Non-renewable resources - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Non-renewable resources

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Non-renewable resources

Rang posted 12-03-98 06:22 PM ET
In SMAC, each square produces minerals. But the mineral acquired from each square stays constant with time, assuming you don't terraform it. This constancy is contrary to reality, where mines are played out, oilwells run dry, etc. And it fosters a wasteful mentality. Perhaps the resources should slowly diminish, the way ore does in C&C. Or this feature could be an option, like choosing whether you want the ore to "regrow" or not in C&C.
This means that your strategies have to take account of time and diminishing resources. Of course, the non-renewable resource feature should be paired with a way to recover minerals from defunct vehicles or battefields.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-03-98 06:31 PM ET
Where have they mentioned that minerals slowly disappear over time?? Also, to my knowledge it takes millenia for minerals to "regrow". So if this was implemented you'd probably never get them back, because I assume the game doesn't even last the millenia needed for minerals to grow back. I would like this to be an option if it was implemented, I would turn it off though. Fun over reality.
I would also like to know if Mindworms & the such are a non-renewable resource. Can the Planet send hordes of them against you?? Or can you wipe them out into extinction, so they can never bother you again??
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
SnowFire posted 12-03-98 09:59 PM ET
You're basically suggesting crop rotation for all the cities, except in ore and things like that. While this would be cool, the micromanaging required (okay, now log this forest for 4 turns to allow the other one to regrow to peak effectiveness) would be insane on the higher levels. Maybe if governors took care of it intelligently...
SnowFire posted 12-03-98 10:01 PM ET
But maybe special squares could be, to compromise, like the Uranium Flats. After awhile they would lose their bonus and produce like normal, and never regrow. That would work.
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 10:07 PM ET
Hmm, while it sounds realistic, I really don't like the idea. I'd hate it in CIV II if my coal mine suddenly turned into a normal hills mine.
Basically it is a gameplay vs reality issue, though of course you could argue that it is good gameplay to have it in. I'd disagree though. I never really liked the random degradation/improvement in MOO2, and while this one may or may not random, I still wouldn't like it.
Brother Greg.
Mortis posted 12-04-98 02:16 AM ET
That never happend to me, or at least I never noticed it. I didn't even know that it was an option.
Brother Greg posted 12-04-98 02:29 AM ET
In MOO2 you mean? Yeah, it had it. Occasionally you'd get a news flash about a certain colony/planet suddenly exhausting their mineral supplies, or suddenly discovering a new vein of ore or the like. Changed the mineral "leval" of the planet.
Brother Greg.
Roland posted 12-04-98 06:40 AM ET
This happened to special resources like silver in colonization. Yeah, I really loved the economic model there...
CClark posted 12-04-98 01:39 PM ET
If they had it as random event that you could turn on or off, I wouldn't it. Yes, it was disappointing in MOO2 when all of a sudden your UltraRich planet was demoted to Rich. But it was nice when it happened to the other guys and even better when your normal planet suddenly became Rich.
If it was a general "you'll only get the bonus for the first 100 rounds that you mine that square" then I don't think I'd like it so much.
Here's another question: will terraforming affect bonus squares? IIRC in Civ, using a Settler to level a forest with deer would result in a normal plain, forever losing the bonus. I think in all the games I played I only ever once changed the terrain of a square and had a new bonus appear.
Kedryn posted 12-04-98 02:31 PM ET
It wasn't like that in Civ2. If you cleared a forest with silk in it, it would become plains with, umm...wheat, I think. And a forest with game would become buffalo plains. The only time you'd lose the bonus is if you turned it into grassland.
Rang posted 12-04-98 06:02 PM ET
How about this, after every x turns, the minerals produced in a square are halved. When there are no more minerals, you must terraform to reset the mineral counter. This terraforming is analogous to miners digging deeper (lowering the square's elevation) in order to get more minerals.
RM posted 12-06-98 12:28 PM ET
Non-renewable resources would make the game more realistic. I think it is a very good idea.
It would make the game a bit more difficult, since you would have to plan more carefully and, for example, not build factories and such in cities where the resources are almost depleted.
It would also require that the player either expands constantly or trades with other factions for resources.
Maybe the Gaians should recieve some benefit in not depleting the resources as fast as others, because of more careful use?
SnowFire posted 12-06-98 11:02 PM ET
Rang: again, excellent idea, but I'm going to be pulling my hair out doing all this, especially in multiplayer. I prefer the simple, "there's nothing you can do about it so just resign yourself" of depleting a special resource after 100 turns of mining it, as CClark suggests. And to fit RM's idea in, it would only lose the bonus after 300 turns to the Gaians. Yes, I liked Colonization's model too, but I think that was more like you had a .1% chance every turn you mined silver of depleting it, giving a random feel to special resources (sometimes a mine would peter out immediately, sometimes it would stay good for awhile).
Steel_Dragon posted 12-06-98 11:32 PM ET
I like the idea of non-renewable resource (ore, cheap power), however To take advantage of it you would need "outpost" instead of cities. Non permenant rescourse not permenant settlement. Keep in mind this is for special resouces not the normal stuff, that would just became to much work.
Pasi posted 12-07-98 01:04 AM ET
Maybe the non-renewable resources should be tied with technological advancement? Like substitution in theory of economics: more advanced tech --> less *scarce* material needed for equal output.
