IanVanCheese wrote:
Yeah but after that the resource becomes all but useless. If all weapons required a resource then you'd be able to make more tactical strikes against you enemy, cutting them off from their resources and by extention, reinforcements.

I don't mind that not all beam techs require hyperium. Not all internal combustion techs require oil. But it would be nice if hyperium had some use besides the first beam tech.

Guys I think you need to play some more and get into longer games. It took me some time, but in late game strategic resources become hugely important. Check out all the top tier System improvement buildings, stuff like +40% science, -20% ship building, +2 FIDS per pop, +30% food, +2 dust per pop and of course the wonder victory condition, all require strategic resources.



Even if you look at the weapon modules, their implementation of the strategic ressources makes a lot of sense. Both the first, as well as the second best weapon module of each type require a strategic ressource. This prevents you from beeing completely unable to compete, having no chance without a certain ressource but gives you great incentive to have it. Early game to rush a colony on a strategic ressource planet to might get some early military victories with the tier-1 tech, while your opponents have to research tier 2 to be able to compete. And of course lategame, because researching the top tier weapon module is a lot of science points, if you have the ressource you can rest on the 2nd best tech and get a crucial advantage in one of the most important moments of the game.



I think strategic ressources are very fitting in name and effect to the game. Not beeing able to build some of the amazing late-game system improvements because you don't have access to a certain ressource is a very big deal!

Here's the question:



If the first tier beam requires the resource, and the second one doesn't, that means I'm getting a 60% industry discount for the tier 1 with a monopoly. So even if the tier 2 weapon is strictly better normally....how much industry do I save by sticking with the lesser weapon?

toxic_flash wrote:
Guys I think you need to play some more and get into longer games. It took me some time, but in late game strategic resources become hugely important. Check out all the top tier System improvement buildings, stuff like +40% science, -20% ship building, +2 FIDS per pop, +30% food, +2 dust per pop and of course the wonder victory condition, all require strategic resources.



Even if you look at the weapon modules, their implementation of the strategic ressources makes a lot of sense. Both the first, as well as the second best weapon module of each type require a strategic ressource. This prevents you from beeing completely unable to compete, having no chance without a certain ressource but gives you great incentive to have it. Early game to rush a colony on a strategic ressource planet to might get some early military victories with the tier-1 tech, while your opponents have to research tier 2 to be able to compete. And of course lategame, because researching the top tier weapon module is a lot of science points, if you have the ressource you can rest on the 2nd best tech and get a crucial advantage in one of the most important moments of the game.



I think strategic ressources are very fitting in name and effect to the game. Not beeing able to build some of the amazing late-game system improvements because you don't have access to a certain ressource is a very big deal!

I thought this was a very interesting post. Personally, I'm only playing my first ever game ATM, and I've found that resources have only really affected me when I haven't got the one I need to build the kind of ships I want. This has been rare, but it has happened (mostly in the early-mid-game). Unfortunately, I'm finding the AI a bit weak (on normal), so the enemy hasn't really been able to use my weaknesses to its advantage (in particular, it's been far too peaceful and non-combative, allowing me to take the lead by conquering the weaker races). However, I think that on a higher difficulty level this could be an issue. I also think a resource weak galaxy might add some more tension.



However, I do see what a lot of people are saying on this thread. Arguably, for strategic resources to be truly strategically important, they need to be critical for some of the better tools available on both the military tree as well as for useful system improvements. Thus far, I've found that some ship improvements were a problem early on, and I struggled to build a specific but not particularly important (to my mind) improvement (some sort of mid level sensor array or something - I forget the name). Apart from that, in the mid game there was very little I couldn't build - and as a result strategic resources were not strategically important right at the moment where it mattered most - in the mid game I catapulted myself from a mid range civilization to the galaxy leader through aggressive conquest, largely ignored by the nearby alliance who could have stepped in to stop my expansion.



I don't think it should be every weapon, and I think it's important that system improvements have a cost too, but I feel like there ought to be a controlled expansion of the number of significant improvements and modules that require mid-game available resources; otherwise the focus is too much on the beginning and end of the game.

You can also cripple your enemy by blockading his strategic resource systems, even if its just a scout, as long as your main fleet(s) is(are) engaging his main fleet(s).

Most likely his ships require one or more strategic resources to be built, lategame mine required like 4 different kinds, if i was missing just one of them, i'd have to redesign my ships before being able to build anything.

Stalker0 wrote:
Here's the question:



If the first tier beam requires the resource, and the second one doesn't, that means I'm getting a 60% industry discount for the tier 1 with a monopoly. So even if the tier 2 weapon is strictly better normally....how much industry do I save by sticking with the lesser weapon?

