Unit support

Sabre2th · February 11, 2001, 01:10

People may have already discussed this and I'm sorry if I'm repeating an old question, but how will units be supported in civ3? Will they use the civ2 city system or nationally supported units (ctp1/2)? i would appreciate some opinions about this.
[This message has been edited by Sabre2th (edited February 11, 2001).]

Sabre2th · February 11, 2001, 01:13

Personally, I liked the ctp1/2 system. it made unit support simpler and helped minimize micromanagement.

Henrik · February 11, 2001, 14:36

Support for units should be in gold!
Or it should atleast be changeble to gold for scenario creators.

MrFun · February 11, 2001, 15:02

Looking back after having Call to Power, I thought it was ridiculous how it took longer in the number of turns to produce each successive unit in Civilization II.

Activision did a great job in making military costs a nation-wide responsibility - not for each individual city.

February 12, 2001, 18:26

yeah, I also like the unit support system from CtP... the game itself is pretty ****e, but the decentralized unit support was quite OK

Roman · February 12, 2001, 19:59

Nationwide support system is desirable to say the least.

Youngsun · February 14, 2001, 01:48

I reckon that should be determined based on what type of government you got. Centralised authority(ie.Soviet Union)with notion of consciption for national service should manage mil units at empire level while loose confederation of city states(ie.Ancient Greece) or feudal(ie.Western Europe at Dark age)societies have city/region based army.

civbuilder · February 14, 2001, 17:12

Thats a good idea, an alturnative aproach once suggested by someone was that the units support themselves off of the square they are on, the ideal being that this would make it more difficult to pass a large army through a large desert because these squares provide few nutrients. Perhaps a combinition of all the different methods would be useful giving a very versitle game.

airdrik · February 14, 2001, 18:28

I agree that units should be nationally supported because that would be more realistic (otherwise why would we have a department of defence?). Though they could also make it so that you can create 'militia' units which are the same as regular units, only supported by the city they were created in, and if moved from that city cause unhappiness.

My opinion: General national support ala ctp +'militia' units ala civ w/unhappiness restriction.

Fiera · February 14, 2001, 20:30

quote:

Originally posted by Henrik on 02-11-2001 01:36 PM
Support for units should be in gold!
Or it should atleast be changeble to gold for scenario creators.

Ditto!!!

Military support costs money!

Since, hopefully, there will be different production items (wood, iron, etc) and not just shields, it would be pretty weird and overcomplicated otherwise.

Roman · February 17, 2001, 09:44

I am not sure about the support in gold idea, but the support should definitelly be nationwide.

Henrik · February 17, 2001, 10:05

As I said, if gold isnt standard support it should atleast be something that a scenario designer would be able to change into gold.

Roman · February 17, 2001, 10:46

Well that's a possibility.

Chuckles · February 17, 2001, 19:03

I say keep it nation wide like CTP. Way better. Civilisation dependant is an interesting idea but it would have to fit in well with everything else.

Sabre2th · February 18, 2001, 01:28

Everyone seems to agree so far. Maybe someone from the civ3 team could give us some info.......

February 18, 2001, 05:42

I deffinately want nationwide support... but I would like to set a city to contribute a smaller/greater portion, that way I can choose to have my new tiny cities not suffer any loss in production... but my main industrial cities make up that loss.

February 18, 2001, 16:20

I have to agree with Trachmir on this one

Sabre2th · February 18, 2001, 21:39

Good idea, Trachmir. I hope someone at Firaxis is looking through these forums.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

Kevin Ar18 · February 18, 2001, 21:43

I dont't know how CTP did unit management, but I like the idea of nationwide support where resources from all cities are pooled into one large collection for units.
However, individual cities should still build the units. Then on organized governments, the support could be spread to the entire nation and for less decentralized governments, support could go to individual cities.

Sabre2th · February 18, 2001, 21:52

quote:

I dont't know how CTP did unit management, but I like the idea of nationwide support where resources from all cities are pooled into one large collection for units.
However, individual cities should still build the units.

