Discriminative cost.

[Asesino_Virtual]

Hi you all. Long time has past since my last post.
As in CIVIII the units will be supported with gold, instead production, i wonder if the cost of mantaining a certain unit will be the same, for expample, mantaining an Armor will cost the same that mantaing a Phalanx, por example.

Thanks.

[Triped]

I'm not a big Civ player, but in SMAC, all units had the same upkeep in minerals...it seemed to work pretty well.

[Earthling7]

That was the case in previous Civ games as well. I'm wondering, since it's gold this time, if they do as with city improvements. Then you pay more for more advanced improvements. But then, a base unit is a base unit. A phalanx is the defender of ancient, and a rifleman in modern times, ans ar the game does not incorporate inflation, I doubt you'd pay more. But might need to pay more fore a fighter jet, than a rifleman.

But I'm speculating.

[Dauphin]

There should be progressive costs IMO.

Maintaining better units should cost more. This is to compensate for the fact that there is more income at later periods. In civ 2 a single production shield maintenance would effect you greatly in the early game (say for a warrior) but hardly anything in the late game (say for a stealth unit). Is that logical?


Maintenance costs proportional to the build costs is a fairly good guide I would think

[Triped]

The increase should increase logarithmically, then...otherwise you risk having large armies bog down the economy.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Triped
...otherwise you risk having large armies bog down the economy.

Isn't that exactly what maintaining a large army does to an economy?

From what I've seen, it costs one gold per unit, regardless of type, for a government type of "Republic"; see this screenshot and note number of units/upkeep:

http://www.civ3.com/images/screenshots/military_advisor.jpg

My guess is that "Allowed Units" will vary by government type or wonders or something, and will subtract from the upkeep cost.

[Triped]

I meant bogging down the economy to the point where having a large army is difficult and no fun

[saracen31]

Since it's just an abstraction of real life, I think they should keep it as is to keep the fun factor. I agree it's a good idea though.

[Triped]

Of course, the problem with a fun game is that the people who treat Civ as their day job will complain

Can't please everybody, might as well please me

[jdd2007]

i think it should be expensive to support a large army, but not TOO hard

[Mongoloid Cow]

Could it work that a civ with a militarist civ attribute could find it a lot easier to support a large army than one without?

[Bisonbison]

I wish there was some way that the game could model the heavy burden of the military on modern society. It's like the United States is carrying around an extra two hundred pounds in fleshy waste, and let my doctor tell you, that's not good for any part of the larger national system.

Not respiration, not circulation, and certainly not elimination.

Still, the military industrial complex keeps on feeding and feeding and feeding. It's like the fat itself was telling me to eat.

Scary huh? And not something that's easily overcome, even when it severely circumscribes your life.

[Earthling7]

Maintaining huge armies in modern times should not be cheap. A way around this might be to have reserves, as in the USA. You could have a number of units (attackers?) on reserve and pay a fixed fee of one gold, and in case of war, you would be able to call them up. It would take a number of turns to get them up and running, and then they'd cost their usual maintainance.

[jdd2007]

i dont get ur idea. what would be the incentive to have ur units on reserve if u pay the same amount

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by jdd2007
i dont get ur idea. what would be the incentive to have ur units on reserve if u pay the same amount

Not the same amount. Let's say you pay 3gold for a fighter. Put it on reserve, you pay 1gold. That way, you could have a big army, but pay relatively small fee for it, as the you're not paying the salaries of the people that would operate the units. In times of war, you would reactivate the units, and be able to defend yourself or attack. Getting back to normal status could take 5-10 turns.

[Dauphin]

That was the method employed in CtP and I liked it.

[Triped]

The reserve troops option could work, but it could get tricky...can units be brought out of reserve instantly? Would you pay extra that turn since they're not fighting?

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
That was the method employed in CtP and I liked it.

Yes, executed differently, but similar effect, I suppose.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Triped
The reserve troops option could work, but it could get tricky...can units be brought out of reserve instantly? Would you pay extra that turn since they're not fighting?

It would take a few turns, 5-10, and you'd start paying full when you give the order to activate them. So, in a sense you pay, but no "initiation fee".

[Triped]

That could work...I think that reserve troops should be allowed to fight as they are, though, and at some sort of penalty, obviously.

[Earthling7]

I dunno. IRL, reserve troops are at home, eating with their families, bowling, working, whatever. If some units became available faster (riflemen faster than destroyers), it could give you time to defend yourself until the rest is ready.

[Triped]

Well, if you're going to go off of realism, the length of time a turn represents should be plenty to get them out of their houses and off to war.

[Dauphin]

It would allow for the unique US unit minutemen. A standard rifleman unit that acts at full strength but costs as if it were a reserve.

[Urban Ranger]

I agree with Big Crunch. Maintanence cost should be proportional to build cost.