 |
|
Seventh
|
|
What I want to talk about now is unit support. Usually specific units are supported by specific cities; this is VERy VERY BAD. Okay, I admit that in the "olden days" cities did support their own military units, but in today's world armies are supported by nations not cities.
So what's my point?
My point is simple, in Civ III armies should be supported by nations, not cities. Each city should pool resources together to support the army, and every city should have to contribute a minimum; this way citizens don't feel shafted and civil unrest can be minimized. On the flip side of this maybe Fraxis could implement a system where not every city contributes equally and this in-turn could lead to civil unrest.
Ideas comments?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Derfner
|
|
Lincoln, NE, US
Mar 2000 time: 05:14
|
|
what i understand i think that is the way civ3 will work, because units are supported my money now(i think). and if it stays the same all your money is pooled into a national treasury.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seventh
|
|
But if units are supported by money then how do the number of units you have effect build time?
In SMAC units greatly effect build times because you can only build so much before you run out of minerals, but if units are supported by gold then build rates should be more consistent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Derfner
what i understand i think that is the way civ3 will work, because units are supported my money now(i think). and if it stays the same all your money is pooled into a national treasury. |
Units are both supported and created by money. Not by shields as in Civ-2.
-------------------- edited:
Not created - thats wrong. Read explanation in next reply.
---------------------------
quote: Originally posted by Seventh
But if units are supported by money then how do the number of units you have effect build time? |
Hmm! You have a point. It doesnt, apparently. Does it matter?
Last edited by Ralf on 01-06-2001 at 22:35
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
Ralf, I knew that units were supported by gold, but where did you hear that they were produced with it? I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just wondering.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 02-06-2001 at 01:03
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seventh
|
|
Okay, so units are built with minerals (or shields), but they'll be supported by money.
Hmmm... so we can then assume that build times will not be affected by a large military. This seems a little odd because if units aren't supported by minerals then what's stopping someone from cranking out a massive army at a break-neck speed. Agressive players can build armies to their hearts content, but how are passive players compensated?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seventh
|
|
Money can also be obtained through extortion and conquest; both of which require a large army.
I can imagine an a player cranking out the units and conquering everything in sight just to support his army. Take SMAC for example, most factions made a habit of extortion and conquest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seventh
|
|
I also forgot to mention that Civ's that acquire civ specific units early in the game will have a definite advantage if they employ the mass army strategy.
My main concern here is balance. I don't think that you should be allowed to crank out units at a break-neck-speed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seventh
|
|
Another thing that I forget is my reason for posting. I"m a passive player, and as such I always try to find a non-violent solution, so I'd hate to think that Civ III would give an advantage to war-mongers.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|