Unit Support Question??

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
governements. They support the army units how. Money?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
> Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> governements. They support the army units how. Money?

This is explained in the civilopedia. Some goverments have 'free unit
support'. Different gov'ts have various levels of support depending on city
size. For example: you have 2 towns (<6 pop) and your gov't allows 4 units
per town. You then pay no support costs per turn until you get the 9th unit.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
> Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> governements. They support the army units how. Money?
>

I think the support (when required) is paid in shields.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Around 6/7/2004 4:24 PM, Matt B. proclaimed for posterity:
> "Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
>
>>Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
>>governements. They support the army units how. Money?
>>
>
>
> I think the support (when required) is paid in shields.

That's the old Civ I / Civ II method. Units were actually tied to
whatever city made them or whatever city they were later manually
assigned to. The costs were taken from that city's shield production.

Civ III changed all of that. Units are no longer linked to specific
cities, but are paid directly from the treasury at 1/unit (I think that
is for all units) that exceed the free support limits.

--
Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general
welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-Thomas Jefferson
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Around 6/7/2004 5:13 PM, Brandon Supernaw proclaimed for posterity:

> Around 6/7/2004 4:24 PM, Matt B. proclaimed for posterity:
>
>> "Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
>>
>>> Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
>>> governements. They support the army units how. Money?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think the support (when required) is paid in shields.
>
>
> That's the old Civ I / Civ II method. Units were actually tied to
> whatever city made them or whatever city they were later manually
> assigned to. The costs were taken from that city's shield production.
>
> Civ III changed all of that. Units are no longer linked to specific
> cities, but are paid directly from the treasury at 1/unit (I think that
> is for all units) that exceed the free support limits.
>

I got an email quesiton regarding this, so I thought I'd paste my reply
in here as well. Please forgive the rambling manner as I am not the
most articulate fellow in the world.

Well, the military police limit has nothing to do with free support. If
your military police limit is three (as per the example above), then the
first three units that are garrisoned in a town will each make one
citizen content that was unhappy. Beyond three units will have no
additional 'happiness' benefit. This does not apply to artillery,
aircraft, ships, etc. Only ground 'attack/defense' units.

The free unit support...okay, let's use stats you listed above for a
Monarchy. Assume you have 10 towns (size 6 or under), 10 cities (size
7-12), and 10 Metros (size 13+).

This will give you the following free support:
Town: 10 x 2 = 20 Units
City: 10 x 4 = 40 Units
Metro: 10 x 8 = 80 Units
TOTAL FREE SUPPORT: 140 Units

Anything above 140 units, you'll have to pay for at 1 gold/unit. Units
in this case applies to everything; Workers, ships, planes, artillery,
you name it. One exception is that captured workers, artillery, etc do
NOT require maintenance no matter what, which is why it is so awesome to
have a war that nets you 40-50 captured enemy workers. :)

By the way, free unit support does NOT mean that 8 units have to remain
in a Metro to be paid for. It doesn't matter where the units are, if
you have a metro, it will take care of the maintenance for 8 units.

See? Clear as mud! :) Actually, I know I don't always explain things
so well, so if this makes no sense, then let me know and I'll take
another crack at it.

Er, I don't know for sure how things like king units in the Conquests
and PTW expansion count. They may require maintenance, they may not.
*Shrug*. Basically, I think it is anything showing up on the F3 screen
in 'unit view' mode...excluding captured units shown along the
bottom...requires maintenance.

I forgot to mention Feudalism! It is a very funky government in that
it's unit support per town/city/metro actually DECREASES as a settlement
increases in size. Also, the maintenance cost for units in Feudalism
beyond the free support is 3 gold/unit instead of 1 gold/unit.

I VERY rarely use feudalism since, in my humble opinion, there are few
situations where it is superior to Monarchy. Especially if you are not
a religious civ since that means you're losing yet another block of
turns to switch governments.

--
Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general
welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-Thomas Jefferson
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:24:45 -0400 Matt B. <sawdust100@hotmail.net> wrote in
message <10c9n5fdhruk8a@corp.supernews.com>...

