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

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.

Good stuff, Adm.Naismith!

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

quote: 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.

Youngsun, you see I agreed with you in advance

The sad trouble with units support is that any playable model seems not good enough.

In the past centuries, armies where more related to city than to the whole empire/nation, where in modern times the opposite is the rule.

You see, it's difficult to define a model good enough for all ages, and surely isn't viable to change model mid-games!
I hope Firaxis will find a good (in game sense) compromise.

I agree that units that lost supporting city are troublesome, but a solution is not out of reach: e.g. automatic disband units or reassign support to nearest cities (not every one to the nearest, cycle thru as many cities as available for support: if no one avail, then disband).

About your New Radical Civ or else... attitude:
While I agree that we need a game fresh enough with some radical "spice", I'm not looking for a completely different game.

That said, I usually try to share (and help with, if I can) both a "radical proposal" and a "classical style improvement" for every subject.
I hope Firaxis will peek here and there for the best mix.

Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both?
regular units would be supported by the whole empire. They would represent the regular army. But in addition there would be a "militia" unit or a "partisan" unit which would be supported by the individual city it is from. These "militia" units could be implemented with the soldier specialist idea. Now the number of "militia" units versus regular units would depend on many factors, social, government etc. Some civs could have no or little regular army and depend solely on city supported "militia" units. This would reflect one type of army where soldiers are locally drafted for example. Another civ might have it the other way around, representing an army that is supported entirelly on the national level. The player could have any combination of both that they want, like 40% militia, 60% regular.

This would represent both systems that we have seen throughout history.

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 03-12-2001 09:25 AMI want to say again, this thread is really interesting.

quote: Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both? ............. This would represent both systems that we have seen throughout history.

In the protestant controlled Dutch Republic, uptill 1795, every city had its own militia. The stadhouder (or stad(=city)-holder in english) was the leader of the national army if we were at war or when things got hot. When he rose an army, usually formed by mercenaries, he had to get consent from the staten-generaal (states-general) which funded the army. We never have had a large regular national army in peacetime like in England, France or Prussia, but only small garisons which were housed in barracks in the largest (or most troublesome, usually catholic) cities (like Amsterdam). From 1795, the "Bataafse" revolution on conscription was introduced and the city-militia's were abandoned.

One can imagine units (of most any type) being supported either locally or nationally without stretching the credulity of the model. Whether or not that flexibility works from a game balance perspective, I couldn't say, but it would be easier on the player, so it would possibly make the game easier to beat and thus maybe less challenging. The production cost can be paid by either the local (normal) or federal (forced production) entities in the existing games.

The notion of taking a population hit of some sort in the originating city when initially fielding an infantry type unit could be accomodated by adjusting the growth rate for some fixed and/or continuing amount of time in the city of origin; if you want a rationale for that, it could be that the soldiers are deemed to be reproductively unavailable and so the birth rate is reduced. This penalty could be linked somehow to whether infantry were in fact in the city or not - i.e. an (ongoing) growth penalty when infantry are away; possibly an intermediate growth penalty for garrisons and/or reservists; if the unit were killed, the away penalty would become permanent. A certain number of penalties could be related to a pop unit so that n killed soldiers = reduction of 1 pop unit and cancelation of associated ongoing growth penalty. Switching home bases for a unit could be handled by havinging a "killed" effect in the original home city and an inverse "killed" effect in the new home city as well as reassigning the debiting of the ongoing penalties to the new city.

When a city loses population, it loses production capacity, which represents strains of war.

quote: In the past centuries, armies where more related to city than to the whole empire/nation, where in modern times the opposite is the rule.

True but something very funny things happen under your model. I'll show the case in numbers. Rome has 10 pop points and 2 points were used for rasing an army. While the army was sent for an overseas expedition, a barbarian army takes Rome along with those 10 pop points as prisoners. Now you have to assign fresh new 2 pop points from other Roman cities to support the army from Rome. The barbarians have 2 extra pop points as prisoners who shouldn't have been Rome in the first place while Roman civ has to compensate the loss of 2 pop points from other cities which shouln't be sacrificing from this bizzare incident.

Under my model, those missing 2 pop points are completely spared since the points were taken into separate place(manpower pool)as soon as mobilisation takes place. Only battle casualties will affect the mobilised pop points in negative manner.

quote: I agree that units that lost supporting city are troublesome, but a solution is not out of reach: e.g. automatic disband units or reassign support to nearest cities (not every one to the nearest, cycle thru as many cities as available for support: if no one avail, then disband).

