quote: Originally posted by XIWVWIX on 03-02-2001 02:05 PM ie, Russians T-40s during WW2, i think they produced 1,000 per day or so, of course i could be wrong

Even though I don't know the real figures, I am sure the Russians could not have produced 1000 of these tanks per day. However, their production was probably very high - granted.

quote: Originally posted by XIWVWIX on 03-02-2001 02:05 PM (ie, Russians T-40s during WW2, i think they produced 1,000 per day or so, of course i could be wrong)

The tank was called T-34. They never produced 1000 per day, the real figure was closer to 100 per day, but they really out produced the germans.

Too bad in Civilization games it takes 40 turns to produce ONE Musketeer unit (for small cities with no industrial facilities).

The units here are representing armies of mostly the same unit who have a main goal.

When your war's over, or you otherwise no longer need them, you can disband them, which would add the population points back to the city whence they came. Say you build 15 militia units from one city, and 8 die. When you disband them you would get one pop point back. Of course, this depends on whether Civ3 has city-based or civ-based military support.

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 03-05-2001 08:25 PM The most glaring flaw in Civ 2 regarding the combat system - units don't take away population.

Is that really a flaw? throughout most of history armies were fairly small
relative to population (large infantry armies of 1860-1918 being exceptional)- the limitation was ability to support armies - which we have in civ2 - EXCEPT IN FUNDIE - but fundie as modeled in civ2 is absurd.

quote: throughout most of history armies were fairly small relative to population

Hmmm, not sure about this.
AFAIK the reduction of working population (because men were in army) was a major factor of old army limits.

Limitd support was related to number of workers available (excess of production was very limited, slaves were used to improve things a bit, too).
So when an army token the most part of male population, the production suffers a lot. Quite often wars where "suspended" to let soldiers harvest the wheat and save from famine during winter.

When a war was lost, lot of valid people was lost too (killed or enslaved). When bloody wars ended, often looser civilization lost "ground" (halted the development) for a generation or two.
In Civ or SMAC we have the silly opposite effect: if one unit is killed you GAIN productivity , because the support shield become free!

I don't care if Firaxis must change the pop number to match reduction for soldiers, just do it

In this line I'm ready to propose a little change in City support of army: introduce a new specialist: soldier.
Please go to see my dedicated new thread here.

AFAIK, it depended on the time period and the dominant military techs. When armies are dominated by infantry, with large numbers and low resource requirements per soldier, that is true. When armies are dominated by heavily armed cavalry, or highly trained infantry (eg roman legions) the CIV2 support model is more accurate. An added level of complexity is added in societies like the Roman Republic, which recruited from particular social classes, and so might face a recruitment crisis even when the total population was large.

Anyway, I agree about heavy cavalry coming from high class, still army used infantry in most of the battles (I'm not counting skirmishes here).

Heavy cavalry are supported from serf, too (I hope I'm using the correct translation here) that come from lower classes.

Anyway, we agree that in real world armies use population (robot not included here ), I hope Firaxis will find a playable way to take this more in account that from Shield supports only.

It really remember me when at work my boss use the word human resouces as if we where speaking of coal or wood