Variable unit upkeep costs

[Optimizer]

One thing that I have missed since Civ 1 is variable unit upkeep costs. Face it, it is more expensive to keep a battleship going than supporting a band of warriors.

In existing Civ games, players who go for expensive units have an unfair advantage.

[zulu9812]

Personally, I think workers and settlers should be exempt from support costs. I see support costs as a way of preventing players from having huge armies, not preventing them building roads

[alva]

but then you would have 1000's of workers.

[Andrew_Jay]

But there really isn't a whole lot you can do with 1000's of workers . . . 1000's of modern armour, or battleships on the other hand . . .

[player1]

In fact, I would arther give workers a HIGHER upkeep cost.

They are big bunch of people which don't eat cities food like in Civ1 & Civ2.

[Q Classic]

i'd give workers and settlers higher upkeep cost, and i'd like to see different upkeep costs for different units.

the only thing is, though, if we're going to do that, why not also make each one take up a different amount of transport space ?

[dunk]

Battleships had a upkeep of more than one shield in Civ I? I've never seen that. Did I miss it?

[Optimizer]

No, upkeep cost has been the same for all units in Civ 1, 2 & 3 (dunno about CTP) and it has annoyed me since Civ 1.

[Dida]

Upkeep cost is different for each unit in CTP. For example, a Battleship costs 50 while a warrior costs only 1. ICBMs I think cost as much as 120. So it makes you think twice before building a huge nuclear force.

[SpencerH]

I think it would be a good idea to implement.

[The Bloody Baro]

I agree. Plus another thing Firaxis should implent would be like say you lost your last supply of oil. Well than how on earth are your tanks, airplanes, and ships supposed to run? What I mean is that if you build a unit that needs oil than lose the oil supply than shouldn't you not be able to use your tanks?

[dunk]

Originally posted by Optimizer
No, upkeep cost has been the same for all units in Civ 1, 2 & 3 (dunno about CTP) and it has annoyed me since Civ 1.

Oh, now I see. I read your original post incorrectly.

[player1]

Originally posted by The Bloody Baro
I agree. Plus another thing Firaxis should implent would be like say you lost your last supply of oil. Well than how on earth are your tanks, airplanes, and ships supposed to run? What I mean is that if you build a unit that needs oil than lose the oil supply than shouldn't you not be able to use your tanks?

It's a simplification.

You know you lost a resource site, but it doesn't mean that you wion't have resreve which would last several years.

P.S.
Although it would be cool to disalow healing for those units which you can't build anymore (because lack of resources).

[Fatwreck]

Higher upkeep would be really nice and it would speed up the game a little when playing against the AI and their +100 infantry stacks that take forever to move...

[Soviet Beast]

CTP style

I preferred the CTP public works terrain upgrade system much more than the stupid 837658374 workers setup.

MODERATOR ACTION: Sid Meir sat on his couch eating chips all the day instead of helping the Firaxis idiots make the game. Thats why it is so stupid, just like you apolyton users.