War and Peace and Mobilizing

HalfLotus · October 2, 2001, 11:41

Alot of posters are concerned about the plight of the warmonger. The ability to mobilize for war (half cost for military stuff) will give warmongers a shot in the arm. I'm not sure where Nationalism is on the tech tree, but I think it's before modern times.
Firaxis has implemented something that is realistic AND good for gameplay. Whatever shall we

about now? It shouldn't be too hard to get a sizable army moving in just a few turns.
The ability to mobilze for war will make army building less of a hassle. Fewer turns, and presumably fewer clicks for me to get my war machine on the path to domination.

Next column:Mobilizing for peace.

Roman · October 2, 2001, 11:50

The mobilizing concept gets thumbs up.

Sava · October 2, 2001, 12:20

Agreed!

It should make for an interesting last minute defense strategy when you're pounding enemy cities with catapults.

HalfLotus · October 2, 2001, 12:27

It would seem that during a time of peace you would ALWAYS want to be mobilized for peace (half cost for peaceful stuff). Of course, if you're attacked while you're military stuff is costing double you could be in trouble. (double trouble even.) I wonder if there is a penalty for switching back and forth similar to anarchy with the govs.

Rakki · October 2, 2001, 12:41

i don't remember this but does mobilizing for war give you a science research bonus ?

I know the peaceniks will start screaming how warmongers are already powerful, but it's amazing how some technologies get developed really quickly during wartimes.

Alternatively:

Perhaps some technologies in the tech tree can be classified as "military" and would cost 50% more in peace time, and 50% less in war time to research. And vice versa for "Civilian" technologies.

HalfLotus · October 2, 2001, 12:49

Afaik, mobilizing halves the cost (in sheilds) for building units, improvements, etc. Thus, if you are mobilized for war, a tank would cost half as many shields to build, but a temple would cost twice as many. I don't believe it has anything to do with science rate or discoveries.

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 14:28

Is it even possible to conduct military wars without war-mobilizing ones economy, after one have discovered nationalism, in Civ-3? Or to put it in other words:
Is economical war-mobilization a free choice (I hope not), or is one forced to choose that alternative, whenever one wants to conduct any type of military war? (fighting barbarians being an exception, of course).

I hope one is forced to war-mobilize, because then all players have an incentive to make wars short and concentrated, followed-up with peace-treatys & stabilization, instead of those several-century long "eternal" wars we had in Civ-2.

monkspider · October 2, 2001, 14:50

You feel that people MUST moblilize for war Ralf? I must disagree, I think if someone wants to try to pull off the legendary "guns and butter" war they should be able to, but at their own risk of course.

HalfLotus · October 2, 2001, 14:50

I believe it's a choice to move to wartime/peacetime production. I think being forced into one of these would blow.

Andrew_Jay · October 2, 2001, 15:41

The mobilization for war sounds great. . .

But it should be a choice. Perhaps whenever you declare war, or Someone declares war on you a prompt could come up and ask if you want to mobilise. In some games in Civ 2 I'd be at 'war' with someone on the other side of the world and we wouldn't do anything to each other. I'd hate to have to spend so many mroe shields on peaceful stuff jsut because some tiny civ nowhere near me won't sign a peace treaty.
And anyway, for short wars nations don't always mobilise their military a whole lot. I'm pretty sure the U.S. wasn't selling War Bonds and rationing butter when they invaded Grenada

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
You feel that people MUST moblilize for war Ralf? I must disagree, I think if someone wants to try to pull off the legendary "guns and butter" war they should be able to, but at their own risk of course.

This is what I found over at Civilization fanatic info center:
"Mobilizing for war halves the cost of all military units and improvements, but doubles all others. Once mobilized for war, you must select an enemy. You cannot switch out of a wartime economy until the war ends. Mobilizing for peace has the opposite effect, halving the cost of other improvements, but doubling your military expenditures."

My underlining. Now admittedly, above only describes the rules for war during war-mobilization. It doesnt necessarily say if conducting war is possible, while still maintaining normal, or even peace-mobilization. (I suspect that one must be peaceful/neutral with everybody before peace-mobilization even becomes a chooseable option).

But since the Nationalism-tech appears in the third era; the industrial age, and since the nationalism-tech most probably also incorporates the idea of military conscription - then perhaps its not that unlikely that conducting wars against equal empires in industrialized & nationalistic times actually forces you to war-mobilize 100%. After all; the game IS suppose to model the reality of that era, and the modern era as well.

Inverse Icarus · October 2, 2001, 15:51

not enough.

nationalism comes too late in the game (one of the starter techs for the industrial age)

keep in mind that you have to finish off the bulk of ancient/middle age techs to get to the starter techs of the Industrial age, you can't just dive for nationalism as you would have in civ2.

and you can only have 1 army per every 4 cities until then.

sure, warmongers will typically have more, underdeveloped cities, but even 30 cities is only 7 armies and change.

and mobilizing for war doesnt sound too great, unless i understand it incorrectly. if you mobilize for WAR, your WAR RELATED costs go down, but OTHERS go up. and to be in a war economy you have to be in CONSTANT WAR, or the economy breaks down.

even war mongers love those few turns of extortion before more attacks.

