A new specialist: soldier

[Adm.Naismith]

My proposal started after the last debate about how to model the cost of a military unit related to a civ.

Actual CIV and SMAC model only related units support to shields (hence production), given a "free support bonus" for some political (social) choice (CIV fundamentalist, or SMAC social engineer support bonus).

This model never reproduce the whole bad effect of waging wars.

The reduction of working population (because men were in army) was a major factor of old army limits.

Limited support was related to number of workers available (excess of production was very limited, so slaves were used to improve things a bit).

When the needs of wars token the most part of male population, the production suffered a lot. Quite often wars where "suspended" to let soldiers harvest the wheat and save from famine during winter.
Pillaging was as a need to mantaing soldiers, as a way to force enemy to surrender for fear of famine.

When a war was lost, lot of valid people was lost too (killed or enslaved);
this introduced the need to ransom valid men back from enemy, when possible.
When bloody wars ended, often looser civilization lost "ground" (halted the development) for a generation or two.
In Civ or SMAC we have the silly opposite effect: if one unit is killed you GAIN productivity , because the support shield become free!

One of the opposition to any proposal to relate army to population, was that this will make complex for Firaxis changing population numbers, enough to match 1 point of population reduction with number of soldiers needed to arms a military unit.

If Firaxis will radically change the supporting model my proposal will be meaningless, but if they decide to keep the city-unit 1 to 1 relation I suppose we can debate my idea.

I propose a little change in City support of army, introducing a new specialist: soldier.
Similary to entertainer use to reduce unhappyness, a soldier specialist simulate the people (and food, money and production) needed to keep up an army.

As for entertainer, its effect can cover more than one unit, and change by technology advance (advanced soldier, to model different needs of modern units vs old units).

It must be an automated specialist, i.e. the player can't modify the number of dedicated soldier specialist: they are taken by working population as military units are built (e.g. one soldier specialist support two units).
The number of soldier can change only if other advance (or city facility) change the rapport soldier/supported units.

If units are reassigned or disbanded, soldier specialist must turn back as common workers (people back to home), if units are killed, soldier specialist disappear (population lost).

Ok, all this surely need some tune up, or may be a push to the trashcan right now

Let me know your opinion, please.

[Henrik]

Well... This is right, mostly.
But please include an option to use mercenaires instead of population during the 16th-18th century almost all armies was built up of mercenairies (mainly from Scotland and Ukraine actually).
There where a few regiments taken form the populaion but most of the army (say 80%) was mad up of mercenaires.

[Stuff2]

I like it. But I think it also requires that the population model is re-modelled. In the current civ2 a city would have to need around 60000-150000 inhabitants (depending on resources) to support a single warrior unit, with food. Military units should ofcourse cost money for upkeep. In addition to not only loose an income in you also 'gain' an expence. Less taxes for paying more soldiers. It's logical and i like it.

[Tiberius]

I like it, Admiral, because it simulates very well all the unpleasant effects of a war.
Taking away one "soldier specialist" from the city, you automatically lose production, trade and food, whatever that "specialist" produced priveously, and finally lose the population itself.

I have only one doubt: losing population when building a unit, isn't the same thing ? (and it's even less complicate).

[The diplomat]

Adm.Naismith here has offered a good implementation of my "recruitment model". I am still hoping that Firaxis implements some kind of "recruitment model" in civ3.

Good stuff, Adm.Naismith!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited March 06, 2001).]

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-06-2001 03:48 AM In Civ or SMAC we have the silly opposite effect: if one unit is killed you GAIN productivity , because the support shield become free!

How about this. When a unit is killed, you temporarily lose the shield it was using to simulate lack of workforce.

Depending on your technology level, it should take a while for it to return, because it not only represents a lack of workforce, but a lack of experienced workforce, because there won't be as many people around to teach the next generation.

[Adm.Naismith]

Tiberius,

quote: I have only one doubt: losing population when building a unit, isn't the same thing ? (and it's even less complicate)

No, and yes

No, because I suggested that any "soldier specialist" may supports more than one military unit (depending on tech advance, too). It's more difficult to manage a "population half point" removal, IMHO.
Think about unit support reassignment to another city, too.

