Simple but really cool support system

[The diplomat]

I had a really cool idea for a support system. Instead of using gold or shields as support, each city would have a maximum cap on how many city improvements and units it could support based on the city size.

For example,

a city with pop 1 to 6 would get 5 support points.
a city with pop 6 to 12 would get 10 support points.
a city with pop 13 and above would get 15 support points.

1 city improvement = 1 support point
4 units = 1 support point
1 wonder = 2 support points

Thus, for example, a city of pop 4 could have 2 city improvements, 1 wonder and 4 units.

The player could build any combo of city improvements, wonders and units, as long the total support when added all up never exceeded the max support allowed.

This system would give larger cities a real advantage over small cities since larger cities could support more than smaller cities.

Also, there would be a lot more strategic thinking and planning. A player could not build every city improvement. Cities would have to be more specialized, and the player would have to think more about what city improvements to build.

Lastly, there would be more of a "guns or butter" dilemna. How much of the support points do I use up on city improvement versus units?

So, I think there would be a lot more strategy and decision making with this system than with the current gold or shield support system.

[Trifna]

There is a problem here...
A city does not have more or less possibility to improve in such a precise way. Any city can normally decide to support more: it will just cost:
- more money from that city
- more work force from that city

What is supported by a city and what is supported by the state as a whole? But it could be very simple to just put a cost in money (cost to the state) + shields (cost to the city). No? :)


This is very dependant on the bases of the Civ economical system: money, shields... Therefore the foundation must be laid first.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Trifna
There is a problem here...
A city does not have more or less possibility to improve in such a precise way. Any city can normally decide to support more: it will just cost:
- more money from that city
- more work force from that city

But really, what is supported by a city and what is supported by the state as a whole?

Remember that the whole reason for the max cap, is to force the player to make the tought decisions on what to build. Tough decisions are what create real strategy!

The thing with the current support system is that in the mid to late game, the player is often rich enough to afford tons of units and lots of city improvements. I know in all my civ3 games, there is never any question that I am always going to build every single city improvement. The question is really only when to build not what to build.

I think there can be more strategy. If there were a hard cap, then the player would have to make real tough decisions and there would be a lot more strategy as a result.

[Trifna]

Hard decisions? What you mean is that you have to chose a direction.

Well then the system must be constructed as it really is, where there are also hard decisions. This means that you shouldn't be able to take everything. Look for exemple at the Greek society: having more people in books did NOT have only advantages. Sparta went through Athenes because it had its nose in armors alot more than books. So a civ should be able to chose from multiple paths, some paths bringing also some disadvantages.

[The diplomat]

The value of a max limit is that it forces the player to make hard choices which is at the heart of real strategy.

Let's just pretend for example, that a city was only allowed a maximum of 4 city improvements. I can't build everything, so which do I choose and which do I lose? Do I build the bank, barrack, granary and temple? Or do I build the harbor, marketplace, barrack and cathedral?

The player would have to make real strategic choices in terms of what to build in each city. Can you see the inherent strategy?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Trifna
Hard decisions? What you mean is that you have to chose a direction.

Well then the system must be constructed as it really is, where there are also hard decisions. This means that you shouldn't be able to take everything. Look for exemple at the Greek society: having more people in books did NOT have only advantages. Sparta went through Athenes because it had its nose in armors alot more than books. So a civ should be able to chose from multiple paths, some paths bringing also some disadvantages.

Exactly. And I think my support system would greatly encourage this.

[Trifna]

See message above (you,re answering way too fast ;P).

Other than that, I believe that the problem is to have always dvantage to take basically the same path. Of course, I believe that some structures were essential for ancient cities to get first, but some other structures (and general society orientations) were really about which path you'd take.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Trifna
See message above (you,re answering way too fast ;P).

Other than that, I believe that the problem is to have always dvantage to take basically the same path. Of course, I believe that some structures were essential for ancient cities to get first, but some other structures (and general society orientations) were really about which path you'd take.

Are you saying that players would always pick the same city improvements?

[Trifna]

I'm saying that in some cases, you will always build something before everything else (even if there may be exceptions, in special situations). But other than that, societies are taking different orientations. Rome with their entertainment, etc.

[Trifna]

I'm saying that in some cases, you will always build something before everything else (even if there may be exceptions, in special situations). But other than that, societies are taking different orientations. Rome with their entertainment, etc.

You can't take all paths at once and each path has advantages and problems (like roman entertainment with the population).

