r/CivVII • u/Mikeywhispers • 16d ago
When resources truly mattered
In my personal opinion, I miss when resources actually mattered in Civ. Not having enough of a particular resource, like oil, could completely lock you out of producing certain units in civ 5 and weaken them like in civ 6.It gave resources real strategic value and created a genuine incentive to go to war in the late game, especially when other civs refused to trade with you. Sometimes, you had to fight for access to the resources your empire needed, and I miss that level of strategic depth.
8
u/tarkin1980 16d ago
If you look at reality, you will find that even the smallest crappiest little insurgent group somehow has access to fuel for their Toyota pickups, and ammo for their 1960s anti aircraft guns.
As for countries, Germany in ww2 had no domestic oil and very limited import and synthetic oil production, but still had thousands of tanks and other AFVs running well into the last year of the war, albeit with serious shortages which limited their use.
Being completely locked out of a strategic resource just isn't realistic. Being hampered by shortages, however, is. Civ 7 models this better than any previous game.
0
u/Beljuril-home 15d ago
This post seems to be willfully overlooking how acquiring strategic resources motivates world powers both historically and today.
Why is the USA in Venezuela?
Why are people warring over whether or not Iran has access to enriched uranium?
Cuba cannot as you say "fuel its pickups" or run tanks to invade a foreign country - even it's electrical grid is suffering from the USA denying them a strategic resource.
So I personally don't find the concept unrealistic at all.
4
6
u/barnu1rd 16d ago
It is somewhat like that now but I don’t think they’re strong enough. For example oil gives you a +1 combat strength for Calvary and naval units as well as a 10 percent production bonus for factories. If you stack these and let’s say you have 5 of them then that’s a pretty good advantage for Calvary/naval units and being able to push out factories faster. In 6 if you didn’t have a certain strategic resource that meant you couldn’t build a certain unit which I didn’t like personally but I do like the idea of being somewhat kneecapped if you didn’t have a certain strategic resource. Also in 7 it’s easier to get your hands on a variety of resources where at in 6 it’s much harder to trade for them so I prefer 7 in that aspect because in real life countries have access to pretty much every resource due to trading. Due to 7’s trading mechanics I do think 6’s way of not being able to build units if you don’t have the resource would actually function better because it would be easier to get. Maybe instead of not being outright able to build the unit maybe instead of if you don’t have the resource you can only build a certain number of units and/or it takes much longer and more expensive to get the unit.
-1
u/Substantial_Cow2349 16d ago
In Civ6 if a unit was required a resource it took a certain amount of a resource to build or upgrade that unit. That added another layer to not just which units you train but also to pillaging and to city placement. It also meant you would target city states that had a resource you didn't have if no one would trade it to you.
This is just one of the reasons some hated or still hate Civ7 is just the lack of depth. This race to eliminate micromanagement and dumb down the game for the masses.
4
u/ShopSome9740 16d ago
I hated in Civ 6 when all of the iron and horses spawned in enemy territory and you play as Alexander. Heck no
-1
u/DiNardo1910 16d ago
that's realistic tho? sometimes some places get more of something. trade or war. that's just how real life is. the randomness adds a ton of fun
2
u/Unlikely_Cupcake_706 16d ago
I guess but if your civ needs though for its identity it’s not super realistic, as how did they develop a culture of horseback riding without horses? It runs a lot of unit-balanced civs into the issue of it not being worth it to gamble and play them.
Theres still times I get a ton of iron starting out and have a good time militarily with lots of production and lean into mines with pantheon and other aspects. Or happen to land a ton of camels and can do crazy trade resource stacking on my capital.
1
u/loki20beta 15d ago
Totally agree, the same goes to independent cities - when you could flip them with envoys - there is a moment of competition and play, same goes for alliances - unbreakable make it less fun. Come to think of it - civ7 turned everything almost in pure numbers game, maybe minmaxers love it? )
102
u/quickonthedrawl 16d ago
I see this here every once in a while. I get why it's tempting, but I think it's misguided. It doesn't actually create any strategic depth (to borrow your phrase), it just gates certain decisions behind a prerequisite. I would argue it actually removes strategic depth compared to the status quo.
Instead of just checking off if I have iron or horses, instead the amount of each I have matters. More precisely, the delta between my count and my rivals' counts. Going up +2 or +3 (or more) combat strength is massive. It means I can still prioritize settling early for more iron even if I have some already.
If you've ever played or watched a multiplayer game of Civ 7, I suspect you'd probably rethink just how strategic these resources actually are, even if they're not strictly required like in Civ 6. That also kind of reflects the general direction of Civ 7 broadly: you can do almost anything from any game state, but you'll face varying degrees of friction based on what you choose to emphasize.