costs of supporting units

[aeldrik]

here a few Ideas, since having each and every unit costing 1 Gold/Turn is unrealistic

1/the cost in gold should be dependent on the type of goverment
2/ A conscript unit should be cheaper then a Elite Unit
3/ More advanced Units should be more expenive (depending on the era)
4/ Mechanized Units as well as ships and planes should be more expensive then foot units

The cost of Spying should also be reduced since one would have less money, available

here is what a unit would f.e. cost:

In the ancient times, a regular or conscript Unit should be free, a veteran cost 1 Gold, an Elite Unit 2, ships should cost one more then normal units.

In the middle ages, a regular unit should cost 1, veteran 2, elite 3 and ships cost one more then normal units

In the Industrial Era, a conscript cost 1 (this is the first era where you can recruit them),
regular 2, Veteran 3, Elite 4, planes 5, Mechanized Units and ships should cost 1 gold more per Unit to maintain then normal Units

In the modern Times, a conscript cost 2, Regular 3 Veteran 4, Elite 5, planes 6, again Mech Units and ships one more then normal Units

artillery should always cost one as much as an Elite Unit

In praxis, this would make it a lot more realistic, since Economic factors would limit the number of units, and ending this awfull gameplay where the smallest CIVs on the map have 50+ subs going around ( a sub would now cost 5-6 gold/turn to maintain), making the game as slow as possible, and would make it much more difficult to research techs in the minimum possible time. Let's be honest, the way now one has 5-10 Units in every city + a lot of units on the field waging war is unrealistics, most cities on earth are not constantly protected by so many soldiers....

I hope some of you agree with this, maybe for CIV4...

 

[Karhgath]

1) It already is. Go in governments, in the Unit Support section, there's Cost/Unit.
2) Well, since you can only build a 'level' of unit(normal or veteran), it's not really possible, but if you meant the support cost... yeah, it could be useful, but I don't know if it's going to be a good idea... mass regular units will slaughter a smaller number of elite units, since the elite units just gets more HP, and not better stats. Unless you give elite units +2/3 hp more to make a difference.
3) It might be cool having some units costing more per turns than other, that might be nice theorically, but I dunno if it's going to change much the game mechanics, probably not worth it.
4) Same as above.

 

[Dida]

good idea.

but i don't thnk elite unit should cost more than regular unit.
but definity naval and air units, and nuclear weapons the most of all, should be more expensive to maintain than a warrior.

 

[aeldrik]

Dida got the Idea, there is off course a lot of room for changes, or discussion, but mainly I thought it unlogical that a nuke or a sub costs as much to maintain as a warrior, and I also think there are just too many units on the map because there are too cheap to maintain
Karhgath: with gov, I didn't just mean the number of free units, I mean that soldiers in a Democracy are paid a lot more than in a communist regime, or a dictatureship, I think this would be even a lot better than the free units concept

 

[Dida]

don't know about the govt. part. but definity, make some advanced/high cost unit more expensive to maintain. An ICBM should cost at least 10 gold to maintain.

 

[Akka]

I'm all for it.

Support cost should AT LEAST dependant of the unit. Then, there could be a multiplier for government and experience.

 

[slothman]

Experience shouldn't affect cost since the units don't have better weapons, they just know more on how to dodge enemies. Though if it could be modded that would be great. The rest I like as do zillions of other who mentioned it or agreed. It could do wonders for custom mods. Especially if wonders affected cost as well. Pun intended.

 

[aeldrik]

the point of making an Elite Unit more expensive is to reflect that the best soldiers want to be paid more, that's normal human behaviour.... a beginner will get less money than an expert...

 

[Suki]

that and have support cost more depending on the distance from a friendly city, you know to represent all the work it takes to get to supply them...

 

[Commander Bello]

I disagree to the idea of different gold consumption per unit / experience level.
First, in most armies of the world you are paid by rank. So, a elite sergeant still is a sergeant, he isn't a general (and doesn't get the general's payment, either
Second, the gold consumption is just an abstract replacement of the 'real' cash flows. I mean, a nation with 30+ cities of 12+ inhabitants gets more tax revenues than just some 1500 gpt, doesn't it?
What I like much more is the idea of units consuming population when being created (especially, since this works fine in my games and makes for a much less war-oriented game). By that, you solidly avoid this little island nation to cover the ocean with subs.
And that annoying mountain tribe no longer will be capable of sending 20+ cavalries into your food producing province....

 

[aeldrik]

@Commander Bello: I agree with you that making building units cost Pop is the best available mean to fix the problem now, but there is one Point you are missing or forgetting, how do you explain that an Infantry unit costs the same as a sub? If you say that it's because you have one sub, and in the infantry unit thousands of men, then the one pop/per Unit should also be modified, maybe making Infantry units cost 2 pop points, which is too much..... I hope you understand why I think this system is not optimal

 

[Commander Bello]

@Aeldrik:
I get your point and I agree to it.
This is, way in my games I make all land units (excepts for scouts) consume one pop, while naval and air units just cost shields.
On the other hand, land units are allowed to join cities later again.
According to my point of view, this will simulate the man-power of land units (which I see as divisions or something similar) and the dependancy from technical stuff for the other units - at least in a satisfactory, but not perfect way.

 

[aeldrik]

your system is not bad, but the main thing I wanted was to disminish the number of subs/ships which is just ridiculous because as you said, a tiny Island nation can fill the ocean making the game incredibly slow...

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by aeldrik
your system is not bad, but the main thing I wanted was to disminish the number of subs/ships which is just ridiculous because as you said, a tiny Island nation can fill the ocean making the game incredibly slow...

You mean like England did (but prior to subs) ?

Actually I really agree with the idea of different costs for different units, mostly to represent mercenaries. But it won't be in even though it has been mentionned fairly often already !

 

[aeldrik]

even England didn't have that many units, and most Important, the British had, in comparison to other nations, a very little "land" army to compensate....
A fleet like the british would still be possible with this system, it would only, because of its cost, only be available to a republic or a democracy (just like England was at that time) with a lot of trade and not a lot of other units....

 

[yoshi]

You'd think that most players would dislike the fact that a Warrior costs the same amount of gold to maintain as does a Battleship but apparentely this is not the case.

If you really are interested in Individual Unit Maintenance Cost then I suggest you visit this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61675

(Unbelievably, the thread's already at the bottom of page 3 of the ''C3C Requests" forum...go figure!)

I would really appreciate it if someone posted there --it deserves better.