DESIGN: A couple of thoughts about upkeep

[MrBaggins]

Whilst the basis for upkeep in CtP2 is pretty flexible, there are still a couple of areas where it seems to be lacking.

The first is in upkeep costs for Tile Improvements. There are none. A massive rail network only needs the initial production from PW. It costs nothing to maintain.

It would be nice if there were options to have upkeep costs (food, production or income) for TI's. This would allow for costs not only in the absence of (for instance Mines meaning there is less growth, because its not a farm instead,) but actually less growth because of a food upkeep.

The CtP2 system, with its empire level production and upkeep is ideal for this.

The second thought I had was about Unit upkeep, and the associated GDP. In CTP2 if you have 25% of your upkeep going to military upkeep, its a slight drag on your production, but nothing significant. You produce 25% slower. Since warmongering usually gains production, its usually moot anyway.

In the real world, a 25% military GDP is significant... or massive even. Thats the kind of military GDP which tore the USSR apart (around 120-170 billion roubles or about 13-19%)

There is a definite disparity, here. You can't solve it by just increasing production costs. The societial effects of high military GDP's go beyond that.

A solution, I thought, would be to have comparitive food and income upkeep costs for units... 50%, say, of the production cost. Thus a nation spending 100 production on units would also have 50 less food and gold.

Having both growth and science penalties, as well as production, might serve to both more accurately describe military expenditure, and be a game balance also.

[child of Thor]

Yes it seems like a nice idea to me, we could also add a population limit as well(i covered it briefly in another thread). I'm not sure exactly how many people a unit is meant to represent, but i always seem to think of it as being a thousand(well not for special units), so a twelve stack would be 12,000 individuals.
Anyway the point is that how big your army can be does depend on the amount of 'spare' people you can draw upon. So if we also added a population factor to the mix, we might be half way to stopping a warmonger strategy being the default way to play CTP2(it should still be possible, but the player would have to plan and configure his empire for that footing, as it is a very expensive undertaking).

[MrBaggins]

Having a food upkeep for units will simulate and abstract a wide range of effects, from the initial drafting, to reinforcements and general food rations. Its a simplistic yet effective solution, in my view.

For a "cruise missile" or something similar, you might wish to avoid a food upkeep, but include a much higher income upkeep, in addition to the production cost, to simulate the high currency cost of these units.

This reasonably simple change should improve the "guns or butter" choice in the game.

[Maquiladora]

Why would it improve the 'guns or butter' choice in the game? It seems to me it will encourage even more the "overall" strategy.

Building units is necessary for any empire, whether your a 'butter' or 'guns' player. That needs to be treated closer to the problem, like increasing attacking units support 4 times as much as defensive ones (using Loc's combat idea), or really crippling civs happiness or crime for units outside their borders, not great ideas but just to illustrate.

[MrBaggins]

You're right... every empire needs to develop at least some defensive units... which should be cheaper, as has been said.

It doesn't change the basic premise though... if we implement food upkeep for units (primarily offensive ones) then that will make them more of a critical cost.

[child of Thor]

Shouldn't the "overall" strategy by the default one? To encourage the player to play as broad a strategy as possible?
Then you would have the "Guns" strategy for those that wanted to craft a warmonger civ, with its costs and penalties to ensure it was risky venture(which it should be? or not?).
And the "Butter" strategy where the player sacrifices military might for the happiness and science of its people(this strategy really relies on a good diplomacy model to make it a really viable option).

IMHO at the momment it feels like we are locked into playing as a warmonger - even when we wish to be a builder. So I agree with Mr Baggins overall ideas to bring our attention to these issues.

[MrBaggins]

True, coT... you don't mind me calling you coT, do you?

A point I'd make is that there aren't "Guns", "Overall" and "Butter" switches in the game. You develop in certain ways and that "costs" you.

Certain things cost too little, or not at all. The "Guns or Butter" statement was meant to imply not that I see only the "Butter" strategy... just that there should be some kind of cost that needs to be dealt with to signficantly build armies.

I did read your post towards the end of the DESIGN: End Game thread.. although I wasn't thinking of that thread when I was composing this. I was thinking about rise and fall of empires, then I got to thinking about the USSR economic collapse, then I checked some figures, and noticed the military GDP which in large part caused the collapse, then put 2 and 2 together. Ironically, the relatively simple implementation I've put forth should do what you've suggested, if in an abstract (but obvious) way.

[Maquiladora]

Shouldn't the "overall" strategy by the default one? To encourage the player to play as broad a strategy as possible?