> "Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
>> Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
>> governements. They support the army units how. Money?
>>
>
> I think the support (when required) is paid in shields.


That was Civ2. In Civ3, support is paid in gold.

--
Daran

We found another: 2^24036583-1 is prime <http://www.mersenne.org>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:13:43 -0500 Brandon Supernaw
<brandon.public@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<2ik7knFoafsjU1@uni-berlin.de>...

> That's the old Civ I / Civ II method. Units were actually tied to
> whatever city made them or whatever city they were later manually
> assigned to. The costs were taken from that city's shield production.

Bribed units belonged to the nearest city to them when they were acquired, if
that city was one of yours, or to no city, if the nearest was an opposing
civ.

This sometimes had the odd effect that a bribed naval unit might belong to a
land-locked city.

> --
> Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>

--
Daran

We found another: 2^24036583-1 is prime <http://www.mersenne.org>


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Brandon Supernaw" <brandon.public@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2ik9e3Fne85pU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Around 6/7/2004 5:13 PM, Brandon Supernaw proclaimed for posterity:

[snip]

> I forgot to mention Feudalism! It is a very funky government in that
> it's unit support per town/city/metro actually DECREASES as a settlement
> increases in size. Also, the maintenance cost for units in Feudalism
> beyond the free support is 3 gold/unit instead of 1 gold/unit.
>
> I VERY rarely use feudalism since, in my humble opinion, there are few
> situations where it is superior to Monarchy. Especially if you are not
> a religious civ since that means you're losing yet another block of
> turns to switch governments.

The one big advantage of Feudalism over Monarchy is the pop-rush feature.
If your civ is in a poor population building position Feudalism with it's
upside down unit support structure would make sense.

However, by the time you get this govt ability, if you are already in
Monarchy or Republic, and you are not a religious civ, I can't see switching
to this govt over those two.

GWB

> --
> Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general
> welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
> -Thomas Jefferson
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <S%Fxc.19883$HG.10019@attbi_s53>, "GWB" <capture_ctl@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Brandon Supernaw" <brandon.public@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:2ik9e3Fne85pU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Around 6/7/2004 5:13 PM, Brandon Supernaw proclaimed for posterity:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I forgot to mention Feudalism! It is a very funky government in that
>> it's unit support per town/city/metro actually DECREASES as a settlement
>> increases in size. Also, the maintenance cost for units in Feudalism
>> beyond the free support is 3 gold/unit instead of 1 gold/unit.
>>
>> I VERY rarely use feudalism since, in my humble opinion, there are few
>> situations where it is superior to Monarchy. Especially if you are not
>> a religious civ since that means you're losing yet another block of
>> turns to switch governments.
>
>The one big advantage of Feudalism over Monarchy is the pop-rush feature.
>If your civ is in a poor population building position Feudalism with it's
>upside down unit support structure would make sense.

This is very useful during an offensive. You can build culture buildings
(Temples or Libraries) by pop rushing enemy population in captured cities.
This will greatly reduce the chances that the city will flip back to the
original owner. As the city gets smaller it will support more free units.
Pop rushing also allows you to build in your totally corrupt cities -- think
Courthouses.

>However, by the time you get this govt ability, if you are already in
>Monarchy or Republic, and you are not a religious civ, I can't see switching
>to this govt over those two.

I'm trying to move from Regent to Monarch difficulty. I find that Feudalism
is often the first non-Despotism government that I acquire.


Mike G
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
> Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> governements. They support the army units how. Money?
>

Again, most informative NG and posts here quite helpful in getting better
handle on the game. Civ3 is a bit funkier than IandII, probably lending
better balance in design, but leaving the player [those like me anyway] a
bit more befuddled, having less 'control' from a stategic standpoint [at
least until such details can be learned]. I always thought having units
'linked' to originating city for support was cumbersome in I and II...glad
they got around that in Civ3.

