War and Peace and Mobilizing

[monkspider]

Alright, you have convinced me Ralf
Having read your civ fanatics excerpt, I think that your suggestion of forcing people into a wartime econonmy would most likely work best, since I can't just be at war with some country for millenia without ever even eccountering them a' la Civ 2.
Good call

[Andrew_Jay]

Play By E-Mail

I think.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Lorizael
The mobilizing for war and peace thing sounds really awesome. My question though is might it be too powerful to mobilize for peace? I mean once you got Nationalism why wouldn't you want to be mobilized for peace?

Does mobilizing also effect support or just the actual production costs?

Hmm - maybe your right. Im starting to believe that war/peace-mobilization affects support-costs only - NOT shield production costs. Otherwise, this feature perhaps becomes too powerful for its own good.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by UberKruX


sure, warmongers will typically have more, underdeveloped cities, but even 30 cities is only 7 armies and change.

Seven armies composed of how many military units? Three? Yep, not counting all the single units you can have running around. A unit does not have to be in an army to exist, armies simply make them better.

Originally posted by Ralf


Hmm - maybe your right. Im starting to believe that war/peace-mobilization affects support-costs only - NOT shield production costs. Otherwise, this feature perhaps becomes too powerful for its own good.

Go back and re-read your quote because it says this:

"...Mobilizing for war halves the cost of all military units and improvements, but doubles all others."

The "and improvements" would seem to mean the build cost as well but may only cut the per turn cost per building. Seems to mean both tho'.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by monkspider
Alright, you have convinced me Ralf

Well, at least this is how I interpret it. Also, I now believe that mobilization affects support-costs only, so changing between war/neutral/peace economy isnt necessarily that dramatic.

I think its less likely that shield production-costs is affected in anyway, because that would lead to 3 different amounts of shields (= build-material) in order to build one and the same type of tank or university. And thats not likely nor realistic, is it.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
The "and improvements" would seem to mean the build cost as well but may only cut the per turn cost per building. Seems to mean both tho'.

All city-improvements have a economical support-cost, just like combat-units. Under war-economy support-costs for military improvements and combat-units is halved.

Also (again): why should a tank only require half as much building-material (= shields) in order to be mounted together, during wars? If you only have half as much material available, you only produce half as many tanks, right?

[jdd2007]

i give it personally, i dont think it comes too late in game, and if it had, the testers would have noticed...

[HalfLotus]

So, is it the build cost (shields) or the support cost (gold) that is halved?
It now sounds like support cost to me. If so, that is not nearly as dramatic, but certainly more balanced. DOes anyone know for sure?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
So, is it the build cost (shields) or the support cost (gold) that is halved?
It now sounds like support cost to me. If so, that is not nearly as dramatic, but certainly more balanced. DOes anyone know for sure?

Well, I know as much as you do, but it suddenly struck me when I answered Lorizael: now wait a minute - it really must be the support-costs only. Before that, I just assumed that it meant shield-costs, without thinking about it any further. Some final official confirmation would be nice though.

[Inverse Icarus]

well now cannons/catapults cant fire on their own, so they have to be in armies. and 7 isnt enough for me

[Lorizael]

I'm not sure that Artillery type units can't fire on their own Uber. I think it's just that they can only bombard and would be captured if left alone. But I don't know. And the game hasn't come out yet so don't dispair yet.

Also, though there have been military conquests throughout history, no one has actually taken over the world (except of course for the Monkey King, but you all don't know about that... yet). It should be difficult.

And I'm thinking that support instead of production is probably the answer. But hey, will see. I love speculation... and Civ 3... and Sid Meier!

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Lorizael
One abbreviation I never learned. PBEM... what's that stand for?

Play bye email. get 4-10 people. Each control there own nation. Download turn then upload it too next guy.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by faded glory



Play bye email. get 4-10 people. Each control there own nation. Download turn then upload it too next guy.

Thanks, that's how I was thinking it would work. Sounds cool, maybe I should try it.

[meriadoc]

I just read the info at the CivFanatics site and according to them mobilization works like this: When mobilized for peace, all peace-related buildings, etc. cost half as much to build while all military-related items cost twice as much to build. The reverse happens when you are mobilized for war - war items cost half as much to build, peace items cost twice as much.

While it seems that it would be more realistic to have only the support costs affected, apparently the build costs are affected. Besides, maybe we shouldn't view this so much as affecting the amount of material needed as affecting the amount of time needed.