Noobish question about maintenance costs.

[Dinner]

OK, I'm just starting to get back into Civ 4 after a long period of ignoring the game and I'm still unclear about a few aspects of maintenance costs. First civic maintenance costs seem higher then I remember so I guess they got bumped up in patches or what not and I recall that distance from your capital (or second capital or Versailles) is the main determining factor of how much it costs to maintain a city. Is that correct?

Also I'm wondering if there is a list of how much each building or unit costs in gpt in maintenance costs. Do all buildings cost the same or do some cost more then others? Also how does unit maintenance costs work exactly? Do you pay one flat per turn fee per unit or do some units cost more to maintain then others? For example in my current game I still have some warriors and archers garrisoning my rear area cities and I'm wondering if it is cheaper maintenance cost wise to just keep them as old units or if I upgrade them (and they're in an area no one will attack for many, many, turns) will I find myself stuck with even higher unit maintenance costs? What's a penny pincer to do in this situation?

[JackRudd]

Buildings have no maintenance cost. (This was a calculated anti-ICS move.) Units, if I remember correctly, have a flat maintenance cost that doesn't change when they get upgraded.

[Ming]

When you are playing a game, select the Dollar sign button along the upper right tool bar. It will show you a breakdown of your expenses and income. Hopefully that will answer some of your questions.

[Jaybe]

Unit costs, city maintenance costs (and all others) increase with time. Check the Inflation Costs in your F2 (financial advisor).

IOW, if you were to stagnate (no expansion of cities, buildings or trade), your expenses would still continue to increase, since inflation is simply a function of time after a set number of turns (the first several turns have no inflation). Varies with game speed.

[slnz]

OK, I'm just starting to get back into Civ 4 after a long period of ignoring the game and I'm still unclear about a few aspects of maintenance costs. First civic maintenance costs seem higher then I remember so I guess they got bumped up in patches or what not and I recall that distance from your capital (or second capital or Versailles) is the main determining factor of how much it costs to maintain a city. Is that correct?

Also I'm wondering if there is a list of how much each building or unit costs in gpt in maintenance costs. Do all buildings cost the same or do some cost more then others? Also how does unit maintenance costs work exactly? Do you pay one flat per turn fee per unit or do some units cost more to maintain then others? For example in my current game I still have some warriors and archers garrisoning my rear area cities and I'm wondering if it is cheaper maintenance cost wise to just keep them as old units or if I upgrade them (and they're in an area no one will attack for many, many, turns) will I find myself stuck with even higher unit maintenance costs? What's a penny pincer to do in this situation?

There's nothing noobish in asking about maintenance costs, IMO that's one of the most complicated aspects of the game

All units have a flat maintenance cost of 1gp. Under Pacifism there's an additional 1gp, and for troops abroad (not within your cultural radius) there's another additional 1gp. Note that all these have (separate) "freebie" thresholds (that scale up with number of cities and down with higher difficulty levels), so having a low number of units doesn't necessarily cost at all. Upgrading has no effect.

City maintenance cost is divided to distance from capital, number of cities, colony and corporation maintenance. Usually distance maintenance is the biggest factor for non-colonies (excluding corporations for clarity), in rare occasions (and close to your capital/Versailles/FP) the number of cities maintenance is the biggest factor. Under State Property the number of cities maintenance is the only non-zero of these. Note that every time you settle/capture a new city, the number of cities maintenance rises in all of your cities. You can see which is the biggest factor in the F2 screen by mousing over city maintenance.

Civic upkeep is totally independent of this, and scales up with large empires and expensive civics.

[wodan11]

To answer the questions not addressed yet:

-- yes, distance and number of cities are the highest costs to worry about. So, make sure you prioritize Code of Laws and make Courthouses. And, don't build or conquer too many cities before you do that.

-- you only need 1 unit to garrison your rear area cities (and that only because having no garrison at all gives a hefty unhappiness penalty). The only time you might want more is if those cities are on the coast or otherwise vulnerable (but then, they wouldn't be "rear area" cities).

-- True rear area garrisons don't need to be upgraded. Since upgrading is kind of expensive, you probably only want to do it in an emergency. Using a warlord (great general) to upgrade a highly experienced unit is a good idea because it will keep its XP (if you don't, then all XP is reduced to 10) plus it's free. Usually I'll use old, weak, and low XP units as my rear area garrisons. Otherwise, if I already have a lot of units and am getting unit maintenance costs, then I usually disband them because it's cheaper to build new, modern units than upgrade. If I don't have a lot of units then I'll stick them in border cities where they can be emergency upgraded in case of invasion.

-- Focus your military on your borders where you might be invaded. Keep several units in each city and also consider making one or two rapid-response forces... centrally located groups of units which you can rush to any point of invasion.

