Finite resources or not?

[PvK]

The AI is no good with finite resources.

It also doesn't make direct representational sense to be able to mine a planet down to zero in a matter of years.

However, I think it does make more interesting multi-human-player games using the unmodded game set. I have seen a couple of these in advanced stages, and they limited fleet sizes and development practices in interesting ways.

You can still get unlimited resources when playing finite resources games - you just have to build enough Value Improvement Plants.

I think it may tend to have a side-effect of creating lots of research planets, and zipping through the tech tree, so I would recommend using High research costs.

It's also lame that the resource total replaces the extraction rate multipliers, so every planet extracts at base rate, so you lose the interesting detail of having some planets more productive than others.

But if I had to play an unmodded game, I'd want to play PBW (no AI) with limited resources.

PvK

[atari_eric]

Originally posted by Wanderer:

quote:

---

Space vessels are not run on abundant charcoal and saltpeter. I imagine they run on things like uranium

Current space ships (e.g. the Space Shuttle) use hyrdogen fuel cells (hydrogen + oxygen & a catalyst = electricity + water?) and solid oxygen fuel. Hopefully in the future they'll have nuclear fusion working - as fusion only requires hydrogen, which is rather abundant in the universe.

---

Yes, but what do they build the reactors out of? Do they need, say, Technetium catalysts?

[Rollo]

I think a key to limited resource games is playing them on ancient maps. That will make the planets a lot more valuable.

jm2c
Rollo

[QuarianRex]

I haven't played too many finite resource games so I can't comment too much on differences of gameplay. I can, however, comment on the "realism".

In my opinion there is no justification for a finite resources game. It is completely UNrealistic to think that the creation of a few dozen dreadnaughts would deplete the resources of a planet. It is realistic to assume that some planets would be harder to harvest than others. This seems to be most accurately reflected in the infinite resource paradigm. The constant rate of acquisition in finite is what smacks of unrealism.

While I am aware that the resources of any planet are, in actuallity, limited, they would not be in the scope of virtually all games (usually Lasting less than a century).

Others may feel different but the very thought of my planet 'drying up' in so short a span wrecks my suspension of disbelief, and hence my enjoyment of the game.

[Cheeze]

While I briefly played in one limited resource game, it wasn't long enough to really comment on the overall playability of those games.

One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is the greater necessity of using Value Improvement plants. In addition, the Religious Nature Shrine assumes greater value, and Crystalline (I think) has a particular facility which gives it an edge in a long limited-resource game.

A limited resource game can put several strains on players that can make a more interesting game. Super-large fleets are more problematic. Resource converters/Recycling centers are more valuable, as are storage facilities (already mentioned). Players have to consider heavy mining (as in laying mines) much more carefully, and each ship and facility construction becomes a more weighty issue. Players will have to balance trying to overcome opponents with only enough force, because too much can make them over-extend themselves and suffer later and lose...and too little can cost them the game more immediately.

[couslee]

Exactly cheeze. Well said imo. That is why I said infinite resource games are easier. if you don't have to really worry about storage limits and the like, then sure. Build 20+ massive base ship fleets, drop Mines and Sats everywhere with reckless abandon.

In my games, I am basicly building a fleet for each wormhole in my home system. That fleet is responsible for anything discovered beyond that point. If I build "back-up" fleets, I lose my arse in support. If I build too many radioactice extractors, my surplus is lost, and I may need it later. In this game, earlier on I did that, and had to go back and "recycle" a large number of them. Due to the mineral intensive support system, I didn't have enough of that, and far too much of the other. I had not researched resource conVersion yet and was killing my own planets with org/rad depletion. talk about hasty micro-management. I still had a need for those two, so scrapping "all" of that type of facility would not have been the right thing to do. balancing the M/O/R is a real see-saw challange. It was quite fun. infinite games are missing that aspect.

My current game is down to a two front war, but I have over 60% of the galaxies claimed (by colonization). Made some not-so-desireable race setting choices, so I think I am gonna apply the patch, and give it another go.

This Last game, was cluster/large. 3 of the AI's were in real good shape by the time I found them. another 3 were of mediocre challange, and not much can be said about neutrals. I colonize the system next to theirs and they go on a traditional "there goes the neighborhood" rant. I sign treaties with them, and they get mad. they attack, I graciously allow them to join my empire. I needed some methane breathers anyway.

[Fyron]

All of that adds way too much micromanagement and makes the game less fun to play.

Finite resources is not necessarily _harder_, as much as it is more of a pain.

[ January 28, 2003, 08:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]