But i thought we were trying to eradicate the ''overall'' strategy?

The ''overall'' strategy gets boring, because its the most efficient so why deviate from it? and will be all the more efficient with food, gold and prod. supporting units, you will NEED to cover all bases with this kind of support structure.

The "Guns or Butter" statement was meant to imply not that I see only the "Butter" strategy... just that there should be some kind of cost that needs to be dealt with to signficantly build armies.

They already is a cost, in production, it just needs balancing better, why overcomplicate things (IMO) with other resources? It seems like a step forward in realism for a step backward in gameplay to me thats all.

I should add that i speak so negatively to partly defend the beauty of the unmodded game and to fire up some debate too.

[MrBaggins]

As I've mentioned the cost of production isn't significant.

All changing the shield upkeep will do is alter the number of units built (just deflate the overall number if the shield value is increased,) and maybe alter the general build speeds in the game. That might affect PW a bit.. but thats pretty much all.

If, as I'm suggesting, we (optionally) include food, then growth can be effected (which also abstracts manpower, rations and reinforcements,) and currency costs for high tech units, with income upkeep. These growth and science effects would be less about deflation/and inflation and more about reduced pop size and research, both significant issues a warmonger will need to consider.

This makes building a large offensive army a choice with a downside, rather than a choice with a marginal/no downside.

Of course, you can benefit from having the army... it allows you to invade and conquer...

Its not removing the option at all... merely increasing the options and strategies that can be meaningfully used by a player.

[Maquiladora]

Its still making the "overall" strategy even more important, which i thought we wanted to avoid...

[MrBaggins]

Not really...

There are more components to the game than just this in isolation...

It discourages the "bigger is always better" argument, at least for offensive armies, by creating a meaningful downside.

Thus... you might chose to go expansionist builder, and concentrate on defense instead of the default strategy of warmonger at the moment.

You DO agree that warmonger is the best strategy at the moment, and the others are basically inferior, don't you?

[Maquiladora]

It discourages the "bigger is always better" argument, at least for offensive armies, by creating a meaningful downside.

Why does it? I will just strive even more to support more units so i can keep on building/growing/researching, while maintaining a good army.

You DO agree that warmonger is the best strategy at the moment, and the others are basically inferior, don't you?

No. I have tried many different strategies and ive stuck with one finally, not because it suits me specifically but because ive learnt by getting beat a thousand times in MP.

The "defensive-tile-imp-builder" attacking only when he has a military tech lead.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
True, coT... you don't mind me calling you coT, do you?

Not at all cot,Cot,cOt and all variations are fine by me

Well i was using the guns and butter terms very losely anyway, but i see that maybe people favour having to play as a warmonger, which is fair enough i guess.
Just that IMHO we should at least have an option to play as a diplomat or builder as well.

At the momment i feel the game(or Mods) are too heavily weighted to the warmonger strategy. Diplomacy leaves me no room to actually be diplomatic - every AI nation will be my enemy no matter how much gold or favours i do them. It encourages a very one dimensional game style. Ok the AI does attack you now which is great, but i'm feeling we need to balance this up a bit(which i'm sure is what we are all aiming for in the Diplomacy side of things). Still compared to the vanila game the Mods offer a vast improvement in terms of a challenging game.

As for the player he/she may need some incentives to not play only as a warmonger - we should provide some, which is what all these discussions are about. How to go about it in a way everyone feels is going to work. The single player game is where we need to concentrate most as in MP its easy for the player to pick a style of play, and the whole game outlook is very different anyway.

[Maquiladora]

The single player game is where we need to concentrate most as in MP its easy for the player to pick a style of play, and the whole game outlook is very different anyway.

Single player can learn alot from Multiplayer games though IMO, because you cant predict your opponents strategy for definate, if i start on a map next to a diplomatic AI, i know what to do. Beating SP is about knowing the limitations of the AI, exploiting it in every way and building your whole strategy around those limitations, MP (it seems to me) is about being ready for anything, all of the time.

It should be an aim to make SP as random as MP but making the human vary his strategy too at any time. You can start with things like changing AI personalities in the middle of a game (i think this was mentioned before somewhere) anyway im off topic.

[child of Thor]

Maq i forgot to add that its also the type of game most people are going to play(single player that is).
And yes MP is best - the only real way to play these kind of games, but still i feel MP could benefit from a much tighter logisitcal cost for armies as we've been discussing here.
Overcomplication is one thing but trying to get the player to play with a real strategy other than 'more is best' should be a good thing to try to look at. Wes did some good threads on this stuff ages ago i think.....