[discussion/suggestion] rare resources and cities

Actually I think this takes away from some of the uniqueness and strategic importance of having those resources. I noticed you put forest in there but they are extremely common and you can get materials even without forest so that part of the argument doesn't really hold up. I understand with ore/crystal though.

I think the better thing is to have more resource points on the map. Back in 1Z on that tiny map I was able to almost always get at least one ore or crystal mine if not both. The main problem is they only produced 1 resource so you couldn't really afford to build even 1 unit with them. I think the output should of been more along the lines of at least 5 if not higher, possible with some tech improvements or such.

Honestly I think there should be at minium 1 of each ore/crystal mine per player on the map. Though I think 2 per player would of been much better on that tiny map in 1Z. Now in Beta 2A with this small map size I think 4-5 mines per player would of been better suited. Now I know the map size matters a little more then the number of players but that's just an estimate cause let's look at the income amounts next.

Assuming mine income is jacked up to 5 and the player has 5 mines. That is about 25 metal per turn which sounds like a lot at first. But then when you figure a single unit in full iron armor and weapons cost over 100 metal last time I checked that means it takes you FOUR turns to produce ONE unit. Don't even bother trying to make an army out of them as someone using all material based equipment will simply wipe the floor with you via sheer numbers.

An alternative to more resource locations, such as mines, is to simply have really high output of the mines but that makes it feel more like an all or nothing type deal like Civ had which I was never that fond of. The strategic resources will still carry importance as you can still slow down their production by capturing some of their mines.

Having more resource locations also gives the benefit of having more area to fight over. There is less likely hood to have stacks of death if you have to spread your forces out to over multiple fronts. The devs even said they like the idea of players having to choose between defending their land and defending their cities. And what better way to enfource that then by having lots of resources. As right now in 2A the land is barren with no real reason to defend it.

Oh and for those new to the beta that might not be aware of this the Pioneer unit you can build can be sent to any resource location and setup there if you have the proper tech. This allows you to harvest resources away from your cities which is what is meant by the protecting your land since enemy armies are suppose to be able to capture/destroy it. Though that part wasn't working in 1Z it seemed so it was permental yours last I checked. Haven't used them in 2A cause there is nothing near by worth getting that my two starting cities can't just already grab. Plus they are expensive.

But the problem with giving everyone a little bit of everything is that everyone becomes a "jack of all trades" type of nation.

You can build pretty much everything you need with materials, and you only truly require three resources, namely materials, food and guildars, all of which are fairly available.  Ore, Chrystals, ect are nice, but not essential.  Example.  I lack ore in my empire.  That means I will not be fielding an army with metal weapons and armor.  That does not mean that I have lost, however.  A force of medium spearmen kitted out with leather armor, shields and greaves ect covering a well trained force of archers should be able to comprise a good defensive army.  Man for man you aren't going to be winning any wars with it, but it should be enough to keep the enemy out of your cities.  If you have lots of food but no ore you can try drowning the enemies in your blood, swarming over them with superior numbers.  Lots of horses but no metal?  Sounds like horse archers for you.  For your adventurers, you can kit them out by purchasing equipment at other (neutral/allied) empires cities.  Purchasing or trading for ore from those who are mining it is also an option, although outfitting a large army with all metal equipment under those circumstances is probably unrealistic.

Personally I think that "choosing a focus" for your level 5 city should be more of a money, research, adventuring, prestige, military choice than focusing on output of a single resource.  Resource settlements should feed your big cities, your big cities really shouldn't be focused on resource gathering.

I am with the warmonger on this one. Small cities should be ideal for resources and big one should be suited towards research or economy. It would also be nice if certain empires, like Guildar were focused on mining and accordingly want to focus a level 5 city on mining improvements as a special circumstance or ability. This should take the form of level 5 mining upgrades at the end of a refinement tech tree.

It seems like things are already geared towards this except that we have no ore in this build.

I see nations like the Guildar more as artificer nations.  Those level five structures of their don't necessarily increase output so much as they would quality of item (Guildar longswords being better than regular longswords).  Output should remain fairly similar for like items.

well i wrote forest too, you are right, but i focused the post on mines and food as you saw

yeah but this could work on fixed map and fixed starting points, with some RNG could still be a problem

dunno if you played civ 4 online but most games were won by who had copper on capital

on average everyone get something, but the first is by far the most important

yeah that would be bad

why?

imo its the opposite

right now we are FORCED to get metal mines, food sources etc

its not a choice, WE NEED THEM

with my idea we would get the mininimum need to survive anyway while maybe someone could decide to get cities near crystals and magic stuff if they want to focus on magic, or just try to build a good army/empire going all out on food/production etc etc

well to me it seems if you have no metal at all you have lost, as army

maybe you can compensate with magic, but surely not with brute strength against an opponent WITH metal mines

well i didnt say that should be the ONLY focus, ofc like you say there should be some "final" focus for any town

but the starting point is important too, if you build on coase then your town wont be mining and producing stuff ofc

Horse archers as an offensive force (you aren't going to be taking any cities with them, but you can sure win field battles), with a spearmen/archer/horse archer defensive field force to keep them out of your cities.  More difficult to be sure, but not impossible.  Securing enough food to compensate by growing your population (and hence the size of the force you can field) would also help, as would mercenaries to fill in gaps.

