Civ III Units Workshop

[ember]

Yes, that is what I had in mind.
Units would "upgrade" free, within catergorie, ie, your first rifleman would eventually be a WWII level rifleman, but it would not become a modern infantry, like a paratrooper.
This I believe would get around the need to build seperate levels of stuff like WWI-II tanks ,and a seperate MBT, but have it be the one traditional armour unit, that steadily improves.

We need a modern infantry unit that represents 1970's on. Modern infantry have a much more balanced weapon loadout than WWII did, including effective AT and hand-held SAM that would give them some air defense. This could be an heavily upgraded rifleman.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Youngsun]

Urban Ranger long time no see

quote: It's also a silly idea to stockpile weapons and such

I stongly disagree. It is good idea I reckon.

quote: A unit isn't just a mob with a bunch of weapons

Yes but it needs weapons and weapons have to be produced.

quote: A unit requires training to function as a conherent whole. So I don't think it is necessarily to build any training facilities although doing so will make the game to appear more realistic.

How come you say a unit has to be trained and we don't need training facilities?

quote: A related idea here then is you can't rush build units, or not more by 50%, say. This represents the inherent necesscity for spending sufficient time in training.

That can be one way but I don't think that will be fun. furthemore, barracks are already differentiated as Ancient/renaissance/,etc so the suggestion for training facilities is not entirely new for the game.

quote: As for a Unit Workshop, I think it's a good idea

I'm glad at least you like the idea. Thank you. and as you said alpine units are good examples.

quote: We need a modern infantry unit that represents 1970's on. Modern infantry have a much more balanced weapon loadout than WWII did, including effective AT and hand-held SAM that would give them some air defense. This could be an heavily upgraded rifleman.

ember I can't agree with you more on this!
so we had the same vision after all. haha

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Par4]

I support the generation ideas. I have a couple of ideas. Manual upgrades of units through generations could get boring what about doctrine adoption which would cost less but take longer. Say you could spend 5000 gold to upgrade a million infantry to post WWII or you could adopt next generation fighting infantry or something like that and it costs a few coins a turn maybe 15 or 20 and always upgrades infantry to the next generation without you having to click it in but would take 5-10 turns or whatever. Next gen doctrines could use new things like computers and satelites you launch to upgrade units without having to reupgrade them or something. The US army is upgrading to EW and high lethality threw doctrines that take a few years but cost less than all new training and weapons at once.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[korn469]

ok for everybody who supports recruitment either you

A. support a unit workshop

or

B. support an unplayable game

if you have various weapons to equip your soldiers with and you have to combine your weapons with your recruits then you are going to have to design your units in a unit workshop

other wise to build a each unit you will have to open up your recruit screen then pick a recruit out of it

then goto your arsenal screen and
give him an M-16
then give him ammo
then give him a helmet
then give him a uniform
then give him a canteen
then give him a winter jacket
then give him rations
then give him boots
then give him a flack jacket
then give him shoe polish
then give him ect...

ok after about fifty clicks we are ready to tell a city to build this soldier...then we realize that there is no roads to that city so the soldier can't have boots so then we have to re-equip the unit, giving him cheap converse all stars instead of boots

now we are ready to equip our second unit...

this is civ3 not Sid Meyer's Quatermaster!

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited May 20, 2000).]

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-16-2000 02:48 PM A very good reason NOT to have workshop/upgrade abilities... The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

First of all. The technology system should IMO be totally reorganized. And secondly. The frustration of have bought 10000 muskets and suddenly realize that there is a new weapon called rifle, can also be quite annoying. But you can then sell your muskets to some undeveloped nation (if there are any).

quote: There is a sense of strategic investment as you play along -- waiting for the right unit to be discovered to really invest in that unit as your primary defenders, say. And not being able to undo a mistake if you heavily invest in a muskateer defense only to capture conscription tech for riflemen, is part of the strategy of the game. A bonus of this effect is often times it is YOU who hold out for the right technology, then invest heavily in, say, armor, when it is your opponent who is swamped with legions, or something and can do nothing about it.

