bernlin2000
Prince
On principle they wouldn't be much of a gift if your maintenance costs go through the roof when you get units that would go beyond your resources.
limited resorces
- Thread starter slo
- Start date
On principle they wouldn't be much of a gift if your maintenance costs go through the roof when you get units that would go beyond your resources.
Psyringe
Scout
Well the best way to answer that is to find out if Civilization IV has gifted units that cost maintenance. I don't actually know, but it would probably answer that question
In Civ4, once a unit has been gifted to you, it's treated just like every other of your units, i.e. it will cost maintenance if you're paying maintenance for the others (this depends on the civics you're running).
However, in Civ4 maintenance costs are small and easily manageable (usually 0-1 gold coin per unit), and from the reports so far it seems that Civ5's "hefty" maintenance penalty will be some orders of magnitude bigger.
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
I'll have to admit I like the idea of limited units per resource. But they should have gone about it another way.
I would have created a resource and trade inventory.
At start of a new map resources would be generated in small (50 units), medium(100 units), and large quantities (200 units). They would also be categorized into depletable and renewable categories with depletable (iron,coal,oil) being exhausted over time and renewable (fish,wheat,horses) renewing 1 unit every couple turns. A plot with a resource would require an improvement to "extract" it into the resource and trade inventory. Once built, these improvements can then be set to the quantity extracted per turn (1 unit,2 unit, 3 unit per turn) but rushed extraction would cost more gold and increased chances of the "mine collapses" event to ocur. Military units with resource requirement would use up 1 unit of that resource from the inventory every time 1 is built. Resource unit quantity in inventory can be traded for another resource quantity for gold or whatever in diplomacy or plundered by a corporation or spy that another civ owns.
Would add a great micro-management for the none-warmongerer and a more open ended feel instead of limiting unit per resource.
I would have created a resource and trade inventory.
At start of a new map resources would be generated in small (50 units), medium(100 units), and large quantities (200 units). They would also be categorized into depletable and renewable categories with depletable (iron,coal,oil) being exhausted over time and renewable (fish,wheat,horses) renewing 1 unit every couple turns. A plot with a resource would require an improvement to "extract" it into the resource and trade inventory. Once built, these improvements can then be set to the quantity extracted per turn (1 unit,2 unit, 3 unit per turn) but rushed extraction would cost more gold and increased chances of the "mine collapses" event to ocur. Military units with resource requirement would use up 1 unit of that resource from the inventory every time 1 is built. Resource unit quantity in inventory can be traded for another resource quantity for gold or whatever in diplomacy or plundered by a corporation or spy that another civ owns.
Would add a great micro-management for the none-warmongerer and a more open ended feel instead of limiting unit per resource.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
incorrect speculation.
That is really funny.That scenario only makes sense if the enemy archer was a nice female elf,.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I'm grateful that they didn't do this.
Massive amounts of complexity for no design gain at all.
Resource depletion is not fun. And it is much easier to restrict and balance flows than stocks.
And what happens in your example when your oil runs out? Your entire economy might crash and burn. Whether realistic or not; not fun.
The design they have used is clearly the best; simple and elegant, without requiring any micromanagement.
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
Complex? This is child's math! With hardly no managing other than trading resources. Offers more diplomatic opportunities to build good relations with other civz (and negative if caught stealing). If you lack the resources will make you think twice about invading someone. A motivation for expanding into other lands. And realism IS fun! Something that continues to be taken out from the civ series with every release!
Wondering....Is this a side effect of the drug culture or the consolers trying to sabotage the computer gaming industry by dumbing it all down to the point where your imagination is no longer required?
Wondering....Is this a side effect of the drug culture or the consolers trying to sabotage the computer gaming industry by dumbing it all down to the point where your imagination is no longer required?
Ahriman
Tyrant
You really don't see a difference in complexity between:
System A:
Find a resource, build an improvement, build units up to that cap.
System B:
Find a resource, build an improvement, specify an extraction rate (trading off resource income and stockpiling vs depletion risks), build units consuming resources - but worry about losing them, because the resources are gone forever.
An elegantly designed game is one that is as simple as possible.
I don't want to have to think about resource extraction rates every time I build a mine.
Its also of totally the wrong scale: if your system really only has a resource be consumed when a unit is built, then even a single mine is letting you build one new unit per turn, which in effect means the resource constraint isn't binding.
It also punishes you even more than normal for not using resources - in your system, it doesn't matter how many units of the type you have, and losing a unit loses you its resource allocation forever.
And in fact, less so in your system, since other peoples' resources will be partly depleted and so less useful.
Nor is resource depletion. This was one of the most hated features of Civ3.
In Civ4, one oil resource was enough to fuel an unlimited number of tanks and aircraft and ships.
Remind me how Civ5 is less realistic?
The Civ5 resource system is more complex than for Civ4.
How does your system require more "imagination"? It just requires more micromanagement.
System A:
Find a resource, build an improvement, build units up to that cap.
System B:
Find a resource, build an improvement, specify an extraction rate (trading off resource income and stockpiling vs depletion risks), build units consuming resources - but worry about losing them, because the resources are gone forever.
An elegantly designed game is one that is as simple as possible.
I don't want to have to think about resource extraction rates every time I build a mine.
