A new specialist: soldier

[Adm.Naismith]

My proposal started after the last debate about how to model the cost of a military unit related to a civ.

Actual CIV and SMAC model only related units support to shields (hence production), given a "free support bonus" for some political (social) choice (CIV fundamentalist, or SMAC social engineer support bonus).

This model never reproduce the whole bad effect of waging wars.

The reduction of working population (because men were in army) was a major factor of old army limits.

Limited support was related to number of workers available (excess of production was very limited, so slaves were used to improve things a bit).

When the needs of wars token the most part of male population, the production suffered a lot. Quite often wars where "suspended" to let soldiers harvest the wheat and save from famine during winter.
Pillaging was as a need to mantaing soldiers, as a way to force enemy to surrender for fear of famine.

When a war was lost, lot of valid people was lost too (killed or enslaved);
this introduced the need to ransom valid men back from enemy, when possible.
When bloody wars ended, often looser civilization lost "ground" (halted the development) for a generation or two.
In Civ or SMAC we have the silly opposite effect: if one unit is killed you GAIN productivity , because the support shield become free!

One of the opposition to any proposal to relate army to population, was that this will make complex for Firaxis changing population numbers, enough to match 1 point of population reduction with number of soldiers needed to arms a military unit.

If Firaxis will radically change the supporting model my proposal will be meaningless, but if they decide to keep the city-unit 1 to 1 relation I suppose we can debate my idea.

I propose a little change in City support of army, introducing a new specialist: soldier.
Similary to entertainer use to reduce unhappyness, a soldier specialist simulate the people (and food, money and production) needed to keep up an army.

As for entertainer, its effect can cover more than one unit, and change by technology advance (advanced soldier, to model different needs of modern units vs old units).

It must be an automated specialist, i.e. the player can't modify the number of dedicated soldier specialist: they are taken by working population as military units are built (e.g. one soldier specialist support two units).
The number of soldier can change only if other advance (or city facility) change the rapport soldier/supported units.

If units are reassigned or disbanded, soldier specialist must turn back as common workers (people back to home), if units are killed, soldier specialist disappear (population lost).

Ok, all this surely need some tune up, or may be a push to the trashcan right now

Let me know your opinion, please.

[Henrik]

Well... This is right, mostly.
But please include an option to use mercenaires instead of population during the 16th-18th century almost all armies was built up of mercenairies (mainly from Scotland and Ukraine actually).
There where a few regiments taken form the populaion but most of the army (say 80%) was mad up of mercenaires.

[Stuff2]

I like it. But I think it also requires that the population model is re-modelled. In the current civ2 a city would have to need around 60000-150000 inhabitants (depending on resources) to support a single warrior unit, with food. Military units should ofcourse cost money for upkeep. In addition to not only loose an income in you also 'gain' an expence. Less taxes for paying more soldiers. It's logical and i like it.

[Tiberius]

I like it, Admiral, because it simulates very well all the unpleasant effects of a war.
Taking away one "soldier specialist" from the city, you automatically lose production, trade and food, whatever that "specialist" produced priveously, and finally lose the population itself.

I have only one doubt: losing population when building a unit, isn't the same thing ? (and it's even less complicate).

[The diplomat]

Adm.Naismith here has offered a good implementation of my "recruitment model". I am still hoping that Firaxis implements some kind of "recruitment model" in civ3.

Good stuff, Adm.Naismith!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited March 06, 2001).]

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-06-2001 03:48 AM In Civ or SMAC we have the silly opposite effect: if one unit is killed you GAIN productivity , because the support shield become free!

How about this. When a unit is killed, you temporarily lose the shield it was using to simulate lack of workforce.

Depending on your technology level, it should take a while for it to return, because it not only represents a lack of workforce, but a lack of experienced workforce, because there won't be as many people around to teach the next generation.

[Adm.Naismith]

Tiberius,

quote: I have only one doubt: losing population when building a unit, isn't the same thing ? (and it's even less complicate)

No, and yes

No, because I suggested that any "soldier specialist" may supports more than one military unit (depending on tech advance, too). It's more difficult to manage a "population half point" removal, IMHO.
Think about unit support reassignment to another city, too.

In my model you simply compute any turn: supported unit/units supported by any soldier=number of soldiers specialist you have in town.

Of course yes, losing population is far less complicate but you can't keep traditional CIV/SMAC small population points at all, because you subtract too many people per unit IMHO.

Henrick, right point about mercenaries I hope we will be able to recruit them from "huts" or (better) from Minor Civs army (by diplomatic option).

Beyowulf, your proposal model the city losing workforce only when unit is killed (not because people serve armies for years?), then the workforce is retrained (out of any city growth model).
I'm sorry, but I think it's less realistic than current SMAC model of unit supported by shield expense every turn.

BTW, thank you all for support and enhancement suggestions, I appreciate them and feel in better mood now

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-07-2001 08:14 AM Henrick, right point about mercenaries I hope we will be able to recruit them from "huts" or (better) from Minor Civs army (by diplomatic option).

Not in negotiations? When moving a diplomat into a city (or maybe by moving a recruiter or something similar) you could recruit mercenairies, but since mercenaires aren't representing the nation in question officially (but where rather just born there) it shouldn't be an option in ngotiations.

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-06-2001 03:48 AM This model never reproduce the whole bad effect of waging wars.

First of all, you've made a very good point here !!, generally spoken, I like your ideas.

quote: The number of soldier can change only if other advance (or city facility) change the rapport soldier/supported units.

