New Reduced Military Unit Cost Option for Players who Favor Warfare

MosheLevi · May 7, 2009

I would like to suggest adding a new game option to CIV 5 (mainly for single player) where all Military Units cost 50% less.

This option will make it more fun for those of us who prefer Warfare over other winning avenues.

In my campaigns I noticed that I am doing better compared to the computer players when I minimize warfare.
Warfare is long and very costly forcing us to spend the majority of Production on military units instead of improving our cities.
The reward of long warfare usually doesnt pay for its cost.

Adding an option for reduced military unit cost will allow us to expand our cities and to build enough units for warfare.
Warfare will also be more cost effective and more beneficial for the long term.

Such option should also reduce the cost of upgrading old military units.

Again, this should be just a game option for those of us who like to engage in warfare with huge stacks of military units.

rysmiel · May 7, 2009

MosheLevi said:
I would like to suggest adding a new game option to CIV 5 (mainly for single player) where all Military Units cost 50% less.

This option will make it more fun for those of us who prefer Warfare over other winning avenues.

Can we have a version that works the other way around, too, for those of us who are builders by temperament ?

MosheLevi · May 7, 2009

rysmiel said:
Can we have a version that works the other way around, too, for those of us who are builders by temperament ?

That could work too.
I see no reason why we shouldn't have that too.

Camikaze · May 8, 2009

I completely disagree with this. To me, it seems like, "Can we change the game to suit my style of gameplay", instead of, "Can I change my style of gameplay to suit the game."

Warfare is long and costly for a reason. And it is not to spoil your fun.

rysmiel · May 8, 2009

Camikaze said:
I completely disagree with this. To me, it seems like, "Can we change the game to suit my style of gameplay", instead of, "Can I change my style of gameplay to suit the game."

Warfare is long and costly for a reason. And it is not to spoil your fun.

Warfarae is massively overpowered in every Civ game to date; if you;re going to have victory conditions other than conquering the world, conquering the world should not be trivially much easier than the rest of them in a straight contest, no ?

Camikaze · May 8, 2009

rysmiel said:
Warfarae is massively overpowered in every Civ game to date; if you;re going to have victory conditions other than conquering the world, conquering the world should not be trivially much easier than the rest of them in a straight contest, no ?

No, I agree with you. It's the 'let's make warfare easier' tack I don't like.

Shackel · May 8, 2009

Well, when you think about it, unless you remove the Conquer option, it WOULD make more sense than...

1. Taking over near the entire world(usually by war)
2. Waiting until the Future Era
3. Waiting for the U.N./Getting enough friends(TOO EASY) to win Apos. Palace

and

4. Putting 3 cities far back into your borders so you can give them every religion, religious building, world wonder, and Great Artists you have to get them to Legendary.

Also, that is sounding a bit too much like a super powered "Trait".

MosheLevi · May 8, 2009

rysmiel said:
Warfarae is massively overpowered in every Civ game to date; if you;re going to have victory conditions other than conquering the world, conquering the world should not be trivially much easier than the rest of them in a straight contest, no ?

This option (to make military units cost half their cost) is NOT going to make Warfare overpower.

It will allow you to build more units but so can the AI.
Warfare will then be more dynamic and more involved because there will be more SoDs around the map.

I once made similar mod for Medieval 2: Total War and that made the game more fun because there were more armies with more units around the map and as a result battles were more frequent with larger armies.

Other then bigger warfare this option will free up more hammers to expand our cities faster (since units are cheaper) so other victory conditions are still viable.
You just have to make sure you have large enough army to defend yourself when you are at war.

UWHabs · May 8, 2009

There already is this option - it's called Marathon speed.

Shackel · May 8, 2009

You see a "Master Builder(Unofficial name I shall use for 50% builder trait)".

You are a "Warmonger(Name for 50% War bonus I made up)".

Master Builder wouldn't stand a chance. A wave of soldiers would overwhelm his buildings. This one would not work out so well in a TBS, and, sometimes, even in RTSes.

