I think Civ4 should put more strain on troops. So you can not just build hoards of troops and overrun the enemy. You would have to spend you money more wisely. If this was done a person probably would be more inclined to use a multi unit attack on an enemy rather then a huge hoard of troops. I think upkeep should be raised to a higher leval. It shorta stinks just to role over an enemy with disposable units.
More strategy more upkeep
- Thread starter zjl56
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree with you 100%!! I always found it VERY odd that an aircraft carrier cost as much to operate as a WARRIOR?!?! That just makes NO SENSE!!! It would be much, MUCH better if maintainance costs/per unit increased according to (a) tech level, (b) readiness level and (c) Government type. In addition, if some units also carried a population cost as well, then it would make players and the AI alike think twice about simply generating 'Stacks O' Doom'! It would also help to minimize the micromanagement involved in moving around huge stacks of units-especially in the industrial/modern age.
It would, lastly, allow players/AI to pursue different strategies in later ages. For instance, you might have a fairly large army, but keep costs down by keeping them at very low readiness (think 'Weekend Warriors'!). Alternatively, you might have a small high-tech military which costs less than a huge army, but is almost as effective!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
It would, lastly, allow players/AI to pursue different strategies in later ages. For instance, you might have a fairly large army, but keep costs down by keeping them at very low readiness (think 'Weekend Warriors'!). Alternatively, you might have a small high-tech military which costs less than a huge army, but is almost as effective!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
wohmongarinf00l
Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 452
i think people are already doing this in their mods. hardly any new scenarios are being made without the unit population cost.
Aussie_Lurker said:
I am talking about this because many people just run over enemies with huge numbers of the same troops. They can afford to lose many of the troops because they have so many. Higher upkeep cost would make people more inclined to use a variety of units.
I have to agree, however I think that higher up keep costs may just make me more willing to get rid of troops faster as well. Since it costs me so much to have a tank, I may send my tank in first, let it do alot of damage and die, then send my infantry in later. My infantry are low cost so I dont mind keeping them around, and with my tank dead, I dont have to pay its cost. Since by the later stages of the game you build so fast it doesnt make a huge difference to lose units. I guess this kind of perserves the old order of battle (artillery (optional and nowadays aerial bombardment), tank rush, infantry follows in)
AKtionFich
Chieftain
to increase upcost of modern unit s make sence, not for infantry but an carrier shell cost u a lot.
but that wouldn t stop mass-lowtech armys therefor it would be more effectiv to etablish a more complicated combat system, which make it imposible to defeat modern infantry with longbowmen.
Technical Obsuluted units shell have less attack ability to very modern ones, defense( in cities) shell be the same.
maybe offensiv units shell cost more
however i think theres a need of a more strategical combat system. so u dont need to fight unit by unit, square by sqaure would make more sence.
a other optionwould be that u have to use shields to maintain none-infantryunits
as we know it from the hometown system. u may mix this options depending on gov typ
but that wouldn t stop mass-lowtech armys therefor it would be more effectiv to etablish a more complicated combat system, which make it imposible to defeat modern infantry with longbowmen.
Technical Obsuluted units shell have less attack ability to very modern ones, defense( in cities) shell be the same.
maybe offensiv units shell cost more
however i think theres a need of a more strategical combat system. so u dont need to fight unit by unit, square by sqaure would make more sence.
a other optionwould be that u have to use shields to maintain none-infantryunits
as we know it from the hometown system. u may mix this options depending on gov typ
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
The problem though, JST, is that the current 'population model' really sucks from the point of view of unit costs. In fact, the 'population model' also really sucks for plague and bombardment effects. If they could only change this model then people WOULD be able to simply mod population costs into their game as they see fit. Of course, this still would NOT change my argument for variable gold 'upkeep costs'-thats just a 'no-brainer' IMHO!
Oh and , as I said in my above posts, one way to offset the higher costs of modern high-tech units is by allowing a civ to be in a 'lower readiness' level. There could be 3-5 readiness levels with normal being the 'default', obviously. There would then be either 1-2 higher readiness levels, and 1-2 lower readiness levels. High-readiness improves combat ability for your troops, but at greater maintainance cost, wheras low-readiness reduces costs, but gives your units a penalty in combat (making you prone to sneak attacks!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Oh and , as I said in my above posts, one way to offset the higher costs of modern high-tech units is by allowing a civ to be in a 'lower readiness' level. There could be 3-5 readiness levels with normal being the 'default', obviously. There would then be either 1-2 higher readiness levels, and 1-2 lower readiness levels. High-readiness improves combat ability for your troops, but at greater maintainance cost, wheras low-readiness reduces costs, but gives your units a penalty in combat (making you prone to sneak attacks!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Similar threads