Individual cities still built the units, but production was taken from a pool for unit support. More powerful and advanced units took more support than simple units.

quote:

Then on organized governments, the support could be spread to the entire nation and for less decentralized governments, support could go to individual cities.

I like this idea. I don't think anybody's thought of this yet. I think we need some more opinions.......

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

Sabre2th · February 19, 2001, 14:00

*BUMP*

Just trying to keep this near the top. I feel this an important issue.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

Kevin Ar18 · February 19, 2001, 23:19

quote:

Individual cities still built the units, but production was taken from a pool for unit support. More powerful and advanced units took more support than simple units.

Let me clarify what I had in mind.
I do not think production for units should be taken from an national pool. Instead, the cities production level determines how fast that city can make units. Then, after the unit is made, support for the unit would go the pool for the entire nation (or individual cities) depending on government.

I think this way is more realistic and more reasonable.
And maybe that's what you had in mind too, but I thought I'd clarify what I meant nonetheless.

quote:

Then on organized governments, the support could be spread to the entire nation and for less decentralized governments, support could go to individual cities

Also my suggetion about unit support according to government was based on a post by Youngsun. I think doing this would add a nice touch to the affects different governments already have on the game.
[This message has been edited by Kevin Ar18 (edited February 19, 2001).]

Henrik · February 20, 2001, 03:16

I want support to be in gold

GaryGuanine · February 20, 2001, 04:15

Guys,

You have to watch out as to how you look at history. Sure, we have a department of defense, but the entire concept of a nation is only a modern phenomenon. Nationwide support for things would be ludicrous in any time period before, say, the 17th Century. Jeez, look at a roster of a Civil War battle. 17th Massachusetts, 3rd New Jersey. Everything is regional before you have a strong national government. I agree that maybe after you get the final "city picture", you can then have nation-wide support, or maybe after the industrial "city picture" for monarchies. Not the whole time, though.

Gary

Henrik · February 20, 2001, 04:47

Thats why unit support should be in gold!
During the 17th centuries all nations was up to thier ears in debts, they couldn't pay thier armies, and it would cost them even more to disband them (in reallity it was more costly to disband an army than to keep it, this made wars incredibly expensive afffairs, the most important reason to why the thirty years war (1618-1648) lasted so long was that peace would make every participating nation bankrupt, since they would have to disband thier armies, since during peace they would just cost money and ruin the land).

Sabre2th · February 20, 2001, 12:55

quote:

Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-20-2001 03:15 AM
Guys,

You have to watch out as to how you look at history. Sure, we have a department of defense, but the entire concept of a nation is only a modern phenomenon. Nationwide support for things would be ludicrous in any time period before, say, the 17th Century. Jeez, look at a roster of a Civil War battle. 17th Massachusetts, 3rd New Jersey. Everything is regional before you have a strong national government. I agree that maybe after you get the final "city picture", you can then have nation-wide support, or maybe after the industrial "city picture" for monarchies. Not the whole time, though.

Gary

Very true, but we have to keep in mind that this is a game. Not everything can be perfectly accurate. Some things have to be kept simple.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

Sabre2th · February 20, 2001, 12:57

Kevin -- We're both talking about the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

Kevin Ar18 · February 20, 2001, 14:05

How did CTP do distributed unit support?

was it based on gold?
If it was based on shields, how did the support get distrubeted evenly among cities?
Can someone explain the system.

GaryGuanine · February 20, 2001, 23:12

I understand things have to be kept simple, but what's so hard with city based support? It's not that hard, really. I mean, what do you want, checkers?

Gary

korn469 · February 21, 2001, 04:17

i think that we should have both cities and the nation support units

every unit should have a home base that supports it in shields and each military unit should take one gold from the national treasury every turn in upkeep...but if can't afford to pay your troops they riot and revolt, but don't disband...but when you do disband a military unit it should cost you two gold as a discharge fee...if you couldn't afford this then you couldn't disband your unit

korn469