In a related question to unit support, can anyone explain how selecting
'wealth' in unit production influences total Civ stats? Or have I missed
something in the civilpedia again :).
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vGwBc.2469$E56.116@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Prowler" <cfmb2004@telus.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rtRwc.24811$DV4.8179@clgrps13...
> > Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> > governements. They support the army units how. Money?
> >
>
> Again, most informative NG and posts here quite helpful in getting better
> handle on the game. Civ3 is a bit funkier than IandII, probably lending
> better balance in design, but leaving the player [those like me anyway] a
> bit more befuddled, having less 'control' from a stategic standpoint [at
> least until such details can be learned]. I always thought having units
> 'linked' to originating city for support was cumbersome in I and II...glad
> they got around that in Civ3.
>
> In a related question to unit support, can anyone explain how selecting
> 'wealth' in unit production influences total Civ stats? Or have I missed
> something in the civilpedia again :).

Wealth converts shields to gold. The ratio is low in Civ3 & PtW (1:1 i
think), but higher in C3C (2:1). The discovery of Economics doubles the gold
per shield.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:2GxBc.6720$Ft3.540@news02.roc.ny...
>
> > > Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> > > governements. They support the army units how. Money?
> > >
> >
> > Again, most informative NG and posts here quite helpful in getting
better
> > handle on the game. Civ3 is a bit funkier than IandII, probably
lending
> > better balance in design, but leaving the player [those like me
anyway] a
> > bit more befuddled, having less 'control' from a stategic standpoint
[at
> > least until such details can be learned]. I always thought having
units
> > 'linked' to originating city for support was cumbersome in I and
II...glad
> > they got around that in Civ3.
> >
> > In a related question to unit support, can anyone explain how
selecting
> > 'wealth' in unit production influences total Civ stats? Or have I
missed
> > something in the civilpedia again :).
>
> Wealth converts shields to gold. The ratio is low in Civ3 & PtW (1:1 i
> think), but higher in C3C (2:1). The discovery of Economics doubles
the gold
> per shield.
>
Having descovered economics, my C3C game will covert 2 shields into 1
wealth.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Caesar" <caesar.of.rome@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0MJBc.155$Mj3.118@newsfe2-win...
>
> "The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:2GxBc.6720$Ft3.540@news02.roc.ny...
> >
> > > > Can someone explain unit support per city for all diff types of
> > > > governements. They support the army units how. Money?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, most informative NG and posts here quite helpful in getting
> better
> > > handle on the game. Civ3 is a bit funkier than IandII, probably
> lending
> > > better balance in design, but leaving the player [those like me
> anyway] a
> > > bit more befuddled, having less 'control' from a stategic standpoint
> [at
> > > least until such details can be learned]. I always thought having
> units
> > > 'linked' to originating city for support was cumbersome in I and
> II...glad
> > > they got around that in Civ3.
> > >
> > > In a related question to unit support, can anyone explain how
> selecting
> > > 'wealth' in unit production influences total Civ stats? Or have I
> missed
> > > something in the civilpedia again :).
> >
> > Wealth converts shields to gold. The ratio is low in Civ3 & PtW (1:1 i
> > think), but higher in C3C (2:1). The discovery of Economics doubles
> the gold
> > per shield.
> >
> Having descovered economics, my C3C game will covert 2 shields into 1
> wealth.

maybe it's 2 shields = 1 gold in civ3/ptw??

I just know it's increased in C3C :)
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Caesar" <caesar.of.rome@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0MJBc.155$Mj3.118@newsfe2-win...
>
> Having descovered economics, my C3C game will covert 2 shields into 1
> wealth.

Ok. Civ3 & PtW are 8:1 before economics, 4:1 after.

C3C is 4:1 & 2:1
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <daYBc.100$ht5.93@news02.roc.ny>, "The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>"Caesar" <caesar.of.rome@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:0MJBc.155$Mj3.118@newsfe2-win...
>>
>> Having descovered economics, my C3C game will covert 2 shields into 1
>> wealth.
>
>Ok. Civ3 & PtW are 8:1 before economics, 4:1 after.
>
>C3C is 4:1 & 2:1

On the other hand the cost to upgrade units has gone up in C3C to 3 gold per
shield rather than 2 gold per shield in Civ3 and PtW.


Mike G