Unit Ratios!

Right then chaps, as the mod nears the point where units are going to have to be placed on the map we have to touch upon the sticky issue of how many units to put on the map.
Now, this has to be a comprimise of keeping the turn speed up whilst also representing the numbers of military units realisticaly. As it is I was thinking of different ratios for different unit types.

Now this is my thinking:
My Example is UK Armed forces and by no ways complete:


Infantry now we can do this in my mind by regiments or numbers?
For example:
- the UK has 51 Battalions of Infantry as of 2008 so 51 Infantry units
- the UK has roughly 50,000 Infantryman so 1 civ unit for 1000 men makes 50 Units

For MBT's & AFV's I was thinking of doing it by numbers:
- the UK has 386 Challenger 2 MBT so im thinking a ratio of 1 to 10 so that would give the UK 38 MBT
- the UK has 789 FV510 Warrior so thats 78 in Civ

For Aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary should be fixed at a 1->5 ratio
- 67 Apache in RL means 13 in Civ
- 146 Panavia Tornadoes in real life so 29 in civ

For Naval vessels im thinking of a one to one ratio. A Carrier Battlegroup is a carrier battlegroup whatever you do.

For Nukes, we can do it by warheads or missiles so:
- the UK has 58 Trident missiles so at a ratio of 1->5 we arrive at 11
or
- 200 Warheads at a ratio of 1 ->5 we arrive at 40

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in short

For Infantry either
- 1000 RL to 1 Civ Unit
or
- 1 Regiment for 1 Civ Unit

For AFV's\MBT's
- 10 RL to 1 Civ Unit

For Naval Vessels
- 1 RL to 1 RL (IMHO they arent huge numbers of naval vessels out there anyway, I am willing to negotiate though )

For Nukes:
- 5 RL missiles to 1 Civ Missile
or
- 5 RL Warheads to 1 Civ Warhead

Let the debate begin!

I'd say whichever gives the least amount of units, I want to be able to play with having to wait ten minutes in between each turn!

well thats the thing.

if we turn 380 tanks into 3 then thats not fun im my mind... got to strike a ballanc between play speed\numbers\reality. Not an easy one this is gonna be methinks.

however we do have a BIG problem with the armies with laege numbers of men and tanks. Russia has 14,000 approximately...

Just to add some thoughts.

In the 1940AD scenario, I have chosen to represent 2 Divisions by 1 unit to start with and then add/remove for game balance. In comparison to modern days, the army size in WW2 are probably 10 times more than now, but it is only because we are not in a great war today. Should we make blow up the number of units in 2009AD mod? Or should we keep similar ratio to represent the peaceful environment today (and the potential to draft)?

On the other hand, CIV also has a default number that each unit type represent. For example, Infantry is 16000, Tank is 25000. I didn't end up using them because they were too restrictive. But may be that can offer us some reference.

Genghis_Kai said:

Just to add some thoughts.

In the 1940AD scenario, I have chosen to represent 2 Divisions by 1 unit to start with and then add/remove for game balance. In comparison to modern days, the army size in WW2 are probably 10 times more than now, but it is only because we are not in a great war today. Should we make blow up the number of units in 2009AD mod? Or should we keep similar ratio to represent the peaceful environment today (and the potential to draft)?

On the other hand, CIV also has a default number that each unit type represent. For example, Infantry is 16000, Tank is 25000. I didn't end up using them because they were too restrictive. But may be that can offer us some reference.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think basing it off of your 1940 scenario's ration for armies is the best way to go. This is mostly because I have attempted to play your scenario once and ultimately quite after two ten minute turns, I just can't take the waiting. And with seeing the size of the armies in the scenario (which I think is what was a major contributor to the very long turns) and that they were 10 times bigger than today's; that means the turns, if we keep the ratio the same, should not be as long as the WWII ones. And providing a realistic amount of units for each army.

A point of thought:

We can't make the number of units represented on the map TOO small, now. I mean...the USA/Russia/etc. have HUGE military advantages and to dwarf them down is not a good thing because:

Many of the cities on the map will have a good amount of production available, so, we don't need a country being able to "quickly" catch up to the USA's military size-etc.

Unless you are planning on making the cost to build military units very, very, very high to keep the ratios down and in line for a good stretch of the game.

If you only give the USA (just using numbers as an example):
75 attack helicopters...well...it won't take many countries a long, long time to build that many...and that is not very realistic. The USA/Russia/etc. are military powerhouses for a reason...and they will be for a long time - For a reason.

@joecoolyo; you're going to have to play on low graphics, few people play giant scenarios on high. Our scenario will probably be slower than 1940.

Mattygerst said:

A point of thought:

We can't make the number of units represented on the map TOO small, now. I mean...the USA/Russia/etc. have HUGE military advantages and to dwarf them down is not a good thing because:

Many of the cities on the map will have a good amount of production available, so, we don't need a country being able to "quickly" catch up to the USA's military size-etc.

Unless you are planning on making the cost to build military units very, very, very high to keep the ratios down and in line for a good stretch of the game.

If you only give the USA (just using numbers as an example):
75 attack helicopters...well...it won't take many countries a long, long time to build that many...and that is not very realistic. The USA/Russia/etc. are military powerhouses for a reason...and they will be for a long time - For a reason.

Click to expand...