What is your point?? Ofcourse it is good to have as good weapons as possible. If i invest heavily in muskeeters and then suddenly can produce riflemen i just keep investing in riflemen instead. Then i capture or build the leonardo workshop (if i haven't got it already) so all my musketeers gets upgraded to riflemen. I don't get your point. Do you mean that u invest heavily in just musketeers and try to not get riflemen? Personally i go for the best weapons available whenever i can. Especially for defence purpose. Sure it is a bit more expensive but it's woth it.

quote: That's part of the strategic element of the game, and if you make it possible to change units the way you want, at any time, then you're taking some of the spine out of the game structure. Final lesson: Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.

It's not about creativity. I just want to get rid of the clumsy and boring unit-system that occur in both civ2 and SMAC.

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-18-2000 06:43 PM One question - would you give defense by the unit built, or the weapon he carries? Or some combo of both?

This is how i would want it. The unit's equippment is crucial to it's performance. therefore: Both weapons and shielding will be a part of the defence. The weapons will damage the attacker and the shielding will prevent damage on the unit. It's quite simple.

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 05-20-2000 01:59 AM ok for everybody who supports recruitment either you A. support a unit workshop or B. support an unplayable game if you have various weapons to equip your soldiers with and you have to combine your weapons with your recruits then you are going to have to design your units in a unit workshop other wise to build a each unit you will have to open up your recruit screen then pick a recruit out of it then goto your arsenal screen and give him an M-16 then give him ammo then give him a helmet then give him a uniform then give him a canteen then give him a winter jacket then give him rations then give him boots then give him a flack jacket then give him shoe polish then give him ect... ok after about fifty clicks we are ready to tell a city to build this soldier...then we realize that there is no roads to that city so the soldier can't have boots so then we have to re-equip the unit, giving him cheap converse all stars instead of boots now we are ready to equip our second unit... this is civ3 not Sid Meyer's Quatermaster! korn469 [This message has been edited by korn469 (edited May 20, 2000).]

You have a point. This is the way i imagined it. When you build a unit you do it this way.
You go to a 'unit workshop' there you decide what kind of unit you want. How many men that should be involved in this unit. FE you want a modern infantry. The standardequipment for modern infantry is machine-gun as weapon and Kevlar-suit as shielding. You choose an army of the size 2000 men and a list appears with all needed eqippment to make this a unit. If you don't have enough of something it's showed in the list.
There are only a few things to decide when constructing a unit:
- What kind of unit? (infantry, air, artillery etc)
- Size? (How many?)
- Special abilities?

After this is done. A list with all needed equipment is showed to you (maybe including a list of the total arsenal). Specific weapons is just a pain trying to keep track of. Therefor i suggest that u have maybe rifles for 'industrial age infantry'. And also a number after the weapon indicating how good it is. The unit will automatically get the best rifles available.

[Youngsun]

Let's be constructive here.

I certainly would not play Korn's version of "Sid Meier's quatremaster" and no body will. Korn. what's the point of suggesting the worst possible unit workshop we can get? If you read the thread carefully you could find the trends of having unit workshop more practical and simplified so we can play with fun and I noticed many people have different ideas about unit workshop thus we need more constructive suggestions on this matter so we can all agree. you did not give us any counter suggestions nor an objection based on reasons as Raingoon did. This time it was very unlike of you Korn. Don't disappoint me nor other people next time. because I still think you are a constructive person.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 20, 2000).]

[korn469]

arrrg!
i just lost a superlong post!!!

but what i wanted to say was that i was saying that i support the idea of a UW and i think that without a unit workshop anything but completely premade units will end up being Sid Meyer's Quatermaster!

i think that instead of changing screens in the UW that everything needs to be in drop down menu formula

also i think that a thing called military doctrine should be added to civ3

military doctrine would be a specific set of bonuses/free special abilites available to that unit because of the doctrine setting...doctrines would be a required part of the unit like chassis weapon ect...certain types of SEs couldn't choose certain military doctrines...like a king couldn't choose a people's army military doctrine...military doctrines would allow two forces that are equal in terms of tech, size, and training to be very differnt this could distinguish NATO form Soviet armies just because of their military doctrines...

korn469

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-19-2000 04:43 AM I don't think building a unit will reduce the population of the city that builds it. The size of a unit is generally much smaller than a population point. It's also a silly idea to stockpile weapons and such. A unit isn't just a mob with a bunch of weapons. A unit requires training to function as a conherent whole. So I don't think it is necessarily to build any training facilities although doing so will make the game to appear more realistic. A related idea here then is you can't rush build units, or not more by 50%, say. This represents the inherent necesscity for spending sufficient time in training.

