5 Uranium at this point so you can only build 1. Next round, though, you gain another 5 Uranium (you just started mining Uranium so you can build these missiles) 5 Oil 10 Iron 15 coal 5 bronze and 5 wood. You can build another neuclear missile.

A tank costs 20 oil and 40 iron or 100 bronze. Right now you can build 2 tanks, but it will take 2 turns of gathering resources before you can build another tank. But you can choose whether to build it out of Iron or Bronze (the only difference is the cost in that resource).