Tweet
I've made a scenario that should reflect the real world better than the basic C3C rules do. I have called it A World of Mercenaries, because troops are very cheap to produce, but cost enormously much money for upkeep.
Below here a more detailed description of the scenario:
In the scenario producing military units costs only one tenth of the original amount of shields, but in version 1.0 the maintainance was set to 10 instead of 1. To compensate this a bit I set a standard commerce value for many terrain types, excluding desert, mountains, tundra, jungle and marsh.
I also set a populationcost for military units of 1, the same as workers, to limit the production of units a bit.
Of some units the costs have been halved, such as for siege equipment, because of the need for these for the sieges.
For others, such as ships, planes and whatever units that "consist more wood or iron than flesh" the amounts of shields have remained the same.
The results are these: because of the cheapness of the units, barbarians attack massively with more than 10 units. For this reason I have made the upkeep cost lower, favouring the early governments a bit. Upkeep costs under despotism are now 8 instead of 10. Playing with a low level of barbarian activilty can make playing easier.
I expected that civilizations would become hopelessly backwards due to the high upkeep costs, but under 1.0, civilization's developments match the real world developments quite well.
The new rules force you to choose a totally diferent play style: you have to concentrate on agrarian production and commerce rather than shield production. Also the use of the option "wealth" has increased enormously, to profit from the time between your population growth from 1 to 2. If you don't use wealth, you don't profit, becaouse you can't produce anything, now you make money in the meanwhile.
Concluding, the changed rules still ensure a relatively bananced game. But builderism is now quite discouraged, reflecting the violent reality of the past centuries and millennia better.
Aidun
Below here a more detailed description of the scenario:
In the scenario producing military units costs only one tenth of the original amount of shields, but in version 1.0 the maintainance was set to 10 instead of 1. To compensate this a bit I set a standard commerce value for many terrain types, excluding desert, mountains, tundra, jungle and marsh.
I also set a populationcost for military units of 1, the same as workers, to limit the production of units a bit.
Of some units the costs have been halved, such as for siege equipment, because of the need for these for the sieges.
For others, such as ships, planes and whatever units that "consist more wood or iron than flesh" the amounts of shields have remained the same.
The results are these: because of the cheapness of the units, barbarians attack massively with more than 10 units. For this reason I have made the upkeep cost lower, favouring the early governments a bit. Upkeep costs under despotism are now 8 instead of 10. Playing with a low level of barbarian activilty can make playing easier.
I expected that civilizations would become hopelessly backwards due to the high upkeep costs, but under 1.0, civilization's developments match the real world developments quite well.
The new rules force you to choose a totally diferent play style: you have to concentrate on agrarian production and commerce rather than shield production. Also the use of the option "wealth" has increased enormously, to profit from the time between your population growth from 1 to 2. If you don't use wealth, you don't profit, becaouse you can't produce anything, now you make money in the meanwhile.
Concluding, the changed rules still ensure a relatively bananced game. But builderism is now quite discouraged, reflecting the violent reality of the past centuries and millennia better.
Aidun
Comment