I'm really surprised that a rather intelligent person like Urban Ranger would post such rubbish. I know some don't like my citations, but I think it will assure the reliability of my statements. The intelligent reader can draw his/her own conclusions.

'In a limited sense, the industrialization of war is almost as old as civilization, for the introduction of bronze metallurgy made specially skilled artisans indispensable for the manufacture of weapons and armor. Moreover, bronze was rare and expensive. Only a few privileged fighting men could possess a full panoply. It followed, that warrior specialists emerged alongside metallurgical specialists, one class enjoying near monopoly of the other's products, at least to begin with.

But the phrase "industrialization of war" does not really fit the ancient river valley civilizations, whether of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, or China. In the first place, priests and temples competed with warriors and army commanders as consumers of bronze and other artisan products; and the earliest rulers probably based their power more on their religious than on their military roles. In the second place, in society at large the great majority of the population remained in the fields, toiling to produce food for their own support. Surpluses were small; and the number of rulers -whether priestly or military or both- and of artisans remained proportionately modest. Moreover, within that small number, the industrial element was inconspicuous. Arms and armor, once molded into shape, lasted indefinitely, and even if blunted or dented in battle could be restored to usefulness with a little sharpening or hammering. Armorers therefore remained relatively few, even in proportion to warriors.

Since tin and copper ores did not usually occur in the same places, and since tin was relatively scarce and often had to be sought at great distances, the really critical limit upon ancient metallurgy and warmaking capacity was more often the availability of suitable metal ingots or ores than manufacturing skill. Traders and transport personnel, in other words, mattered more than artisans. Public policy had to take into account relations with potential metal suppliers who lived beyond the range of direct administrative control. Safeguarding trade routes from rivals and marauders was also important and sometimes difficult. On the other hand, availability of skilled metal workers could usually be taken for granted once the appropriate artisan tradition had become established in the community.

Wars were normally fought with existing stocks of arms and armor, modified only by gains or losses through capture in the course of operations. What an army needed along the way was food and forage. Hence the availability of food constituted the principal limit upon military actions and the size of armies. Occasionally and by exception, an outbreak of epidemic disease intervened to alter the military balances abruptly -miraculously, indeed, as the biblical account of the Assyrian failure before Jerusalem in 701BC attests.

Guarding against disease and other evidences of divine displeasure was the province of priests with their knowledge of religious rituals and prayers. Doing something to increase local supplies of food and forage for the support of an itinerant army was the province of rulers and administrators. It was always easiest to rely on direct exercise of force, i.e., to plunder local food producers by seizing their stocks of grain or animals in order to consume them on the spot or at very short remove. Such an army had to overwhelm opposition quickly and then move on, for it rapidly exhausted local supplies, leaving devastation in its rear. Peasants deprived of their stocks were likely to starve and were sure to have the greatest difficulty in finding seed for their fields in the following year. Several years, even decades, had to pass before the ravages of such a campaign could be remedied.

The career of Sargon of Akkad, who plundered all the lands of Mesopotamia around his capital of Kish about 2250BC, illustrates the potentialities and limits of this sort of organized robbery. A perpetual following of 54,000 {this number is contested; it seems rather high} men no doubt gave the great conqueror an assured superiority over any local rival; hence his thirty-four victorious campaigns. But to keep such a force in being also required annual campaigning, devastating one fertile landscape after another in order to keep the soldiers in victuals. Costs to the population at large were obviously very great. Indeed Sargon's armies can well be compared to the ravages of an epidemic disease that kills off a significant proportion of the host population yet by its very passage confers an immunity lasting for several years. Sargon's armies did the same, since the diminished productivity of the land that resulted from such plundering made it impractical for an army of similar size to pass that way again until such time as population and the area under cultivation had been restored.