"whenever krux offers peace, he just wants more time to rally his troops"

-Sman

Lorizael · October 2, 2001, 16:10

The mobilizing for war and peace thing sounds really awesome. My question though is might it be too powerful to mobilize for peace? I mean once you got Nationalism why wouldn't you want to be mobilized for peace? But since war things will cost twice as much, I hope it'll be balanced out. Does mobilizing also effect support or just the actual production costs?

faded glory · October 2, 2001, 16:22

This is going to Make PBEM very interesting. If it is expensive to mobilize armys.. Well, then human players will have difficulty being the world policeman. Carriers will be expensive, so much better then CTP. Where all you needed was 4-5 Carriers, and you canbe the 'Worlds Policeman' anyday.

Now its more difficult

More realistic

I like it

Lorizael · October 2, 2001, 16:27

One abbreviation I never learned. PBEM... what's that stand for?

monkspider · October 2, 2001, 16:31

Alright, you have convinced me Ralf

Having read your civ fanatics excerpt, I think that your suggestion of forcing people into a wartime econonmy would most likely work best, since I can't just be at war with some country for millenia without ever even eccountering them a' la Civ 2.
Good call

Andrew_Jay · October 2, 2001, 16:35

Play By E-Mail

I think.

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
The mobilizing for war and peace thing sounds really awesome. My question though is might it be too powerful to mobilize for peace? I mean once you got Nationalism why wouldn't you want to be mobilized for peace?

Quote:

Does mobilizing also effect support or just the actual production costs?

Hmm - maybe your right. Im starting to believe that war/peace-mobilization affects support-costs only - NOT shield production costs. Otherwise, this feature perhaps becomes too powerful for its own good.

Ozymandous · October 2, 2001, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

sure, warmongers will typically have more, underdeveloped cities, but even 30 cities is only 7 armies and change.

Seven armies composed of how many military units? Three? Yep, not counting all the single units you can have running around. A unit does not have to be in an army to exist, armies simply make them better.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

Hmm - maybe your right. Im starting to believe that war/peace-mobilization affects support-costs only - NOT shield production costs. Otherwise, this feature perhaps becomes too powerful for its own good.

Go back and re-read your quote because it says this:

"...Mobilizing for war halves the cost of all military units and improvements, but doubles all others."

The "and improvements" would seem to mean the build cost as well but may only cut the per turn cost per building. Seems to mean both tho'.

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Alright, you have convinced me Ralf

Well, at least this is how I interpret it.

Also, I now believe that mobilization affects support-costs only, so changing between war/neutral/peace economy isnt necessarily that dramatic.

I think its less likely that shield production-costs is affected in anyway, because that would lead to 3 different amounts of shields (= build-material) in order to build one and the same type of tank or university. And thats not likely nor realistic, is it.

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous
The "and improvements" would seem to mean the build cost as well but may only cut the per turn cost per building. Seems to mean both tho'.

All city-improvements have a economical support-cost, just like combat-units. Under war-economy support-costs for military improvements and combat-units is halved.

Also (again): why should a tank only require half as much building-material (= shields) in order to be mounted together, during wars? If you only have half as much material available, you only produce half as many tanks, right?

jdd2007 · October 2, 2001, 17:05

i give it

personally, i dont think it comes too late in game, and if it had, the testers would have noticed...

HalfLotus · October 2, 2001, 17:16

So, is it the build cost (shields) or the support cost (gold) that is halved?
It now sounds like support cost to me. If so, that is not nearly as dramatic, but certainly more balanced. DOes anyone know for sure?

Ralf · October 2, 2001, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by HalfLotus
So, is it the build cost (shields) or the support cost (gold) that is halved?
It now sounds like support cost to me. If so, that is not nearly as dramatic, but certainly more balanced. DOes anyone know for sure?

Well, I know as much as you do, but it suddenly struck me when I answered Lorizael: now wait a minute - it really must be the support-costs only. Before that, I just assumed that it meant shield-costs, without thinking about it any further. Some final official confirmation would be nice though.

Inverse Icarus · October 2, 2001, 17:39

well now cannons/catapults cant fire on their own, so they have to be in armies. and 7 isnt enough for me

Lorizael · October 2, 2001, 17:48

I'm not sure that Artillery type units can't fire on their own Uber. I think it's just that they can only bombard and would be captured if left alone. But I don't know. And the game hasn't come out yet so don't dispair yet.

Also, though there have been military conquests throughout history, no one has actually taken over the world (except of course for the Monkey King, but you all don't know about that... yet). It should be difficult.

And I'm thinking that support instead of production is probably the answer. But hey, will see. I love speculation... and Civ 3... and Sid Meier!

faded glory · October 2, 2001, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
One abbreviation I never learned. PBEM... what's that stand for?

Play bye email. get 4-10 people. Each control there own nation. Download turn then upload it too next guy.

Lorizael · October 2, 2001, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory

Play bye email. get 4-10 people. Each control there own nation. Download turn then upload it too next guy.

Thanks, that's how I was thinking it would work. Sounds cool, maybe I should try it.

meriadoc · October 2, 2001, 18:24

I just read the info at the CivFanatics site and according to them mobilization works like this: When mobilized for peace, all peace-related buildings, etc. cost half as much to build while all military-related items cost twice as much to build. The reverse happens when you are mobilized for war - war items cost half as much to build, peace items cost twice as much.

While it seems that it would be more realistic to have only the support costs affected, apparently the build costs are affected. Besides, maybe we shouldn't view this so much as affecting the amount of material needed as affecting the amount of time needed.