quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 02-11-2001 01:36 PM Support for units should be in gold! Or it should atleast be changeble to gold for scenario creators.

Ditto!!! Military support costs money!

quote: I dont't know how CTP did unit management, but I like the idea of nationwide support where resources from all cities are pooled into one large collection for units. However, individual cities should still build the units.

Individual cities still built the units, but production was taken from a pool for unit support. More powerful and advanced units took more support than simple units.

quote: Then on organized governments, the support could be spread to the entire nation and for less decentralized governments, support could go to individual cities.

I like this idea. I don't think anybody's thought of this yet. I think we need some more opinions.......

Just trying to keep this near the top. I feel this an important issue.

quote: Individual cities still built the units, but production was taken from a pool for unit support. More powerful and advanced units took more support than simple units.

Let me clarify what I had in mind.
I do not think production for units should be taken from an national pool. Instead, the cities production level determines how fast that city can make units. Then, after the unit is made, support for the unit would go the pool for the entire nation (or individual cities) depending on government.

I think this way is more realistic and more reasonable.
And maybe that's what you had in mind too, but I thought I'd clarify what I meant nonetheless.

quote: Then on organized governments, the support could be spread to the entire nation and for less decentralized governments, support could go to individual cities

You have to watch out as to how you look at history. Sure, we have a department of defense, but the entire concept of a nation is only a modern phenomenon. Nationwide support for things would be ludicrous in any time period before, say, the 17th Century. Jeez, look at a roster of a Civil War battle. 17th Massachusetts, 3rd New Jersey. Everything is regional before you have a strong national government. I agree that maybe after you get the final "city picture", you can then have nation-wide support, or maybe after the industrial "city picture" for monarchies. Not the whole time, though.

quote: Originally posted by GaryGuanine on 02-20-2001 03:15 AM Guys, You have to watch out as to how you look at history. Sure, we have a department of defense, but the entire concept of a nation is only a modern phenomenon. Nationwide support for things would be ludicrous in any time period before, say, the 17th Century. Jeez, look at a roster of a Civil War battle. 17th Massachusetts, 3rd New Jersey. Everything is regional before you have a strong national government. I agree that maybe after you get the final "city picture", you can then have nation-wide support, or maybe after the industrial "city picture" for monarchies. Not the whole time, though. Gary

Very true, but we have to keep in mind that this is a game. Not everything can be perfectly accurate. Some things have to be kept simple.

every unit should have a home base that supports it in shields and each military unit should take one gold from the national treasury every turn in upkeep...but if can't afford to pay your troops they riot and revolt, but don't disband...but when you do disband a military unit it should cost you two gold as a discharge fee...if you couldn't afford this then you couldn't disband your unit

Completely abandoning the Civ approach to military support will represent a major gameplay shift. I mean, changing the rules will affect:

1) Individual city design (manufacturing/trade center, food, etc.) Some cities were shield producers because they could make units quickly and support them well: Athens was for culture, Sparta was for war.

2) Fighting wars over large areas: supporting and building units in cities you've taken from the enemy far from your empire would be easier. Since there would be no penalty from pumping out units from you're newly conquered city under nation-wide unit support, wouldn't this change warfare in Civ altogether, and would the result be better?

3) Larger empires would be easier to maintain earlier in the game, which isn't what people wanted, I thought.

The way I see it, this is good because it improves both the Government system and the support system.

I like the idea of support changing as a function of government, maybe also/or as a function of time. I would just reverse your two suggestions: Monarchy pays gold, and democracy/republic pays city support. This is just because democracy/republics predominantly are decentralized forms of government throughout most of history.

Despotism: Units supported nationally with both shields AND gold. Autocratic Governments like these were more centralized around a single ruler, hence the national cost. The shields are for maintainance, and the money is to pay the troops do they simply won't leave your oppresive regime. On the other hand, maybe gold should be not much, and the troops stay in line simply out of fear of your great person...

Monarchy: Units supported by city with gold. The Feudalistic system of the time put more authority and responsibility on feudal lords, or vassals. Typically, military during this time were hired mercenaries (i.e. knights, samurai) who provided their own supplies but needed monetary compensation.

Republic: Units supported by city with shields. Republics stress the autonomy of the city-state. Military service is usually required in event of a war, so although monetary compensation is not needed soldiers still must be supported with food and supplies from the government.

Communism: Units supported nationally with shields. Communist governments are strongly centralized, and military service is often compulsory so only weapons and supplies are needed.

Fundamentalism: Units supported nationally with a minimum of shields. Fundamentalist governments revolve around a central church or authority, hence the nationalization. The zealots that compose their armies, however, fight for your countries' sake and need no direct monetary compensation and little government support.

Democracy: Units supported nationally with gold AND shields. Funny how this is like despotism, huh? A democracy like the US and most modern European nations has a centralized military, which it needs both to pay and to support with supplies. Given the freedom in a democracy, many will not part with it readily to fight with little compensation.

Other goverments (CTP comes to mind, theocracy, fascism, and other "future" governments) can fit this model too.