Variable unit upkeep costs

Optimizer · July 22, 2002, 18:47

One thing that I have missed since Civ 1 is variable unit upkeep costs. Face it, it is more expensive to keep a battleship going than supporting a band of warriors.

In existing Civ games, players who go for expensive units have an unfair advantage.

zulu9812 · July 22, 2002, 18:53

Personally, I think workers and settlers should be exempt from support costs. I see support costs as a way of preventing players from having huge armies, not preventing them building roads

alva · July 22, 2002, 20:05

but then you would have 1000's of workers.

Andrew_Jay · July 22, 2002, 22:06

But there really isn't a whole lot you can do with 1000's of workers . . . 1000's of modern armour, or battleships on the other hand . . .

player1 · July 23, 2002, 03:34

In fact, I would arther give workers a HIGHER upkeep cost.

They are big bunch of people which don't eat cities food like in Civ1 & Civ2.

Q Classic · July 23, 2002, 09:23

i'd give workers and settlers higher upkeep cost, and i'd like to see different upkeep costs for different units.

the only thing is, though, if we're going to do that, why not also make each one take up a different amount of transport space ?

dunk · July 23, 2002, 09:27

Battleships had a upkeep of more than one shield in Civ I? I've never seen that. Did I miss it?

Optimizer · July 23, 2002, 09:35

No, upkeep cost has been the same for all units in Civ 1, 2 & 3 (dunno about CTP) and it has annoyed me since Civ 1.

Dida · July 23, 2002, 12:42

Upkeep cost is different for each unit in CTP. For example, a Battleship costs 50 while a warrior costs only 1. ICBMs I think cost as much as 120. So it makes you think twice before building a huge nuclear force.

SpencerH · July 23, 2002, 13:19

I think it would be a good idea to implement.

The Bloody Baro · July 23, 2002, 13:35

I agree. Plus another thing Firaxis should implent would be like say you lost your last supply of oil. Well than how on earth are your tanks, airplanes, and ships supposed to run? What I mean is that if you build a unit that needs oil than lose the oil supply than shouldn't you not be able to use your tanks?

dunk · July 23, 2002, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
No, upkeep cost has been the same for all units in Civ 1, 2 & 3 (dunno about CTP) and it has annoyed me since Civ 1.

Oh, now I see. I read your original post incorrectly.

player1 · July 23, 2002, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by The Bloody Baro
I agree. Plus another thing Firaxis should implent would be like say you lost your last supply of oil. Well than how on earth are your tanks, airplanes, and ships supposed to run? What I mean is that if you build a unit that needs oil than lose the oil supply than shouldn't you not be able to use your tanks?

It's a simplification.

You know you lost a resource site, but it doesn't mean that you wion't have resreve which would last several years.

P.S.
Although it would be cool to disalow healing for those units which you can't build anymore (because lack of resources).

Fatwreck · July 23, 2002, 16:20

Higher upkeep would be really nice and it would speed up the game a little when playing against the AI and their +100 infantry stacks that take forever to move...

Soviet Beast · July 28, 2002, 01:38

I preferred the CTP public works terrain upgrade system much more than the stupid 837658374 workers setup.

MODERATOR ACTION: Sid Meir sat on his couch eating chips all the day instead of helping the Firaxis idiots make the game. Thats why it is so stupid, just like you apolyton users.

Optimizer · July 31, 2002, 15:25

I wonder whether the Civ 3 team ever played CTP.

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 23:05

The CtP games are good to give you an open mind and show you some neat things that you should work on implementing in Civ games, but they aren't as good as any of the games: Civ1 (for its originality), Civ2 (for its obvious greatness), or Civ3 (it sucked at first, but it grows on you like mold

). I'm not going to sit here and bash CtP games though. If they had been made first, they might get some more of my respect.

I think they were highly innovative, but sloppily made. At least CtP2...never played Civilization: Call to Power.

Optimizer · August 6, 2002, 09:39

Introducing variable upkeep cost into PTW wouldn't be too hard, would it?

Panag · August 8, 2002, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
In fact, I would arther give workers a HIGHER upkeep cost.

They are big bunch of people which don't eat cities food like in Civ1 & Civ2.

hi ,

, you make them cost more citizens

have a nice day

ALPHA WOLF 64 · August 14, 2002, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
Introducing variable upkeep cost into PTW wouldn't be too hard, would it?

i love the idea of variable maint costs but i'm guessing the AI wouldnt have a clue how to handle it. as is, the AI dont seem capable of maintaining a decent economy.

des-esseintes · August 14, 2002, 19:21

its a simplification

u dummies

Panag · August 15, 2002, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64

i love the idea of variable maint costs but i'm guessing the AI wouldnt have a clue how to handle it. as is, the AI dont seem capable of maintaining a decent economy.

hi ,

, the AI seems to do well when you let units cost citizens , so why should it not do fine , ....

BUT , indeed the AI should take care to build a beter infrastructure and economy

lets hope that those things can be found in a new patch

have a nice day

realpolitic · August 21, 2002, 16:22

Ive found that Ive had more than enough gold to support older units, in fact to the point of historical inaccuracy.

Galvatron · August 22, 2002, 08:09

Well it's true think of how many million dollars a government needs to buy and maintain a large and high quality airfleet but on the other hand how much would you need to build up a milita force (give him a weapon show him the direction of the enemy and hooray off we go

). So I think a milia/warrior should be free because he really needs almost nothing after you given him a weapon but planes and especially tanks needs upkeep all the time (e.g. repairs)

Sure Settler have to cost something because as discussed earlier otherwise you would have an army of them and develop the land in no time. In reality: Think of it like you must give a settler group some tools and food so they can live over the first years before they had enough food produced by themselves to live on their own so this way the costs for settlers can be justified.

Optimizer · August 22, 2002, 08:54

Maybe Workers should cost money just when working.

Panag · August 22, 2002, 15:23

hi ,

it should not be that dificult to set up a "variable unit cost" in the editor , ....

it would be great

it would also be intresting to have an option to let a unit "eat" food , ....like in civ 2 , only improved , ...

both options would need a turn ON and OFF

have a nice day

Galvatron · August 22, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimizer
Maybe Workers should cost money just when working.

Optimizer you are doing what your name promises

: optimizing the upkeep-problem. Hmm might be an idea to do this in reality just pay your employees when they did something but on the other hand many civil servants would starve

hmm I should not laugh I'm one of them but I’m working in my office, yes I do really