31-08-2001 00:11									#1
	Is mobilization mandatory after nationalism? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

A question popped up in my head. Once discovered, nationalism enables you to put your economy in one of three different states: mobilized, normal or peace.

Ok then, after you have discovered nationalism: Is then war-mobilization (= half unit build-costs and doubled city-improvement build-costs) mandatory whenever you want to military attack/defend your empire? Can you actually fight at all (after nationalism) with economy put to normal or peace (I dont think so)?

It seems to me that you must mobilize, in order to attack/defend anything - even a single enemy-unit taking a potshot at you (or if you decides to pillage a single enemy terrain-improvement).

If so, you cannot fight endless border-wars with one hand, and continue racing ahead with your ambitious city-improvement and wonder-building plans with your other hand (every peaceful city-improvement and wonder is twice as expencive to build in "economy mobilized" mode, remember).

By the way; is it the build-cost (shields) or is it the support-cost (gold) that is tweakable by above feature? Both?

	31-08-2001 00:40									#2
	Suffering from ads?

Ralf,

in the pc.ign it said that you had to have a high culture before you could mobilize, so this means that basically you are in a normal economy most of the time, and if you don't want to change you don't have to and in some instances you won't be allowed to change

also it said once you mobilized for war that you must pick an enemy, and once you pick that enemy you cannot switch from a wartime economy back to either a normal economy or a peacetime economy until you had ended the war, so if for some reason you get in a stalemate with another civ then you are just stuck in a wartime economy...this means maybe you could only have a peacetime economy when you weren't at war with anyone

what we do know is that when you goto war this cuts the military cost in half while it doubles the pacifist costs and vice versa...what we don't know is if it is production costs, support cost, or both

	31-08-2001 00:49									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Mobilizing is a cool feature, but how mush has been directly confirmed from Firaxis on this? I know they said that Mobilizing exists, and that Nationalism isn't a government (was glad to hear that). Have they said anything else?

	31-08-2001 01:30									#4
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by korn469 in the pc.ign it said that you had to have a high culture before you could mobilize, so this means that basically you are in a normal economy most of the time, and if you don't want to change you don't have to and in some instances you won't be allowed to change

Early game-previews can be rather unprecise, and the reviewers have been wrong before (just take nationalism = new government, for example). To me, the ability to shift the economy into mobilization/normal/peace, has not so much to do with "soft valued" education & culture (like music & art).
Its much more about hardnosed logistic organisation and mass-production capability (the latter simulated by the 1/2 unit build-costs) - and that one can expect in any empire that have achieved nationalism.

Anyway, I know as much as you do. Maybe, your right - I am just speculating here (but so are you). I just feel uncomfortable with the idea of fighting wars (after nationalism) with big AI-enemy empires (not minor domestic revolts, mind you) with my economy still being allowed to be normal, or even in peace-mode.

Either the player is at WAR (= mobilized economy), or he isnt. Or perhaps the mobilization-demands only kicks in if any cities gets conquered. I dont know.

quote: also it said once you mobilized for war that you must pick an enemy, and once you pick that enemy you cannot switch from a wartime economy back to either a normal economy or a peacetime economy until you had ended the war, so if for some reason you get in a stalemate with another civ then you are just stuck in a wartime economy...this means maybe you could only have a peacetime economy when you weren't at war with anyone

Thanks for the reminding clarifying info.

	31-08-2001 06:44									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: in the pc.ign it said that you had to have a high culture before you could mobilize

This is good in that it should be difficult for you to be able to mobilize for war considering it's efficiencies. This should also hold true for a being able to go into peace time because of it's vast efficiencies. So if you're not at a high level of culture you shouldn't be able to receive these national bonuses. I think this way because your nation is going to have to be joined together very tightly, culture is a good representation of this. A large nation which has a very small culture should not be able to mobilize for war or getting a bonus in peace time because of all the differences it's people have. Take note that what I'm saying includes a lot of Civ abstraction.

quote: It seems to me that you must mobilize, in order to attack/defend anything

You would have to be in mobilization 100% to feel completely safe. Having to be in mobilization would put such a hamper on every civ leading to a boring game. Every civ would have to be in mobilizaton. If not for war than for defence. You could say to attack/defend yourself in non-peaceful territory you would have to be in mobilization after your discovery of nationalism for it not to be very counter productive on the fun of the game. Even this would not add much interest to the game.

A high requirement for being able to receive the bonuses of peace time and mobilization would be the best route. Which I'm assuming is the way Civ3 is going to be. At least on the mobilization part, possibly not on the peace time bonus part.

	31-08-2001 07:19									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It seems to me that you must mobilize, in order to attack/defend anything

Not really, as per real life. When Australia started peace-keeping operations in East Timor, it was a fairly large military operation. However, our entire country wasnt devoted to the effort. Contrast this to Australia (and indeed every other country) during WW2, where the entire economy was devoted to the war effort.