So once all cities are lost, armies lost too? What about Free French force during WWII? They lost all thier home cities but kept fighting and finally won ,though heavily supported by the allies. After the defeat, Chiang kai shek's troops ran away to Taiwan to keep fighting(Those officers and soldiers are all from mainland China but Taiwan) If Kiev supports 10 Russian infantry divisions, the German army will just take Kiev and they don't have to chase the retreating 10 divisions but simply capture Kiev then 10 division weight of burden will be put on the Russia regardless of the fate of the 10 divisions whether they make it to the rear or not.

quote: I'm not looking for a completely different game.

quote: Well, about military support coming from individual cities or the whole empire, why not have both?

That depends on your definition of "support". If that means just pay(money) and supplies(shields) ,as you said, Why not? if soldier specialists in each cities, nope.

quote: Switching home bases for a unit could be handled by havinging a "killed" effect in the original home city and an inverse "killed" effect in the new home city as well as reassigning the debiting of the ongoing penalties to the new city.

The same problem arises as Admiral's suggestion. Let's not make cities too juicy target. Otherwise people will concentrate thier defense for cities for wrong reasons(not for defense of city itself but for defense of military force) Why nations consider tactical/strategic retreat when things goes bad? Because the significance of military force over the territory. If the situation get reversed, things like tactical retreat to spare your military force will be totally out of option.

quote: since a unit is small comparing to a population unit of a city. That would have to be fixed

If no real numbers are used, more population units for each city will be good enough I believe.

quote: But units are composed of people and they need to eat.

Still...

quote: Rome has 10 pop points and 2 points were used for rasing an army. While the army was sent for an overseas expedition, a barbarian army takes Rome along with those 10 pop points as prisoners.

No, the soldiers specialist are "out of town". Barbarians only capture 8 population point.

quote: Now you have to assign fresh new 2 pop points from other Roman cities to support the army from Rome. ... while Roman civ has to compensate the loss of 2 pop points from other cities which shouln't be sacrificing from this bizzare incident.

True. This appear as a hole in my model.

quote: So once all cities are lost, armies lost too? What about Free French force during WWII? They lost all thier home cities but kept fighting and finally won ,though heavily supported by the allies.

The keyword is "supported by the allies". Any allied city can (not must) accept to support allied troops. Only troops without allied cities are disbanded, becoming free barbarian/partisan/terrorist, or generating a settler of survived population (if Civ restart is allowed).

Still we appear to fall in the same logic hole you pointed out above: why a new city should change some of their workers into Soldiers specialist, to support already built (and recruited) armies?

But, wait...

We should consider now escaped units as sort of "Refugee armies".
You can add (for free) enough Soldiers specialist to the new supporting cities.
This accomodate people recruited: they are not disappeared, only "assigned" to another hometown. BTW this need to be implemented anyway to cope with the game feature switching support city, as in CTRL+H command in SMAC.

Because the whole support cost is modelled by the production missing from workforce, now under armies duties, their production is still missing and we are almost back from hell

Youngsun, please help me: are you seeing any more flaw into my corrective measure? You are doing a good job as a Flaw Researcher, I almost hope Firaxis recruit you

quote: the soldiers specialist are "out of town".

I'm surprised! They weren't city specialists after all! Conventional city specialists are part of the city population that shares the same fate with the city. Now you're saying soldier specialists are out of town which means they don't share the same fate with the city. If that was the case, why not manage them in collective manner as "the pool" does rather than managing them from city to city? Which one is more efficient, "the pool" or "a city"?

Admiral, "the pool idea" is not so hard to implement and if used, it eliminates the probelms that are associated with conventional mil unit management. You control conscripts in bunch so reduced micromanagement is possible and it still simulates the side effect of war, production loss & actual population loss. Furthermore, the concept is so easy to understand and perfectly makes sense. You take some portion of population from a city for both military use and grand project then release them to home cities again, simple as that.

If you don't like the term "pool", you may call it "temporary storage area for mobilised population" or "consciripts management centre" whatever you want to call or imagine but in technical sense, they are all the same, separate and collective management of conscripted population.

quote: This accomodate people recruited: they are not disappeared, only "assigned" to another hometown. BTW this need to be implemented anyway to cope with the game feature switching support city, as in CTRL+H command in SMAC.

I think that:

A) Units must take a toll on the population of a city.
B) This "lost population" should be kept in a "pool" as you say so it can be re-integrated when a unit is disbanded.
C) Having a new specialist and such is a little overboard for me, and conflicts with my more conservative views on Civilization 3.

