Vanishing Armies

[Kc7mxo]

In civ2, when you capture a city, all military units currently supported by that city istantly vanish, whereever they are.

This is silly.

Throughout history armies have supported themselves even when they had no city. But thats beside the point. If the united states is invaded and the city of new york is sacked, will all the soldiers raised from that city scatter? If they're based out of austraila? no. As long as they continue to get paid and recieve support from the rest of the coutnry, they don't give a dang.

Since military units no longer require actual resources to support them in civ3, I don't think they should dissapear when you take their home town either.

[Provost Harrison]

I very much doubt they will disappear. It doesn't happen in SMAC either; the units are just reallocated. If they are all funded from the central coffers, then there is no reason why they would disappear. But this would bring up another question; how would unhappiness work for units being away from their home city/empire?

[Henrik]

People are probably happy as long as they are inside your own borders/ your allies borders.
The game will probably still keep track of where the soldiers are from and make that city unhappy.

[Buck Birdseed]

The support model will be based on funding only this time around, so the problem should be eliminated.

[Kc7mxo]

I wouldn't know about smac, i haen't played that since just it came out. I didn't realize that it had been implemented there.

But the city screenshots i've seen for civ3 still show the units that were built by the city in a little window.

[ancient]

you are so right but units should only disapear when theyre killed

[Inverse Icarus]

i forget where, but i remember reading that military units are supported by your central gold pile.

i assume all units would still have a homecity , for happiness concerns, but I dont think they should vanish when conquered.

[JMarks]

Better yet

I agree, units shouldn't disapear when cities are conquered. But, since they are no longer based on shield support but overall currency (yes yes yes yes!) then why not, when a city is demolished, have the units from that city change to homecity 'none'?

Positives:
1. No more unit unhapiness overcrowding of your nearest city causing devastation because the units are now based there.

2. Unit's Revenge. People who's home city are destroyed and are in the military, will be able to execute their revenge. Besides, they wouldn't have their imidiate family moved to the city it is nearest, would it?

3. Why not?

Negatives:
1. Units who's homes are ravaged usually don't want to go off in far off foreign wars. This needs to be affected somehow, doesn't it?

2. It might promote wierd strategies in Democracy like building a city on a hostile front, moving your units in, supporting them there, then moving them out, letting the city be destroyed and recieving units who's happiness effect on the civ need not be worried about.

Ioanes

[Inverse Icarus]

no, thats retarted, and easily abusable.

EXAMPLE:

im in a democracy, and i build like 30 tanks from 5 cities. Really unhappy. WELL, i make a 6th city, (size 1, no culture) and HOME CITY all the tanks there, and then disband the city with a settler/worker.

then im a democracy with 30 tanks, and no happiness problems.

[JMarks]

Originally posted by UberKruX
no, thats retarted, and easily abusable.

EXAMPLE:

im in a democracy, and i build like 30 tanks from 5 cities. Really unhappy. WELL, i make a 6th city, (size 1, no culture) and HOME CITY all the tanks there, and then disband the city with a settler/worker.

then im a democracy with 30 tanks, and no happiness problems.

Thats what I said on negative #2, please pay attention, I already debunked my own idea, only without so many words. This way I (hopefully) debunk a bad idea someone else might get. Mabey I should make it more pronounced next time...not everyone will read it carefully enough.

Ioanes

[Inverse Icarus]

i err... can't read or write.

[JMarks]

No Sweat

Hey, don't worry. At least you figured out why it was a bad idea. Still, if only there was a way to get around that... I don't really like homing units in the nearest city, mabey if you could pick the city for the units to belong to... or have them randomly selected from different cities in your empire. Hmmmm

Ioanes

[DarkCloud]

IF the units had morale, this wouldn't be a problem.

The units should only disband if their city is captured AND their morale drops below a certain level.

[MORON]

Anyway, keeping the amry unhappiness factor in the conquered cities makes no sense. After all the city no longer supports it and it can be used to screw up your opponement.

Me fundy (or something like it) with one frontline city support 9999units with no/low unhappiness.

My enemy Demo, takes over city.

REVOLTS REVOLTS AND REVOLTS.

[Grumbold]

I'd prefer unit unhappiness to be an empire wide modifier rather than localised per city. Having one city in uproar while the one next door remains placid just seems ludicrous to me.