That's idea has been already discussed, but now I'm refreshing the argument on a different perspective, because I don't want to vote or rate pro or against Unit Workshop in Civ III.

I will take for granted (for this post sake, that is) that some Unit Workshop (U.W. for short) will exists.

I only would like to imagine which attribute we will manage for every unit.

If anyone doesn't know how U.W. work in SMAC, I briefly descibe it:
You don't have predefined, "closed" units. Yu have Units as "objects" with few slots where you put properties available at the Discovery Tree level you already know.

You have:
Chassis slot: by foot, by wheels, ship, plane, missile, etc.
It defines turn movement, movement place (ground, sea, air), some limits to other available feature (e.g. only missiles can have nuclear attack weapon).
Attack weapon: in SMAC it can be occupied by something else for non combat units, e.g. by colony pod to make a "settler", by former tools to make an "engineer", by cargo hold for cargo units, etc.
Defense armour: how strong is the shield against enemy attack, but for a silly SMAC formula is in effect the number that define how much damage the defense units affect to attacking unit.
Engine: with lot of collateral effects, ranging from lowering unit producing expense to turn movement to defense multiplyier.
Special equipment or ability: two slot (the second only available later in game) where you can put special as SAM ability, Nerve gas available on attack, free unit support, morale enhancer, deep skull to make submarine units, etc.

You can mix any legal group of combo, then the system will suggest a (composed) name for unit type that the player can modify.

Back to the main point, how would you like to define the list of available feature for every "unit slot" in CIV III?

Just for example:
Chassis list:
by foot (make infantry type unit)
mounted (make knights, elephants, camels type units)
by wheels (make charriot, cannon, mechanized infantry units)
air (make dirigible, plane and helicopters like units)
sea (make trireme, galeons etc.)

We can have the system able to "suggest" predefined, historically accurate units (legions, pikeman, knights, etc.) but usually we can chose to build them by ourselves:
put a pike as attack weapon of an infantry chassis and you have a pikeman, put it on a horse chassis and you will end with a lancer.

More flexible, more interesting.

Main drawback of SMAC U.W. was the limited graphics available (they kept units graphics too much generalized, but that make it difficult to remember and distinguish different units on the field) and messy interface of U.W. (but we can make lot of hints to Firaxis designer about the latter, if they really want ).

Do anyone wants to suggest about the list definition to use to fill the unit slots, keeping an eye on SMAC model and another on history and CIV style?

I always support "unit workshop" idea. However, I personally did not like SMAC style unit workshop and I much prefer MOO style unit workshop.

SMAC's prototype idea is good one I reckon.

I really liked the interface of MOOI/II unit workshop.

You are right Admiral the similar graphics between two very different units things were quite annoying. Just like the city icons in CivII, each chassis should belong to at least five different major cultures.

European
Near eastern
Indian
Oriental
American(sure native)

And clear graphical distinction of weaponry is essential.

Predefined historically accurate units should have more benefits over any experimental units to prevent bizzare mil units wandering around the globe such as a knight mounted on camel or armoured elephants.

But sometimes weapon and chasssis combination alone can not create historically accurate units. Good examples will be Phalanx and legions. Arming any swordmen with some pila and gladius wouldn't create the true legionnaires. That's why we need some sort of training facilities which has been suggested by Stuff2. Thus raw conscripts from the civilian population would not fit to be a chassis material for legion units. Only trained men who know how to form,march,build and fight will be suitable material for a legion unit.

Any more ideas on this Admiral?

Maybe this is too many??

I think in order to build something that city should have to have the buildings to train/build the unit. Barracks, Military academy, tank factory, shipyard, aerospace complex, armory, a few others maybe. I agree historically accurate units should give bonuses maybe like a legionaire could get a morale upgrade because Roman legionaires were very well trained and disciplined and enjoyed high morale or U-boats could get an attack bonus or something. I would add slots for extra upgrades slots for electronic warfare such as GPS and radar and radio jamming equipment.

I am mainly into modern warfare so here's my ideas for special abilities for modern although this might(probably) be too much.