In my model you simply compute any turn: supported unit/units supported by any soldier=number of soldiers specialist you have in town.

Of course yes, losing population is far less complicate but you can't keep traditional CIV/SMAC small population points at all, because you subtract too many people per unit IMHO.

Henrick, right point about mercenaries I hope we will be able to recruit them from "huts" or (better) from Minor Civs army (by diplomatic option).

Beyowulf, your proposal model the city losing workforce only when unit is killed (not because people serve armies for years?), then the workforce is retrained (out of any city growth model).
I'm sorry, but I think it's less realistic than current SMAC model of unit supported by shield expense every turn.

BTW, thank you all for support and enhancement suggestions, I appreciate them and feel in better mood now

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-07-2001 08:14 AM Henrick, right point about mercenaries I hope we will be able to recruit them from "huts" or (better) from Minor Civs army (by diplomatic option).

Not in negotiations? When moving a diplomat into a city (or maybe by moving a recruiter or something similar) you could recruit mercenairies, but since mercenaires aren't representing the nation in question officially (but where rather just born there) it shouldn't be an option in ngotiations.

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-06-2001 03:48 AM This model never reproduce the whole bad effect of waging wars.

First of all, you've made a very good point here !!, generally spoken, I like your ideas.

quote: The number of soldier can change only if other advance (or city facility) change the rapport soldier/supported units.

My idea is that the number of specialist you've appointed to be soldier limits the number of units you can build. If you don't build all of them they "nonbuild" can be considered to be reservists which cost about a quarter/fifth of the maintenance of regular troops. If you have to mobilize they will stand within one turn as regular and battleready troops. If you want to mobilize more you will have to appoint more specialists. It will take the newly appointed specialists more time to get battle-ready then the reservists.

I must say I like the CTP-model when it comes to that. In this model more soldierspecialists would mean less other specialists. So one way or another, calling up for arms will always have a direct effect on what's going on in a city (production/happiness/trade/science/safety(would be a new one)). Only thing is in CTP you've have also the unitsparameter in which you can regulate the readiness of your troops. I wouldn't know what to do with that ?!. Maybe Firaxis should, when they can include it in the specialistsystem, leave that out as a single parameter.

quote: If units are reassigned or disbanded, soldier specialist must turn back as common workers (people back to home), if units are killed, soldier specialist disappear (population lost)

And that's what will happen if you use more-or-less a model like in CTP. Those units who are killed will have a reducing effect on your population and over-all happiness; those who are captured and are either enslaved or improsened will have effect on the happiness of your CIV. The freeing of improsened soldiers will ofcourse have a positive effect on your civ.
Soldiers improsened by your own CIV will either turn up as slaves or POW's (prisoners of war) in your specialistscreen. POW's will cost, brutalizing their special status will cause international disrespect or worse.
Within this context I plea again for Law of War as an extension of the Diplomacymodel.

You've given me a lot inspiration Adm. !!

[Adm.Naismith]

henrik, I'd prefer not to add a layer of free soldiers separated from some kind of official original civ.
For me diplomatic agreement with civ (minor or main) is good enough: we can pay (money, resources, tech exchange, pact agreement) and use the unit.

quote: You've given me a lot inspiration Adm. !

You're welcome, Vrank

I'm sorry I never played CTP (may be I should be happy about this, reading about angry players ), so I don't know how CTP manage this.

I see you can reverse the use of Soldier specialist: not automated by unit building but required to build units. Also reservist using fractional support point is enlighting. Good ideas!

Point about production/happiness/trade/science/security is very interesting, too (I swapped your safety with security, more appropriate terms with police/military AFAIK).

I already posted a lot about slavery/POW specialist into dedicated thread, so I support this part for sure

Ok, it seems we share a lot of thought, hopefully some Firaxis designer will do the same

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Urban Ranger]

Nah, too much micromanagement.

Unless for very critical reasons, anything that adds to micromanagement is bad.

Admiral, what you were saying only applies to small primitive tribes, not large civs such as the Roman Empire.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-09-2001 10:08 PM Nah, too much micromanagement. Unless for very critical reasons, anything that adds to micromanagement is bad. Admiral, what you were saying only applies to small primitive tribes, not large civs such as the Roman Empire.

