Can I Get A Little Support

Seventh · May 31, 2001, 23:20

What I want to talk about now is unit support. Usually specific units are supported by specific cities; this is VERy VERY BAD. Okay, I admit that in the "olden days" cities did support their own military units, but in today's world armies are supported by nations not cities.

So what's my point?

My point is simple, in Civ III armies should be supported by nations, not cities. Each city should pool resources together to support the army, and every city should have to contribute a minimum; this way citizens don't feel shafted and civil unrest can be minimized. On the flip side of this maybe Fraxis could implement a system where not every city contributes equally and this in-turn could lead to civil unrest.

Ideas comments?

007 · June 1, 2001, 00:23

i have good news for u, my friend.

You can play CTP 1 or 2 tomorrow morning and be happy, if that's your only concern

Derfner · June 1, 2001, 00:27

what i understand i think that is the way civ3 will work, because units are supported my money now(i think). and if it stays the same all your money is pooled into a national treasury.

Seventh · June 1, 2001, 09:40

But if units are supported by money then how do the number of units you have effect build time?

In SMAC units greatly effect build times because you can only build so much before you run out of minerals, but if units are supported by gold then build rates should be more consistent.

Ralf · June 1, 2001, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Derfner
what i understand i think that is the way civ3 will work, because units are supported my money now(i think). and if it stays the same all your money is pooled into a national treasury.

Units are both supported and created by money. Not by shields as in Civ-2.

-------------------- edited:
Not created - thats wrong. Read explanation in next reply.
---------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Seventh
But if units are supported by money then how do the number of units you have effect build time?

Hmm! You have a point. It doesnt, apparently. Does it matter?

KrazyHorse · June 1, 2001, 12:05

Ralf, I knew that units were supported by gold, but where did you hear that they were produced with it? I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just wondering.

Ralf · June 1, 2001, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ralf, I knew that units were supported by gold, but where did you hear that they were produced with it?. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just wondering.

Mistake from my part. I remembered wrong. Heres the proof: Click this screenshot and check out the aircraft-carrier being produced by shields.

Seventh · June 1, 2001, 14:04

Okay, so units are built with minerals (or shields), but they'll be supported by money.

Hmmm... so we can then assume that build times will not be affected by a large military. This seems a little odd because if units aren't supported by minerals then what's stopping someone from cranking out a massive army at a break-neck speed. Agressive players can build armies to their hearts content, but how are passive players compensated?

Buck Birdseed · June 1, 2001, 15:12

If you just crack out a massive army quickly, your gold supply will drain, unless you've got enough reserves. Can you imagine the disaster that would befall the warlike player when all his units deserted simultaneously and he was left standing with no improvements? Gold support encourages building improvements and focusing on trade...

Ralf · June 1, 2001, 15:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
If you just crack out a massive army quickly, your gold supply will drain, unless you've got enough reserves. Can you imagine the disaster that would befall the warlike player when all his units deserted simultaneously and he was left standing with no improvements? Gold support encourages building improvements and focusing on trade...

Added to above:

In Civ-3 you support units by spending money, which only partly can be "harvested" within your borders. An increasingly bigger share must however also be obtained by establishing multiple trade-routes with foreign AI-civs. This means that you figuratively speaking; must place at least one of your balls in the hands of the AI-civs, in order to optain enough money to support your military might - especially in end-games.

Seventh · June 1, 2001, 17:06

Money can also be obtained through extortion and conquest; both of which require a large army.

I can imagine an a player cranking out the units and conquering everything in sight just to support his army. Take SMAC for example, most factions made a habit of extortion and conquest.

KrazyHorse · June 1, 2001, 17:09

That's fine, though. Such a strategy was employed by every medieval king; the only problem is to stay ahead of the curve...

Seventh · June 1, 2001, 17:12

I also forgot to mention that Civ's that acquire civ specific units early in the game will have a definite advantage if they employ the mass army strategy.

My main concern here is balance. I don't think that you should be allowed to crank out units at a break-neck-speed.

Seventh · June 1, 2001, 17:18

Another thing that I forget is my reason for posting. I"m a passive player, and as such I always try to find a non-violent solution, so I'd hate to think that Civ III would give an advantage to war-mongers.