Ranks in the Military. . .

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai on 10-27-2000 10:25 AM rremus, I hope you that don't mean the units will use 2*2 sheelds for the next upgrade, 2*2*2 for the next etc., that would be too complicated.

No. If the unit costs 1 shield per turn, during the upgrade will cost 2 shields. That is only while is upgarding (that few turns) as cost for 'training'.

[Paulypav]

I think that ranks have to be greatly simplified if they are be useful. A combination of combat experience and training (I think the increased maintenance cost during training is the best method to simulate training) would be the logical methods of increasing rank. I think that there really shouldn't be more than 3-4 levels of rank.

One possible downside: Would this complicate the phalanx-battleship problem which is supposed to have been fixed. Would a top ranked phalanx be capable of defeating a low-rank battleship or is the fix capable of adjusting for this.

------------------
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
- Douglas MacArthur

[Tim White]

I am praying that Firixas has fixed the ranged combat thing (With the phalanx vs. battleship). IF a battleship attacked a top ranking phalanx, if your smart, you dont have to think who would win. of course the battleship would win. because, in real life, when a battleship did attack a phalanx, (by the way, a phalanx is a battle formation, not a unit) the how could the battleship get wounded from the phalanxe?!?! That is one of the main problems I have with civ2, combat. I mean, would an infantry unit win a combat against a bomber that is at an altitude of 20,000 ft.?!?!

iF you want to talk about combat, go to Combat thread.

[Biddles]

President, our first unit was just promoted to 5-star general!

Next turn: Our ship has landed on ALpha Centauri!

No offense but if anyone could figure out what the requirements for the next rank are it wiould still take bloody ages to get that unit promoted. I agree that there should be a lot of "ranks" - around 6 or 7, but the way they get promoted needs to be simpler. The SMAC style was done well. There were 7 morale levels (Very Green, Green, Disciplined, Hardened, Veteran, Commando, elite) and the units were 'promoted' when they were first built (trained units) and simply through battle. This system is simple to understand and has the desired effect.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Christantine The Great]

I think that the SMAC ranks are fine. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Official Webpage of the Chrisonian Republic

The Viking Archives

The MGE Succession Game Team. Sign Up Today!

[Shogun Gunner]

I also don't understand the significance of a unit "surviving" a battle which put the strength bar into the red zone which then leads to a promotion. If anything, wouldn't that reverse the "promotion?" All of your veterens would be dead.

People get ranks, units do not.

I always understood the CIV logic to be battle tested troops versus untested troops (conscripts possibly?). It was a simple as that. You could simulate battle tested by building Sun Tzu or barracks which dedicates money to training, etc. I think this was mentioned earlier.

In history, elite units where troops that had succesfully fought in a campaign or two. But it was more than that, they got the best equipment, they were fed well (reference other posts concerning supply), they were always paid on time (don't want your crack troops disgrunted) and they got a lot of training and the latest technology. The Panzer Lehr division of WWII Germany always got those cool Panther tanks which kicked butt.

Surviving combat was only a part of the whole picture.

[rremus]

I think the basic idea is this: quality costs!
You need Elite units? Spend your resources in training and maintenance and your unit will be the best.
CTP has simple model which is pretty good: you could set a global 'military readines'. 'At peace' your units cost almost nothing to maintain, but they of worst quality. When 'At war', your units are costly to maintain, but they're good quality. Its treu, the CTP model did not work an the grade of the unit, but on they strength bar. But it still is a simple yet effective model. The more you spend, the better units you have.
When you don't need them (no conflict at horizont, but who ever saw that? ), reduce military budget. The side effect is that they quality is getting worse...
A fine model would imply zones of military readines. When you have a large empire, you don't need all your units to be ready and super-trained. Only at the troubled border.

[Deathwalker]

Great idea, but less complex

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by rremus on 10-30-2000 03:23 AM When you don't need them (no conflict at horizont, but who ever saw that? ), reduce military budget. The side effect is that they quality is getting worse... A fine model would imply zones of military readines. When you have a large empire, you don't need all your units to be ready and super-trained. Only at the troubled border.

I like this. When you start having an increased number of skirmishes or wars, your costs go up, which then applies pressure for peace. The same true for AI.

This is a good idea. In real life, a division of troops from one country is not always equal in strength to a division of another country. This idea would simulate that.