Tweet
War is one of the very big things in the civ universe i only becuase it is one of the few things in which the player takes a very active role and can keep him busy every singler turn. As such, any civ game needs a good military model, one that is simple enough not to become a military simulation but complex enough to replicate reality ot some degree. What follows are a few ideas.
In civ up to now, the size of your military is based on the porductiveness of your civ. a city size 4 with 10 shield porduction will be able to give you more troops than a city size 12 with 5. This make no sense. Armies are made of people, not resources. The size of your armiy should be determined by only one thing, the size of your population. More people, more soldiers you can put on the field. Now, more soldeirs does not mean effective, motivate, or likely to win, just means more.
I am an advocate of a pop. point system, much like in Colonization. How many troops you can get should be based on your population and its needs. So, a very agrarian nation with that has little surplus could only support a small army through time. You can put together a large one if you need, but only for a short time, otherwise they starve.
Now, as we know, troops need equipment. In my version of civ, equipment and troops are not the same thing (another bit from Colonization). Besides needing people for troops, you over time need people to make weapons. Now, no need to have a different set of weapons for each tech level (too mucu). You can simply have a resource to be made called military equipment. Tech level and social choices can make how much of it you can make each turn and which buildings make how much out of what, but one thing called equipment would do until the age of real indsutrial weaponry, and things like ships would have to be built independently, then staffed (you build a ship, not the crew). Troops, of course, need to be payed. Who pays them, and how much, is based on what type of army you have. In some systems troops pay for themselves (not out of your pocket) or some underling pays for them (not out of your pocket, but his, as in feudalism), or you have to foot the whole bill. The change in civ 3 to making troop upkeep with money, not resources, was a good one.
Now that we have made units, a few things have to change.
An addtion made by RoN is the notion of attrition. This is a wondefull notion an one that should be utterly central to the military model of any new civ game. First of all, troops should suffer attrition everywhewre, at all times. This would mean thsat no longer could you make one unit in 300 bc and have it in 1900 ad. It also means keeping full time forces is expensive, very expensive, making great empires true achievements, sicne to have one you needed a hell of a lot of money. Now, the rate of attrition would be based on 3 things. tye of unit, the terrain it is in, and its culture. The last one allows for some variation with civs. A civ that grw up in the ropics should not face as much attrition at home as one that did not. Now, attrition can be sued in various ways. For example instead of making it impossible to cross certaint terrains (such as the wheeled unit in cvi3), you simply manague the attrition. So, what you do is say that mounted units suffer catastrophic attrition in mountains and jungles. Somene can still try to shove their army through a mountian, if they think they found a way to do so, but it would be very risky and likely to fail (meaning that if you do succeed, you just scored a huge tactical and strategic surprise). BY playing aorund with attrition, you can also make terrain barriers real. In civ, mounatins slow down your enemy, they do not stop him. Wth this system, mountains, deserts, jungles would be likely to stop them, if only because any army that tried to got throught would no make it.
Obviosuly, better tech and time would greatly lower attrition rates.
In civ up to now, the size of your military is based on the porductiveness of your civ. a city size 4 with 10 shield porduction will be able to give you more troops than a city size 12 with 5. This make no sense. Armies are made of people, not resources. The size of your armiy should be determined by only one thing, the size of your population. More people, more soldiers you can put on the field. Now, more soldeirs does not mean effective, motivate, or likely to win, just means more.
I am an advocate of a pop. point system, much like in Colonization. How many troops you can get should be based on your population and its needs. So, a very agrarian nation with that has little surplus could only support a small army through time. You can put together a large one if you need, but only for a short time, otherwise they starve.
Now, as we know, troops need equipment. In my version of civ, equipment and troops are not the same thing (another bit from Colonization). Besides needing people for troops, you over time need people to make weapons. Now, no need to have a different set of weapons for each tech level (too mucu). You can simply have a resource to be made called military equipment. Tech level and social choices can make how much of it you can make each turn and which buildings make how much out of what, but one thing called equipment would do until the age of real indsutrial weaponry, and things like ships would have to be built independently, then staffed (you build a ship, not the crew). Troops, of course, need to be payed. Who pays them, and how much, is based on what type of army you have. In some systems troops pay for themselves (not out of your pocket) or some underling pays for them (not out of your pocket, but his, as in feudalism), or you have to foot the whole bill. The change in civ 3 to making troop upkeep with money, not resources, was a good one.
Now that we have made units, a few things have to change.
An addtion made by RoN is the notion of attrition. This is a wondefull notion an one that should be utterly central to the military model of any new civ game. First of all, troops should suffer attrition everywhewre, at all times. This would mean thsat no longer could you make one unit in 300 bc and have it in 1900 ad. It also means keeping full time forces is expensive, very expensive, making great empires true achievements, sicne to have one you needed a hell of a lot of money. Now, the rate of attrition would be based on 3 things. tye of unit, the terrain it is in, and its culture. The last one allows for some variation with civs. A civ that grw up in the ropics should not face as much attrition at home as one that did not. Now, attrition can be sued in various ways. For example instead of making it impossible to cross certaint terrains (such as the wheeled unit in cvi3), you simply manague the attrition. So, what you do is say that mounted units suffer catastrophic attrition in mountains and jungles. Somene can still try to shove their army through a mountian, if they think they found a way to do so, but it would be very risky and likely to fail (meaning that if you do succeed, you just scored a huge tactical and strategic surprise). BY playing aorund with attrition, you can also make terrain barriers real. In civ, mounatins slow down your enemy, they do not stop him. Wth this system, mountains, deserts, jungles would be likely to stop them, if only because any army that tried to got throught would no make it.
Obviosuly, better tech and time would greatly lower attrition rates.
Comment