Im doing a simplified stone-age RTS. I have three resources that are extracted from the terrain:

food: from fields. Used for civilian growth and soldiers

wood: from trees. Used for buildings and some soldiers

gold: from mines (using pickaxes on "stony ground"). Used for soldiers and some advanced buildings.

The villagers are island dwellers, palm trees and straw huts. There is shamans and totem poles and some magic.

The problem is "gold". It's a nice symbolic resource that can be both "high level" construction material and is a typical resource for unit (military) production in many games (doubling as metal, wealth and so on).

But with the style it fits better with "stone". Would that seem strange? To have stone being the main unit resource? Maybe it can double as flint as this is used in weapons, but then it goes badly as constrution material. I dont want one resource to be only used for soldier production. Or should I make gold fit better into the style and stay with it?

(it seems strange to have a strong unit cost "loads of stone", easier to have it cost "loads of gold").

Your thoughts on this?
Thanks

Erik

Perhaps when in areas where you would send your villagers or soldiers to search for stone (I.E. Something like a Cave or maybe a nearby Island), they have the chances of finding diamonds, crystals, or some other kind of 'rare' stone. Then again, it might make more sense to make food the primary means of buying/paying soldiers. They are cavemen after all, not like they got much else to need other than food and shelter.

Thanks for the info guys!

Norman that is indeed correct (lots of ideas).

The game is rather non-realistic, villagers can also pray for "favour" which translates to spells and some upgrades. I'm even thinking the third resource may be "metal" but this also goes badly as building material. So no need for true stone age actually.

Hmmm ill need to think this over some more! But plz continue speculating if you want:)

Hey Norman, I've been a fan of prehistory my whole life and I appreciate your informative post. I feel like you got a few things wrong however.

Hate to break it to you man, but agriculture is not stone age. Neither is mineing.

Easy to fix, just use the correct term: Neolithic setting, not Stone Age (Paleolothic).

Neolithic means new stone age. Paleolithic; by contrast, means old stone age. Limited mining and agriculture was carried out in both time periods. The "Stone Age" is a vague term that applies to both. Some of this depends on how you define mining and agriculture.

Is agriculture the planting of anything and waiting for it to grow, or does it imply large fields and careful tending? Exactly how deep do you have to dig for it to be "mining'? Does "mining" only refer to digging up metals or does it count chert (flint), and limestone?

Any definition people come up with for these is, in my opinion, somewhat arbitrary.

Neolithic probably would be the easiest setting simply because more people were sedentary and we know more about the period than the paleolithic.

Oldest known mine in the world:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251028587_Middle_Palaeolithic_Chert_Exploitation_Pits_near_Qena_Upper_Egypt

if you're going to assign arbitrary resources with arbitrary uses, they can be anything you want, say mandarin oranges, suspenders, and paper clips.

IE gold is not a construction material, its a trade good, with almost zero practical value in .Neolithic times. So using gold as a construction material (as opposed to money) - heck it might as well be paper clips, mandarin oranges, or gentlemen's suspenders - makes just about as much sense.

Do you build straw huts and totem poles out of stone? don't think so.

Are soldiers made of flint? Whats up with that?

A larger-sized neolithic settlement would require some sort of chert mine or depend on trade to equip its soldiers. Chert weapons break easily and need constant replacement. Even weapons of polished stone were susceptible to this.

Gold had significant value even in neolithic times. Still, I agree, most buildings would've been made of whatever was available, clay, wood, dirt, etc. Perhaps a settlement leader's residence or a religious site would be made of stone.

what do they require? units require a place to muster them (a building), and money - and people. In the case of military units, you might include some raw materials for weapons, either copper, or bronze, or iron, depending on how new you go. first came copper, then bronze, then iron, then steel, along with early high quality steels such as damascus steel, and ulfbert swords.

Most people, even in the neolithic, were nomadic and didn't build permanent shelters. Most did not use a form of currency. There were barter and gift economies. I can see how this would complicate the game though.

So you can model upkeep costs, or fake it by rolling some upkeep into the initial price.

A third option might be to have those producing food produce a set, constant value depending on how many fields or forage areas and workers you control. This number could be used as a population-cap by restricting the amount of warriors and workers you can get based on it.

This would make managing food somewhat simpler.

I have to say that i notice a recurring theme of you coming up with cool ideas for games, but they are set in historical periods, with which you seem unfamiliar. You might want to try something in a non-historical setting. then things only have to make sense within the rules of how your fictional game world works, and not from a historical perspective as well. Might make life easier. remove some design constraints - IE does this make sense historically?

This sounds like a really good idea for him.