God and Slaves

[Corvi #6]

p'haps better (more advanced) units should cost more to support? I'm sure a modren US soldat costs more to mantain in fighting readiness than an american war of indepedance minuteman.

[TechWins]

p'haps better (more advanced) units should cost more to support? I'm sure a modren US soldat costs more to mantain in fighting readiness than an american war of indepedance minuteman.

I don't officially know this but I'm positive units will cost more than others. It will probably be the same way city improvements work. With a SDI costing I think 4 gold per turn and a granary costing 1 gold per turn. It might cost 4 gold per turn for an armor and maybe 1 gold per turn for a phalanx, hypothetical.

[JMarks]

Originally posted by TechWins


I don't officially know this but I'm positive units will cost more than others. It will probably be the same way city improvements work. With a SDI costing I think 4 gold per turn and a granary costing 1 gold per turn. It might cost 4 gold per turn for an armor and maybe 1 gold per turn for a phalanx, hypothetical.

Again, hypotheticly. I'd like to see something like this implimented (all editable of course, but that goes without saying). Of course tanks need a lot of maintance and the amo isn't exactly the cheepest, especially if your talking Abrams here. However the question is now, what about soldiers on the field. Lets say rifleman, would they cost much more than a phalanx to support? I say no, for the following reasons. Food support would be the same (armies have to eat, we might as well count this under the gold allowance), and the cost of equipment is always relative. The rifleman might be a bit more to support, but not a whole gold difference. Besides, if we start doing that, Abrams might end up to be like 10 gold a turn, some aircraft mabey even more. I guess we could argue the same concept as to whether or not libraries should require more gold than markets to upkeep (after all, markets support themselves, while libraries hardly do). Something simple is required.

Ioanes

[TechWins]

Again, hypotheticly. I'd like to see something like this implimented (all editable of course, but that goes without saying). Of course tanks need a lot of maintance and the amo isn't exactly the cheepest, especially if your talking Abrams here. However the question is now, what about soldiers on the field. Lets say rifleman, would they cost much more than a phalanx to support? I say no, for the following reasons. Food support would be the same (armies have to eat, we might as well count this under the gold allowance), and the cost of equipment is always relative. The rifleman might be a bit more to support, but not a whole gold difference. Besides, if we start doing that, Abrams might end up to be like 10 gold a turn, some aircraft mabey even more. I guess we could argue the same concept as to whether or not libraries should require more gold than markets to upkeep (after all, markets support themselves, while libraries hardly do). Something simple is required.

I think a riflemen should cost more than a phalanx to support. The riflemen requires more training and more expensive weapons. There will be an easy system implemented, it will most likely be something like what I stated.

[Admiral PJ]

something else to throw into your brain matrixes..
it should also be taken into account the quantity of separate elements in a unit, and their upkeep cost related accordingly..
so a riflemen unit with aroundabout 200 men would have a lot of upkeep because its shared amongst the 200's weapons and food,medicine,accomodation and transport,
BUT a armoured panzer unit would only need about 20 tanks perhaps as each is much more powerful than a soldier, each tank having about 5 men maybe =100, so theres less men and overall the tanks are more durable so support wouldn't neccesarily be that much higher than a rifleman.

It would just need to be have small differences in support , so even the small nations can field tank and naval units.

Maybe special resources needed for units are still needed after creation for support too.. to maintain them, perhaps if these are lost or in short supply a unit would not repair (another type of supply type hopefully)

AdmiralPete

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JMarks
Lets say rifleman, would they cost much more than a phalanx to support? I say no, for the following reasons.Ioanes

Yes it does.

First of all a rifleman unit is bigger than a Phalanx, just in terms of combatants. We have somewhat of a problem here since there wasn't a fixed size for a Phalanx unit. All this standardised unit sizes and whatnot came very late.

Secondly the rifleman unit has a lot more non-combatants attached to it than a Phalanx, and they have to eat to

Thirdly the rifleman unit uses ammo while long spears don't just go poof after use

[Sparky]

What has gotten into Yin lately? Is this some kind of imposter? He seems to be very isillusioned and acts like somehow he's turned into Firaxis' pet and played civ 3 before the rest of us.

Personally I think Civ 3's graphics look great -- a far cry from the muddy interface in SMAC. The underlying factor in SMAC, htoought , was it's good gamaplay. I think Civ 3 will have that too.

[death_head]

Keep in mind that there's a definite limit without raising the resolution...Firaxis wouldn't want to limit the game to people with 1600x1200 monitors, for example.

[Sava]

Originally posted by November Adam
Urban Ranger, you mention that now an underdeveloped nation won't be able to support a huge army. (haven't figured out how to use quotes yet).

An underdeveloped nation wouldn't be able to support a huge army anyways.

This is just taking the emphasis off of industry, and putting it on economy.

I still like the old production method (granted more like CTP where the nation supports the city as opposed to CIV where it's each individual city).