Ships

AEGIS radar
Stealth(yes there are stealth ships prototyped if the United States was at war we would see them built)
Cruise missle bays
Interceptor bays
3 gun turrets
AAA
Double sealed hull
electric drive
fision drive
silent turbines(subs)
Extreme pressure hull(subs)
underwater launch tubes(subs)

Tanks

radar jammers
radio jammers
gps
range finder
night vision
electric drive
laser communication
cannon size upgrades(80mm>120mm)
AAA

Mechanize vehicles

range finder
night vision
gps
radio jammer
radar jammer
infantry transport
AAA
rapid fire turret
laser communication

Infantry

gps
range finder
sniper scope/training
radio jammer
laser communication
night vision
special ops
amphibious ops
anti tank
AAA

Airplanes

stealth
VTOL(counts as 1/2 in carriers, ie 2x planes)
countermeasures
heat seeker missles
attacker upgrade(makes it fighter/bomber)

Some upgrades couldn't work together I'm not sure which. Maybe the EW units could have an EW upgrade instead of radio jammers gps range finders.

Thanks for the hard working and reminding me there is also "modern warfare" in civIII.

May I add some?

ships

Anti-submarine weapons/device.
AA gun should be divided into two:
Noraml AA gun and "Phalanx system".

Tanks

ERA armour fittings.
Fording device.
NBC(nuclear,biological and chemical)protection.
ATGM fittings.
SAM fittings.
Stabiliser.
Gun upgrade for Russian style.
76mm-85mm-100mm-115mm-125mm.
Gun upgrade for US & allies style.
90mm-105mm-120mm.
Smoke dischargers.

APC/IFV/truck/jeep/others

recoiless guns.
ATGM fittings.
SAM fittings.

Infantry

Mortars.
Inf-guns.
Field howitzers.
HMG.
SMG.
LMG.
Rifle.
Assault rifle.
Grenade.
Bayonet.
AT-rifle.
AT-gun.
Portable SAM,ATGM.

U have the different kind of units from differen ages. I'll show u what i mean:

Stone age
- Infantry
Iron age
- Infantry
- Cavalry
Mideval
- Infantry
- Cavalry
- Naval
- Artillery
Modern
- Infantry
- Motorized infantry
- Motorized cavalry (maybe called: tank)
- Artillery
- Air attack
- Air defence
- Air espionage (maybe this should be handled from the intelligence window)
- naval
- submarine

Future
- Robotic infantry
- Automated air defence.
etc

upgrades on-upgrades to units, ie if you get rocketry your units get AAA bonus at a little cost. To add something to the game maybe you could see some of your units in 3d units with the upgrades, so if you get rocketry you see stinger missles on tanks.

special abilites on-all marines get amphibious landings and ships get anti sub and boarding parties, stuff like that.

These cost a little money for each unit and should always be done(unless you short on cash). I think this might add a little to the games atmosphere, seeing special abilites and upgrades on units not always just the boring old units everyone has. Graphics could be different for civs like western civs have american style tanks eastern has russian style.

I don't think unit workshop idea itself is bad idea but the implmentation has been done in SMAC wasn't very good.

First of all, there was no clear distinction of arming a unit with good graphical representaion.

Secondly, too many useless prototypes made but no construction on these.

Anyone who played MOO series will like to see unit "workshop idea".

I think there should be "unit workshop" and "army organising".

I know most of you guys don't like SMAC style unit workshop and I myself don't like it and I made it clear from the beginning.

Aren't you little bit sick and tired having units just after some necessary discoveries? For example, having a Musketeer unit just after "Gunpowder" or Riflemen unit just after "Conscription".

I really like Stuff2's "equipment" idea and if we can produce things like muskets,cannons and rifles as they are, the game will be more exciting and fun I reckon. This also gose with the "mobilisation" idea which posted by someone else thus the manpower mobilised from your population will be primary materials for infantry unit chassis and equipment produced from your city factories will arm your men.

And why not give some degree of freedom to users build somewhat customised battle units to adapt changing situation and environment, hah? I also mentioned Historically accurate units should have more benefit over any experimental units to discourage many bizzare historically-unseen units roaming around the planet.

I persoanlly want the game as historic World simulator with some degree of freedom to go somewhat different ways from the fixed path of human beings which we know very well but with reasonable historic represenation and lessons.

And most of all, we don't have silghtest idea what Firaxis will do about the old unit workshop concept from SMAC and if they intend to introduce this concept into CIVIII it has to be better than SMAC style and as Ata's suggestion completely different.

quote: Aren't you little bit sick and tired having units just after some necessary discoveries?

Simple answer: no.

What I do like however, would be building weapons and equipping men with it so to say: recruiting. Like in Colonization.

