Unit support

[Sabre2th]

*BUMP*

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Urban Ranger]

There are several costs involved with a military unit:

1. The population cost. When you create a military unit you take away productive population from somewhere in your country.

2. Upfront shield and gold costs. These represent training, equipment, and so forth.

3. Support costs. Food must be involved somewhere as well, as soldiers are people too and they have to eat.

For [1], the cost comes from the city where the unit is built unless we go to a new pool system for unit creation.

For [2] and [3], this can come from the national treasury or locally depending on the political system or SE.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-12-2001 11:25 PM There are several costs involved with a military unit: 1. The population cost. When you create a military unit you take away productive population from somewhere in your country. 2. Upfront shield and gold costs. These represent training, equipment, and so forth. 3. Support costs. Food must be involved somewhere as well, as soldiers are people too and they have to eat. For [1], the cost comes from the city where the unit is built unless we go to a new pool system for unit creation. For [2] and [3], this can come from the national treasury or locally depending on the political system or SE.

Don't forget the disband cost! Disbanding a millitary unit is hardly free, infact it is (or atleast was) more expensive than keeping them in service (see the thirty years war for the most ultimate proof of this).

[Cyclotron]

Biddles: Why, thank you!

I am aware that any system we propose should be tested first, but I believe a system based on governments balances realism, simplicity, and gameplay the best of any method I have seen. I think that both shields and gold are valid systems for support, and this is why I believe certain governments (see previous page) should pay gold, some shields, and some both.

It's just a framework, but a promising one IMO.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[colossus]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 03-13-2001 06:20 PM Biddles: Why, thank you! I am aware that any system we propose should be tested first, but I believe a system based on governments balances realism, simplicity, and gameplay the best of any method I have seen. I think that both shields and gold are valid systems for support, and this is why I believe certain governments (see previous page) should pay gold, some shields, and some both. It's just a framework, but a promising one IMO.

I hate changing the mode of support with government!

One chief reason for different system of support in civ3 is to reduce micromanagement. By making the system of support dependent on both shield and gold, city and nationwide, government-type dependent mess up the whole matter and make it very complicated.

I support that units be supported by gold and gold only.

[Cyclotron]

The system of support changes with governments in Civ2 as well. Where is the micromanagement here? Just like in Civ2, you change governments according to what you need and what is best for your Civ. I don't see any micromanagement, although just like in Civ2 some experimaentation with government types always helps to find the gov't right for you.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender