PS. How does someone that "never" posts here, become a Prince (462 posts)? Do you mean you post exclusively in the other forums?

quote: Do they even use the lists you guys produce?

Sure! You can always find a way to use the back of 450+ pages of printed List

I ear rumor that last time Sid painted his house, he have a copy of The List in any room... on the floor, to save from dropping paint

Yin26, can you confirm this?

Actually I think he may have browsed through them once (a very long time ago). Otherwise why would he have printed them out?

quote: Originally posted by DaShi on 03-12-2001 04:06 AM I don't post here often (never), but I have browsed through many of the suggestions. Though I never saw this feature discussed: How about to build certain units, you need to have certain resources? Uranium for nuclear weapons. Oil for units with engines. Horses for mounted units. Wood for catapults. And so on. That would make own particular territory more important than others at different points in the game. Such as, an area like the deserts of the Middle East may seem poor in the beginning, but become valuable as oil becomes necessary. Also, wars won't just be about getting more territory, but instead about economic survival. This fits right in with trading.

I can't really comment specifically on this right now but suffice it to say that we've already stated that trade and resources are now truly intertwined with the other parts of the game, so you're free to draw your own conclusions to this =)

I will say that the scenario you just described could lead to a lot of really interesting situations and at the same time could create a lot of different playbalancing problems as well. Just reading that scenario I have visions of the guy next to the oil getting slaughtered by the guy with all the horse-mounted units early into the game because no one needed oil yet and they'd rather take his land by force than deal with him diplomatically...

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS on 03-13-2001 12:19 PM I can't really comment specifically on this right now but suffice it to say that we've already stated that trade and resources are now truly intertwined with the other parts of the game, so you're free to draw your own conclusions to this =)

Almost as good as confirmed IMO. Firaxis has decided to make a bold, but 100% correct step by representing resources more accurately in some way.

BTW: This is actually one of the three most important issues in Civ3 as far as I am concerned. Basically my issues are: representing resources in some more vital way than in Civ2, enabling more Civs per game and, not, I repeat not including future technologies.

quote: I will say that the scenario you just described could lead to a lot of really interesting situations and at the same time could create a lot of different playbalancing problems as well. Just reading that scenario I have visions of the guy next to the oil getting slaughtered by the guy with all the horse-mounted units early into the game because no one needed oil yet and they'd rather take his land by force than deal with him diplomatically... Dan Firaxis Games, Inc.

quote: I have visions of the guy next to the oil getting slaughtered by the guy with all the horse-mounted units early into the game because no one needed oil yet...

Dan,

Wow, I don't think anyone here ever thought of that problem arising, and (reminder to Apolytoners above) we've discussed this issue at length! That said, it HAS been suggested by us that resources remain undetected until you've discovered the technology to use them. Wouldn't that solve your play balance problem in the above scenario?

I don't expect you can comment right now, Dan. But anyone at Apolyton (or Firaxis) interested in resources being tied to unit production, trade and infrastructure would do well to take a look at the Essential Civ 3 new feature called, "Energy."

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 03-13-2001 02:29 PM That said, it HAS been suggested by us that resources remain undetected until you've discovered the technology to use them. Wouldn't that solve your play balance problem in the above scenario?

I don't see how. Consider: I and a neighbouring AI-civ are running neck-and-neck when I/he discovers the tech for seeing oil. All the little oil blobs pop up on the map, and lo and behold, he got way more of them than I did! He's now able to field a massive modern army that I can't hope to compete against *, and the game is swept out from under me by essentially a random event. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more aggrivating than to play a very strong game, reach a certain point in time, then whammo! I'm screwed and couldn't do anything about it.

* - if the resources are required to construct units, as suggested in this and another thread.

A need-based resource model, combined with AI diplomacy similar to what we've seen in Civ,Civ2,SMAC,CTP - increasing hostility with increasing human power - is a recipe for disaster, IMO. Bonuses/penalties are more appropriate - i.e. with oil, your tank units move 3 squares, without, they can only move 2 or take 20 more shields. That way, if I don't have oil, I'm at a disadvantage, but not helpless. Realistic? No, but what's that acronym? CIRRIC? I think I'll invoke it .

(Now, if you're going to remove conquer-the-world from victory conditions and do a vast overhaul of AI diplomacy to correspond with that, maybe then a need-based system could be implemented...)