Tweet
Since I don't know where this would fit best, I am making a new thread.
I have been a big advocate of making population difference matter more, and matter in a direct, not an inderent way (inderect being, more people more trade and shields, the difference of trade and shields being what matters, not people- a city on floodplains adds less to military might, be is a size 20, than a city size 3 next to hills, and resource bonuses).
One simple yet powerfull way of doing this is adding population limits for military units- The number of military units a civ could make without consequence would be based on the population of the civ. Now, some minor versions of this exist (like a metropolis supporting for free more units than a town), but this really minor, since if you can make more units you probably can afford to pay for them. What I say is a limit which brings about real consequences for putting your population in the army as opposed to the field.
The system would work as such (an example)- a civ has 3 cities all size 5=thats 15 total population points. Lets say in its current state it can support 3 military units per point- thus, this civ can support 45 military units without problem. Now, lets say the ruler wants more- he wants an army of 60 units: he would be able to do so, BUT face significant economic and happiness conseuqneces for it. A percentage of all eocnomic activity would cease. Now, this is not a tile by tile thing ; I am not saying making all tiles loose 1 food, or one shiled-that is too drastic. Instead, a percentage of the total collected is lost (or better said, never gotten due to less labor available). For example, a city can currenlty make 25 food per turn- well, a penalty of 10% might be placed, so the city can only actually use 22 (3 lost), and then waste can be figured in- same for shields and trade. This loss of 3 food represent the fact that men who would be on the fields farming are now in the army.
Government types, social choices, civ characteristics would be the factors that would decide how many units could be had without consequence by a civ. Now, this is not saying these units are free: if that civ were a democracy, it would still have to pay for all its units. This is just acknowledging that military units are made of people, not things, and that people are a finite resource just as much as iron and cola and so forth.
Now, I mention responsibility, and this is something that ties in. I am not a fan of arbitrary limits- of gaming choices that are either/or. Players should be given freedom- but freedom with responsibility. For example, city growth limits. I find the current growth limits annoying and utterly unrealisitc- ancient cities did grow to a half-million people, withou sewers. In civ, cities should grow as big as the factors that drive population growth allow. Players should have to DEAL with the consequences of this pop growth, such a riots, political instability, and pandemic disease. That makes the game more of a challange I think, and more interesting too.
I have been a big advocate of making population difference matter more, and matter in a direct, not an inderent way (inderect being, more people more trade and shields, the difference of trade and shields being what matters, not people- a city on floodplains adds less to military might, be is a size 20, than a city size 3 next to hills, and resource bonuses).
One simple yet powerfull way of doing this is adding population limits for military units- The number of military units a civ could make without consequence would be based on the population of the civ. Now, some minor versions of this exist (like a metropolis supporting for free more units than a town), but this really minor, since if you can make more units you probably can afford to pay for them. What I say is a limit which brings about real consequences for putting your population in the army as opposed to the field.
The system would work as such (an example)- a civ has 3 cities all size 5=thats 15 total population points. Lets say in its current state it can support 3 military units per point- thus, this civ can support 45 military units without problem. Now, lets say the ruler wants more- he wants an army of 60 units: he would be able to do so, BUT face significant economic and happiness conseuqneces for it. A percentage of all eocnomic activity would cease. Now, this is not a tile by tile thing ; I am not saying making all tiles loose 1 food, or one shiled-that is too drastic. Instead, a percentage of the total collected is lost (or better said, never gotten due to less labor available). For example, a city can currenlty make 25 food per turn- well, a penalty of 10% might be placed, so the city can only actually use 22 (3 lost), and then waste can be figured in- same for shields and trade. This loss of 3 food represent the fact that men who would be on the fields farming are now in the army.
Government types, social choices, civ characteristics would be the factors that would decide how many units could be had without consequence by a civ. Now, this is not saying these units are free: if that civ were a democracy, it would still have to pay for all its units. This is just acknowledging that military units are made of people, not things, and that people are a finite resource just as much as iron and cola and so forth.
Now, I mention responsibility, and this is something that ties in. I am not a fan of arbitrary limits- of gaming choices that are either/or. Players should be given freedom- but freedom with responsibility. For example, city growth limits. I find the current growth limits annoying and utterly unrealisitc- ancient cities did grow to a half-million people, withou sewers. In civ, cities should grow as big as the factors that drive population growth allow. Players should have to DEAL with the consequences of this pop growth, such a riots, political instability, and pandemic disease. That makes the game more of a challange I think, and more interesting too.
Comment