Do you want each Unit to have it's own Maintenace Cost?

[yoshi]

Essentially, this means adding a 'Maintenace' field into the Editor's 'Units' window.

There are other issues but if you want to talk about those then I suggest you see this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1295256#post1295256

Please vote here. Thanks.

 

[Akka]

Of course

It would be INCREDIBLY useful for modding, not speaking about giving the possibility to choose between a lot of weak and cheap units and a few of strong and expensive units.

I'm ALL for it.

 

[warpstorm]

Yes. Even if the main game sets them all to one, I'd like the option for mods.

 

[casual_moose]

that would be a good idea.

 

[slothman]

If this were public we could see those who wanted to vote no on it. BTW does CFF have public polls? I know that can be hacked as I saw it elsewhere. I voted yes. It would even easier allow weakers units to be more useful like marines and paratroopers with a smaller cost.

 

[warpstorm]

Actually, marines and paratroopers should have higher costs (than, say, normal infantry, less than battleships) as they are higher maintenance units in real life. (This is a reality vs game balance issue).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree, Warpstorm, that Marines should have a higher maintainance value than standard infantry, but I reckon that Paratroopers should have a LOWER cost than infantry (but not by much). My reason is that it simulates, to some extent, the ability for Paratroopers to act for long periods of time far behind enemy lines! To compensate, the build cost for paratroopers should be greater than present!
Ideally, I'd prefer to have both units with higher maintainence cost, but with Paratroopers having a greater 'Operational Range' (i.e. the range they can go beyond friendly territory!) This, of course, would require the concept of 'Operational Range' which doesn't look like ever happening ! Though I can always keep wishing!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Akka]

This is not even a reality vs game balance.
This is a reality AND game balance vs nothing.

There is NO drawback to having independant unit cost, and plenty of advantages.

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by Akka
There is NO drawback to having independant unit cost, and plenty of advantages.

From your point of view as a gamer. From the point of view of a software developer or the publisher that's a different story. My best guess is that this would cost a few thousand dollars (most likely less than 10, but I really don't know how much work there needs to be done on the AI to get this to work) to put in the game. Ask yourself, if it was your money that was on the line, would you pay your programmers to add this? Weigh the cost versus return on investment. Would this feature actually generate more sales? Is it worth the risk of potentially adding more bugs?

Okay, I'm not picking on this idea. I like this idea a lot and think it should be in there. I'm just pointing out that you aren't looking at all sides of the equation. I don't actually think that Firaxis is purely profit driven in their thinking. Wanting to make good games does seem to be their primary motivation. In the past they've added features that people wanted even when there wasn't a good 'business case' for it, just because it would make for a better game.

This thought process can be applied to every possible change to the code.

 

[yoshi]

-----------------------------------------
FYI: Vote at this time is 10 to 3 in favor of Individual Unit Maintenance Costs.
-----------------------------------------

Even if the main game sets them all to one, I'd like the option for mods.

The problem with setting them all to one is that the result is essentially the same as it is now. That means that the developer has little incentive to opt for something will involve a lot of work but that only modders will use. I think it SHOULD be included into the core game but values should not be too extreme so as to avoid altering strategy in the core game too much (e.g. Infantry=1, Tanks=2 --just to distinguish between them). I should think that would be exceptable to most players.

If this were public we could see those who wanted to vote no on it.

It would only be good if it were the case that people who don't care just vote NO for the hell of it, but I doubt that is the case --although I admit that conservatism (i.e. not wanting things to change) is a factor.
'Public' votes don't work because no one wants to be criticized for going against the majority. If voters want their reasons to be known, they can always post on this thread --I encourage people to do that because it's more specific than just a YES/NO vote.
There are legitimate reasons for not wanting this, but the reasons in favor of adding in this 'feature' far outway the reasons for not doing so.

It would even easier allow weakers units to be more useful like marines and paratroopers with a smaller cost.

Realism aside, the game balance issue does not really affect units like Paratroopers and Marines as they are units with special abilities thus they cannot be substituted by other units. Since they cost more to build and have lower defence than Infantry they cannot substitute Infantry either. Tanks, Modern Armor and Mech. Inf. on the other hand, coincide with Infantry and have a basic attack/defence role that is similar to that of Infantry. This means that assuming you have all resources covered and can afford the time, building Tanks will only cost you more shields (which cost nothing --Factories and "opportunity cost" aside). So in other words, if you have the time to spare, you can forget Infantry altogether and just build Tanks which do everything Infantry can do (except be 'Drafted,' which is usually only used in emergencies) and more. Whenever I play, I garrison all my cities with Tanks as soon as possible and disband the inferior Infantry units.
Where reality is concerned, this is absurd and where gameplay is concerned, it means there is little to distiguish between light and heavy units. Granted, you could just give Infantry a bonus vs Cities thus giving them a more unique role in the tactical sense, but the advantage limited to certain situations and is not really all that effective in the long term.
This does not deal with the problem of having hundreds of Tanks that cost no more than hundreds of Infantry --assuming you have the time to build them. Heavy, advanced units needs to come with an overall cost just to give the game a little balance where unit roles are concerned.

Personally, I never liked the fact that this feature wasn't in Civ2 but I assumed Civ3 would include this because of the new generalized, gold-based maintenance feature. At first I couldn't believe it wasn't included but the fact that the AI limits applicablity would explain the absence of IUMC. Civ2 would definitely have had a little trouble in that department...

 

[Agraza]

I'd want maitenance costs to be capable of being variable with improvements, wonders, small wonders, surplus resources, era, technology, etc.

Such as that with swordsmen you can build them with iron but with 2 iron your cost lowers. then people could weigh whether they wished to export their strategetic resources. I'm not sure if 3 and 4 and the such should have an effect but if you made it moddable then it wouldn't matter much.

Or if you can build musketmen, pikemen have a smaller maitenance cost. or in era differences if you get to the mideival era then all ancient era units are cheaper maitenance.

have improvements which lower military maitenance akin to those that lower corruption. Things like "Supply Depot" which can only be built after a Barracks or something.

also I'd like some small wonders to gain a specifc shield production bonus. like when you mobilize your nation? let barracks produce veteran land units and this item increase production when building military units. and another for when building planes, etc. perhaps these would only be small wonders. Like "Boot Camp" would increase production of most land based units. "Top Gun" would increase production of air units, etc. Perhaps more generic names.