[Blaupanzer]

As to units, 1 Civic adds to their cost, Pacifism as noted, and the Vassalage civic reduces their cost by increasing the number of "free" units (based on map size, +15 on standard) and the number of "free" units outside your cultural boundaries (+9). No difference in expenses for units that are in neutral territory (not in harm's way) and those in enemy (hostile) territory. (This distinction matters to healing but not to cost.) This includes that Great Merchant while he, the ship he is on, and the accompanying horseman are at sea for 7 turns, just as much as your army marching thru an Ally's territory on the way to finish the Seventh Aztec war. All those "units" including great people, workers, and settlers cost more once they leave your cultural boundaries.

All incomes and expenses are shown in the F2 table and mousing over the figures will give you a breakdown of the current mix.

[Willem]

-- True rear area garrisons don't need to be upgraded. Since upgrading is kind of expensive, you probably only want to do it in an emergency.

There is one advantage to upgrading your rear units, or at least replacing them. It will add to your overall power rating. Personally I find it rather silly to have Archers garrisoning my rear cities while I'm producing Infantry, so I replace my rear defenders at certain points.

Using a warlord (great general) to upgrade a highly experienced unit is a good idea because it will keep its XP (if you don't, then all XP is reduced to 10) plus it's free.

Also getting that unit up to level 6 guarentees that you can build West Point later on.

Otherwise, if I already have a lot of units and am getting unit maintenance costs, then I usually disband them because it's cheaper to build new, modern units than upgrade.

You should try using them as cannon fodder, it can get interesting. I once had a stack of over 300 units, many of them grossly obsolete. I was battling Riflemen with Archers and Chariots etc. But because there were so many of them it was easy to overrun my opponents. I didn't even get to use my more advanced units, except in defence, since my lowly Archers etc. were able to defeat the opposition. At a heavy loss of those units course. If they managed to survive long enough to get 3 promotions they got upgraded. And keeping those old units still helps with your power rating.

[wodan11]

There is one advantage to upgrading your rear units, or at least replacing them. It will add to your overall power rating.

Sure. OTOH you could spend those same resources getting more techs which is vastly preferable.

Personally I find it rather silly to have Archers garrisoning my rear cities while I'm producing Infantry

Well, yeah.

Also getting that unit up to level 6 guarentees that you can build West Point later on.

That has nothing to do with rear units. In fact, if you have a unit with a good bit of XP you specifically do NOT want to upgrade it (unless you use a warlord). Instead, use it as "clean up duty" to kill enemies you have weakened with collateral damage so it gets that extra XP to up to level 6. THEN upgrade if you so desire.

You should try using them as cannon fodder, it can get interesting. I once had a stack of over 300 units, many of them grossly obsolete. I was battling Riflemen with Archers and Chariots etc. But because there were so many of them it was easy to overrun my opponents. I didn't even get to use my more advanced units, except in defence, since my lowly Archers etc. were able to defeat the opposition. At a heavy loss of those units course. If they managed to survive long enough to get 3 promotions they got upgraded. And keeping those old units still helps with your power rating.

I'm sure the families (wives and children - widows and orphans now) of the men felt well about your chosen tactics.

[Willem]

I'm sure the families (wives and children - widows and orphans now) of the men felt well about your chosen tactics.

The wives and children of my Infantry units certainly did. The Archers and Chariots not so much.

[Dinner]

Why would you even have 300 obsolete units? Wouldn't it have made sense to disband or use them on attacks long before anyone got riflemen? I mean the cost of supporting all those units for so long is probably the reason you didn't have riflemen first.

[slnz]

You should try using them as cannon fodder, it can get interesting. I once had a stack of over 300 units, many of them grossly obsolete. I was battling Riflemen with Archers and Chariots etc. But because there were so many of them it was easy to overrun my opponents. I didn't even get to use my more advanced units, except in defence, since my lowly Archers etc. were able to defeat the opposition. At a heavy loss of those units course. If they managed to survive long enough to get 3 promotions they got upgraded. And keeping those old units still helps with your power rating.

Oh the war weariness...

[Dinner]

So the more units you lose the more war weariness you get? I thought it was just a function of how long you were at war but I guess it makes sense to include loses into the equation.

[rah]

Yeah, and I'm not a big fan of giving my opponent free experience points by attacking with units that can't win. (i'll do some sapping but not to the degree suggested here)

And yes WW is big and losing that many battles is a killer, and could give the enemy another GG.

[slnz]

You get war weariness for each battle on foreign soil. Foreign here means culturally foreign (a tile that you don't have the most culture on), so freshly conquered areas are "foreign" for this purpose even if you control them. Losses give more WW than wins.

Defending your own soil doesn't give WW.