So, in the game you would have to 1) research some special tech area to diminish material use (+circulate) or 2) improve the mining technique, or 3) just conquer more land (=more resources): Lebensraum! ;-)
Hmm, I just might do all of them! =)
Pasi
RM posted 12-07-98 09:32 AM ET
Sounds good. New technologies for less losses in the production of the material should decrease the time before/chance that the bonus is lost.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Non-renewable resources
Rang	posted 12-03-98 06:22 PM ET In SMAC, each square produces minerals. But the mineral acquired from each square stays constant with time, assuming you don't terraform it. This constancy is contrary to reality, where mines are played out, oilwells run dry, etc. And it fosters a wasteful mentality. Perhaps the resources should slowly diminish, the way ore does in C&C. Or this feature could be an option, like choosing whether you want the ore to "regrow" or not in C&C. This means that your strategies have to take account of time and diminishing resources. Of course, the non-renewable resource feature should be paired with a way to recover minerals from defunct vehicles or battefields.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-03-98 06:31 PM ET Where have they mentioned that minerals slowly disappear over time?? Also, to my knowledge it takes millenia for minerals to "regrow". So if this was implemented you'd probably never get them back, because I assume the game doesn't even last the millenia needed for minerals to grow back. I would like this to be an option if it was implemented, I would turn it off though. Fun over reality. I would also like to know if Mindworms & the such are a non-renewable resource. Can the Planet send hordes of them against you?? Or can you wipe them out into extinction, so they can never bother you again?? Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
SnowFire	posted 12-03-98 09:59 PM ET You're basically suggesting crop rotation for all the cities, except in ore and things like that. While this would be cool, the micromanaging required (okay, now log this forest for 4 turns to allow the other one to regrow to peak effectiveness) would be insane on the higher levels. Maybe if governors took care of it intelligently...
SnowFire	posted 12-03-98 10:01 PM ET But maybe special squares could be, to compromise, like the Uranium Flats. After awhile they would lose their bonus and produce like normal, and never regrow. That would work.
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 10:07 PM ET Hmm, while it sounds realistic, I really don't like the idea. I'd hate it in CIV II if my coal mine suddenly turned into a normal hills mine. Basically it is a gameplay vs reality issue, though of course you could argue that it is good gameplay to have it in. I'd disagree though. I never really liked the random degradation/improvement in MOO2, and while this one may or may not random, I still wouldn't like it. Brother Greg.
Mortis	posted 12-04-98 02:16 AM ET That never happend to me, or at least I never noticed it. I didn't even know that it was an option.
Brother Greg	posted 12-04-98 02:29 AM ET In MOO2 you mean? Yeah, it had it. Occasionally you'd get a news flash about a certain colony/planet suddenly exhausting their mineral supplies, or suddenly discovering a new vein of ore or the like. Changed the mineral "leval" of the planet. Brother Greg.
Roland	posted 12-04-98 06:40 AM ET This happened to special resources like silver in colonization. Yeah, I really loved the economic model there...
CClark	posted 12-04-98 01:39 PM ET If they had it as random event that you could turn on or off, I wouldn't it. Yes, it was disappointing in MOO2 when all of a sudden your UltraRich planet was demoted to Rich. But it was nice when it happened to the other guys and even better when your normal planet suddenly became Rich. If it was a general "you'll only get the bonus for the first 100 rounds that you mine that square" then I don't think I'd like it so much. Here's another question: will terraforming affect bonus squares? IIRC in Civ, using a Settler to level a forest with deer would result in a normal plain, forever losing the bonus. I think in all the games I played I only ever once changed the terrain of a square and had a new bonus appear.
Kedryn	posted 12-04-98 02:31 PM ET It wasn't like that in Civ2. If you cleared a forest with silk in it, it would become plains with, umm...wheat, I think. And a forest with game would become buffalo plains. The only time you'd lose the bonus is if you turned it into grassland.
Rang	posted 12-04-98 06:02 PM ET How about this, after every x turns, the minerals produced in a square are halved. When there are no more minerals, you must terraform to reset the mineral counter. This terraforming is analogous to miners digging deeper (lowering the square's elevation) in order to get more minerals.
RM	posted 12-06-98 12:28 PM ET Non-renewable resources would make the game more realistic. I think it is a very good idea. It would make the game a bit more difficult, since you would have to plan more carefully and, for example, not build factories and such in cities where the resources are almost depleted. It would also require that the player either expands constantly or trades with other factions for resources. Maybe the Gaians should recieve some benefit in not depleting the resources as fast as others, because of more careful use?
SnowFire	posted 12-06-98 11:02 PM ET Rang: again, excellent idea, but I'm going to be pulling my hair out doing all this, especially in multiplayer. I prefer the simple, "there's nothing you can do about it so just resign yourself" of depleting a special resource after 100 turns of mining it, as CClark suggests. And to fit RM's idea in, it would only lose the bonus after 300 turns to the Gaians. Yes, I liked Colonization's model too, but I think that was more like you had a .1% chance every turn you mined silver of depleting it, giving a random feel to special resources (sometimes a mine would peter out immediately, sometimes it would stay good for awhile).
Steel_Dragon	posted 12-06-98 11:32 PM ET I like the idea of non-renewable resource (ore, cheap power), however To take advantage of it you would need "outpost" instead of cities. Non permenant rescourse not permenant settlement. Keep in mind this is for special resouces not the normal stuff, that would just became to much work.
Pasi	posted 12-07-98 01:04 AM ET Maybe the non-renewable resources should be tied with technological advancement? Like substitution in theory of economics: more advanced tech --> less scarce material needed for equal output. So, in the game you would have to 1) research some special tech area to diminish material use (+circulate) or 2) improve the mining technique, or 3) just conquer more land (=more resources): Lebensraum! ;-) Hmm, I just might do all of them! =) Pasi
RM	posted 12-07-98 09:32 AM ET Sounds good. New technologies for less losses in the production of the material should decrease the time before/chance that the bonus is lost.