Option C or A. The unit shouldn't be able to be built (with full gear) without the resource. I take it then that all resources in elemental are going to be like strategic resources in civ?

Preface:

1. I don't really see where the fun is in customizing grunts unless the equipment has a "rock-paper-scissors" effect.  If there is just going to be leather/steel/mithril armor that gives a 5/10/15% bonus to defense, I don't want to have to open the unit screen every time I gain or lose a resource just to make an obvious choice.

Answer to OP:

2. I will echo what a few others have said.  If you don't have the resource, you can still build, but it should cost more.  

What I would really love to see is this cost being tied directly to how many deposits of the mineral exist in the world, how many have been discovered and are being worked (mines, beehives, etc.), and how the nations who control the resource feel towards you.

Anything that gives a strong incentive to engage in trade and/or diplomacy functions is a huge plus in my book!

-Frail

I'm in favor of penalizing per turn or making the unit costs jump up. (Option . Lets take a typical example of resource control:

Turn 1 - I have a unit guarding my mine.

Turn 2 - enemy comes up and snags it from me while I wasn't paying attention.

Turn 3 to 5 - I gather up army and start moving to take it back.

Turn 6 - I take it back.

So in that short time between turn 2 and turn 6, lets say I had 10 cities producing troops. I now have 10 troops scattered out around 10 different towns that do not have rings of HP on. I either have had to halt/pause all production from turn 2 to 6, or, let them build, then after turn 6, go hunt and peck and find all the units to make sure they get their rings on. I doubt any player would want to leave those units deployed without the rings on.

This is a micromanagment task that the 'at the top' leadership would never deal with. The leadership (you) should be targeting and taking/holding the resource that you need for your troops, then the 'working class' (not you) should take over once the resourse is flowing.

I think the best solution is increases to either cost or production time (or both), from option B. Yes, you would have to balance it between a slap on the wrist and a sludgehammer to the head. In terms of warning the player, this is what the beginning of turn summary notices are for in a 4x game.

"Warning! You lost control of your [IRON mine], therefore [10] units in your production queue will take longer to produce. Click to View."

Another thing to consider in terms of player warnings, is how you are representing resources. The above warning would not work well if the number of iron mines you control factor into a formula for production times/costs with utilizing those resources.

For example, say a unit needing iron takes 10 turns 400 gold. Every mine you control makes a unit with iron cost -1 turn -50 gp. I control 5 iron mines. Now my unit takes 5 turns and 150 gp to produce.  I lose one mine, it is now 6 turns and 200 gp or whatever proportial increase based on how far along the unit is.

In this set up, a detailed warning is not necessary. You simply say "You lost the iron mine at xyz. Click to view". This is because when the iron mines factor into a global resource like that, the effect of the iron mine should be placed at the top of the UI as a number the player will look at every turn. Just like you would look at your GP and income +/- you would look at your resource +/- bonus, and this would be a number the player is activly managing every turn.

I am probably walking right down the path you guys went through when presenting this question though. I see the gameplay you want from having to fight over natrual resources (magic or otherwise). You want it to fall somewhere in between a power node in mom (not that important) and a city (hugely important) .  The hurdles for balancing it seem rough, but once you have it coded into the game and playing around with it, I am confident you will be able to find what feels right.

I agree with the "Blend the Options" approach.  

1)  The stat bonuses for a particular resource type make sense w/regards to units that utilize the same base.  So a swordsman using a mithril sword should be better than the poor sap who is a swordsman with a nation that only can make wooden swords.  Same thing with spears, arrows, etc.  The stronger the resources, the rarer (assuming) makes for good skirmishes over resource types.  perhaps some retraining as they get used to the new metal etc etc.

2)  However, there should be some completely resource dependant troops.  Switching from horses to bears, as Denryu said and I completely agree, would require such a significant shift in unit type that those units should be resource dependant.  Making these resources rarer would also secure skirmishes over the particular resource.  The challenge, obviously, is to not have one unique unit so powerful so as to completely overpower the others. Civ 4 has this problem with stepping up into the mid-stage units of Axmen/Swordsmen (I thought at least).  Perhaps you make a tech requirement for these units?  So learning how to effectively ride bears makes you put some effort into utilizing the resource?

But if you are going to have beasts that we might not see in multiple plays through, then I think having unique units fits with the overall feel for the game.  But this would depend on what type of units we should expect to see.  If we are going to be using primarily "human" units, then bonuses are fine b/c humans will tend to outfit the same way.  If we start to get into the fantasy style units, then we should need to get their prereqs (either via tech or resource or both) to use all of them.

I prefer Option C.

Actually I would prefer a mildly modified C based on the discussions above.  If you have the sources of the resource, such as a mirthril mine, then you do have some of the resource enroute to the production point.  So if the mine were lost, you would still have mirthril as long as the caravans which have already started continue to their desinations plus some time to use up the stocks on hand.  If stocks on hand, iniventory, is tracked...as I hope it will be.

