The Necessity Of Iron?

I've been playing a lot of Through The Ages online recently. In one of my current games one of my opponents had the following to say:

"wow not having iron is so brutal. Gl to you guys, I am not longer really in this. cheers"


The 3rd player in the game gave an example of someone winning without iron. Which prompted the following responses:

"lol, i am not wrong, not having iron is perhaps the only real weakness in the game. play a few more games and then tell me what you think."

"i will probably resign rather than finish the game. I will see how next 2 rounds play out."

"hey nick, if you like I can prove my point. We can play 5 1 on 1 games. Use any strategy you like taking into account that you will not be using iron. I would be surprised if you could win just one game. But it would be fun to try it out."

He then challenged me to a 1 on 1 game which is currently in progress. I found this exchange a little amusing as in one of the first games of TTA I played (with Pounder, Sara, and Duncan) we came to the same conclusion. There are 3 iron cards in the deck and 4 players. All 3 iron cards were grabbed the second they appeared for max cost (cards start off costing 3 actions to take and you get 4 actions each turn). Someone (Sara I think) didn't ever get the chance to pay 3 actions for an iron and she fell far behind and lost. 

For those who don't know, the game is a simulation of the Civ computer game series. There are a few different resources you have to balance out (food, minerals, science, culture, actions, and military strength) and you start off making bronze which is worth 1 mineral. Iron is worth 2 minerals and the only cost to upgrade is a one shot cost of 5 science and then 3 minerals per mine you upgrade. So in a pretty short period of time you can end up doubling your mineral output. Minerals and actions are all it takes to build wonders and pretty much everything in the game needs minerals to get up and running...

I remember talking with Robb about iron at WBC this year and he told me he's seen Jason win games without getting iron. (Jason being our 4th teammate at WBC. His team game is Through The Ages and he is a two-time champion so I guess he knows a thing or two about the game.) Robb said he thinks knights might be almost as important (without knights you're probably going to be last in military strength and therefore end up getting hammered by attacks and events). In the games I've played so far it seems like alchemy is also way up there as well. (Turns minerals and actions into research per turn.)

At any rate, I am now in a game trying to prove that iron isn't needed. In the chat for that game was the following:

"concept of your game is to win with no iron, anything else goes. If you get within 30 points in endgame I will still concede defeat. That should be a nice handicap."

Now, 2 player games are a little different. In a 4 player game there are 3 iron cards, so someone misses out. In a 3 player game there are 2 iron cards, so someone misses out. The fact that someone is going to miss out means the cost of iron goes way up. Assuming iron is that important you need to pay 3 actions to get it which somewhat mitigates the power. In a 2 player game there are 2 iron cards (and you can't take both copies to punish your opponent) so you can get an iron cheap in a 2 player game. But still sometimes you'll pay extra for the first one as there might be 5 or 6 turns between them. Under this challenge where I can't take iron even that restriction is gone. He gets the first iron for as cheap as he wants it. And he also gets a knights and an alchemy. 

But whatever! I like playing games, and I like challenges, and he's even spotting me 30 points (winning scores tend to be in the 130-200 range, so 30 is a really big deal). Going into the game I liked my chances to win at least 1 of 5 games. We're currently about halfway through the first game and I actually have a lead. I make 4 food, 5 minerals, 5 science, and 4 culture per turn. He makes 3 food, 6 minerals, 3 science, and 1 culture per turn. We have comparable military strength, I have a 21 culture lead, and I have 4 extra military actions per turn. The outcome is certainly still up in the air but I'm definitely not blown out by giving up on iron. (It helped that 2 of the first cards out of the age II deck were constitutional monarchy and coal and I got both of them. But I was able to do that because I had a lot of early research by not spending any on iron...)