Column #153; By MrFun

[MrFun]

Tsk, tsk, tsk . . . .

For one thing, I do NOT like it when it takes 35 turns to produce one Musketeer unit, and that it would take so long to produce a Frigate that it is obsolete by the time I have four of them produced.

What's the point in bothering with military units if you don't have time to use them?

And Dan - my apologies for not contacting you via e-mail about the error, but thanks for correcting it.
[This message has been edited by MrFun (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Boracks]

As a thought, would it be feasable to have cities responsible initially, then regions, then the empire as a whole, with the changes occurring with either a Civ advance or a change in government?


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

[Lord Spam]

I agree that this should be a government specific feature and not a standard rule in Civ. I mean, the disadvantages of a monarchy involved decentralization of power to the cities, dependance on regions, etc. I know this sounds like historical anal-retentivism, but it's also a gameplay issue. If you want a more centralized form of government that can pool and distribute resources evenly, you'd need a modern government. That would be a goal of yours when researching. Besides, forcing a city to support its units will also make things like quick expansion more difficult, and could help to limit the size of empires, at least early in the game. But I agree about having democracy, communism, facism, etc. should have an empire-wide system like you described.