A last ditch "fight for bread alone" advantage

Ralf · June 22, 2001, 12:37

As you all should know by now, all Civ-3 combat-units now needs access to both special resources & shields in order to be produced, and financial support in order to be maintained. And thats all good and well.

However, What if you face extreme circumstances; then for example half of your founded cities have been conquered, and you (or perhaps more likely; that poor AI-civ) stands a very severe risk of total Civ-extinction? Shouldnt this extraordinary situation, give the loosing empire a very desperate "we will fight for bread alone" financial unit-maintain advantage?

Perhaps should the burden of financial unit-support be temporarily lifted (or at least substantially reduced) from that desperately loosing empire, giving him a last ditch positive factor that maybe can help him achieve some kind of stalemate piece.
If the loosing Civ miraculously manage to turn the tide and start to recapture founded/conquered cities beyond half the original numbers of cities (or, if the loosing Civ manage to achieve a stallmate piece); then this lifted/reduced combat-unit support advantage shouldnt apply anymore.

The good thing about this idea, is that AI-civs are more likely to take advantage of this tweak. Its mostly the strong human player that does the more serious invasion-attempts.

splangy · June 22, 2001, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf
The good thing about this idea, is that AI-civs are more likely to take advantage of this tweak. Its mostly the strong human player that does the more serious invasion-attempts.

hopefully they teach them how to fight for real

good idea but its to late, besides then there would be no advantage to capturing key cities

Martinus · June 22, 2001, 13:19

I do not think this idea would be very coherent with that what we know now about resources system.

The resources spent for the production of military units are not payment for army service, but raw materials.

AFAIK, you would be able to build many low-tech units without any special resources, or with only some of them (like iron, which should be rather ubiquitous).

However I doubt whether the morale itself ("we will fight for bread alone" attitude) would help much if your tanks does not have enough fuel or you don't have uranium to make nukes.

Martinus

Ralf · June 22, 2001, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus
The resources spent for the production of military units are not payment for army service, but raw materials.

ALL units need standard shields on order to be produced. MOST units also need access to special resources. ALL combat-units need financial support. Settlers & workers most probably need food-support on top of the -1/-2 pop-penalty (because they are considered as "mobile population-points" - and your population need food to eat, wherever they are mobile or not).

Quote:

AFAIK, you would be able to build many low-tech units without any special resources, or with only some of them (like iron, which should be rather ubiquitous).

Hmm. I dont know about that. I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of the 60 unit-types, needs some kind of special-resource support (sometimes multiple). But I dont know for sure. Perhaps your right.

Quote:

However I doubt whether the morale itself ("we will fight for bread alone" attitude) would help much if your tanks does not have enough fuel or you don't have uranium to make nukes.

Well, you have a point there. But IF the special resource-import is no problem, this tweak would nevertheless give the desperate Civ some relief.

KrazyHorse · June 22, 2001, 13:51

Wasn't this the idea behind the Guerrillas in Civ II? The point is that a unit's paychecks aren't the only upkeep required. They also need material support in order to function effectively. Gurrillas don't, but only because they fight a deliberately low-tech war.

Ralf · June 22, 2001, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Wasn't this the idea behind the Guerrillas in Civ II? The point is that a unit's paychecks aren't the only upkeep required. They also need material support in order to function effectively. Gurrillas don't, but only because they fight a deliberately low-tech war.

It would work complementary to the Guerillas. This idea gives an advantage to the remaining Civs not yet conquered, while the guerillas is something that pops-up behind enemy-lines, in already conquered cities. Whether its worth the effort is another question.

The guerilla-unit (if still there) should be tweaked differently. Only wounded guerillas should hide/disappear, and come back healed. You must kill them off completely within one turn to get rid of them. Otherwise they come back.

TechWins · June 22, 2001, 15:01

With the Civ being taken over shouldn't a lot of the food of the cities be gone or they only get a small surplus? With untis all around their cities how could they work the city's 21 squares? So now they wouldn't be able have any untis because of the lack of food. I think I'm fine with not having to support units with food, I'd rather stick with the resource, money, and production system. It was a nice idea though.

Inverse Icarus · June 22, 2001, 17:12

i think nationalism will do something to the upkeep of units, much like fanatics in a fundamentalism.

Ralf · June 22, 2001, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i think nationalism will do something to the upkeep of units, much like fanatics in a fundamentalism.

No, not the upkeep as I have come to understand it. It is the shield production-cost that is halved (production-cost for city-improvements is then doubled though). You can also tilt it the other way around - or choose the middleway. Perhaps it effects the upkeep-costs also. I dont know, but I dont think so.

June 22, 2001, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus AFAIK, you would be able to build many low-tech units without any special resources, or with only some of them (like iron, which should be rather ubiquitous).

I have not seen any limits on low-tech units. You will need special material for special units for sure.

TechWins · June 23, 2001, 00:09

Quote:

No, not the upkeep as I have come to understand it. It is the shield production-cost that is halved (production-cost for city-improvements is then doubled though). You can also tilt it the other way around - or choose the middleway. Perhaps it effects the upkeep-costs also. I dont know, but I dont think so.

Yeah, I think you're right Ralf.

Rasputin · June 23, 2001, 00:16

under the conditions you state ralf, i think in reality that any civ army would defend to the death more , but probably wouldnt be using too much offencive manouvers... so perhaps in Civ 4 they could put some sort of extra defencive measures for those civs who are almsot wiped out as the civ fights for its very existance ...

Hope this answer is long enough for ralf he doesnt like short reasponses