DESIGN: A couple of thoughts about upkeep

[Maquiladora]

Hey im not saying make MP the first concern (as much as id want it to be) theres too many people here not interested in MP for that.

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.

I agree, but im not convinced adding more complicated unit support is the best way.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


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.

Well... in what I'm suggesting...

Large Empire + Large Army grows and researches less than Large Empire + Small Army. Thus.. bigger is not always better... irrespective of support ability. An equivalent empire with a large army will have a large food upkeep that the same empire with a small (or non-upkeep) army did not have.

Whilst you might claim that a player just build more to support the additional upkeep... another player could grow and use those resources WITHOUT the upkeep penalty.

A player could maintain a defensive stance and go for a scientific or other victory type. An opponent might try to overwhelm him militarily, but with retarded growth and research would possibly face problems... or maybe not.

Thus we have an active choice, in military size... we do need, however, alternate victory conditions...

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.

So... you build up then go warmonger. It's *still* warmonger.

[Maquiladora]

Whilst you might claim that a player just build more to support the additional upkeep... another player could grow and use those resources WITHOUT the upkeep penalty.

This already happens, so for this to work there would need to be big advantages for the defender, which is what was suggested already.

So... you build up then go warmonger. It's *still* warmonger.

Well this is in MP because its the only way to be sure, a failed long range invasion can mean the end of your civ sometimes, because of the build up time for units it *has* to work.

In SP i have built and defended all game and have the biggest empire by Republic, because my cities arent overlapping like the AI's. Would i rather have AI's slightly bigger overlapping (but less in number) cities or my own perfectly spaced but smaller (but greater in number) cities? Well the game i played last night with 2 humans and 5 AI's i didnt attack the AI until Fascism and only then because i ran out of good land.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I agree, but im not convinced adding more complicated unit support is the best way.

You say complicated unit support... but I really don't see that.

CTP2 has a decent interface for showing unit stats now. Adding an additional couple of columns isn't a big deal.

The player can very simply see what his army "costs"... the calculations are all taken care of, for him.

It seems to me that adding an additional food and income upkeep when there are already several cost factors for these, isn't a great hardship or any micromanagement at all. There is no way to add meaningful choices to the game without adding components.

It seems to me, in fact, that it would be a small leap of intuition to a CTP2 player, who already understands that there are food, shields and income, that there could be food, shield and income unit upkeep, rather than just shield upkeep.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
This already happens, so for this to work there would need to be big advantages for the defender, which is what was suggested already.

I disagree that the shield penalty is significant in game terms. All it does is set the ratio of army units to production points, (which is the same for everyone,) and slow production by a small fraction.

If growth and science were included in the upkeep, then the cost would be meaningful, since a player with a large army grows and gains techs slower.

[MrBaggins]

Maq: Have you ever not gone for conquest victory in MP?

[MrBaggins]

/me Does a little post count status dance, noticing "King" for the first time.

[Maquiladora]

No, i prefer upto the modern age because i dont want to sit watching Fusion Tanks move 8 squares a turn all over the map to Gaia Controller.

I disagree that the shield penalty is significant in game terms. All it does is set the ratio of army units to production points, (which is the same for everyone,) and slow production by a small fraction.

This is a balancing issue, not something wrong with prod support only.

If growth and science were included in the upkeep, then the cost would be meaningful, since a player with a large army grows and gains techs slower.

It would mean being a bigger empire is even more important, even by a fraction, if a large empire build units to attack a medium empire, the medium empire can totally max its production and perhaps withhold in the current Production only support system, but it has no chance under the food/prod/gold system.

This is only about combat it seems to me, and the gold/food/prod. support would widen the gap further between medium and large empires even.

edit:

* MrBaggins Does a little post count status dance, noticing "King" for the first time.

Congrats, 4 years, not bad

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
This is a balancing issue, not something wrong with prod support only.

Balancing would merely make defense easier... by increasing the ratio of defensive troops to offensive troops.

There is an merely an obstacle, not a deterrant to offensive war.

A growth or science penalty of an offensive build up would provide an actual, tangible disincentive to offensive war, and thus an actual, tangible incentive for peaceful development (or more correctly non-offense,) if peaceful development can lead somewhere... I.E. alternate victory conditions.

It would mean being a bigger empire is even more important, even by a fraction, if a large empire build units to attack a medium empire, the medium empire can totally max its production and perhaps withhold in the current Production only support system, but it has no chance under the food/prod/gold system.

This is only about combat it seems to me, and the gold/food/prod. support would widen the gap further between medium and large empires even.

The larger the army the greater the growth penalty and science penalty.

If you, as you've assumed, consider that the larger empire will build more offensive units, and you seem to do, since you've considered that they'd be attacking the medium empire... then they'd be faced with a much larger growth and science penalty than the medium empire.

The penalty should be roughly proportionate to the empire size, but will be a larger actual number, thus the growth/science gap narrows, not widens.

Also, the medium empire wouldn't suffer any significant growth or science penalty for its defensive troops, and thus would be at a defensive advantage...

