Too peacefull battle-value degenerate factor?

[Ralf]

In Civ-3, only those players who engage their troops in battles have a change of getting battle-hardened combat-units, and only those who's units continue to win battles have a change of becoming military "great leaders". That's, all good and well.

But what about those players who almost never, engage their troops in battles (the "ultra-pacifists" ones). Shouldnt they be punished by having a slow-but-steady "combat-value degenerate" factor attached to their idle city-guarding troops?

Personally I try to avoid battles as much as possible (especially large invasion-attempts) before modern RR-times. But, I dont mind being "punished" for it. I only look at it as yet another re-balancing game-tweak, forcing me to take that (for me) negative factor into account, as well. More game-challenge! Why not?

Any suggestions HOW it should be implemented - IF it should, that is.

[Dauphin]

Are they going to be sitting around being idle, (low upkeep costs), or are they going to be continually trained and combat ready, (higher upkeep costs)?

I think that a military readiness situation similar to CtP is a farly good reflection.

[Urban Ranger]

This seems to be a non-issue since now units will have various levels of experience a la SMAC IIRC. That means pacificists are already "punished" by not having military units of high experience levels.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yes. if you already have a bonus for experience you don't need a penalty for a lack thereof

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes. if you already have a bonus for experience you don't need a penalty for a lack thereof

OK, I guess your right.