((I played M2TW, but I epically failed at the economy. When I DID get the hang of it, I had gotten bored. Haven't played it since, now that I play RoM(Rise of Mankind)))

Xellos-_^ · May 8, 2009

I never had a problem with building enough units for war. Several times i sent out multi SToD with 200+ units. So No, i don't think Warmonger need more help in building units. Currently there is already ways to increase unit building with Military Academies and there is also Universal Sufferage which allows you to use cash to rush units or building.

rysmiel · May 8, 2009

Shackel said:
Well, when you think about it, unless you remove the Conquer option, it WOULD make more sense than...

1. Taking over near the entire world(usually by war)
2. Waiting until the Future Era
3. Waiting for the U.N./Getting enough friends(TOO EASY) to win Apos. Palace

and

4. Putting 3 cities far back into your borders so you can give them every religion, religious building, world wonder, and Great Artists you have to get them to Legendary.

This depends on whether your preferred value of "sense" is "makes for a good game" or "plausible in the real world".

rysmiel · May 8, 2009

MosheLevi said:
You just have to make sure you have large enough army to defend yourself when you are at war.

And there's the problem.

You want to win by conquest, you have to build a big army.

You want to win the space race and not be conquered, you have to build a big army.

You want to win by culture and not be overwhelmed, you have to build a big army.

Nowhere in this model is there strategic variation from the "have to build a big army" premise.

rysmiel · May 8, 2009

Shackel said:
You see a "Master Builder(Unofficial name I shall use for 50% builder trait)".

You are a "Warmonger(Name for 50% War bonus I made up)".

Master Builder wouldn't stand a chance. A wave of soldiers would overwhelm his buildings.

Not without a rebalancing of the game, no. Consider:

a) Master Builder focuses on marketplaces and banks. Master Builder is a lot richer than Warmonger. Master Builder can send out spies to bribe half Warmonger's units to change sides.

b) Master Builder focuses on libraries and universities. By the time Warmonger gets a wave of Iron Age legions built and to Master Builder's cities, Master Builder has got to gunpowder and Master Builder's handful of musketeers can pick off legions all day long.

c) Master Builder pushes for culture. The longer Warmonger's invading units are off home ground, the more likely they are to defect to a civilisation much more impressive and happier than the one they originate from.

MosheLevi · May 8, 2009

There already is this option - it's called Marathon speed.

But unit production also cost more, doesn’t it?

I wouldn’t mind playing on Marathon speed where military unit cost is according to Normal speed.

Nowhere in this model is there strategic variation from the "have to build a big army" premise.

So be it.

That can be an option for players who just want to conquer the world with large armies, and not worry too much about being behind technologically.

I am thinking of making such a Mod for BtS for Normal speed where all units cost is reduced by half.
I also want to decrease the cost for upgrading units.

It’s probably is going to be a lot of work.
In any case, I will make that mod and try it out.

rysmiel · May 8, 2009

MosheLevi said:
That can be an option for players who just want to conquer the world with large armies, and not worry too much about being behind technologically.

But that's not Civ any more; it just becomes Risk, no ?

MosheLevi · May 8, 2009

rysmiel said:
But that's not Civ any more; it just becomes Risk, no ?

Lol, well you can call it Civ 5: Total War.

But again, it is just a game option among many other game options.
You check it only if you want to play a Risk/Total War type game.

There are a lot of Total War fans out there (me included), so I am sure that this option will appeal to many of them.

TheMeInTeam · May 8, 2009

This option exists in Civ IV, without any mods at all.

Select "marathon" game speed.

MosheLevi · May 8, 2009

TheMeInTeam said:
This option exists in Civ IV, without any mods at all.

Select "marathon" game speed.

But unit production also cost more, doesnt it?

I wouldnt mind playing on Marathon speed where military unit cost is according to Normal speed.

UWHabs · May 8, 2009

MosheLevi said:
But unit production also cost more, doesnt it?

I wouldnt mind playing on Marathon speed where military unit cost is according to Normal speed.

Techs and buildings are 3X cost, units are 2X cost, so units are "50%" cheaper.

New Reduced Military Unit Cost Option for Players who Favor Warfare

Prince

Emperor

Prince

Moderator

Emperor

Moderator

Still a Settler D:

Prince

Deity

Still a Settler D:

Prince

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Prince

Emperor

Prince

If A implies B...

Prince

Deity

Similar threads

New Reduced Military Unit Cost Option for Players who Favor Warfare