Youngsun, I am glad of our mutual agreement on at least one issue.

Simply, IMHO it needs some more programming and design change, it's a bit more on the "civ radical idea" side.
With the pool you must change the Population number, because taking 1 Civ II pop point for every unit "built" is unaffordable and unrealistic.

You must manage different numbers when tech (and age) change: e.g. 1 legion unit takes 4 (new) population point, while a WWII tank unit only needs 2 pop point.

You probably need a dedicated recruitment screen to monitor all "units to mother city" link.

Don't forget you still must keep a link from city of origin and unit to reassign population when unit is disbanded, and manage people changing city link if original town is conquered or destroyed.

That said, please detail you proposal a bit more, and it will be fine for me to support it.

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 03-14-2001 04:26 AM Simply, IMHO it needs some more programming and design change, it's a bit more on the "civ radical idea" side. With the pool you must change the Population number, because taking 1 Civ II pop point for every unit "built" is unaffordable and unrealistic.

True, true. But the population number as high as it is is silly, and should be changed anyway.

quote: You must manage different numbers when tech (and age) change: e.g. 1 legion unit takes 4 (new) population point, while a WWII tank unit only needs 2 pop point.

Why? It would be much easier to simplify this as all units take one population point.

quote: You probably need a dedicated recruitment screen to monitor all "units to mother city" link. Don't forget you still must keep a link from city of origin and unit to reassign population when unit is disbanded, and manage people changing city link if original town is conquered or destroyed.

It's not this complicated. In Civ2, it works the same way: each unit has a home city and this is displayed without a central recruitment screen. Units that lost their home city would just be re-assigned to the nearest city for pop. support. Basically, I think the only difference between the pool system and Civ2 is that:

quote: For example a unit of rifleman will take big chunks out of the population but equiping a unit of artillery or stealth bombers is usually a matter of resources and not of man-power.

And, with some game limit to reality, I suggested to model it with any Advanced Soldier Specialist able to support more units (e.g. three instead of two) than early Soldier Specialist. We already have advanced specialist in SMAC, that are introduced by tech advance, so I follow the Firaxis concept here.

Urban, for sake of simplicity I counted that people under armies subtract to the town all their production as workers (usually shield, coin and food). So I accepted that as good enough to model unit food needs, too.

Don't forget early armies used to bring food from hunting and pillaging enemy small villages.

Ok, now that I have answered some questions, I want to summarize this thread a bit.
It's obvius we have at least a radical model (national level support) and a minor enhancement one (soldier specialist).

Both have pro & cons but, more relevant for me, as far as I understand we agree that:

1) military units MUST be built using some city population. A destroyed unit is a population loss. During peace time is inefficient to keep up a large army force idle (disbanding some units become a more valid option).

2) people under Army Service reduced shield production, trade and food (they cost resources)

Now Firaxis can implement any valid model (city based support or civ based support) until it satisfy the two point mentioned above.

But there is one thing I would like to see if this is the case.

Once the unit is produced, you get a specilist and a 'dividable military unit'. The whole unit being the Brigrad.

Say I produce 1 unit phalanx with 1-2-1, I would be able to divide them to two units phalanx with .5-1-1. Or even do the reverse of combining them.

There is one other thing I woould like to see is the ability to name the unit or army.

Since the One citizen represents (I think) 10000 population. then the 1:1 citizin rule would not equate.

quote: Say I produce 1 unit phalanx with 1-2-1, I would be able to divide them to two units phalanx with .5-1-1. Or even do the reverse of combining them.

It seems ages ago when I suggested to use Health Point to build "half force" units .
Digging a bit and quoting myself:

quote: My suggestion was: because in CIV II and SMAC we already had the concept of unit strenght by hit points, we can consider a unit at 50% strenght as a damaged unit as a half force new unit. This can easily be showed by the same bar near the unit icon that we have now. Usually real Armies tried to keep their units at nominal force, but in emergency time they built and throw on the battlefield units at a reduced numbers, so building a unit we should have the button to rush a "reduced unit", i.e. very useful for defence from an incoming weak enemy (think about a citizen militia called at arms by a sounding bell ). Of course you must change the way units are healed: not automatically and for free, on the field as in SMAC, but spending as many money as rush building them to the full in a SMAC building queue. This change to the rule is a need to avoid to have someone "cheating" weak & cheap units just to have them full force after a bunch of turns.

Merging two units to gain double force IMO is more a matter of Stack rules, and I'd leave there because Stack are already mentioned from Firaxis will be included in Civ III.

