Vanishing Armies

Kc7mxo · June 20, 2001, 06:23

In civ2, when you capture a city, all military units currently supported by that city istantly vanish, whereever they are.

This is silly.

Throughout history armies have supported themselves even when they had no city. But thats beside the point. If the united states is invaded and the city of new york is sacked, will all the soldiers raised from that city scatter? If they're based out of austraila? no. As long as they continue to get paid and recieve support from the rest of the coutnry, they don't give a dang.

Since military units no longer require actual resources to support them in civ3, I don't think they should dissapear when you take their home town either.

Provost Harrison · June 20, 2001, 06:42

I very much doubt they will disappear. It doesn't happen in SMAC either; the units are just reallocated. If they are all funded from the central coffers, then there is no reason why they would disappear. But this would bring up another question; how would unhappiness work for units being away from their home city/empire?

Henrik · June 20, 2001, 11:02

People are probably happy as long as they are inside your own borders/ your allies borders.
The game will probably still keep track of where the soldiers are from and make that city unhappy.

Buck Birdseed · June 20, 2001, 11:08

The support model will be based on funding only this time around, so the problem should be eliminated.

Kc7mxo · June 20, 2001, 17:16

I wouldn't know about smac, i haen't played that since just it came out. I didn't realize that it had been implemented there.

But the city screenshots i've seen for civ3 still show the units that were built by the city in a little window.

ancient · June 20, 2001, 18:46

you are so right but units should only disapear when theyre killed

Inverse Icarus · June 20, 2001, 19:01

i forget where, but i remember reading that military units are supported by your central gold pile.

i assume all units would still have a homecity , for happiness concerns, but I dont think they should vanish when conquered.

JMarks · June 20, 2001, 20:21

I agree, units shouldn't disapear when cities are conquered. But, since they are no longer based on shield support but overall currency (yes yes yes yes!) then why not, when a city is demolished, have the units from that city change to homecity 'none'?

Positives:
1. No more unit unhapiness overcrowding of your nearest city causing devastation because the units are now based there.

2. Unit's Revenge. People who's home city are destroyed and are in the military, will be able to execute their revenge. Besides, they wouldn't have their imidiate family moved to the city it is nearest, would it?

3. Why not?

Negatives:
1. Units who's homes are ravaged usually don't want to go off in far off foreign wars. This needs to be affected somehow, doesn't it?

2. It might promote wierd strategies in Democracy like building a city on a hostile front, moving your units in, supporting them there, then moving them out, letting the city be destroyed and recieving units who's happiness effect on the civ need not be worried about.

Ioanes

Inverse Icarus · June 20, 2001, 20:58

no, thats retarted, and easily abusable.

EXAMPLE:

im in a democracy, and i build like 30 tanks from 5 cities. Really unhappy. WELL, i make a 6th city, (size 1, no culture) and HOME CITY all the tanks there, and then disband the city with a settler/worker.

then im a democracy with 30 tanks, and no happiness problems.

JMarks · June 20, 2001, 21:19

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
no, thats retarted, and easily abusable.

EXAMPLE:

im in a democracy, and i build like 30 tanks from 5 cities. Really unhappy. WELL, i make a 6th city, (size 1, no culture) and HOME CITY all the tanks there, and then disband the city with a settler/worker.

then im a democracy with 30 tanks, and no happiness problems.

Thats what I said on negative #2, please pay attention, I already debunked my own idea, only without so many words. This way I (hopefully) debunk a bad idea someone else might get.

Mabey I should make it more pronounced next time...not everyone will read it carefully enough.

Ioanes

Inverse Icarus · June 20, 2001, 21:28

i err... can't read or write.

JMarks · June 20, 2001, 21:34

Hey, don't worry. At least you figured out why it was a bad idea. Still, if only there was a way to get around that... I don't really like homing units in the nearest city, mabey if you could pick the city for the units to belong to... or have them randomly selected from different cities in your empire. Hmmmm

Ioanes

DarkCloud · June 27, 2001, 16:55

IF the units had morale, this wouldn't be a problem.

The units should only disband if their city is captured AND their morale drops below a certain level.

MORON · June 27, 2001, 21:33

Anyway, keeping the amry unhappiness factor in the conquered cities makes no sense. After all the city no longer supports it and it can be used to screw up your opponement.

Me fundy (or something like it) with one frontline city support 9999units with no/low unhappiness.

My enemy Demo, takes over city.

REVOLTS REVOLTS AND REVOLTS.

Grumbold · June 28, 2001, 10:05

I'd prefer unit unhappiness to be an empire wide modifier rather than localised per city. Having one city in uproar while the one next door remains placid just seems ludicrous to me.

DarkCloud · June 28, 2001, 11:57

If unit unahpiness was reflected by the civ then the units if civ happy is 80% the units would have 20% of them in revolt and unable to move.

If "HAPPY rich people" existed then the units would have bonuses... correct?

SerapisIV · June 28, 2001, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I very much doubt they will disappear. It doesn't happen in SMAC either; the units are just reallocated

I'm of this opinion as well, aside from the non-pop workers, SE, and unit workshop, I think most if not all advances made in SMAC will return in Civ3 in identical or enhanced form (for example borders)

Aside from that, we do know that units are supported through the treasury now, however do we know if units will still have home cities?

KrazyHorse · June 28, 2001, 13:57

I hope that the home city idea is removed, but that unhappiness from units is still distributed through the cities.

SerapisIV · June 28, 2001, 15:37

I second that idea, but with the stipulation that the unhappiness is a percentage of your city size or some mitigating factor. I don't want size 2 cities revolting 10 years after I found them because I haven't built anything in them yet

KrazyHorse · June 28, 2001, 15:41

Makes sense...the comp should just choose one of your content citizens at random and make him unhappy. The big cities have more content citizens (usually), so the unhappiness will probably show up there first...but not always.

Nemo · June 29, 2001, 11:21

I think the morale idea that DarkCloud mentioned is great.

That way if you are culterually, financially and militarily inepted, and you are taken over by a more powerfull and glorious civilization, then a large percent of your troops would become part of the attacking civ after the city is taken over, and a few units might flee to a nearby friendly city. However, if YOU are the most glorious civ, yet manage to have one of your cities taken over then your units would have much higher moral and thus would not port to the conquoring civ...this would mean that most/all of your troops from the conquored city would flee to nearby friendly cities to form a counter attack. Or, they might disappear temporarily, only to speratically come back and fight (see next paragraph as to why)

Firaxis already said that it would be harder to maintain a city if it was captured (i interpreted this as more revolts after a city is captured) - in which case maybe your units that were in the city would come out from the undergroud hiding and attack the foriegn trioops currently in the city. Therefore if the attacking nation comes in with an army of say 6 attackers and 6 defenders, then after winning they leave 1 defender in the city and move to the next city...like a swarm (or something) quickly demolishing a civilization. In this case, your old units help the citizens fight back and would have a serious upper edge. And if you happen to have more/better units that the conquoring nation left in the conquored city at that time, then you would beable to over take the city again. Of course, since your troops would have gone 'undergroud' then the would 'seem' as if they disappeared temporarily, until the revolt takes place.

DarkCloud · June 29, 2001, 12:21

Home cities should remain- soldiers have to come from somewhere... unless a small part of the population of each city is taken out and made into an army.

Thank you for your support Nemo!

Nemo · June 29, 2001, 16:38

P.S. Kc7mxo: how is it that you had your Apolyton account since 1970??!!

O/T sorry