Non-realistic convenient patch

Luigi · December 12, 2001, 16:53

I know it's not reallistic but I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to limit the total number of units you can make of each type, the limit may depend on the number of strategic resources you have, the size of your empire, particular characteristics of the empire, technologies, city improvements (this city cannot build another tank without a power plant sir....) the unit itself etc....
This will force the player to a balanced strategy for combat, combining several kind of units in a battle discouraging the tedious "all horsemen, all cavalry" way of handling militar units.

I think this can greatly balance the power of units, if you have the "supermastertank" but you can only build 5 of them then you must use other units to empower your armies. Adding aditional units will also be easier without risking unbalancing the combat system.

It's just an idea I had after crushing the world with horsemen, hundreads of horsemen. In MP it will be very boring to see battles between 34 cavalry vrs 35 cavalry and so....

Bad Ax · December 12, 2001, 18:17

I've mentioned this already, but this is as good a place as any to keep with it. Instead of your "limited number" cap, use a limited production cap. Almost all armed forces require a certain resource for their production. This is good, but it's still not realistic because I can produce a massive cavalry army (say, 20 units) from a single horse resource in the same time that it takes to build a tiny one, assuming I have multiple cities going. However, horses just don't go at it that often. So perhaps there should be a cap on the number of units a resource can produce in a given turn. For instance, you can only produce 10 iron-requiring units in a turn if you have 1 iron source, but you can build 20 if you have two. This would also make resource wars more interesting and resource stacking more advantageous.

Just a thought.

Sirian · December 13, 2001, 00:45

There is a limit: gold. You can only produce what you can support. That can make for a large force, hundreds of units, but what is the point of wanting a cap on unit production? What is to be GAINED from such a limit? I don't want to see a bunch of artificial restrictions added. Let people play the game.

- Sirian

notyoueither · December 13, 2001, 03:50

The problem is that you cannot trade for resources that you already have. Or conversely, who would ever trade a Strategic Resource if it meant they would diminish their production ability?

Also, it would also seriously skew MP. Player A has 3 horses, player B has 1. Player B looses. Just about guuuaaarannnteeeed. Either that, or the limits would be meaningless.

Salve

Bad Ax · December 13, 2001, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

The problem is that you cannot trade for resources that you already have. Or conversely, who would ever trade a Strategic Resource if it meant they would diminish their production ability?

Also, it would also seriously skew MP. Player A has 3 horses, player B has 1. Player B looses. Just about guuuaaarannnteeeed. Either that, or the limits would be meaningless.

Why you think this is any worse than the present situation is beyond me. With the present implementation, if Player A has 1 horse, and Player B has no horses, Player B loses absolutely guaranteed, because he can't make any mobile units at all. On the other hand, in the situation that you've described above under my system, Player A can make 15 horsemen per turn and Player B can make 5. Sure, A still has an advantage, but now B has at least a fighting chance. Additionally, since my system would require an increase in incidence and in dispersion, Player A gets rewarded for expansion, since getting three horses all right next to each other would be rare.

As for your first point, obviously the trading thing would have to get changed. Once it was, though, you could add plenty of depth to the game. Hate the Germans but don't want to fight them one on one? Give some of your extra iron or horses to the English to strengthen their war effort! Are the Russians at war with the Indians? Sell some spare oil to the highest bidder! Plenty of reasons to trade, lots more fun to play, and still more realistic than the present implementation.

Kinjiru · December 13, 2001, 16:26

I think this is a superb idea. Now resource wars are quite limited, once you have just one rubber, you are set. However having one only means you can make five infantry then you better be prepared for another war or be prepared to put on your poker face at the negotiation table.

The only down side I see is that the AI already gives up ridiculous amounts of money for stuff in the late game and this kind of change would probably exacerbate the problem.

Dis · December 13, 2001, 17:02

I don't like arbitrary restrictions.

but what would be nice is a way to increase support costs. Say modern tanks would require 10 gold per turn to support instead of 1.

Seems dumb a guy with a club has the same maintenance as a modern tank