Urban, I can't see all this micromgmt added, at least with my "automated soldier specialist" first proposal. Would you be so kind to explain more?
I hate too much micromgmt, so I would be sure not to be on the wrong way

BTW, Wich part of my post only applies to primitive tribe?
I have my history book hidden into some box, covered by dust, but I can clean them a bit if it can help any interesting and polite discussion



------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[loinburger]

There was an extremely scaled down Soldier Specialist proposal in the List v2.0, so hopefully Firaxis will take this under advisement.

------------------
"If you want realism, play two turns and die of old age."
-Flavor Dave

[AzNtoccata]

Oh oh, another idea. how about government affects the number of units a soldier can supply? Like communism a soldier can support more but democracy can support less. And I think the democracy unhappy when units away should be taken out. A war being fought by democracy can be a popular war too, not always unhappy.

[Youngsun]

quote: if they decide to keep the city-unit 1 to 1 relation

I hope not. Empire level mil unit management must be implemented.

City specialists in civ, according to my interpretation, do represent urban population of the region or city population who should be dealt separately from field workers who effectively represent rural population.

Then where those conscripted levy really belong? Are they really part of urban population who stay in the city/urbanised area all the time? We all know either city specilaists or field workers are in some extent static whereas soldiers are somewhat mobile in other expression, they move around or can be stationed at distant military post. This is the fundamental difference between civilians and servicemen. Now what problem can be caused by having soldiers as one of city specialists? Imagine that Rome has raised 5 legions from the city itself then sent the legions to North Africa. Next Gaullic army sieged Rome and took it. What happens to those 5 legions originated from Rome? They should be intact as they are. They can be supplied by other cities for their rations,weapons,etc(represented by shieds) but the soldiers themselves are there in North Africa but in Rome.
If "one Soldier specialist support number of mil units" is the rule, those 5 legion should find new soldier specialists from other Roman cities to be supported which is totally unrealistic. (I don't have to remind you those 5 legions never engaged with enemy force thus zero casualities taken so far.)

The main point why Admiral has suggested this idea I believe is that better/enhanced social impact of war(simulation of loss of population & loss of production) and I agree with Admiral this should be represented properly. However I disagree mil units should be supported by city specialists. Once mobilised or recruited, those portion of population should be taken into "national manpower pool" which deals with military units in various manner. You may release conscripted men to civilian population through demobilisation to improve your empire's production. Of course, Admiral has suggested this idea based on the assumption of no change in mil unit management but if that becomes realised, civIII will never have the room in my hard disk. Nothing is more disgusting than game sequals look only pretty in graphics while lacking modifications and enhancements.

[Adm.Naismith]

Quoting myself

quote: If Firaxis will radically change the supporting model my proposal will be meaningless, but if they decide to keep the city-unit 1 to 1 relation I suppose we can debate my idea.

Youngsun, you see I agreed with you in advance

The sad trouble with units support is that any playable model seems not good enough.

In the past centuries, armies where more related to city than to the whole empire/nation, where in modern times the opposite is the rule.

You see, it's difficult to define a model good enough for all ages, and surely isn't viable to change model mid-games!
I hope Firaxis will find a good (in game sense) compromise.

I agree that units that lost supporting city are troublesome, but a solution is not out of reach: e.g. automatic disband units or reassign support to nearest cities (not every one to the nearest, cycle thru as many cities as available for support: if no one avail, then disband).

About your New Radical Civ or else... attitude:
While I agree that we need a game fresh enough with some radical "spice", I'm not looking for a completely different game.

That said, I usually try to share (and help with, if I can) both a "radical proposal" and a "classical style improvement" for every subject.
I hope Firaxis will peek here and there for the best mix.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[The diplomat]

I want to say again, this thread is really interesting.

Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both?
regular units would be supported by the whole empire. They would represent the regular army. But in addition there would be a "militia" unit or a "partisan" unit which would be supported by the individual city it is from. These "militia" units could be implemented with the soldier specialist idea. Now the number of "militia" units versus regular units would depend on many factors, social, government etc. Some civs could have no or little regular army and depend solely on city supported "militia" units. This would reflect one type of army where soldiers are locally drafted for example. Another civ might have it the other way around, representing an army that is supported entirelly on the national level. The player could have any combination of both that they want, like 40% militia, 60% regular.

This would represent both systems that we have seen throughout history.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Nadexander]

This sounds like a great idea. Its simple and gets to the heart
of the matter of supporting an army and models it in a complete
and effective way.
However id like to add that it applies mostly to infantry type
units (which i hope will be more important in civ3). For example
a unit of rifleman will take big chunks out of the population
but equiping a unit of artillery or stealth bombers is usually
a matter of resources and not of man-power.

- Nadexander

[johndmuller]

I think there are some good ideas here.

One can imagine units (of most any type) being supported either locally or nationally without stretching the credulity of the model. Whether or not that flexibility works from a game balance perspective, I couldn't say, but it would be easier on the player, so it would possibly make the game easier to beat and thus maybe less challenging. The production cost can be paid by either the local (normal) or federal (forced production) entities in the existing games.

The notion of taking a population hit of some sort in the originating city when initially fielding an infantry type unit could be accomodated by adjusting the growth rate for some fixed and/or continuing amount of time in the city of origin; if you want a rationale for that, it could be that the soldiers are deemed to be reproductively unavailable and so the birth rate is reduced. This penalty could be linked somehow to whether infantry were in fact in the city or not - i.e. an (ongoing) growth penalty when infantry are away; possibly an intermediate growth penalty for garrisons and/or reservists; if the unit were killed, the away penalty would become permanent. A certain number of penalties could be related to a pop unit so that n killed soldiers = reduction of 1 pop unit and cancelation of associated ongoing growth penalty. Switching home bases for a unit could be handled by havinging a "killed" effect in the original home city and an inverse "killed" effect in the new home city as well as reassigning the debiting of the ongoing penalties to the new city.

This method doesn't seem to require a Soldier specialist, but I do like the sound of that idea if someone can flesh it out just right.
[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited March 12, 2001).]

[Urban Ranger]

That's an easy way of improving the support model in Civ. First, as Youngsun suggests, when an unit is created in a city, it loses a certain amount of population. This causes problems with the current system, since a unit is small comparing to a population unit of a city. That would have to be fixed -- it needs to be fixed anyway for a more realistic growth model, to accomodate for things such as immigration.

When a city loses population, it loses production capacity, which represents strains of war.

But units are composed of people and they need to eat. So it seems unrealistic that only settler units require food as part of the support cost. All units should require food, but this food should not come from individual cities but from the country itself. The country in turn gets its food reserve from taxing the cities, thus slowing the growth of these cities.

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 03-12-2001 09:25 AMI want to say again, this thread is really interesting.

So do I !!!

quote: Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both? ............. This would represent both systems that we have seen throughout history.

In the protestant controlled Dutch Republic, uptill 1795, every city had its own militia. The stadhouder (or stad(=city)-holder in english) was the leader of the national army if we were at war or when things got hot. When he rose an army, usually formed by mercenaries, he had to get consent from the staten-generaal (states-general) which funded the army. We never have had a large regular national army in peacetime like in England, France or Prussia, but only small garisons which were housed in barracks in the largest (or most troublesome, usually catholic) cities (like Amsterdam). From 1795, the "Bataafse" revolution on conscription was introduced and the city-militia's were abandoned.

The balance between the two is a matter of government-style and taxes which should evolve during the ages.
There's lots more to be thought ands said about this. I may be back here.
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: In the past centuries, armies where more related to city than to the whole empire/nation, where in modern times the opposite is the rule.

True but something very funny things happen under your model. I'll show the case in numbers. Rome has 10 pop points and 2 points were used for rasing an army. While the army was sent for an overseas expedition, a barbarian army takes Rome along with those 10 pop points as prisoners. Now you have to assign fresh new 2 pop points from other Roman cities to support the army from Rome. The barbarians have 2 extra pop points as prisoners who shouldn't have been Rome in the first place while Roman civ has to compensate the loss of 2 pop points from other cities which shouln't be sacrificing from this bizzare incident.

Under my model, those missing 2 pop points are completely spared since the points were taken into separate place(manpower pool)as soon as mobilisation takes place. Only battle casualties will affect the mobilised pop points in negative manner.

quote: I agree that units that lost supporting city are troublesome, but a solution is not out of reach: e.g. automatic disband units or reassign support to nearest cities (not every one to the nearest, cycle thru as many cities as available for support: if no one avail, then disband).

So once all cities are lost, armies lost too? What about Free French force during WWII? They lost all thier home cities but kept fighting and finally won ,though heavily supported by the allies. After the defeat, Chiang kai shek's troops ran away to Taiwan to keep fighting(Those officers and soldiers are all from mainland China but Taiwan) If Kiev supports 10 Russian infantry divisions, the German army will just take Kiev and they don't have to chase the retreating 10 divisions but simply capture Kiev then 10 division weight of burden will be put on the Russia regardless of the fate of the 10 divisions whether they make it to the rear or not.

quote: I'm not looking for a completely different game.

Is "National manpower pool" suggestion that radical? Goodies of old days had better be kept while the problems should be fixed. I see present mil unit management system as a problem not a goodie. What do you think?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 13, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both?

That depends on your definition of "support". If that means just pay(money) and supplies(shields) ,as you said, Why not? if soldier specialists in each cities, nope.

quote: Switching home bases for a unit could be handled by havinging a "killed" effect in the original home city and an inverse "killed" effect in the new home city as well as reassigning the debiting of the ongoing penalties to the new city.

The same problem arises as Admiral's suggestion. Let's not make cities too juicy target. Otherwise people will concentrate thier defense for cities for wrong reasons(not for defense of city itself but for defense of military force) Why nations consider tactical/strategic retreat when things goes bad? Because the significance of military force over the territory. If the situation get reversed, things like tactical retreat to spare your military force will be totally out of option.

quote: since a unit is small comparing to a population unit of a city. That would have to be fixed

If no real numbers are used, more population units for each city will be good enough I believe.

quote: But units are composed of people and they need to eat.

Yes, yes, feeding troops have been the greatest concern of many civilisations until advanced technology shifted the situation a bit.

[Adm.Naismith]

Youngsun, I surreder to your logic attack

Still...

quote: Rome has 10 pop points and 2 points were used for rasing an army. While the army was sent for an overseas expedition, a barbarian army takes Rome along with those 10 pop points as prisoners.

No, the soldiers specialist are "out of town". Barbarians only capture 8 population point.

quote: Now you have to assign fresh new 2 pop points from other Roman cities to support the army from Rome. ... while Roman civ has to compensate the loss of 2 pop points from other cities which shouln't be sacrificing from this bizzare incident.

True. This appear as a hole in my model.

quote: So once all cities are lost, armies lost too? What about Free French force during WWII? They lost all thier home cities but kept fighting and finally won ,though heavily supported by the allies.

The keyword is "supported by the allies". Any allied city can (not must) accept to support allied troops. Only troops without allied cities are disbanded, becoming free barbarian/partisan/terrorist, or generating a settler of survived population (if Civ restart is allowed).

Still we appear to fall in the same logic hole you pointed out above: why a new city should change some of their workers into Soldiers specialist, to support already built (and recruited) armies?

But, wait...

We should consider now escaped units as sort of "Refugee armies".
You can add (for free) enough Soldiers specialist to the new supporting cities.
This accomodate people recruited: they are not disappeared, only "assigned" to another hometown. BTW this need to be implemented anyway to cope with the game feature switching support city, as in CTRL+H command in SMAC.

Because the whole support cost is modelled by the production missing from workforce, now under armies duties, their production is still missing and we are almost back from hell

Youngsun, please help me: are you seeing any more flaw into my corrective measure? You are doing a good job as a Flaw Researcher, I almost hope Firaxis recruit you

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 13, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

quote: the soldiers specialist are "out of town".

