Techefficacy

Join Date 08/2006

Resource Control vs. Territory Control

I have yet to run across an in depth discussion about how resource control is gained and lost.

In my understanding of resources so far (mainly gained from the animal husbandry and economy dev journals and discussions)

1)    You must first research a technology for some resources to appear on the map
2)    You must construct a building to utilize these resources
3)    The resources a then “shipped” to your cities.

Lets’ take an “ore” mine for example. I am hoping that the building we need to construct resides at the resource site itself and not in our city. If this is so, then I believe the level of influence you have over the location of the mine should influence both shipping time and cost. For instance, if a mine you construct is located in your own lands I would assume the path or road back to your city is well protected. However, if your mine is in neutral territory goods may take longer to arrive because of the danger. Or if the mine is located inside an opposing Kingdom/Empire the goods might take less time to arrive but, cost you more money to transport because they are traveling across someone else’s lands.

This brings up another point. Do you maintain control of your mine if it is located in another Kingdom/Empire’s lands due to influence shift later in the game? I believe you should, but depending on diplomatic relations it might severely limit your production or increase your costs. Also, I believe that you should be given the option to sell your mine whether it is in your sphere of influence or not.

What I hated about CIV4 was that you would lose your ability to build certain units if the enemy’s sphere of influence extended past your resource. I believe GC2 addressed this somewhat with asteroid mining, but I do not feel that system goes far enough. In EWOM, where specific resources will greatly affect your unit production abilities, I think it critical that a resource is yours until the enemy buys it or militarily takes control of it.

Lastly, and on an almost completely different point, wouldn’t it make sense that when you sack a city you would get to keep some of its stored resources? Maybe similar to CIV4 where you could raze a city or take it over and you get differing benefits for each.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

The influence thing is revolution and people going over the hills claiming your land.

As we don't know how influence works in this yet, I would say influence should cause riots/partisans, which can take over and settle areas, instead of an instant takeover. A strong enough military garrison should buy you extra time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, but that mine won't be very productive if it's being constantly badgered by patriotic farmers, not would it? I think this system is pretty realistic: the only probelm I forsee is that of the steamroller effect (the more territory you control, the more resources you get, which increases the amount of territory you can take, and so on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No. If you have a real military presence at a location then no patriotic farmers are going to stop your mining production. They porobably would be too scared to even try.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the idea of farmers / patroits taking over your mine should be less of an influence in EWOM. The game starts out with a desolate/sparsely populated world.

The chance of roiting should be greatly deminished from GC2 but, I will concede it could increase the longer and farther into another territory your resource is located.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you have a real military presence at a location then no patriotic farmers are going to stop your mining production.

That's a rather big "if". A garrison of troops should definately be a deterrant, but garrisons can be overrun with enough dedicated mobs... and that's if you station people there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sarudak,

reply 3

No. If you have a real military presence at a location then no patriotic farmers are going to stop your mining production. They porobably would be too scared to even try.

Wouldn't a military garison etc. simply project influence itself? If enemy influence is enough to overcome the influence of your nation + your military presence, it's safe to say those patriotic farmers aren't scared of your troops anymore. (and the enemy's forces are probably about to steamroller the garrison anyway)

Successfully updated karma reason!

No.. .I think influence is more of a cultural think. Military could have some affect on that. Probably depending on what they're doing (killing people negative influence, helping people positive influence). But even if the people WANT to be under someone else's control they're still gonna be scared of your military. There may be some geurilla groups that would fight back but not enough to fight off true military occupation...

Successfully updated karma reason!

There may be some geurilla groups that would fight back but not enough to fight off true military occupation...

Let me see here..... Vietnam: mid 20th century. Iraq(nearly): early 21st century. America: late 18th century. Mao's China: mid 20th again. Soviet Russia: early 20th. France: late 18th again. Actually, it seems like ideologically motivated gurilla uprisings are usually rather effective.......

Successfully updated karma reason!

Denryu

Join Date 07/2006

+93

Quoting Scoutdog,

reply 8

There may be some geurilla groups that would fight back but not enough to fight off true military occupation...Let me see here..... Vietnam: mid 20th century. Iraq(nearly): early 21st century. America: late 18th century. Mao's China: mid 20th again. Soviet Russia: early 20th. France: late 18th again. Actually, it seems like ideologically motivated gurilla uprisings are usually rather effective.......

Most if not all of your examples were not true uprisings of the people, but were carefully manipulated mobs that were whipped into a frenzy by thos ewho were waiting in the wings to take power after the "peasant revolt" had done their dirty work. Not that any of that invalidates your point at all.

I think that resources should have to be completely destroyed by an enemy, and not taken over by being swallowed in a sphere of influence. So if you have a garrison at your mine, an opponent would need to fight that garrison and effectively destroy your existing mine, which would then show the resource which could then have another mine built on it (or the original mine holder could build another mine there, if he got the "mine constructors" there first (and hopefully with a big enough force to hold the resource this time!).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Indeed, it makes even more sense: the "wing waiters" in this case would be the high-culture faction. Still, it could work either way: a channeler would probably allow only his/her most loyal subjects to work an important mining project.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I remember it being discussed that you could create or somehow purchase a resource you don't have at a much greater cost. So I don't think we will have to worry too much about resouce switching on the edge of influence lines.

To note: since you can ship goods, you can try to move as much of a resource as possible before an enemy gains control of it. I imagine this to be a fun race against time if you have a way to delay battles a few days by bombarding the enemy units with your own guys or spells.

Successfully updated karma reason!