Some math:

Assume you fill a destroyer's tonnage with a single weapon, even if you might not want to do this. Further assume you have no racial bonuses to ship costs.

A destroyer class ship can hold 15 first-rank lasers of 9 (7.2 after destroyer bonus) tons each, 10 industry points base, minus 60% from a hyperium monopoly puts you at 4 I per mod. 20 damage on average each, 300 damage per salvo without considering cards/defense mods, at a price of 85 industry. (60+25 for the ship)

Alternatively it may hold 13 second-rank synchrotron lasers of 10 (8) tons each, 15 industry base with no benefit from your hyperium monopoly. 30 damage on average each, 390 average damage per salvo, 220 industry. Using the rank 1 laser will save you 135 industry on each ship.



So you have ~3.53damage/industry on the rank 1 laser and 1.77d/i on the rank 2, which is noticeable. In practice however I don't think modding your ships with old tech is worth considering because

1) you should be using at least a few defenses/support mods, so the industry difference won't be very noticeable.

2) 6 or even 4 hyperium is not easy to get. If you have it already that's great, but I definitely wouldn't go to war just to get it when I could readily tech missiles/kinetic.

3) rank 1 weaponry is not viable for very long, and if you somehow managed to get 6 hyperium you will usually be out of the early game already.

if it really bothes someone:



[code] PlanetStrategicResourceHyperium [/code]



is basically thing what has to be added to item to force it to use Hyperium

I agree with the OP that strategic resources that are required for a lower tier tech should as well be required for all higher tiers at least to a certain degree. Except only if there would be some research that makes this resource obsolete or an event or something like that. In my last game for example playing as the United Empire I just had to research 2 more turns to get the second tier beam weapons and therefore circumventing the need for the strategic resource Hyperium. Therefore like it is now strategic resources are not that much strategic. It is to easy to circumvent them. I hope this will be addressed in a future patch.

They can provide some serious FIDS bonuses at planetary level especially to the UE faction that has a tech that allows it to double bonuses provided by strategic resources ... Treat them at least as always positive anomalies ...

Xiskio wrote:
I agree with the OP that strategic resources that are required for a lower tier tech should as well be required for all higher tiers at least to a certain degree. Except only if there would be some research that makes this resource obsolete or an event or something like that. In my last game for example playing as the United Empire I just had to research 2 more turns to get the second tier beam weapons and therefore circumventing the need for the strategic resource Hyperium. Therefore like it is now strategic resources are not that much strategic. It is to easy to circumvent them. I hope this will be addressed in a future patch.

Nice necro.



It won't be addressed in a future patch. There is no reason someone should be permanently locked out of vital improvements just because they got screwed by the RNG. Look at Civ 4 - if you failed to get copper or iron, your situation was pretty much FUBAR if you had aggressive neighbors who had them.

Well without going into details about whether its realistic or whatever, I do feel that strategic resources are misnamed. They have little strategic value when you only need them for the first tier. Tier 2 Beam and Missile tech is easily reached, thus making those resources redundant. A waste of time to have implemented it into the game when you only need them for 10-20 - or so - rounds, before reaching the next tier.

Taliesyn wrote:
Nice necro.



It won't be addressed in a future patch. There is no reason someone should be permanently locked out of vital improvements just because they got screwed by the RNG. Look at Civ 4 - if you failed to get copper or iron, your situation was pretty much FUBAR if you had aggressive neighbors who had them.

I agree with you! And llike Gc3 in the last post explained so did I by saying "required for all higher tiers at least to a certain degree" and explaining that further by saying that a strategic resource should be needed until for example "some research that makes this resource obsolete or an event or something like that". What I meant was that a strategic resource should in general be needed for more than one tier and therewith making it a more strategic important resource, something worth fighting for!

The strategic resources play a sufficiently great role and no, making every single weapon/defense/module require resources would kill the game: Like Taliesyn pointed out, you simply can't lock out players forever from using vital weapons just because they lack a resource. Strategic resources give a tremendous bonus throughout the game - many high-tech improvements require a resource and so do advanced terraforming projects - but it isn't impossible to play if you lack them (with the exception, perhaps, of the Wonder victory - good luck building the five 'Endless Empire' improvements without an abundance of the two required resources!). This is how it should be.



If I have a complaint about the strategic resources it is that they are much too abundant. I haven't tried playing with scarce resources yet, though, but on 'normal' setting I think there is too easy access to monopolies.