I am a bit worried about the graphical representation. To get the units looking as different to each other as the civ2 ones, you'd need a hell of a lot of chassis and armour types. I think there'd need to be some automatic graphic changes, which SMAC had some of, for e.g., when you put legion armour on an elephant, it covers the whole thing, raather than the size of a legion.

There is one problem with the realism though:
If a civ is making legions for e.g., and they suddenly discover gunpowder, then they decide they don't want musketeers because musketeers don't have armour. So they design a legion with a musket, because muskets are better than swords. Is this realistic? This would happen in heaps of civ3 games, and would happen also with other units.

quote: I am a bit worried about the graphical representation

Me too man, so I suggested that 5 major culture blocs would be enough and reasonable. and as time goes by the distinctiveness of unit icons will be reduced and evetually end up like the same by modern era.(perhaps Russian & eastern style ,US & her allies style and Third world army style?)

quote: when you put legion armour on an elephant, it covers the whole thing, rather than the size of a legion.

If you have played MOO2 you would know each chassis has different capacity to hold any weapons or equipments. Thus armours for men would not fit for Elephants I think. Except infantry units all other units should be manned by crews and in that sense, elephants are part of many other equipments.

Men+(Swords+armours+shields) = swordmen
Men+(Lances+elephants+bows) = war elephants
Men+(Lances+armours+horses+horse armours)= armoured cavalry
Men+(Tank chassises+Guns+engines)=armours
Men+(Fighter chassises+machineguns+aeroengines)=fighters

quote: then they decide they don't want musketeers because musketeers don't have armour. So they design a legion with a musket, because muskets are better than swords.

Anicient armour equipments should be cumbersome for using weapons like muskets and provide no real protection against attacks from enemy musketeers so it would be better off with not wearing armours for musketters.

Futhermore, Stuff2's training facilities idea is good at tackling this kind problems.

Raw men->Barracks(ancinet)->trained swordmen or archers
Raw men->Barracks(renaissance)->trained musketeers or pikemen

So once designed as legionnaires(trained at ancient barrack)they have to be retrained at rennaissance barrack(also losing veteran status->What do they know about musket warfare?)to be effective musketeers.

Having many trained men as a reserve would be big advantage over other enemy civs which lack the number of trained men during modern era.(we can just mobilise them and send them to the front without extra training)

Another thing that made the workshop bad was the fact that there was never any reason to use other than the best weapon types.

Sorry for my late comeback, I was off-line during last week-end.

Ok, first things first, if you hate the whole concept of CIV III Unit Workshop, I wish you the best, I'm not here to tell you you are wrong!

If you don't like the SMAC implementation of the concept, you are welcome! Me too spent few posts on old official SMAC forum, suggesting improvement on that messy interface.

I don't know about MOO/MOO2 workshop (never played), so I can't agree or disagree about that. Anyone ready to post a dedicated thread with suggestion about it?

About use of slots, someone is going a bit to far IMHO, putting at work real wargame concept and achronims I suppose lot of player never read (nor bothered).

I'm more on the same line of the last post by Youngsun -ehila Youngsun! -

quote: Men+(Swords + armours + shields) = swordmen Men+(Lances + elephants + bows) = war elephants Men+(Lances + armours + horses + horse armours)= armoured cavalry Men+(Tank chassises + Guns + engines)=armours Men+(Fighter chassis + machineguns + aeroengines)=fighters

If the discovery tree will implement minor innovations we can have more intermediate passage (e.g. different kind of improved guns, normal bow -> longbow, etc.).

Someone is worried about too much prototype: Firaxis should simply limits the number of default proposed units to some "historical accurate schetch", that you can keep as-is or modify to your taste.

About unit upgrades, I suggest to modify the SMAC concept (you can now upgrade units everywhere on the field) with some more realistic limits: you can upgrade only inside cities, fortress, airbases or ports, taking at least one turn and (if an experience level like in SAMC is implemented) losing an experience point or two every main unit upgrade.

You can avoid/limit this penalty if you upgrade the unit inside cities with appropriate training facilities (barrack, airfield or shipyard).

Back on Unit workshop, I have some doubt about different graphics for different Civ/Area/whatsoever, because one main SMAC problem is Unit Reconnaince: I must be able to understand which kind of unit I have to fight, simply at a glance.

Minor enhancement (special slots) can be difficult to discover until in real battle, so I can live without detailed (graphichs) info, but I MUST be able to distinguish light infantry from heavy infantry just by graphics (and without the need for a Civilopedia search every time ).