If we do end up using a low ratio, we will have to increase building costs accordingly.

I'm all on your side in this DVS.

I agree that this mod is going to be KNOWINGLY very, very slow for 99.99% of people. Most people are not running 8 GB of RAM with a quad-processor, etc. And I saw you say that it's just going to be slow, and I accept that.

Just wanted to point out the fact that the downside of making the armies small is that it will be easy to play "catch up" as a smaller/less powerful civ...

mattygeist, thats why im pushing for the ratios i sugessted
Russia 14000 MBT will be accurately representd at the cost of proccessor power and speed.

My suggestion is have a look at the largest army in the world concerning each unit type and think of the ratio from this basis. If we start with UK's army we'll be getting problems at the latest when it comes to nuclear missiles. 5 RL missiles to 1 civ missile would mean about 2800 icbms for Russia...
So I think the first step should be to make a list of the largest armies for each unit branch.

Ok, you got me with the low graphics, but I was thinking, what if we do individual ratios for every type of unit (i.e armored units and gunpowder units will have two different ratios), this will solve the problem with the U.S.A. having 75 attack helicopters and 1000 nuclear missiles.

well we should probably start with the chinease, Nrth Krea & russia. Might be able to do so tonight.

Btw, was just usuing the UK as an example.

i reckon you need to knock a zero off those unit amounts sheep21 , if they start with 5 infantry units it gives more of a chane for gameplay to start an arms race for world war (which is the obvious goal of this mod)

besides the chinese have a army ten times the size of the uk roughly and them having 500 infantry units alone would cripple the game on a horsehockyy laptop like mine

why do you think a world war is the obvious goal of this mod?

ianinsane said:

why do you think a world war is the obvious goal of this mod?

Click to expand...

sure, maybe we can all just get along and hope and 'change' and all that bull

however , i'll be fully intending on dropping the bomb and rolling tanks rather than any space race carl sagan notions

anyway , as i've said before , 2 units should represent 1 division (for land units), this would give the uk 8 infantry units , 2 mech inf, 2 tanks


British Army statistics[9]
Personnel (Regular Army) 109,000
Personnel (Territorial Army) 34,000
Main Battle Tanks 386 Challenger 2
Light Tanks 325 FV107 Scimitar
Infantry fighting vehicles 789 Warrior. 305 Tempest MPV
APCs and CVR(T)s 3,230–4,000+
Land Rover Wolf 15,000
Pinzgauer 2,000
Utility Trucks 2,300
Artillery pieces and mortar 2,896
Air Defence 337
Aircraft 300+

the chinese by comparrison have roughly 7000 tanks in 11 armour divisions giving them 22 tank units

the russians with their 17 armour divions would have 34 tanks

and the americans with their 5 divisions would have 10 tanks

obviously the wests lack of numbers should be replicated with superior individual tank stats much like the ones in the max riga mod with weapons licences , i'm pretty sure a challenger 2 division would be capable of taking out a few old rusty ex-soviet T-53 divisions before it was swamped

As I said...if it is the intention to build the game with having such a small amount of units - then we better make them EXPENSIVE production-wise to build.

If they UK is going to have 8 infantry units...then it should take 50 turns to build a single infantry unit for the UK. And we'll have to make the expense of the buildings correspond.

The goal should of this mod is to be realistic. If your computer can't handle that many units...then you can always go into world builder yourself and mod it.

If the UK has 8 infantry units and can build infantry units quickly...

then the point of having a military-strength country (USA, Russia, etc.) is going to be moot and thats not very realistic.

These countries are military powerhouses and will be for the foreseeable long-term future. Being able to quickly catch up to being on par with the USA as Korea is not possible for a long-long-long while...and should be shown as so in the mod.

At least...that would be realistic...and from all intentions...DVS is aiming at a realistic mod that showcases today's world.

it's hardly a small amount of units when you have a horsehockyload of aircraft and boats and ICBMs not even mentioning paratroops , helicoptors , marines , and all the civ specific units , but yes , they should be expensive to build or have something in the script about democratic universal sufferige civilisations being unhappy with large armies

if there's going to be 50-ish different civs (which in my opinion there should be), the game doesn't need lumbering down by everyone having a thousand units , the game will be umplayable , even to basement dwellers , spending three hours of the day moving their units round , then waiting another four days for their mega billion ram computer to move everyone elses units round (with a full 24 hour period put aside for the chinese)

the police units from max riga would be a solution , much like militia from games of yore , they're simply there to defend the citys , not attack them

and building a unit over 50 turns is fine as long as one turn represents a week

and also military units should be very expensive to maintain ensuring mini 'whipping boy' nations don't develope armies , only communistic fascist and religiously zealot based governments would be able to produce conscript standard units , easi;y wiped out by more advanced civs weapons a la saddams so called elite republican guard getting toased by depleted uranium missles before the allies superior tanks mopped up the renmants

I disagree on making units so expensive to build, even if that means UK can quickly catch up USA or Russia.

Looking at the percentage of GDP we are spending on Military today, most countries are spending less than 5%. This means there are a lot of room for rapidly growing their military size if a nation somehow decided to spend 80% of GDP on military, just like WW2 does. If UK wants to spend 80% while USA maintains at 5%, I don't think it is unrealistic if UK can catch up with USA quickly.