Apheirox wrote:
The strategic resources play a sufficiently great role and no, making every single weapon/defense/module require resources would kill the game:

You could do this only if they change the way strategic resources work. Instead of being a requirement, you simply get the industry bonuses. So for example, if all laser weapons required hyperium. Having hyperium would give you a big bonus in industry when building lasers, but it doesn't stop someone from making them if they don't have hyperium.

Strategic resources give somewhat early access to some weapons tech , but the real power lies in Monopoly Discounts, both with production and terraforming ability.



It's why I purposely colonize systems with several planets lacking an identifiable strategic resource, as I know that they contain unlockable upper-tier resources with high planet-wide boost effects and galaxy-wide monopoly bonuses.

Stalker0 wrote:
You could do this only if they change the way strategic resources work. Instead of being a requirement, you simply get the industry bonuses. So for example, if all laser weapons required hyperium. Having hyperium would give you a big bonus in industry when building lasers, but it doesn't stop someone from making them if they don't have hyperium.

It would be too powerful and monopolies - which it is often completely random whether you have or not (in a game that already has too many elements of random chance) - would get even more powerful. That said, a 'light' version of your proposal could work and would probably be healthy for the game.



Like I said, it is too easy to obtain monopolies given 'normal' resource setting. I currently have yet another game going where I'm in the ridiculous situation that I have monopolies on many (all, actually, but I'm only playing this one on Normal so just assume 'many') strategic resources. This means there are certain weapon techs that are far more attractive to me than others: The level 1 missile, the level 1 beam and the level 2 armor. The problem here is I have very little incitement to tech up my missiles and beams because while the more advanced ones are more powerful, they cost a *lot* more (5-7 times as much for just a few steps up, I'm sure you know how it is).



The solution could, again, be a 'light' version of your proposal: You are proposing the 60% cost reduction from a strategic monopoly onto all weapons given the proper monopoly - I say this is too much and ~20% would be more reasonable. The weapons that currently have a monopoly bonus would keep the 60% bonus, though. I think this is a sound option Amplitude needs to consider because the current model where only the select few weapons that do benefit from the monopoly bonus are ever used is clearly bad.



Even so, they still need to remodel the distribution of resources - when I'm playing 'normal resources', I can't help thinking 'this should be abundant'.

I agree with OP. Strategical resources are underused for now. Could trade them with AI for good relations i guess. Would be nice if more equip would rely on them, or equip actually gaining useful stats, like decreasing weight, increasing firepower, or even just allowing to build a ship. If say we have 10 hyperium that would allow us to build 10 hyperium using ships.



Not only this would encourage planet fighting for resources, but also would diversify players fleets and tactics depending on which resources it has access too. ( Build mounted units to kill Iron and Copper units in Civ4 hehe, Keshiks are pretty much overpowered)

Hello,



I've been playing this game a fair bit now. One of the very first things I noticed when playing was that resource requirements for certain tech levels was almost a non-event. Sure I needed it for my new (first) missile design, however it isn't very important past that first tier. So much so that the planet I had initially targeted and started to invade, and was going to be a strong narrative for the game suddenly became a non-event. I was so disappointed.



The solution seems clear;



Weapons along a similar tech branch should require the initial resource. However a research/industry option should be available to produce that resource synthetically if you need it bad enough, or a research branch of similar weapon type that does not need the resource, although it is more expensive in industry cost, research cost, or both.

It simply isn't true that resources become a 'non-event'. Yes, they could change it so resources give a slight boost to weapon production as I outlined above, but certainly no more than that - it would simply place too great emphasis on resources and make it impossible for the player who lacks them to compete.



Resources are useful throughout the game. It seems it is being overlooked that they are not just for the initial weapon types: Titanium is needed not for just missiles but also for Cruisers and much later the non-baryonic shell improvement. Hyperium isn't just lasers but also the refridgerator improvement. Anti-matter is needed for several weapon techs and most science improvements. Orichalsix is required for two economic improvements... and so on.

the reason that the first ones require it is that they are relativly powerful for how much research it takes to get to that place, so basically its stopping you from just rushing that, as you need to research on the right too!

1: The Dust bonus for monopolies of strategic resources was removed.



2: The techs which require them are often very important techs and better than they would otherwise be for their tech level.



3: Having a monopoly of a strategic resources decreases the cost of production for ship components made using that resource (I believe by half).

At the moment, there is no point to strategic resource monopolies--this will be changed in a future patch. I'm sure the future patches will make higher-tier missiles require all lower-tier resources... or I will just ignore those techs. :-D

Ketobor wrote:
3: Having a monopoly of a strategic resources decreases the cost of production for ship components made using that resource (I believe by half).

Really?

