In the intricate tapestry of Civilization 6, strategic resources are the lifeblood of military power. Iron, Horses, Niter, Coal, Oil, Aluminum, and Uranium are the essential ingredients that gatekeep access to progressively stronger units, forcing leaders to make critical decisions about expansion, trade, and warfare. But what if this fundamental constraint was removed? What if any civilization could build a legion of Swordsmen, a fleet of Ironclads, or a squadron of Jet Fighters without a single piece of the required resource? The game, as we know it, would be irrevocably altered. Analysis on forums and within the player community suggests that this single change would cascade through every mechanic, creating a radically different strategic landscape.
This guide explores the profound strategic implications of a Civilization 6 where military units have no strategic resource cost. We will dissect how this paradigm shift would reshape warfare, diplomacy, city development, and the very balance of the civilizations themselves. This is not a simple change; it is a reimagining of the game’s core military and economic engine.
The New Era of Warfare: Production is King
The most immediate and dramatic impact of removing strategic resource requirements would be on the nature and pacing of warfare. According to the player community, the early game would become a far more dangerous and volatile period.
The End of the “Resource Rush”
Currently, the discovery of Iron or the location of Horses dictates the flow of early military conflict. A player fortunate enough to spawn near these resources gains a significant, albeit temporary, advantage. Without this constraint, the “resource rush” — the frantic scramble to secure strategic resources before an opponent — would vanish. Instead, the primary determinant of military strength would become a civilization’s raw Production output. The new rush would be a “production rush,” a race to build Encampments, Industrial Zones, and the infrastructure necessary to field a massive army.
Many professional gamers suggest that this would lead to earlier and more decisive wars. A civilization with a strong production base could, in theory, begin churning out powerful units like Men-at-Arms or Knights the moment the corresponding technology is unlocked, without the need to first secure Iron or Niter. This would make early-game military aggression a much more viable and attractive option for a wider range of civilizations.
The Rise of the “Unit Swarm”
A popular strategy in a no-resource-cost environment would be the “unit swarm.” Without the limitation of strategic resources, players could focus on creating vast armies of the most advanced units they can produce. The strategic calculus would shift from “Do I have enough Niter to build Musketmen?” to “How many Musketmen can I produce and maintain per turn?”
This would have several key consequences:
- Attrition Warfare: Wars would become brutal contests of attrition. The winner would often be the civilization that can simply replace its losses faster than its opponent. This puts a heavy emphasis on production and economic strength.
- The Importance of Gold: With massive armies comes massive maintenance costs. Gold would become even more critical than it already is. A powerful military would be unsustainable without a robust economy to support it. Players would need to prioritize Commercial Hubs and Harbors to fund their war machines.
- The Demise of the “Tech Advantage” Unit: In the current game, a player who reaches a key military technology first can often leverage that advantage to conquer a less advanced neighbor, especially if the neighbor lacks the necessary strategic resources. In a no-resource-cost game, this advantage would be blunted. The defending player could immediately begin producing the same advanced units, provided they have the production capacity.
The Shifting Sands of Diplomacy and Trade
The diplomatic landscape of Civilization 6 would be almost unrecognizable without the trade and conflict driven by strategic resources.
The Devaluation of Strategic Resources
Strategic resources would, in essence, become bonus resources. Their primary value would be the small amount of yield they provide when improved, not their role as a gatekeeper to military power. This would have a profound impact on trade.
Analysis on forums shows that the lucrative trade deals for Iron, Niter, and Oil would disappear. Civilizations would have no need to trade for resources they no longer require. This would remove a major point of interaction between players and could lead to a more isolationist style of play.
A New Diplomatic Calculus
With resource trading off the table, diplomacy would be driven by other factors:
- Shared Ideologies: Alliances would be more likely to form based on shared government types, religious beliefs, and common enemies.
- Grievances and Grudges: Without the moderating influence of resource-based trade, conflicts could escalate more quickly. A minor border dispute could easily spiral into a full-scale war without the potential for a mutually beneficial trade agreement to smooth things over.
- The Rise of the “Mercenary State”: A civilization with a powerful economy but a less-developed military could adopt a “mercenary state” strategy. They could use their vast wealth to levy the armies of city-states or even pay other civilizations to fight their wars for them.
City Development and Expansion: A New Set of Priorities
The way players plan and develop their cities would also undergo a fundamental shift.
Freedom of Settlement
No longer would players be forced to settle in otherwise suboptimal locations simply to claim a source of Iron or a deposit of Niter. This newfound freedom would allow for more logical and efficient city placement, focused on maximizing food, production, and adjacency bonuses for districts.
A popular strategy is to settle in locations with high-yield tiles, such as those with abundant bonus resources or favorable terrain. This would lead to the growth of larger, more productive cities, further fueling the “unit swarm” style of warfare.
The Changing Role of Districts
The relative importance of certain districts would also change:
- Encampments and Industrial Zones: These districts would become even more critical than they already are. The Encampment would be essential for its production bonuses and the ability to build military units faster. The Industrial Zone would be the engine of the war machine, providing the raw production needed to field a massive army.
- Commercial Hubs and Harbors: As mentioned earlier, the increased importance of Gold would make these districts a top priority for any civilization planning to engage in large-scale warfare.
- Campuses: While still important for unlocking new units and abilities, the Campus might take a backseat to production- and gold-focused districts in the early to mid-game. The “tech advantage” would be less decisive when any player can immediately produce the latest units.
Civilization Balance: The Winners and Losers
The removal of strategic resource costs would not affect all civilizations equally. Some would find their inherent advantages nullified, while others would rise to new heights of power.
The Losers
- Civilizations with Strategic Resource Bonuses: Civilizations like Macedon, whose leader, Alexander the Great, has abilities tied to strategic resources, would be significantly weakened. The value of their unique abilities would be greatly diminished in a world where those resources are no longer a constraint.
- Civilizations with Early Access to Strategic Resources: Civilizations that have an easier time finding or exploiting strategic resources, such as those with bonuses to revealing them, would lose a key part of their early-game advantage.
The Winners
- High-Production Civilizations: Civilizations with bonuses to production, such as Germany or Japan, would become military powerhouses. Their ability to churn out units at an alarming rate would make them incredibly dangerous opponents.
- Economic Powerhouses: Civilizations with strong economic bonuses, such as Mali or Phoenicia, would also thrive. Their ability to generate vast amounts of Gold would allow them to maintain massive armies and fund their wars of conquest.
- Civilizations with Unique Units that Do Not Require Strategic Resources: Some civilizations already have powerful unique units that do not require strategic resources. These civilizations would see their advantage magnified in a no-resource-cost game.
A Faster, More Brutal World
The removal of strategic resource requirements for military units in Civilization 6 would create a faster, more brutal, and more production-focused game. The early game would be a powder keg, waiting for a single spark to ignite a massive conflict. The strategic depth of resource management would be replaced by a new set of challenges, centered on production, economic management, and the art of attrition warfare. While this change might simplify one aspect of the game, it would add new layers of complexity to others, forcing players to adapt their strategies and rethink their approach to every aspect of the game, from city planning to diplomacy. The world of Civilization 6 without strategic resource costs would be a world where the hammer, not the mine, reigns supreme.