If we shift attention from the time of Sargon to the time of the Achaemenid Empire(539-332BC), we see that war had become less destructive to a great king's subjects during that long interval of time. When Xerxes determined on his famous invasion of Greece(480-479BC), for example, he issued commands from his palace at Persepolis, instructing his agents to gather food supplies from territoties under their control, and deliver them to stations along the intended route of march. As a result, Xerxes was able to march into Greece with an army a little larger than Sargon's without devastating the landscapes through which he passed. To be sure, he could not maintain such a force for more than a few weeks in a land as poor in local supplies as Greece. So, when a handful of Greek cities in the extreme south refused to submit, the Great King had to withdraw a substantial part of his invading force, because there was no way he could feed the entire army in the field over the winter.'
(source: W.H.McNeill:'The Pursuit of Power',1983)

A picture of rather short military campaigns emerges. Now something about recruitment among the Romans, who during almost every year of the Republican period were waging at least one war.

'Rome and most other Italic states were traditionally bellicose communities, where the social position of every freeman was closely bound to his capability to contribute actively to the almost annual campaigns. He, who couldn't fight, though a freeman, didn't count politically. Military service always was a duty and a right, reserved to those having the means to assert that right. As a result warfare was largely, just as in classical Greece, a rather 'amateurish' affair and armies more like a militia than a professional military force. Most Romans in the third century BC were peasant smallholders and Rome's economic basis was agricultural. For that reason military campaigns were conducted during the summer, when the land required no great effort. Only campaigns waged at a greater distance or protracted sieges of enemy cities could necessitate to keep an army mobilized for a period longer than a summer and the entire winter. In the First Punic War this had occurred a few times during the struggle for Sicily and would still more frequently occur during the war with Hannibal starting in 218 -with often evil effects for the individual soldier like neglect of the fields at home.

So the Roman military organization was based upon the militia service of a large part of the free population of Rome itself and a proportional part of the allies. Everywhere an official census existed, dividing the citizens in those available for military duty and the poor, who were granted a release. In Rome every five years such a census was held. And every year part of the citizens available for compulsory service at the age of 17 till 46, the iuniores, were mobilized by the new consuls of that year by a careful but time-consuming procedure: the dilectus(literally: the selection). Only those already mobilized sixteen(!) times were automatically exempt; other reasons, for example unpaid debts, could result in exemption. For that matter military service of sixteen years was exceptional; but four or five years of service were common in this period. In normal years -with no major war waged- the consuls only conscripted four legions at the beginning of their term of office. A legion contained 4200 men and a squadron of 200 or 300 cavalry; together these two 'consular' armies of each two legions consisted of nearly 18,000 Roman troops. Moreover, we should count the contingents of the Italic allies, making as a rule a force at least as large, likewise divided into four legions or 'wings'(alae), commanded by Roman officers. But this mobilization of four Roman legions with the equivalent contribution of the allies was only a fraction af all forces the Italic League could muster in an emergency. Out of some hundred thousands of Roman citizens and at least as many Latini and socii it was possible to recruit four or five times as many legions without causing a lasting disruption of society.
(source: H.P.Vogel/H.W.Singor/J.A.de Moor:'Een wereld in oorlog',1995; my translation)

To illustrate my point I will give some numbers. In ~200BC Italy had only three large 'cities':
Roma: ~150,000 inhabitants
Syracuse: ~100,000
Capua: ~30,000
For comparison's sake:
Alexandria: ~300,000
Carthago: ~150,000
The total number of inhabitants of Italy at this period is estimated at 5 or 6 million. But the northern part of the peninsula was not under Roman control. So the number of potential soldiers was definitely smaller.

At the battle of Cannae(216BC) the Romans lost at least 40,000 men, which is a conservative estimate, in one day. This would amount to roughly 2% of all males, Romans and allies. Immediately they conscripted new legions, allowing even slaves to bear arms. In the years preceding Cannae they had suffered two other severe defeats, losing also many casualties. Cannae was of course an exception, but these numbers show realistic proportions of conscription in Ancient society. During an all-out mobilization the army was as large as Rome itself! This cannot have remained without consequences.

