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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.