Quantity vs. Quality

[Churchill's Hat]

Note: this post assumes one-unit-per-tile idea.

What I think should be done to make military more dynamic and seperate civilizations within a game (if not overall) is to incorporate Quantity vs. Quality from Europa Universalis. Quantity would mean more troops able to cover larger amounts of land, whereas quality would mean your troops would be better able to destroy the enemies. You would be able to choose between the two.

Certain situations would also lead to further differences. For example, if a war has stagnated or you are losing, you can further stress the need to get more soldiers and train soldiers faster rather than better. Or, if you are winning a war (or have recently fought a war), you can withdraw troops from the front lines to teach troops back home better. Please respond and tell me what you think.

 

[civ_king]

I like this Idea,

Extremely awesome small quantity of units
or
Do the Human Wave!

 

[weekend_warrior]

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're basically just choosing from weaker cheap units or costly strong units, you could do that in Civ4. Build lots of warriors or fewer swordsman.

 

[Herrhals]

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're basically just choosing from weaker cheap units or costly strong units, you could do that in Civ4. Build lots of warriors or fewer swordsman.

not really. Warriors are super early units @lvl 1-3 cities. Swordies are early units @lvl 5-8 cities by the time they are availible. The extra production of later cities can produce more swordies than early cities producing cheap crap...

besides you need quite a few warriors to par swordies.