Unit support - handled globally or by city

Private Viper · May 27, 2000, 08:17

I can't remember seeing anything about this earlier, but for me it's a very important issue. One of the great things about CTP was that units were supported by the civilization, not by the home city. I really hope this is incorporated into Civ3 as well... And I wonder: Who is opposed to this idea, and why? Any positive comments are also welcomed, of course.

just my .02

------------------
Viper
viper@cnc.net.nz
Command & Conquer NZ

Theben · May 27, 2000, 10:22

If FIRAXIS uses a city-state form of government (or a generic "decentralized" SE choice) then I would agree to city level support. However, by the modern era unit support should be civ wide.

my .02 cents ($1.95 in 1999 dollars)

Par4 · May 27, 2000, 11:42

I agree depends on the government, but yeah I liked that in CTP and hope its in civ3 too. I also want military units to consume food and money too not too much though. Military units support comes first from cities with big surpluses of food, money equal # all cities, shields from cities with large shield production but not building wonders, or an equal # all cities.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

tniem · May 28, 2000, 00:33

I agree with what has been said but just would like to add one thought.

I think that it also depends how armies are made up. If it is the standard every legion is the same size no matter what than I think that it would make sense for support to only be by each city. But if there is varying sized armies because of death or customizable size then it probably should be nationally.

Personally I want more macromanaged control of cities through states that would make sure that a region was happy, well fed, and prosperous, of course continuing to let me to go to individual cities.

ember · May 28, 2000, 09:02

Why would it make a difference if it is a fixed size or not?

Maybe it could be based on government, dictatorship and monarchy are each city (nobles in many monarchies are required to make troops availabe for their king, but they hav to support them) but for modern governments it would be regional or national.
Nowdays, no inuvidual city has to support an army, it's all done by national taxes.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

UltraSonix · May 29, 2000, 01:56

I remember when CTP first came out, reviewers savaged it and one of them things they said was that it was unrealistic as unit support was done globally. But I think it's a good if, as suggested above, tied to specific government. This way the problem I had in SMAC could be solved - a new city in the late part of a game didn't have to support a Neutronium Garrison and a Super-Quantum Former. There usually wasn't enough shields left over to do anything else.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited May 29, 2000).]

MidKnight Lament · May 29, 2000, 02:10

Tying it to government sounds good. It was a welcome relief when you could support them globally in CtP, but perhaps it's not realistic until more modern times.

- MKL

Urban Ranger · May 29, 2000, 04:59

Not sure about that.

In China military units had always been supported at a national level. Even when there were several countries (e.g. the Three Kingdoms period) each "national" government supported its own units. I can't recall a time when cities had to support its own units. Maybe the local militia but that's about it.