If you look at communism, it has a piss poor economy, but a raging industry, thus it could support a large army. Meanwhile a democracy has an great economy, and a good industry. Thus a democracy would be able to support a larger army. (Of course this is only one aspect of army size).

Perhaps you're forgetting that you need people to have an army. The Soviet Union, or Russia, would have a huge army no matter what government it had, ******. Mexico is a democracy. It has a horrible economy and very bad industry. Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you post.

The government doesn't dictate economy and industrial capability. The demographics of the nation do, as well as the adundance of natural resources. The government just dictates how it is used.

[Sava]

Originally posted by November Adam


Hey got the quote! thanks tniem.

I agree, the majority of Germans supported the Reich, those that didn't either kept quiet, or vanished. As for the Russians, they were allies with the Germans until the Germans decided to attack Russia. So most of the people in Russia supported the army due to the fact that it was self-defence.

Sorry to get off topic

Geez, you need to go back to school.

The Russians were never allied with the Germans. The Russians signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1936. That is it. Even in WWI, Russia was on the Allies side. Do yourself a favor and stop posting. That way you won't make an idiot out of yourself.

And the people in Russia in WWII didn't really have a choice. Stalin ruled with an Iron Fist. If you refused to fight, you were shot. Where did you go to school? I'd ask for your money back.

[November Adam]

Hmmm. Wonder why your such a bitter person... Seems like you enjoy living up to your alias.

If you felt the need to correct me, I have no problem with that, and indeed you are correct about the non-aggression pact. Do you need to be a little ***** in pointing it out in such a manner?

If you read my post a while back I mentioned that the Russian officers would shoot deserters, or those soldiers who were routing at the time.

I believe that many of the Russian people supported their government due to the fact the Nazi's were INVADING Russia. While a lot of their support may have been out of fear, I'm sure those who weren't on the front line supported them with a patriotic fevor.

And if I sound like an idiot, I have every right to sound like one. Indeed many people in life will sound like an idiot at one point or another in their lives. So back off!

[November Adam]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


Perhaps you're forgetting that you need people to have an army. The Soviet Union, or Russia, would have a huge army no matter what government it had, ******. Mexico is a democracy. It has a horrible economy and very bad industry. Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you post.

The government doesn't dictate economy and industrial capability. The demographics of the nation do, as well as the adundance of natural resources. The government just dictates how it is used.

Sure you need people to have an army, but Russia would not necessarily have a large army, if the government decided it didn't want to spend so much on an army it would have a small one.

I have to say my argument was one dimensional in regards to army size, as of course there are many different aspects to it, I was talking in regards to governments.

[Sava]

Originally posted by joseph1944

Russian population is now smaller than the US. The numbers are now around 267 M to the US 270 M, but they still have over 1 M in their Army, what for?, so one is going to attack them.
China is over 3 M in their Army. They will need them to conquer Taiwan, parts of India that they claim. Hell they may even claim the P.I. someday. Have you ever saw where the Parcel Island are? They are about 200 miles from Vietnam (Da Nang), also about the same from Hainan Island.

In my attempt to rid Apolyton of ignorance, I must correct another misinformed soul. As of 2000, Russia's population was 146,001,176 according to the CIA website. It didn't have any figures on their current military population, although their capacity is around 38,825,000 males ages 15-49 with 30,294,000 of that group fit for military service.

You were basically correct about the US. 2000 population was 275,562,673 while military availability (males age 15-49) is 70,502,000 while 2,056,000 are fit for military service.

I urge you people to know what you're talking about before you post. There's nothing wrong with asking if you don't know something. It's better than guessing and making yourself sound stupid.

[Sava]

Sorry November Adam, I just hate online no-it-alls who don't know sh*t. If I sound like a jerk, its because I hate ignorance. If you're too lazy to go look up facts by yourself, then don't bother posting.

It is also very difficult to understand the true feeling of your argument when you don't write very well. My response was based on my interpretation of your writing.

I've taken two classes on 20th century Russian history as part of my 20th century histories minor. Don't tell me what the Russian people wanted, when I doubt you have any idea what life was like in the Soviet Union.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Sorry November Adam, I just hate online no-it-alls who don't know sh*t. If I sound like a jerk, its because I hate ignorance. If you're too lazy to go look up facts by yourself, then don't bother posting.

It is also very difficult to understand the true feeling of your argument when you don't write very well. My response was based on my interpretation of your writing.

I've taken two classes on 20th century Russian history as part of my 20th century histories minor. Don't tell me what the Russian people wanted, when I doubt you have any idea what life was like in the Soviet Union.

Fair enough.... I never profesed to being a good writer. As my prefered method of communication is orally.

Word to the wise, if you have information which is correct, SHARE it, don't attack others who obviously show ignorance in the
subject (as I have shown ).

Like you pointed out, the inadequacy of written forums, others miss the tone, or intent of what is said.

So in your opinion, was I incorrect in saying that the Russians supported there government in the defence of Russia?