[10char]

OptionalSpring wrote:
I have been playing Endless Space for about 3 weeks now and have been wondering what the point to strategic resources is besides the +10% FIDS bonus on Monopoly. For example I know first level missiles require Titanium-70, however the second level missiles do not and it is the same for lasers but it's Hyperium that is needed. This just strikes me as odd. All I want to know is if this is the way it is going to be, or is it just for the testing stage of the games development?

I thought they removed monopoly bonuses for strategic resources? I know I haven't been getting any. I've only been getting bonuses for luxury resources.

Draco18s wrote:
Really?

[10char]

Yes. Hover over the part (even works in tech tree, even if it isn't researched yet) when you have a monopoly. Compare the production cost between when you have just 1 (or none) of the resource and when you have 4+.

Basically we did it to drive gameplay -- if you need a certain tech or building or module, and that requires resources, you have to use exploration or war or diplomacy to obtain it.



You have the option of generating maps with tons of resources everywhere if you don't like that, but I think it adds a nice bit of tension to the game

Slowhands wrote:
Basically we did it to drive gameplay -- if you need a certain tech or building or module, and that requires resources, you have to use exploration or war or diplomacy to obtain it.



You have the option of generating maps with tons of resources everywhere if you don't like that, but I think it adds a nice bit of tension to the game

If you don't mind me asking, then, why do some of the resource requirements go away the higher you go in the tree? For example, I think I need Hyperium for the first beam weapon mod, but every beam after than I can use without resources.

FinalStrigon wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, then, why do some of the resource requirements go away the higher you go in the tree? For example, I think I need Hyperium for the first beam weapon mod, but every beam after than I can use without resources.

Also this.

I too think this is a bit stupid. All techs of the same type should require the resource, not just the first one, though I'm assuming its a bug/oversight.



I was playing a game and was really worried when I found no titanium in my spiral arm (I play on low resources to make them more important), but then i realised that after the first missile tech none of them needed it.

I have been playing Endless Space for about 3 weeks now and have been wondering what the point to strategic resources is besides the +10% FIDS bonus on Monopoly. For example I know first level missiles require Titanium-70, however the second level missiles do not and it is the same for lasers but it's Hyperium that is needed. This just strikes me as odd. All I want to know is if this is the way it is going to be, or is it just for the testing stage of the games development?

Yeah but after that the resource becomes all but useless. If all weapons required a resource then you'd be able to make more tactical strikes against you enemy, cutting them off from their resources and by extention, reinforcements.

I also agree with strategic resources being required a lot more in the tech tree. Like IanVanCheese says it makes you think a lot more about where in your enemy's empire to target, and makes blockades far more important.



Of course, the AI should be altered to be a bit more amenable to trade. If we only border each other with smaller colonies (i.e. neither of us is heavily built up on the border) tensions shouldn't be as high as if we both have very high-population systems adjacent to each other.

This is a talk for another thread, but I agree that border tensions can build up to insane levels over time, even if you only share a border of one wormhole.



Anyway I'd like to see all the weapons require a resource (except a few low level kinetics, just in case you get screwed and have no resources). I also think all the ship classes should require one too (cruiser upwards anyway). Maybe even have some of the buildings require them (not sure if they do already). That way control of resources becomes much more important, important enough that you'd be willing to go to war over it.

Makes sense to me that you might not need certain resources on tech level to another.

Think gun powder. The original gun powder is sulfur, charcoal and either potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate. Modern smokeless gun powder isn't.

Meh, sense shouldn't come before gameplay. The resources should be important and if you can just skip past them after one tech upgrade then they dont serve much purpose.

The lowest tech weapons are the most important, even late-game. I would rather have a hyperium monopoly and lasers than have beams 4 ranks above lasers.

Ketobor wrote:
The lowest tech weapons are the most important, even late-game. I would rather have a hyperium monopoly and lasers than have beams 4 ranks above lasers.

Why?

[10char]

It also allows you to play the RPS game. Those that require "special" resources tend to be key parts. Yes the ultimate weapon doesn't need anything "special" because your empire can make just about anything...reaching the new biggest stick doesn't take that much shiny stuff only time. As for titanium you need it to build an entire class of ship (or at least used to). The strategic resource builds tension but also guides game play and tech tree climbing.



Do I spend 12 turns trying to get the next laser or switch to missile because it doesn't require a strategic resource even though I know then enemy has flak? By the end I have to have at least 4 strategic resources just to build my dreadnaughts with all the shiny things inside. Some of the support modules require them as well. Dark matter weapons aren't going to use hyperium...because that would be silly. Just like the Entropy based missiles don't require dark matter or hyperium.