I suppose I just like my games to be games, not simulators.
A Discussion of Unit Maintenance Costs
- Thread starter L. Vern
- Start date
Yep, for civ I prefer it to be more realistic and believable, so more like a simulator indeed.I suppose I just like my games to be games, not simulators.
I'm not a fan of having unit costs simply scale with era. That would be like the current system with much more discrete and large jumps. Right now getting to a new era is an exciting thing to strive for; if it tanked your economy because your unit maintenance doubled over the course of one turn that wouldn't be very fun at all.
I've played 3 (working on 4th) heavily warmonger games on the 4.9-4.11 patches (1 immortal, 3 emperor) and I can confidently say that between the unit upgrade cost changes and the overall gold changes upgrading units is no longer easy.
I was broke as heck every game and struggled to upgrade my army at every tech unlock. I'd usually just upgrade the units on my most crucial front and slowly backfill other ones as I could afford it.
It's hard to make money as a global pariah these days.
paul_soryu
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2024
- Messages
- 39
I like the presented solution in general, but making the army cost more as it grows bigger may represent the difficulties of controlling and communicating a large army in the real world, with all the bureaucracy, hierarchies and logistics. So maybe something like a +1% or +0.5% of overall unit maintenance cost for every unit a player owns, which would be easily visible in the UI? Gold is abundant in late game, while in early game +10% to unit maintenance wouldn't make much difference (20 Classical era units with +10% costs would make 40+4). And buildings maintenance costs much more than units in late game (at least currently).
Considering proposed flat numbers:
- Post-Renaissance scout line has units which in real world seem to be more of an elite and specifically trained forces (like Special Forces
), which require better equipment, constant training to be in shape, and the best men available. In the game, they have unique abilities compared to regular infantry. Besides, the player probably won't have a lot of them in the late game (I usually have 2 hyper-promoted scouts from the early game, and some new ones to pillage and attack enemy's rear). So, I think they should be in the yellow cost zone.
- Tanks were produced in crazy amounts during WW2 by all sides, and even after the war at least by the Soviets (Russia keeps waging the War in Ukraine by restoring the seemingly endless stockpiles of Soviet tanks). So I imagine there would be a lot of spare parts and qualified repairers, and the cost of maintenance wouldn't be much higher. Infantry already has a discount compared to tanks. But if my view is historically inaccurate, then I am fine with higher cost.
- Continuing with tanks, this one is more specific: German tanks were significantly more difficult to maintain, and Soviet ones were easier, so maybe add a cheaper maintenance to Order's unique T-34 tanks, or an overall cheaper maintenance for all tanks in the Tenet which gives +33% Production to Tanks? Western tanks still seem to be more technological than Soviet/Russian/Chinese, and produced in smaller quantities.
- Nuclear Sub is a costly thing, not everyone can build and properly maintain it. But if goal is continuity of cost with previous subs, then I am okay.
- And finally: Nuclear Bombs and Rockets, as far as I know, are extremely costly to maintain and to keep it actually functional. One of the reasons Ukraine gave up its NW to Russia is because it was financially unable to properly maintain it. So if you do not use it immediately, and keep it as a deterrence against possible aggression, you should pay a lot for it. It is a big difference if you have NW at the start of a nuclear war, as opposed to you having to build it after your most industrious cities (or even all of your cities if you're playing tall) were nuked. I think it should cost even more than Carriers, 20 for Bomb and 30 for Rocket.
Otherwise, I like the idea and proposed changes.
P.S.: Is Authority's Conscript promotion intended to be lost after unit upgrade? Because this incentivizes not upgrading units if using them as garrison for Imperialism's Policy.
Considering proposed flat numbers:
- Post-Renaissance scout line has units which in real world seem to be more of an elite and specifically trained forces (like Special Forces
), which require better equipment, constant training to be in shape, and the best men available. In the game, they have unique abilities compared to regular infantry. Besides, the player probably won't have a lot of them in the late game (I usually have 2 hyper-promoted scouts from the early game, and some new ones to pillage and attack enemy's rear). So, I think they should be in the yellow cost zone.- Tanks were produced in crazy amounts during WW2 by all sides, and even after the war at least by the Soviets (Russia keeps waging the War in Ukraine by restoring the seemingly endless stockpiles of Soviet tanks). So I imagine there would be a lot of spare parts and qualified repairers, and the cost of maintenance wouldn't be much higher. Infantry already has a discount compared to tanks. But if my view is historically inaccurate, then I am fine with higher cost.
- Continuing with tanks, this one is more specific: German tanks were significantly more difficult to maintain, and Soviet ones were easier, so maybe add a cheaper maintenance to Order's unique T-34 tanks, or an overall cheaper maintenance for all tanks in the Tenet which gives +33% Production to Tanks? Western tanks still seem to be more technological than Soviet/Russian/Chinese, and produced in smaller quantities.