I'm surprised! They weren't city specialists after all! Conventional city specialists are part of the city population that shares the same fate with the city. Now you're saying soldier specialists are out of town which means they don't share the same fate with the city. If that was the case, why not manage them in collective manner as "the pool" does rather than managing them from city to city? Which one is more efficient, "the pool" or "a city"?

Admiral, "the pool idea" is not so hard to implement and if used, it eliminates the probelms that are associated with conventional mil unit management. You control conscripts in bunch so reduced micromanagement is possible and it still simulates the side effect of war, production loss & actual population loss. Furthermore, the concept is so easy to understand and perfectly makes sense. You take some portion of population from a city for both military use and grand project then release them to home cities again, simple as that.

If you don't like the term "pool", you may call it "temporary storage area for mobilised population" or "consciripts management centre" whatever you want to call or imagine but in technical sense, they are all the same, separate and collective management of conscripted population.

quote: This accomodate people recruited: they are not disappeared, only "assigned" to another hometown. BTW this need to be implemented anyway to cope with the game feature switching support city, as in CTRL+H command in SMAC.

From this perspective, Civ series were not taking city based army concept so seriously. That easy switch of home city already means that "an Army from particular city should return to that particular city is not so important". Once the concept destroyed like this, what's so wrong with having empire level mil unit management?

[Cyclotron]

A historic milestone: For once, I agree with Youngsun.

I think that:

A) Units must take a toll on the population of a city.
B) This "lost population" should be kept in a "pool" as you say so it can be re-integrated when a unit is disbanded.
C) Having a new specialist and such is a little overboard for me, and conflicts with my more conservative views on Civilization 3.

Youngsun, I am glad of our mutual agreement on at least one issue.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 14, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

haha glad to heat that mate!

[Adm.Naismith]

Youngsun, nothing is wrong with your "recruited pool", I never stated that.

Simply, IMHO it needs some more programming and design change, it's a bit more on the "civ radical idea" side.
With the pool you must change the Population number, because taking 1 Civ II pop point for every unit "built" is unaffordable and unrealistic.

You must manage different numbers when tech (and age) change: e.g. 1 legion unit takes 4 (new) population point, while a WWII tank unit only needs 2 pop point.

You probably need a dedicated recruitment screen to monitor all "units to mother city" link.

Don't forget you still must keep a link from city of origin and unit to reassign population when unit is disbanded, and manage people changing city link if original town is conquered or destroyed.

That said, please detail you proposal a bit more, and it will be fine for me to support it.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-14-2001 04:26 AM Simply, IMHO it needs some more programming and design change, it's a bit more on the "civ radical idea" side. With the pool you must change the Population number, because taking 1 Civ II pop point for every unit "built" is unaffordable and unrealistic.

True, true. But the population number as high as it is is silly, and should be changed anyway.

quote: You must manage different numbers when tech (and age) change: e.g. 1 legion unit takes 4 (new) population point, while a WWII tank unit only needs 2 pop point.

Why? It would be much easier to simplify this as all units take one population point.

quote: You probably need a dedicated recruitment screen to monitor all "units to mother city" link. Don't forget you still must keep a link from city of origin and unit to reassign population when unit is disbanded, and manage people changing city link if original town is conquered or destroyed.

It's not this complicated. In Civ2, it works the same way: each unit has a home city and this is displayed without a central recruitment screen. Units that lost their home city would just be re-assigned to the nearest city for pop. support. Basically, I think the only difference between the pool system and Civ2 is that:

1) Population should be used for support, and
2) Units should be re-assigned home cities and not destroyed when their home city is destroyed.
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited March 14, 2001).]

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-12-2001 11:09 PM That's an easy way of improving the support model in Civ. First, as Youngsun suggests, when an unit is created in a city, it loses a certain amount of population. This causes problems with the current system, since a unit is small comparing to a population unit of a city. That would have to be fixed -- it needs to be fixed anyway for a more realistic growth model, to accomodate for things such as immigration. When a city loses population, it loses production capacity, which represents strains of war. But units are composed of people and they need to eat. So it seems unrealistic that only settler units require food as part of the support cost. All units should require food, but this food should not come from individual cities but from the country itself. The country in turn gets its food reserve from taxing the cities, thus slowing the growth of these cities.

Any comments regarding my post?