Putting this into (how i see) Civ 3 terms, border skirmishes will still occur as per usual, military units will be able to attack/defend as per normal, and everything will continue as normal in 'normal' mode. Even military campaigns can be waged against other civs, only with each military unit being produced at full price.

Then, if you mobilize, you enter a 'bonus' mode for military. They either cost half as much to build or cost half as much to support (theres some debate on exactly what the bonus of mobilizing is). Thats it. They fight the same, move the same, defend the same...

	31-08-2001 09:59									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Actually a country can be at war and not have mobilized it's economy for war.

Nazi Germany during the Second World War is an example of this. Hitler didn't want to upset the civilian population, so they kept producing civilian goods at peacetime rates until 1943, after the disaster of Stalingrad.

Only then did the Germans mobilize their economy for 'total war'.

'Moblilizing' the economy of course is different from mobilizing your army for battle. That sends troops to the borders and the reservists to their units, which I think is what you are referring to when you say 'mobilize.' And you're right, too, in many ways. Russia had to mobilize it's entire front in WWI rather than just mobilize opposite Austria-Hungary as they had no plans for a partial mobilization.

Mind you, I think most countries can deal with minor incursions without mobilizing everything these days. The Fenians raids were repulsed from Canada without a nation (or Atlantic) wide mobilization, and the Chinese didn't mobilize everything to invade and crush Tibet.

So I think the 'mobilization' thing is dealing with the economic aspects, rather than the combat/military unit aspects, of things.

Phutnote

	31-08-2001 10:26									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

It seems that a civ can maintain a normal or peacetime economy while fighting some other civ. There are all levels of conflicts ranging from local skimishes to all-out wars. Plus I don't see the need to go to a war time economy if you have tanks and your opponent is stuck with spearmen

	31-08-2001 20:46									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by TechWins You would have to be in mobilization 100% to feel completely safe. Having to be in mobilization would put such a hamper on every civ leading to a boring game. Every civ would have to be in mobilizaton. If not for war than for defence. You could say to attack/defend yourself in non-peaceful territory you would have to be in mobilization after your discovery of nationalism for it not to be very counter productive on the fun of the game. Even this would not add much interest to the game.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger It seems that a civ can maintain a normal or peacetime economy while fighting some other civ. There are all levels of conflicts ranging from local skimishes to all-out wars. Plus I don't see the need to go to a war time economy if you have tanks and your opponent is stuck with spearmen

Hmm. Well, seen in retrospect I realize that forcing the player to mobilize wartime-economy, just to kill of some few loose-running border-aggressive AI-units, would most probably hamper the game in intolerable ways. It wouldnt be fun, I guess.
On the other hand, I dont think choosing between mobilized, normal or peace-economy should be a completely free choice regardless circumstances, either. Nationalism and enough culture-points (if the latter really is needed - Im still not sure about that) isnt enough by itself.

Peaceful economy should only be allowed if you really ARE at peace (or at least neutral) with everyone. And them with you. If not, this economy-option is faded (not available). This in order to prevent erratic economy-mode switching (which always is easier for the human player to exploit/misuse, then it is for the AI). Also, this firm peace-rule provides a good challenge for all the "diplomac victory" aimed players, as well.

The player should however be able to defend his own borders and attack intruding enemy-combat units anyway near his own property (including colonies and roads) also in normal-mode.

quote: Originally posted by Korn469 also it said once you mobilized for war that you must pick an enemy, and once you pick that enemy you cannot switch from a wartime economy back to either a normal economy or a peacetime economy until you had ended the war, so if for some reason you get in a stalemate with another civ then you are just stuck in a wartime economy...

I believe above is correct.

I have, however, a hard time believing that they allowed an alternative normal/peaceful economy way of military INVADE and CONQUER foreign cities and landareas. The chooseable (if preparing) or enforced (if invading) mobilized economy is a perfect game-feature in order to prevent endless self-feeding & self-fundable invasions-wars ala Civ-2. Early-modern and modern military wars (fullscale invasion-wars in particular) should be time-limited and concentrated blitz-krieg type of wars. And above mobilization ensures that it is in everybodys interest not to drag it out too long (= doubled civil city-improvement & wonder build-costs, remember). And happiness-related war-weariness also, the way I heared it in some other thread.

My reasons for above opinion is first and foremost (as ever) gameplay-motivated. I dont care so much for exclusively priggish historical arguments, since our history above all, is both relative and contradictive. IF you however have negative gameplay-related criticism (like TechWins "boring game" argument), I am more then willing to listen .

quote: this means maybe you could only have a peacetime economy when you weren't at war with anyone

Yes, it seems so to me also.