My idea is that the number of specialist you've appointed to be soldier limits the number of units you can build. If you don't build all of them they "nonbuild" can be considered to be reservists which cost about a quarter/fifth of the maintenance of regular troops. If you have to mobilize they will stand within one turn as regular and battleready troops. If you want to mobilize more you will have to appoint more specialists. It will take the newly appointed specialists more time to get battle-ready then the reservists.

I must say I like the CTP-model when it comes to that. In this model more soldierspecialists would mean less other specialists. So one way or another, calling up for arms will always have a direct effect on what's going on in a city (production/happiness/trade/science/safety(would be a new one)). Only thing is in CTP you've have also the unitsparameter in which you can regulate the readiness of your troops. I wouldn't know what to do with that ?!. Maybe Firaxis should, when they can include it in the specialistsystem, leave that out as a single parameter.

quote: If units are reassigned or disbanded, soldier specialist must turn back as common workers (people back to home), if units are killed, soldier specialist disappear (population lost)

And that's what will happen if you use more-or-less a model like in CTP. Those units who are killed will have a reducing effect on your population and over-all happiness; those who are captured and are either enslaved or improsened will have effect on the happiness of your CIV. The freeing of improsened soldiers will ofcourse have a positive effect on your civ.
Soldiers improsened by your own CIV will either turn up as slaves or POW's (prisoners of war) in your specialistscreen. POW's will cost, brutalizing their special status will cause international disrespect or worse.
Within this context I plea again for Law of War as an extension of the Diplomacymodel.

You've given me a lot inspiration Adm. !!

[Adm.Naismith]

henrik, I'd prefer not to add a layer of free soldiers separated from some kind of official original civ.
For me diplomatic agreement with civ (minor or main) is good enough: we can pay (money, resources, tech exchange, pact agreement) and use the unit.

quote: You've given me a lot inspiration Adm. !

You're welcome, Vrank

I'm sorry I never played CTP (may be I should be happy about this, reading about angry players ), so I don't know how CTP manage this.

I see you can reverse the use of Soldier specialist: not automated by unit building but required to build units. Also reservist using fractional support point is enlighting. Good ideas!

Point about production/happiness/trade/science/security is very interesting, too (I swapped your safety with security, more appropriate terms with police/military AFAIK).

I already posted a lot about slavery/POW specialist into dedicated thread, so I support this part for sure

Ok, it seems we share a lot of thought, hopefully some Firaxis designer will do the same

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Urban Ranger]

Nah, too much micromanagement.

Unless for very critical reasons, anything that adds to micromanagement is bad.

Admiral, what you were saying only applies to small primitive tribes, not large civs such as the Roman Empire.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 03-09-2001 10:08 PM Nah, too much micromanagement. Unless for very critical reasons, anything that adds to micromanagement is bad. Admiral, what you were saying only applies to small primitive tribes, not large civs such as the Roman Empire.

Urban, I can't see all this micromgmt added, at least with my "automated soldier specialist" first proposal. Would you be so kind to explain more?
I hate too much micromgmt, so I would be sure not to be on the wrong way

BTW, Wich part of my post only applies to primitive tribe?
I have my history book hidden into some box, covered by dust, but I can clean them a bit if it can help any interesting and polite discussion



------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[loinburger]

There was an extremely scaled down Soldier Specialist proposal in the List v2.0, so hopefully Firaxis will take this under advisement.

------------------
"If you want realism, play two turns and die of old age."
-Flavor Dave

[AzNtoccata]

Oh oh, another idea. how about government affects the number of units a soldier can supply? Like communism a soldier can support more but democracy can support less. And I think the democracy unhappy when units away should be taken out. A war being fought by democracy can be a popular war too, not always unhappy.

[Youngsun]

quote: if they decide to keep the city-unit 1 to 1 relation

I hope not. Empire level mil unit management must be implemented.

City specialists in civ, according to my interpretation, do represent urban population of the region or city population who should be dealt separately from field workers who effectively represent rural population.

Then where those conscripted levy really belong? Are they really part of urban population who stay in the city/urbanised area all the time? We all know either city specilaists or field workers are in some extent static whereas soldiers are somewhat mobile in other expression, they move around or can be stationed at distant military post. This is the fundamental difference between civilians and servicemen. Now what problem can be caused by having soldiers as one of city specialists? Imagine that Rome has raised 5 legions from the city itself then sent the legions to North Africa. Next Gaullic army sieged Rome and took it. What happens to those 5 legions originated from Rome? They should be intact as they are. They can be supplied by other cities for their rations,weapons,etc(represented by shieds) but the soldiers themselves are there in North Africa but in Rome.
If "one Soldier specialist support number of mil units" is the rule, those 5 legion should find new soldier specialists from other Roman cities to be supported which is totally unrealistic. (I don't have to remind you those 5 legions never engaged with enemy force thus zero casualities taken so far.)

The main point why Admiral has suggested this idea I believe is that better/enhanced social impact of war(simulation of loss of population & loss of production) and I agree with Admiral this should be represented properly. However I disagree mil units should be supported by city specialists. Once mobilised or recruited, those portion of population should be taken into "national manpower pool" which deals with military units in various manner. You may release conscripted men to civilian population through demobilisation to improve your empire's production. Of course, Admiral has suggested this idea based on the assumption of no change in mil unit management but if that becomes realised, civIII will never have the room in my hard disk. Nothing is more disgusting than game sequals look only pretty in graphics while lacking modifications and enhancements.