Its also of totally the wrong scale: if your system really only has a resource be consumed when a unit is built, then even a single mine is letting you build one new unit per turn, which in effect means the resource constraint isn't binding.
It also punishes you even more than normal for not using resources - in your system, it doesn't matter how many units of the type you have, and losing a unit loses you its resource allocation forever.
You have resource trading in the existing simple system.
You have this in the existing simple system.
You have this in the existing simple system.
And in fact, less so in your system, since other peoples' resources will be partly depleted and so less useful.
Pointless micromanagement is not fun.
Nor is resource depletion. This was one of the most hated features of Civ3.
Really... did you even *play* the early versions of Civ? How is Civ2 less realistic than Civ1? How is Civ5 less realistic than Civ4?
In Civ4, one oil resource was enough to fuel an unlimited number of tanks and aircraft and ships.
Remind me how Civ5 is less realistic?
Wha? Civ5 is not a console game.
The Civ5 resource system is more complex than for Civ4.
How does your system require more "imagination"? It just requires more micromanagement.
chaotoroboto
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2010
- Messages
- 151
Genius Strategy. +1.
Research and Secrecy Pacts seem like an easier way to do the same thing though, and they're built into the game.
I don't think anyone credible has actually stated whether or not gifted units carry maintenance, or resource requirements.
Psyringe
Scout
Thanks, though I don't think I can take credit for it, I'm pretty sure I picked it up from some other game.
The real mean strategy would come to pass when gifted unity are exempt from maintenance. In this case, two players in a multiplayer game could simply create the armies for each other, gift units back and forth to exempt them from any maintenance, and crush any opposition with armies that would be unmaintainable without this strategy.
(Hence I don't think that gifted units will be exempt from maintenance, it opens up too big an exploit.)Yep, we'll have to see.
cr0ws
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 571
-System B:
specify an extraction rate (trading off resource income and stockpiling vs depletion risks), build units consuming resources - but worry about losing them, because the resources are gone forever.--- First off...... Once the improvement is built to "extract" the resource the default extract setting would be set to low (1 unit per turn),so there is no need to micromanage the extract rate unless you are preparing for a war and quickly need more of it (medium: 2 units per turn or high: 3 units per turn). The allowance for you to extract more per turn would serve as a desperate grab-all-u-can for those "border sharing" plots with fears of losing it to culture or need more of it in order to conclude a trade agreement for something else. Of course for every higher extract setting you would get penalized -1 Gold per turn and higher probability of mine collapse event to occur. What you lack you trade for it or the obvious strategies.
Yes, the unit of resource would be gone forever if your unit lost but the the type of resource would be generated enough collectively throughout the map for it to last well into the modern era. But If you play a tiny map there could be a set up in the custom map settings option to raise the % density of the resources generated (100% = generates small:100 units, medium: 200 units, large: 400 units and so on) .
I disagree with the "elegance is simplicity" statement...One of the biggest disadvantages of keeping a game like this simple is it limits strategy severely...makes it feel too linear and one tracked.
"Really... did you even *play* the early versions of Civ? How is Civ2 less realistic than Civ1? How is Civ5 less realistic than Civ4"
I believe one of the major flaws of earlier civ 2 is it had no random events, like plague or volcano that I remember from civ 1. But everything else was there with added content, which is how followup series should be, retaining the characterisitics of the original game which made it great and adding content and flexibility to the later versions to make it even better. Not dumbing it down and "simplifying" it.
Unless you plan to release it to the mindless console button boppers.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
It would make sense that gifted units do carry maintenance.... if the maintenance is too much for you, then disband the unit (you get some gold out of it apparently).
Since City-States have their own Tech tree, the Militaristic ones might have special 'resourceless'/low maintenance units that they use for gifting.
chaotoroboto
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2010
- Messages
- 151
And to clarify: when I say "no one credible" I mean that none of previewers that haven't made obvious errors in their previews, playing recent builds, have spoken on this issue.
I would count most of the people on this forum as credible if they had the information to hand.
I would count most of the people on this forum as credible if they had the information to hand.
marioflag
History Addict
To limit the exploit of player gifting weakest unit to city states it would be enough to put different mainteinance cost on units. Also diplomatic favor should change based on the strenght of a unit.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think gifted units carry both maintenance and resource requirements.
I also think gifting is not the best strategy. The only resource which lasts long enough so you could gift really obsolete unit and limit modern units is Horses. And I doubt abusing horses will grant so much benefit.
I also think gifting is not the best strategy. The only resource which lasts long enough so you could gift really obsolete unit and limit modern units is Horses. And I doubt abusing horses will grant so much benefit.
mjs0
The 4th X
This is only an exploit if the AI is not smart enough to disband any unwanted units.
Didn't I read somewhere that you get a lump sum of gold when you disband a unit?
If so, this 'exploit' could really backfire.
Didn't I read somewhere that you get a lump sum of gold when you disband a unit?
If so, this 'exploit' could really backfire.
That speculation is wrong, though. In the Gamescon video the available uranium goes from 0 to 2(!) when he uses a nuke.
GeoModder
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,512
No, it's more a matter of that the individual soldiers in the unit couldn't replace their worn and dull swords as the ages progress, so making them less effective. It's all a matter of scale, remember?