So if the above allows enough mirthril to finish the swords and armor, you complete the unit.  But what if the on hand + in transit is insufficient?  Perhaps then half your unit would be in mirthril armor and the other half would be relegated to iron armor and swords.  If a mirthril equipped unit received +4 defense and +2 attack, then the 'half and half' unit would get a +2/+1 bonus, or some fraction thereof.  If mirthril later became available again you could send the unit back for re-gearing to full mirthril.

It would seem rather strange to have units built with a Resource of which you have none. Time and cost are irrelevant if the Resource required simply does not exist at the time of need. That would require Magic and so far as we know, the Magic System does not include fabricating a resource out of thin air.

I would agree pretty much with Einlanzerous' point plus.

System C is fine but I would have it so the system automatically scales back the units. In the current build, I start a new game and do not see my Short Sword based unit design. I do not have the Research yet. When I do research it, then that Design appears on my updated unit list and I begin to select them to build.

The same should apply for resouce based unit designs. Any design I have created and has available materials/resources are listed for possible production. Any design for which I don't have the proper resources, anywhere in my Kingdom, be it steel, Mithiril whatever, that Design simply is not listed for selection until I rectify the situation that cause its removal. Pop-up notice would be good in case the design list gets a bit over the top in #'s.

Due to Caravans, and a hopeful abundance of mineral deposits, any town who loses its local resource can have needed resources caravaned in, and in doing so adds TIME to those design builds.

I'd also go with option C with some way to gather a stockpile of some resources in case I lose the source. I would ike to get a message to tell me when I lose a source, and I would ike a message to tell me if I have unsufficient stock to complete some units with the option to pause construction / training or change them to use other equipment. These two message should be combined if they happen the same turn off course.

If I build units with different equipment than designed, I should be able to see this on the unit / name somehow and if I regain the resources I should be able to upgrade the unit.

Let's give option A a chance during the beta, and see if it really has problems that need fixing.  It's a common behavior from similar games and thus is less likely to be confusing or do something silly.  Also less dev time.  Finally, those problems may be just be symptomatic of something not related to the resource thing and need another solution.

For example, if "sigh, I lost my mythril mine, all my queued up mythril sword soldier training went away, and now I have to queue up an alternate design all over the place" becomes a big issue it's more a matter of needing a good interface to issue large amounts of training orders at once (like being able to select "all cities I've tagged 'infantry production'" and have the training window have a "queue up selected unit at all selected cities" button).

Have the early design thoughts been thrown out of the window?  Early on I remember a DEV saying the number of mines controlled would directly affect the speed an army could be armed & armored.  The thought being a heavily armed & armored army would be a fearsome sight.  Has this been scrubbed?  I'd rather have metal, alloys, stone, horses, etc. to fight over rather than leaves, oils, and potions.  I'd also like to scavange the battlefield for the equipment abandoned by my dead enemy (at the cost of a turn).

I prefer C but have one concern about it.  I like the idea of there being lots of resources to enhance units and it sound like Frogboy wants to include a lot of them.  This is great except for one thing- It gives a hugh advantage to the largest nation.  The biggest nation will already be able to field the most troops, but now will also be likely to have the most unit enhansing resources.  I understand this is how life normally works but in a fantasy game I would be dissapointed if the winner is  determined (for all practical purposes) too early in the game.  If the nation with the most troops will always also have the most bonuses, what can the underdog hope to do?  (I know, I know....there are alternative ways to win but it still seems to suck some of the fun out of the game).

Here are some suggestions that might help-

-don't make all (or even most) bonuses stack, or not stack additively.

-have bonuses apply only to certain situation: for instance twilight honey might only work in forrested landscapes, a small piece of crystal might only work when near a shard that you own, a pin of valor might only work when defending your city, ect..

-have some resources limit or cancel the effect of opponents bonuses.

-maybe some resources can only be used effectively by only some fractions.

-my 2 cents.

Just like to register how strongly I disagree with this, unit design is one of the parts of the game I am most looking forward to. I'm sure there will be stock units for you design a phobes so why do you seek to spoil other peoples fun?

It was also a large part of the fun of Galciv 1& 2 for me and I don't see at all why it doesn't fit in a fantasy game.

Lastly I would probably seriously consider canceling my order if they took this out as for me the game would be much less fun. So I very much hope they are sensible enough & have enough faith in their own vision to ignore you on this.

My choice goes for:

Option C, with Elkoba's suggestion to be able to resupply.

Why ?

A: Would be fine, but if ressources are varied enough, it would maybe result in the need to create another unit template lacking that only one ressource. This was an issue I had with Galciv II ship design system (which was really awesome for the rest), I was constantly trying upgrading my ships, but the task was getting tedious and most of the time I was giving up integrating every last research I could make. If I'm correct, the issue was that every non-cosmetic part of the ship was reset ?

B: Definitely a big no. This would mean that a large empire with many resources could still overpower a small one with many resources. Because resource quantity will still have something to do with training speed, won't it ? I want to see quality being capable of outbesting quantity. I mean what I thought was fun in MoM was to have that special overpowered and carefully crafted unit to take the world to some degree. That is fun . Telling your mates how you were cornered and then took the world with yours "all-adamantine-equipped-magically enhanced necormancers (on bear cavalry of course)". Beating them in multiplayer with them is Extra Fun

C: This means you don't have all your power, without the need of modifying/duplicating your template. With Elkoba's suggestion, it wouldn't be a micromanagement issue, and the penalty of having to reshape your unit in a town seems fair and logical to me.