Now the last bomb: historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!

Ok, my last word before to be hang up from angry apolytoner: every unit in history change more or less during time: well know WWII fighters Like Me 109 or Spitfire changed A LOT in performance and use during only five years of war. Former chivalry change tactics, training methods, weapons.

No way all battleship or submarine in history can be considered equals (if not *very* roughly). So CIV reproduces "medium" model of real units ability and power, mixing all characteristics to gain a balanced level.

Real units simply must be taken in account by designer to test game units power: every air force would like to have only stealth fighter if not because:
a) they will cost way to much to be sustainable in large number
b) they can't be the best for every battle (a concept like the old game "scissors win paper win rock win scissors"), because often you must trade off something (speed or range, or payload etc.) for every advanced feature you put in.

Well, I've written way too much, I'll shut up for some days now Really, it's a promise!

Now I will further explain how i think it should be.

Firts. Recruit men. I won't go in to this beacouse i don't have any real good ideas of how to do it. In order to equipp these men u have to posess that eqipments already. So bying or produce wareqippment is a must.

FE u decide to let them be "Motorized Infantry". There are a number of weapons and a number of shieldings and so on, that belongs to this kind of 'unit'. My idea is that even though there is a number of weapons that can be used the men will automatically be trained for all weapons that can be used with 'motorized Infantry'. These men will then after training be a part of your arsenal. U can eqipp them with any kind of 'motorized infantry'-equippment and then u have created a new "unit".

In order to give a unit special abilities xx % of the men must be 'specials'. Specials are men that only are trained on special things. For keeping this not too complex i suggest we have only one type of specials that deals with all of the special abilities.

As u can see the unit will have special abilities (as long as the special men are there and the eqippment is working) but the specials are usually not good at fighting so in that manor the unit will be a bit weaker.

All equippment that is carried will slow down the unit. There should be some levels of how much eqippment that are carried by a unit. If a unit is well equipped it will manage to do without supply lines for a long time. If it is not well eqipped it will depend on supply lines in order to survive. Supply lines is also an important to you army (Especially in modern times).

quote: limits the number of default proposed units

Good point and MOO series actually did that.

quote: historically accurate units don't exist in CIV!

I think there are some misunderstandings on this. historically accurate units mean historically seen or known units so historically inaccurate units are historically unseen or untires units. Nothing to do with their performance since even same type of weapons would vary in their performance.

quote: idea of loosing ability in one area when gaining something in another.

This must be represented!

Stuff2 don't you think there should be "national arsenal" to stockfile produced weapons and equipments to store?

Roman imperial arsenal
Legionnaire gear:80
Iron sword:120
Horse:25
Chariot:9
Trireme:40
etc.

US national arsenal
Rifle:500
Modern infantry gear:600
Artillery:200
Horse:450
Truck:250
AA gun:120
Ammunition points:80,000(after "Gunpowder" we can produce ammunition points and the bigger the calibre(bigger firepower)the more ammunition needed)
etc.

Detroit (Truck):25 per turn
New york (Rifle):40 per turn
Washington(ammunition Pts):500 per turn
etc.

For example armour when first gained is WWII style, with computers it becomes cold war level, and maybe plastics, 2000 level. A modern armour would get some significant bonuses over a neghbours WWII style, but without going throught the hassle of a unit workshop and manually upgrading troops.
If you had to uprgrade them by hand, you wouln't generally be done before the next upgrade was available.

The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

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.

Att/Def/Fp/Hp
Riflemen 5/4/5/3 (fully supplied)
Riflemen 5/4/1/3 (no supply coming)
Artillery 10/1/8/1 (fully supplied)
Artillery 10/1/0/1 (no supply coming)
Legion 6/4/1/2 (no ammunition effect)

The reason that why riflemen has at least 1 firepower remained is they can still fight as combatants and in this case, ancient unit like Legion has more chance to win because Riflemen have no ammunition left . Artillery units are killers if fully suppllied but with no ammunition they are useless.(rememer how the battle is caculated for CivII? no firepower means no harm to enemy.)

ember, just like "Leonard's Workshop wonder"?

Raingoon, well you actually reinforced why we need "unit-workshop" idea. Thanks!!!

You said this

quote: The frustration of researching conscription when you've already got yourself invested in musketeers is actually an important part of the game!

and imagine that if you have produced and stockfiled heaps of muskets in your arsenal and you just discovered the "conscription",the frustration would be even bigger.

quote: 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.