Congrats, 4 years, not bad

Yep.. done with almost zero spamming

[child of Thor]

Good points Mr Baggins(can i call you frodo for short? ).

Maq i think its important that we all keep in mind that each topic we're discussing isnt in isolation, IMHO to get a "better" game of CTP2 we need to look at all aspects of the game and how they will all fit+work together- we now have the possibility(hopefully) of making, ultimately, all the changes that people have asked for or thought about over the years.

So i think what Mr.Baggins is trying to do is get a more focused idea of what and where the imperfections in the current CTP2 game are.

My biggy is Diplomacy, but that is tied into the fact that you are forced to play warmonger(unless on an archipiligo map setup - which i've used alot to try to offset the warmonger aspect, but still the AI civs will hate you).

Maybe it will just take a bit of better game balancing to get the 'feel' right, but i quite enjoy these discussions about adding or trying to look at different ways to solve some of the existing problems

[Ekmek]

I like this idea as it introduces a limited logistics system as well.

However, I feel eventually the human will figure out what the ideal ratio is (say 15%) and stick to it and still get bigger. Unless the costs are exponential. I also think that the types of units should having varying costs like offensiive and defensive. Mechanized and light or airpower and a navy. So it requires more decision on are you going to be defensive or offensive? a navalpower or land power? and of course with an exponential cost, upgrading should be costlier so when the bigger empire doesnt also get the big military tech breakthroughs.

[Maquiladora]

Ill admit i like the current upkeep system because its simple and it abstracts things for me, like less PW/city builds = less farms/mines/ports... granaries/academies/mills.... in a way i like alot, and doesnt draw me away from other areas of the game for too long.

The new idea is more realistic, but i dont know at what cost to ease of play. Id rather see the current system balanced perfectly before we dig a new hole.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Ill admit i like the current upkeep system because its simple and it abstracts things for me, like less PW/city builds = less farms/mines/ports... granaries/academies/mills.... in a way i like alot, and doesnt draw me away from other areas of the game for too long.

The new idea is more realistic, but i dont know at what cost to ease of play. Id rather see the current system balanced perfectly before we dig a new hole.

I agree with Maquiladora, I like the current system because it is a simple and efficient one. I would not be bothered by a food upkeep cost but once again I find the current system good enough.

I am not a warmonger but since I am playing at the higher level of difficulty I have discovered that I have to attack the first AI Civ I spot on the map because the AI nations have such important advantages that conquering some cities is the best way to grow quickly and catch up with them. Once you have built a big army to conquer the closest nation, the temptation is great to use it to attack the next one.

This is the game itself that is encouraging me to act like a warmonger (at least at the beginnning of the game) not the upkeep system. Even with a more limitating system like yours I would have to attack the first nation met and the temptation to attack the next ones and clean the continent would be encouraged by the need to lower the upkeep cost in the future. If there are no more ennemies on the continent you can build a token army... unless the AI has been taught how to launch an amphibious invasion.

But I am an awful conservative... as far as CtP2 is concerned.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
edit.......

This is the game itself that is encouraging me to act like a warmonger (at least at the beginnning of the game) not the upkeep system. Even with a more limitating system like yours I would have to attack the first nation met

But wouldn't it be nice if you had a choice to open up a real and lasting diplomatic/trade treaty instead?

.....and the temptation to attack the next ones and clean the continent would be encouraged by the need to lower the upkeep cost in the future. If there are no more ennemies on the continent you can build a token army... unless the AI has been taught how to launch an amphibious invasion.

But I am an awful conservative... as far as CtP2 is concerned.

I dont see why this would be the case? We could make any changes as simple to opperate as they are now - the computer would take care of it.

I think over all the design threads that Mr.Baggins has started, for my part i've been exploring possibilities to make the game have more depth than being a simple expand and conqour game.
I would like to see it possible to play(and win) as a diplomatic leader(playing one enemy of against the other for example), or maybe as a peaceful trader(e.g using my vast wealth to hire mercenaries when threatend), or maybe as a small but technologically advanced civ with a small but awe inspiring army?

At the momment we are forced to play(mostly) with a one dimensional strategy. Get Big + crush your neighbours. You can play a little at the other strategies but ultimately it ends the same, you need more and bigger/better cities than your largest opponent to win.

Its fun to play this way, but IMHO it could be so much more so.

So the more we look at the way CTP2 works, and the things that have occured to us while playing it, the better our discussion and idea's of what to do with it in the long run

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by child of Thor
But wouldn't it be nice if you had a choice to open up a real and lasting diplomatic/trade treaty instead?

Of course it would be great, but you can't reach an agreement with the CtP2 AI Civs... at the best of their regard they almost refuse to talk to you.

And when you sign a generous treaty the AI civs betray you at the first opportunity for a miserable gain.

I would like to see it possible to play(and win) as a diplomatic leader(playing one enemy of against the other for example), or maybe as a peaceful trader(e.g using my vast wealth to hire mercenaries when threatend), or maybe as a small but technologically advanced civ with a small but awe inspiring army?

I agree but I don't think you can achieve this through changes in the upkeep system, a major alteration of the AI is needed.