But if my nation is close to a lot of metal ore, I should derive some benefit from that.  If my nation isn't near some ore, I should have to compensate for that through other means.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I have to go an adventurer or channeller route.  It does mean I am going to be operating at a disadvantage unless I can derive a strategy around that.  Shock warfare will not be my friend, neither will extended line conflicts hand to hand.

i dont like this logic very much

that implies rng matters

i dont want it

i dont want luck to decide games

luck should just matter in a sense of deriving the right strategy to USE your starting resources, not  that if you happen to have a lucky one you should gain an advantage

my 2 cents

I don't think luck will necessarily decide games, since there are a lot of ways around certain problems.  History is replete with examples of heavily armored cavalry dominating all before them because their enemies didn't know how to counter.  However, once they figured out that a disciplined spearwall combined with archers/firearms could break a cavalry charge, the heavily armored knight was gradually phased out. 

Now not being next to ore doesn't mean you can't go an army centric, empire centric route.  It just means you have to choose different ways to go about it.  I mean, geography should matter.  My nation that is in an extremely rich (in food) river valley will have a large number of people (and pretty big tax revenue).  But a lack of forests and ore means that my substantially less populous neighbors near the mountains will have an edge man for man.  The difference is, I can field 10 poorly equipped soldier for every 1 knight they can.  Or I can hire some armored mercenaries to make up the difference.  Or we can do the traditional method of evening things out, which is trade.  I'm cash rich.  You're ore rich.  I pay you money for your ore.  Supply and demand.  The only way you'd be forced away from the empire route entirely would be if you didn't have access to any resources in significant quantities (compared to your neighbors) at all.  Unless you elect to autogenerate a resource poor world, this should not happen frequently.  If it does happen, then fortunately for you there are other paths to victory, and it looks like you will be relying on champions or magic to help you through.

I just don't think that every strategy for empire building should work every time, regardless of obstacles or geography.  Luck should play a role in what route you choose to go, just like it always has throughout human history.

That being said, I am interested to see how they balance magic.  Because here, you kind of have to pick your strategy when creating/choosing your sovereign.  What happens if you spent a bunch of picks on magic, but don't end up next to any shards?  Now all of those picks are wasted and you're just screwed?  That could create some unfun situations.

man this is not history

this is a game, gameplay>realism

IF the game would allow to play in a different yet EQUALLY strong way there would be no problem

right now its not like this, and its not a matter of small balance, its just rarity that ARE needed

well your idea is kinda correct BUT the problem is you dont rely to the game

right now half stuff you can build need some resource, there is not way that its equal having resource or not having them, no way on earth

thats why the game need some minimum without the luck based ones

we are talking about games

in games too often there has been total unbalance

ie in civ4 ALL that mattered was having some good resource near the capital, if A has it and B doesnt, A win

yeah thath the whole point of my thread...

if already there are problems of this kind with food and lumbermills what will happen when there is magic?

you cant really put shards every 2 tiles to allow everyone to get 1

the game neeed a way where if you get a shard/mine/apiary/etc you get a bonus, but not a huge advantage, and surely not a system where you are screwed if you dont get it

The only thing you are forced to get right now is food and materials (non-magically).  You have to have those two things, and they are pretty common.  Everything else is either not essential, or won't be essential with minor balancing.  In Civ 4 you simply weren't competetive at all because you had to rely on a few select units, all of which used the same resource.  No oil?  You were screwed, because oil was required for almost every modern unit.  There was no way to compensate.  Here there is.  Just design a different unit that makes use of the resources you do have, and adjust your strategy accordingly.

Therefore, allowing every empire to have indigenous sources of every resource is a bad idea.  That makes for bad gameplay.  It means you can play the same type of game (empire focused) with the same strategy (heavy cavalry/heavy infantry) focused everytime, regardless of where you start.  It makes it like Civ 2, where it doesn't matter where you start or what your surrounding terrain is.  You play the same way, with any nation, every time.

Edit:  It has also been said that you can create fertile land using essence, so not starting off next to a food resource is not necessarily as crippling as it is now in the beta.

even in civ you could build 42342342141 archers instead of axemen/cavalry etc

but that just didnt work

if there are archers AND cavalry it will NEVER be equal to have both and decide which one to build and have ONLY 1 option and be forced to build only those

NEVER

for the rest maybe giving everyone a bit of everything is not the right solution, i just came with that idea, but im pretty sure there are many others i cant think of

still the point remains, if something is rare it should make a small difference to have it or not

i dont want to write the game myself, i just want to point out a big problem

i had to play civ4 for over a year with crap balance and stupid stuff on it, i just hope elemental will be different