Yea, you are damn right! haha balancing your military power until the discovery of very right tech will be better simulated with "separated weapons/equipments and men" idea. Furthermore, we may be able to trade our arms as they are with other civs through trade or diplomacy.

quote: Often what seems like a restriction really forces you to think MORE creatively.

I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-17-2000 08:20 AM I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads. I also agree with raingoon on having units that can not just be upgraded whenever you wanted to. I always thought that Leonardos Workshop was too powerful as it removed all this from a huge part of the game (I always builded it).

One question - would you give defense by the unit built, or the weapon he carries? Or some combo of both?

On a seperate note. I am also guilty of Leo's Workshop construction every game It's definitely way to powerful.

quote: I would like Civ3 to have some kind of conscription system in which hiring the men is seperated by constructing the weapons. It should require a real pop in your cities in stead of heads.

Joker I always support things like these!!

quote: I want to be able to see how strong the opposing units are without having to click on them.

Yuvo me too me too

quote: how annoying would it get if you had to construct your own unit every time....

you're right.

ember now I understand what you were up to. Could you tell me how much variation can take place for each unit?

Arquebusier(with a rest)
Musketeer
Musketeer(with boyonet)
Musketeer(Napoleonic)
Riflemen(very early style)
or
Tank(WWI style)
Tank(WWII style)
Tank(Post WWII style)
MBT
MBT(next generation)

Are these similar to that you have in mind?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

code:

---

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

---

[___] 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

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

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.

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?

Ancient China also shows the pattern of distributing arms which had been stockfiled to conscripted levies. Provincial governors always kept larger quantity of weapons than the actual number of standing army so whenever an emergency happens large number of peasants could be armed instantly with stockfiled weapons(usually spears)and they were drawn into the service by either compulsory or voluntary enlisting.

quote: 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

Say for instance you want to create an offensive soldier around 400 B.C.

Do you select an Iron Shield or a bronze to save money? Or no shield at all? extra armor to that would slow your men down.

What kind of weapon would they carry?

Weapons and equipments have to be produced then will be stockfied into your arsenal.

Stone axe +3 melee
Hunting spear +2 melee +1 support
Primitive bow +2 support

Bronze spear +4 melee +1 support
Bronze sword +5 melee
Bronze armour +1 armour -1 mobility
Iron spear +5 melee +1 support
Iron sword +6 melee
Iron armour +2 armour -1 mobility
Wooden shield +1 armour
Bronze shield +2 armour -1 mobility
Iron shield +3 armour -1 mobility
Composite bow +3 support
Horse armour +1 armour -1 mobility
Marius's mule allows a unit to fortify -1 mobility

Light Horse +6 mobility(no armour allowed)
Medium Horse +5 mobility(armoured men allowed)
War Horse +4 mobility(Horse armour allowed)
Chariot(arse) +2 mobility
Chariot(horse)+3 mobility
Elephant +2 mobility -2 enemy melee(only cavalty)

Long sword +7 melee
Pike +5 melee X2 melee vs mounted(only inf)
Lance +5 melee X2 melee vs mounted(only cav)
Plate armour +4 armour -2 mobility
Mace +5 melee ignores enemy armour 50% -1 mobility
Longbow +5 support ignores enemy armour 60%
Crossbow +4 support ignores enemy armour 80%
Stirrup +2 melee(only mounted)auto upgrade if discovered

If your culture/social system is primitive, then you can only mobilise primitive men

Primitive men has basic stats like this
Melee/support/armour/mobility
1/0/0/3

Melee:basic fighting power/close combat ability
Support:when accompanied with melee units add bonus to the melee units
Armour:absorb some of enemy hit including enemy support fire
Mobility: this is not map(strategic) mobility this is battlefield mobility.
1~4 Bf mobility equals 1 map mobility
4~8 Bf mobility equals 2 map mobility
8~12 Bf mobility equals 3 map mobility
Battlefield mobility affects actual battle as a combined arms effect and map mobility ,as you know, reflect how many square you can move.

Assume that you mobilised 5000 primitive men then you distribute those stockfied weapons like Lord of Realm II style.

1000 axemen
1000 axemen
1000 spearmen
1000 spearmen
1000 Bowmen

your enemy has 8000 spearmen then engage!

Your army is faithfully following the basic combined arms concept(heavy inf,skirmisher,archer)so recieves high bonus whereas the enemy has no bonus on this case but only numerical advantage.