Here's a concept:

MattPilot · January 11, 2004, 11:38

I'm wondering what you all think of this concept.

In most of my games i build up to 300 units or so cranking out one after the other. But i only got a few metro's to support all of that.
So i got thinking, how could you make the military correlate with actual population.

Now, what if major combat units (units which represent big numbers and great combat strength within the game), actually used up ONE population point per unit.

This would include units like swordsmen, spearmen, archers, up to riflemen, up to mech infantry, and modern armor etc.. and of course ships (they do house 1000's of men each).

It wouldn't include warriors, planes, explorers, and other units that do not represent great numbers.

Of course such action would require a rebalancing of some units (like removing leathal bombard from planes), so that non-pop requiring units don't kill pop-requiring units.

Of course, units that are no longer needed could be able to rejoin cities. So in wars, actual population is being killed.

In general, what do you think of that idea?

Inverse Icarus · January 11, 2004, 11:42

not civ. but an awesome concept.

in the game that i will one day develop *sigh* if you want 500 swordsmen, you need 500 men to give swords

Capt Dizle · January 11, 2004, 14:09

Well, in the game EU each province had a manpower rating and this limited the number of troops you could train at any given time. This is a good concept and should be in Civ in some form or another.

This does not really address the primary problem of global conquest. Global conquest has never happened and therefore it should not be attainable in Civ. IMHO.

mrmitchell · January 11, 2004, 14:53

Quote:

This does not really address the primary problem of global conquest. Global conquest has never happened and therefore it should not be attainable in Civ. IMHO.

Then what is actually the goal of the game?

GhengisFarb™ · January 11, 2004, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MattPilot
I'm wondering what you all think of this concept.

In most of my games i build up to 300 units or so cranking out one after the other. But i only got a few metro's to support all of that.
So i got thinking, how could you make the military correlate with actual population.

Now, what if major combat units (units which represent big numbers and great combat strength within the game), actually used up ONE population point per unit.

This would include units like swordsmen, spearmen, archers, up to riflemen, up to mech infantry, and modern armor etc.. and of course ships (they do house 1000's of men each).

Its been done in a few mods before. I remember playing a few of them. Don't know what happened to them.

vmxa1 · January 11, 2004, 19:57

JT it is just a game and does not have to be real, although it could be said that the known world was conquered twice.

Capt Dizle · January 11, 2004, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
JT it is just a game and does not have to be real, although it could be said that the known world was conquered twice.

vmxa1 it is just a game and does not have to be real, nor fun, nor anything else. You can get off my back.

Theseus · January 11, 2004, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
This does not really address the primary problem of global conquest. Global conquest has never happened and therefore it should not be attainable in Civ. IMHO.

Not to run totally OT, but it sorta has, at least in the context of the then known world.

I'd give pretty good credit to Macedonia, Rome, the Mongols, and, of course, "The sun never sets on the British Empire."

And, uh, it ain't RL 2050AD yet.

(Boy, that's a weird thought.)

I ain't gonna go into winning via culture.

vmxa1 · January 12, 2004, 03:41

I did not realize I was on your back, but I have an aversion to post about things not being real in Civ. Yup it is true civ is not a simulation and is not perfect, imagine that.

Capt Dizle · January 12, 2004, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I did not realize I was on your back, but I have an aversion to post about things not being real in Civ. Yup it is true civ is not a simulation and is not perfect, imagine that.

My problme with global conquest in civ is not really that it is ahistorical, but I do think that civ as an abstract ought to at least remain true to reality in macro issues. My issue with conquest is that it is far too easy to do a rolling conquest. I would refer you to the GOTM at civfanatics for numerous examples.

World conquest should be attainable but not sustainable.

SlightlyMadman · January 12, 2004, 13:48

(back OT for a second)

I created a mod once that did this. The biggest problem, and the reason I eventually abandoned it, is that it makes food even more important. Basically, a civ that started on a floodplain would immediately dominate, because they could produce so many more units compared to everyone else.

The reason I created the mod was to try to make big lucky empires a little less able to conquer, but it only ended up making that very problem worse.

I tried fiddling with it a bit to take off the requirement for defensive units, but it didn't seem to help much, since you still couldn't counter-attack.

This was in vanilla civ3, though. Maybe some of the new editor options would make it easier to balance this. The biggest problem is that 1 citizen per unit is just too much, it should be more like 1/2 or 1/4. I tried to compensate by making each citizen more like half a citizen (so 1-11 was town, 12-23 city, etc.), but there weren't enough options in the editor at the time to really do this properly.