17.3) Social Engineering and unit support (modified from the SMAC SE system). Instead of taking up physically modeled resources, units take up productivity represented by workers converted to Specialists supporting military units. Non-military units should require economic support only or minimal Specialist support.

17.3.1) The new class(es) of Specialist represents the troops themselves as a fraction of population, plus the military personnel devoted to supply and support, plus civilian productivity diverted to supply and support. Support must be supplied by Specialist(s) in the home city.

17.3.1.1) The Soldier Specialist incurs a penalty of -2 Economy -1 Labs +1 Psych in the city. Obsolete with industrialization.

17.3.1.2) The Quartermaster Specialist becomes available with industrialization and incurs a penalty of -1 Economy and a +2 Psych bonus.

17.3.1.3) The Engineer Specialist (available with Fusion) includes a limited strength support function. The Engineer Specialist provides one support point at some SE Support levels.

17.3.2) Military units require Specialist support points based on chassis type, technology level, and a fraction of the unit's construction cost. (A fractional or x10 accounting system is preferred.) Nonmilitary units, if requiring Specialist support points at all, would be based on chassis type and technology level. Basic infantry units should require around 1 point, basic vehicle units 1˝ – 2 points, and aircraft 2 – 3 points.

17.3.2.1) Higher power plant technology level should diminish support requirements.

17.3.2.2) Higher weapons technology level should increase support requirements.

17.3.2.3) Special Abilities directly related to weapons or training should increase support requirements. This would apply to non-combat units if non-combat units are permitted AAA, Comm Jammer, Cloaking etc.

17.3.2.4) "Clean Reactor" does not effect support cost derived from weapons or §17.3.2.3 above.

17.3.3) Social Engineering Support Level affects "free" support points from bases and support points provided by Specialists.

17.3.3.1) SE Support Level Effects Table

SE Support    Specialist Support     Free Support
  Level            Points Provided        Points/Base        Other Effects
  –4                        2                        None             •Engineer does not provide support
                                                                           •No free minerals for new base
                                                                           •Soldier/Qtrmaster incurs add'l -1 Economy
  –3                        2                        None             •Engineer does not provide support
                                                                           •No free minerals for new base
  –2                        2                          1                •Engineer does not provide support
                                                                           •No free minerals for new base
  –1                        2                          1                •Engineer provides 1 Support Point

    0                        3                          2                •Engineer provides 1 Support Point

    1                        4                          3                •Engineer provides 1 Support Point

    2                        5                          4                •Engineer provides 1 Support Point

    3                        6                          5                •Engineer provides 1 Support Point
                                                                           •1st Soldier/Qtrmaster incurs no Econ/Labs penalty

I'm afraid I must dissent ( )from your:

quote: "city" population isn't necessarily the entire population, only the population that is economically tied to the primary city in the province/state/region that the civ city represents. The province will many rural villages engaged in subsistence farming with no ties to the modeled economy, and often military units are drawn from such people.

May be I'm missing somewhat, but you must define if game population is reproduced by City Pop or not. You can't tell Rural population is not reproduced BUT it's used to form armies.

Some gamers told that city pop reproduce the whole province pop, assigned as workers on the fields or reserved as specialist for dedicated duty.

Rural pop was (and mostly still is) a large source of food and a mid level source of trade (think about town market and holiday market, where Rural pop come to city to buy and sell).

On another view, are we speaking of population as a whole (women and children included) or are we speaking about workforce only? Because military efforts grabbed a lot more than a bunch of valid (in military sense) workers.
Romans had a rule to have men from the same family on duties in different military units, just to lessen the risk of "Save private Ryan" situation, where whole families risked to disappear for war killing.

quote: Also, loss of the unit in the field occurs at casualty rates of 25-50%, the survivors being reassigned to other units or returning home

Sure, units in reality retreats too, to be replenished or disbanded for heavy loss. Prisoners of war where enslaved or killed, only in modern age they start to be kept in Prisoner camps, to be returned after war end.

If Civ III will add PoW instead of total unit destruction (unlikely, they only spoke about fast units retreating as in SMAC ) I'll agree with you about unit loss not equal to all soldiers killed.
As is, Civ units gone are gone in full glory and forever.

quote: Some gamers told that city pop reproduce the whole province pop, assigned as workers on the fields or reserved as specialist for dedicated duty. Rural pop was (and mostly still is) a large source of food and a mid level source of trade (think about town market and holiday market, where Rural pop come to city to buy and sell).

Exactly! I believe Sid intended to have the field workers to represent rural pop of the region(city radius).