I also like the idea of stocking quantities of resources instead of 'the resource is available'. I like the idea of trading resources (smuggling sounds even better ). Keep it simple and stupid, make it like I need 1 iron, 1 coal and 1 flux stone to make steel. 1 steel + 1 coal = 1 piece of armour or weapon. Recipes (learned by research in a tech tree ? Or very rare gained into dungeons) look cool to me.

You know Dwarf Fortress (http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/) ? It is really successful in making you fond of the material you craft.

I'm just wondering now if artefacts are planned ? Crafting the killer weapon (Stormbringer, Mournblade where are you ?) is also much fun for me.

Like in Dominions, people like to engineer their Super Champion. I sure do !

Ok, those were my 2 cents

First of all: I heartily support not having to constantly modify my units or feel that if I just wait for five or ten turns, I'll be almost at a new, better one.

I suggest what has been said earlier: Make essential and non-essential gear. Essential gear is the weapons, armor and basic boots. Non-essential is potions, Koladia Leaves, all that stuff. The non-essential gear is churned out at a rate which you can see somewhere. For example, every 2 turns, there's a Potion of Valor ready. You can then, in a separate sub-screen, divide the non-essential gear to your troops and the game will calculate if the Potions are produced fast enough (say you want your Dread Knights and Assassins to have those Potions. A Dread Knight is produced every six turns, an Assassin every four. The game concludes that those units can be outfitted and does so). It's also possible to only say that every other Dread Knight or Assassin has a potion.

If the resource is lost, I agree with option A. It simply goes away. But I enjoy the Warehouse bufferzone thing, which also seems powerful realistic. If you've been the Iron Mogul for the past 200 turns, it stands to reason that unless you wipe yourself with the stuff, you'll have grand stocks of iron lying around. Indeed, you might also take the opponents resources and simply focus solely on stockpiling if that's what you need.

Now, it terms of essential and non-essential items: With the non-essential, it simply disappears from the designated units when there's not enough left to give them. The game can offer a number of compromises (only give Potions to every other Dread Knight too, slow production so one is produced every 3rd turn, things like that). The essential gear, it will warn about immediately (no more Mithril for the swords), suggest making downgrades to iron swords, that sort of stuff.

Which reminds me: Make unit families. Say I wind up with a host of Dread Knight variations, some with Iron Swords and armor, some with Mithril, some with Potions, some without and even a group without the Leaves. On the map, display all of them as Dread Knights still but, when clicking on the stack, expand to explain how many of each subtype there is (which can be automatically named by adding Weak, Lesser, Puny, Fodder, Underdog, so on ahead of the name, for example) so the player can know what's missing from this stack to make them ideal. This will open up for letting the Resupply function work to bring every subtype up to par with the 'parent' type (a Dread Knight with all his stuff).

And finally, I am very much pro expanding the unit stats so that there are several subtypes, degrees of training and connected elements to make everything interesting

Here is another thought I had that follows the 'C' concept. Let's say a Dread Knight is made, but you are out of mithril swords (the armor pieces you had enough) and also you are out of Koladia leaves (you lost that resource). So you make him with a fine steel sword (the next best thing you had available) and no Koladia leaves. Like has been suggested by others this unit should be designated as Dread Knight (-), in other words a sub par Dread Knight.

I think that when and if you are able to again produce mithril long swords and/or Koladia leaves, the unit should be auto upgraded, and assuming he is able to get everything required of a True Dread Knight, he loses the (-) designation. you could even make it a (-2) designation to show he is missing two pieces of equipment required of a Dread Knight. The fine steel sword gets returned to the armory/warehouse when the upgrade happens, and the upgrade happens automagically on the turn when the proper equipment is created.

If you had multiple deficient Dread Knights running about, the upgrade should go to the most experienced, or you could prioritize by nearness to the capital (or farthest) or any other criteria.

If normal units are able to advance in rank, then rather than creating your Dread Knight from scratch, could you not attach a rank to the build requirement? Thus your most veteran units would also be given the best equipment and would grow stronger both thru experience and better stuff. It makes more sense than taking one citizen and making him a guard, and another citizen and he becomes a Dread Knight (I am sure training would be longer for a DK, I would just rather take a veteran unit and turn him into a DK. You could make custom upgrade paths.

For instance, the guard that you create, in the "template" for DK you could say that it has all the gear you specified. And rather than making it from a normal citizen one of the components, if you will is a "guard - veteran". Again, I am not even sure you are going to have advancement among the regular units. But if you did, I think this would be a cool idea.

edit: as I think about it, this would be a pretty easy way to handle unit upgrades - you develop a better sword and you just change the guardian template to have that new sword. Now all your guardians just became guardians (-)   But as you create the new sword, the units automatically swap out the equipment.

I like option B, Just treat missing items as if they needed to be bought off a black market of sorts. With additonal time and cost to secure the item. Just a thought.