[Paddy]

Diplomat, I understand where you are headed with this, yet I wonder what happens when a city has gone through a battle and lost population, thus cannot support as many items as they could prior to the battle?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
Diplomat, I understand where you are headed with this, yet I wonder what happens when a city has gone through a battle and lost population, thus cannot support as many items as they could prior to the battle?

The city would receive an economic penalty proportional to the amount of support deficit. Obviously, the player could fix the support deficit in two ways, either by growing the city population or by disbanding some units and/or city improvements.

[Jamski]

Why not have the first (x) buildings for free, then each additional building costs some gold, with the amount increaseing for each additional over (x)

(x+1) 2 gpt
(x+2) 4 gpt
(x+3) 8 gpt
(x+4) 16 gpt
(x+5) 32 gpt

In this way a rich city could help support a poor one while it grows.

Unit support should be based on the number of barracks, forts, castles (or whatever) in your empire. Probably a barracks could support one unit, a fort 2 and a castle 3. A town with all 3 improvements would be able to support 6 units, any more would start costing BIG TIME. Perhaps under the "millitary" governments either the "extra unit costs" could be reduced, or each building could support one more unit. This would also bring back the sorely missed "unit's home" feature in all the civ games except to Civ3. And perhaps under Democracy each building supports one less, to a minimum of 1 ?

Just an idea...

-Jam

[Trifna]

Jamski, barracks and all this were not built to be able to get more units, and having more units than what barracks permitted did not "suddenly" bring the costs up.

In the middle ages, you could have no barracks and 1000 men army if you wished, but it was just not a good idea since not cost/efficient (costs less to get a barrack to train men and have a bit less men).

[Jamski]

Barracks are not for the training of troops, but for their living accommadation. The invention of the barracks meant that Kings could build a full-time professional army, instead of just getting the clansmen/tribesmen/hunters/peasants/whatever together. This is represented in Civ by building Veteran units, but it should also help support these units too, after all the barracks is the soldiers house.

Your middle ages army of 1,000 men without a barracks means that it would include no professional soldiers, only peasants with bows and spears. The lord would have to feed them himself. A barracks for his soldiers, with professionals living and working there on a regular wage, was an essential for all castles and cities.

-Jam

[Trifna]

Well weren't the soldiers in their own houses two?... My personal idea is to put the more coherence possible with the less complexity possible. So I guess it could make soem sense if it really is representing something.

[lord of the mark]

re:medieval armies

Thinking back to Marc Bloch (Feudal Society) et al.

IIUC in the Dark Ages, rulers tended to keep their vassals living WITH the lord, and rewarded them with upkeep and occasional gifts (I was about to say 'booty" but realized that might be taken the wrong way) I doubt there was anything unusual or technologically advanced about their living accommodations, though.

in the classic feudal system, roughly 900 to 1200, vassals were normally rewarded with fiefs of land, and did NOT live with their lord - while the situation varied from time to time, and place to place, this process extened down to knights. Thus the basic element of the feudal army WAS a professional soldier, and yet did NOT live in a "Barracks". The foot soldiers generally were peasant levies, were NOT trained, and of course lived at home when not called up.

In the late middle ages - 1200 to 1500 or so - vassals generally paid money in lieu of service, and the kings then hired professional armies. The increasingly important foot soldiers were also often mercenaries.

Basically means of recruitment, training, military support etc have varied too much over time and space to realistically and playably model them in a game with Civish scope.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Basically means of recruitment, training, military support etc have varied too much over time and space to realistically and playably model them in a game with Civish scope.

Would it be possible to have a SE type system where the player could choose in-game between different support systems? In other words, the player could choose to support units with gold, or shields, or pop etc.... For example, you could start off using pop to support units, then switch to shields, then switch to gold.

[Sandman]

I don't like this system. Firstly, it places too much emphasis on population. There is no point in making any other improvement than population boosters. Secondly, it is inflexible. I should be able to build units until my economy is destroyed if I want to (indeed, at times it is necessary). It's not realistic, since cities which have not grown in the last hundred years have still got more improvements. It could also lead to players having to disband buildings in order to wage war. Additionally, it would force the player to keep track of a whole new economy of 'support units', when gold and shields are quite enough. It also penalises successful play by preventing good players from capitalising on their lead.

Finally, it seems needlessly contrived in order to produce 'hard choices'. There are already plenty of those; adding unnatural ones like this will not improve the game.