Disbanding old units?

[quinns]

Thanks Solver. I know I'm on the other side of this issue, but think about it. Suppose you are the defense minister of the Soviet Union back in the 1980's and bought a big huge Russian attack submarine for 500 million dollars. The cost of the crew for the sub is minimal compared to the sub cost and maintenance.

Now it is the 1990's. The annual maintenance for the sub is over 20 million dollars a year so you decide to let it rot in Arch Angel harbor rather than paying the 20 million dollar maintenance fee. Are you saying that the sub can just go home and no one should be penalized for this expenditure?? No. While you are "using" the sub there is no penalty, but once you decide to scrap it, you must pay the penalty (500 million dollars down the tubes). The crew can "go home" but the sub and all it's equipment must be costed against the Russian economy (negative points).

(Solver, I KNOW that you are not Russian, but Latvian, and not implying so with this example.)

I respect the opionion of you and all the others on this topic, but I fully disagree with you and them, and fully agree with the creators of Civilization.


[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 24, 2000).]

[Gregurabi]

Solver, I really didn't understand your last comment. Having Phalanxes in the end-game is good because:

1) They exert martial law in the city they're in.

2) They have negligible maintenance cost.

3) They can't be upgraded.

4) Disbanding them only gets you half their original cost, and hurts your score.

Why would you move the Phalanx out of the city to defend it?

Now, if you're arguing "realism" instead of game-based reasons, then you could make a case that allowing the player to retain Phalanxes across thousands of years is not "realistic". (Whatever that means in a computer game.) In that case, from a game design standpoint, it might have been better if Activision had done certain things differently. But in CTP as it stands, or with the mods I've seen so far, keeping Phalanxes around forever is definitely the way to play.

[Solver]

Quinns, you may be right here, it seems realistic, but I don't yet think it imporves the gameplay. On the other hand, relaistic games is what we want. Yes, you're partially right, I must say.
So, and why do you state I am Latvian? I live in Latvia, but I'm not Latvian.
Gregurabi:
Reason for moving the phalanx out is to be able to put new units in. If there are six Phalanxes stcuk inside, means I can only add 3 units now.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

[quinns]

Your right about the realism of phalanxes in the 23rd century! I think a good way to think about the units is just by their "Assault strength/Range strength/Defense strength/Movement points" numbers instead of the actual name of the unit. My guess would be that a 23rd century phalanx would really just be an upgraded version (call it what you like) of a 1/0/2/1 unit.

And sorry for assuming you were from Latvia just because you live there. Steve

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 28, 2000).]

[Solver]

No, assuming I'm Latvian is not an abuse, but I just want to say I'm Jewish, despite living in Latvia.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

[quinns]

Okay then. I'm non-denominational (ex-Catholic) American. My ancestors are from Ireland and Poland.