It is true that most soldiers didn't come from the city, but were peasants. Since unfortunately CivII doesn't acknowledge the existence of a rural population -only of commuters working surrounding tiles- recruited soldiers can only be conceived as part of this urban population. The argument that an army needs more training cuts no ice. The Roman army was far better organized than most contemporary armies. Yet a few weeks of training and use of available weaponry sufficed in this relatively militaristic society. They didn't need to wait hundred years to build one legion.

As a result of the Second Punic War the Italian countryside became depopulated, relatively speaking. It resulted in a growing demand for slaves and social unrest.

I hope CivIII will have a much larger map, but will also allow a lot more movement poits to units.

[korn469]

S. Kroeze

interesting post
quite enjoyable reading but i missed the part about the unit workshop

anyways here is what i suggest for the unit workshop

on the left side have two rows of either four or six units counting vetical...like the following example

::::::::::::::::::
:<<-| <-| |-> |->> 
:[___] [___]
:
:[___] [___]
:
:[___] [___]
:
:[___] [___]
:
::::::::::::::::::

[___] this represents the unit picture
<<- this represents back five rows
<- this represents back one row
-> this represents forward one row
->> this represents forward five rows

if you click on the unit picture it automatically brings it up in the editor (right hand side of the screen)

the editor would utilize drop down menus and you would never change screens...for example there would be no changing to goto the chassis selection screen, you would just use a pull down menu to select which chassis you want

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited May 21, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Korn you are the man!!

I believe you made very clear problem definition of UW and I hope we can tackle these problems with you!

quote: i think that instead of changing screens in the UW that everything needs to be in drop down menu formula

good suggestion.

quote: also i think that a thing called military doctrine should be added to civ3

Yes! military doctrine! I always support this and your examples are well-chosen and understandable and furthermore sound very fun.

and your screen looks good! but a lot different from what I have in mind. If I have enough time,I'd like to present it with some graphics(maybe after my final exams)so our ideas can be combined!

Folks post your ideas!

S.Kroeze

quote: I know some don't like my citations

certainly not me. and thanks for many intelligent historic remarks which reinforce the UW idea such as "stockfiling arms" and "army mobilisation".

[Urban Ranger]

S. Kroeze,

I beg to differ.

First, there is a difference between having a well-ogranized army and a well-trained army. Organization simply refers to the heirarchial structure that exists in the army. This is different from combat training given to the troops. A well-organized army does not necessary fights well, though it often does.

As for historical evidence, I can cite some counter examples from Chinese history.

1. During the Warring States period, Q'in defeated Ch'iu by adopting a stretagy of killing off Ch'iu's troops.

2. During the Three Kingdoms period, after Cho Cho lost at the Battle of the Red Wall, he was never able to rebuild his army to pre-battle strength.

3. The CCP defeated the KMT by reducing the KMT troops in size.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 22, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Urban Ranger,

Thanks for responding!
I tried (and in my opinion succeeded quite well) to show:
-that a recruitment/mobilization system in many societies was the accepted rule
-that stockpiling of armour and weaponry was also most common
-that armies could have a size large enough to concern a substantial part of the population, which is an argument to subtract these numbers from your population
-that armies can be built/trained in a short period of time
-that an army that actually was a militia(=not-professional) could be almost invincible

And most of these conclusions apply at least for the whole of military history until the Industrial Revolution, which is more than 90% of recorded history, and even partly beyond.

I have lost my way in your response. It is totally unclear to me what message you want to communicate. Could you be a bit less cryptic, please?

Thanking you in advance!

[Steve Clark]

To add my 1 cents (not worth 2). You guys are still trying to change Civ3 into a wargame. At the scale of abstraction that Civ2 (and presumably, Civ3) represents, there is no way you can you have this level of military micromanagement without compromising on the other aspects of Civ. Civ works because it effectively abstracts city-building, trading, exploration, military defense and offense, and diplomacy. Each one of these by itself is not that great, but taken all together, it works very well. Again, don't lose sight of this balance or else you're going to have a game that will not be played over and over.

BTW, regarding military units and their resources, all I ask for is some coordination among stacked units (with leaders). I couldn't care less what they are equiped with, as long as I know that, for example, a unit has an attack value of 5, defense of 5, firepower of 2, and movement of 3.