- Nuclear Sub is a costly thing, not everyone can build and properly maintain it. But if goal is continuity of cost with previous subs, then I am okay.
- And finally: Nuclear Bombs and Rockets, as far as I know, are extremely costly to maintain and to keep it actually functional. One of the reasons Ukraine gave up its NW to Russia is because it was financially unable to properly maintain it. So if you do not use it immediately, and keep it as a deterrence against possible aggression, you should pay a lot for it. It is a big difference if you have NW at the start of a nuclear war, as opposed to you having to build it after your most industrious cities (or even all of your cities if you're playing tall) were nuked. I think it should cost even more than Carriers, 20 for Bomb and 30 for Rocket.
Otherwise, I like the idea and proposed changes.
P.S.: Is Authority's Conscript promotion intended to be lost after unit upgrade? Because this incentivizes not upgrading units if using them as garrison for Imperialism's Policy.
Last edited:
I prefer the proposed change because:
- It's more intuitive (all info regarding individual unit's maintenance is vividly available, and you can recruit/disband without having to do math),
- Easier to balance (you can make changes to individual unit which needs rebalancing instead of going through the supply limitations hoops, and maintenance cost can be another balancing factor other than just pure combat related stats),
- And encourage specializing unit choices based on needs/tactics (ex getting cheaper/mass produced infantry if you want to stall/focus on defense, or paying big bucks for powerful tank when going on the quick offense)
I think both systems can work together, with supply cap acting as maximum military power a civ can have, and maintenance cost acting as optimal military power a civ should have. Ex you can stay at 30-40% supply cap during peace with only some elite garrisons, and during war you have a choice of either not changing against weaker enemies, or ramming up with mass produced unit against multiple enemies/fronts/wide civ, or ramming up with stronger/expensive units against a tall civ with choke point, or a combination of everything. Military composition changes based on needs would make war more dynamic. Balance-wise maintenance cost would have to be a lot higher or disbanding unit should give back small part of the cost to justify doing so after each war (and refresh the dynamic for the next war)
- It's more intuitive (all info regarding individual unit's maintenance is vividly available, and you can recruit/disband without having to do math),
- Easier to balance (you can make changes to individual unit which needs rebalancing instead of going through the supply limitations hoops, and maintenance cost can be another balancing factor other than just pure combat related stats),
- And encourage specializing unit choices based on needs/tactics (ex getting cheaper/mass produced infantry if you want to stall/focus on defense, or paying big bucks for powerful tank when going on the quick offense)
I think both systems can work together, with supply cap acting as maximum military power a civ can have, and maintenance cost acting as optimal military power a civ should have. Ex you can stay at 30-40% supply cap during peace with only some elite garrisons, and during war you have a choice of either not changing against weaker enemies, or ramming up with mass produced unit against multiple enemies/fronts/wide civ, or ramming up with stronger/expensive units against a tall civ with choke point, or a combination of everything. Military composition changes based on needs would make war more dynamic. Balance-wise maintenance cost would have to be a lot higher or disbanding unit should give back small part of the cost to justify doing so after each war (and refresh the dynamic for the next war)
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
It will never be a choice between strategic resource units and resource-free units unless you make maintenance costs astronomical.
Also, balancing maintenance costs of units will quickly become a nightmare mishmash of disparate costs that won't actually do anything to balance unit strength.
Also, balancing maintenance costs of units will quickly become a nightmare mishmash of disparate costs that won't actually do anything to balance unit strength.
It's just like balancing 4UC. It's an additional knob to tweak.
Yes, the promotion is lost on upgrade. I think this is close to reality. Conscripts are meant to fill in the rank and expendable.
I don't know how unit maintenance influences it currently (I think it has a considerable impact) but it regularly annoys me how my gold income jumps up and down (in mid to late eras) without me changing anything drastically. One turn I'm fine, the next I'm getting in trouble and I rarely really understand why. I suspect unit maintenance being part of this problem. But even when I send a trade route it doesn't add the supposed gold income onto my total income and I don't get why.
So yeah, maybe a rather flat number kind of solution might be helpful for this?
So yeah, maybe a rather flat number kind of solution might be helpful for this?
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
Why would you suspect unit maintenance to be the problem? Are you seeing radical shifts in the number of units you own from turn to turn?
Yeah, sorry, I've misread the formula in the opening post. Unit maintenance is probably not a big factor in this. Could've been something like upgrading numerous units and seeing my gold income dwindle one turn later. I withdraw my statement 
KungCheops
Warlord
If we want units to have different supply costs, maybe we could give it a couple of decimals (multiply all values by 100).
