COD Fix? Units consumes FOOD like in Civ 2 Tether way ???

[Lazy sweeper]

I saw some vid with City states with "hundreds" ( 50ish?) units, on the map, at the same time.
Completely obfuscating the Terrain feature under them, with both their imposing Icons, and Figures...

And then I remembered back in Civ II (Sid Meier version), every single Unit, was tethered to its original creator city,
and it would consume Food, and Gold, from the city and that city only.
I Don't remember WHAT happened if you would have lost your city to the "tethered" unit... if you would automatically
lose it, or if it would switch its MAINTENANCE to the next city of your Empire in order of importance/production...

But maybe, just for city states, this could be an "option"? to choose at the start of a game???
If enabled it would restrain the COD of units all over the place, unless that city state is producing
more food than ancient Delhi or Thebes or Rome, with a pop of more than 1M people...

It would also be fun to see this old mechanic at play with all players also, not just city states of course...

So let's vote...

PS: I forgot "Other" but there is the comment section for that...

 

[stealth_nsk]

Carpet of doom is clearly the problem and a lot of game mechanics exist to address it, but connecting units to settlements is not a solution:

1. Units connected to settlements is overcomplicated, shady mechanics. Like several steps worse than current settlement connection mechanics. Managing those things would be a nightmare.
2. Current unit maintenance does the same thing - uses yields for unit maintenance. Since yields are more or less convertible to each other (i.e. you could use gold to buy buildings producing other types of yields), the system with units tethered to particular cities will not limit carpet of doom any better

P.S. If I remember correctly, in Civ1 only settlers costed food, other units costed production. Can't remember how it worked in Civ2.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Back in Civ2 I think unit support changed depending on government type

 

[disjointaccount]

That video is showcasing a bug is it not? "Bug" is in the title...

 

[Krikkit1]

Just charge CS/IP maintenance (maybe with discount)

 

[Skojardu]

Carpet of doom is clearly the problem and a lot of game mechanics exist to address it, but connecting units to settlements is not a solution:

1. Units connected to settlements is overcomplicated, shady mechanics. Like several steps worse than current settlement connection mechanics. Managing those things would be a nightmare.
2. Current unit maintenance does the same thing - uses yields for unit maintenance. Since yields are more or less convertible to each other (i.e. you could use gold to buy buildings producing other types of yields), the system with units tethered to particular cities will not limit carpet of doom any better

P.S. If I remember correctly, in Civ1 only settlers costed food, other units costed production. Can't remember how it worked in Civ2.

Connecting units to the city from which they were recruited from is not shady at all. It reflects reality. The food represents stuff like care packages sent to the troops and there should be specific sort of war weariness that happens when a troop from a specific city dies. Civ colonization did it best where each civilian could become a troop, but the city lost population.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Connecting units to the city from which they were recruited from is not shady at all. It reflects reality. The food represents stuff like care packages sent to the troops and there should be specific sort of war weariness that happens when a troop from a specific city dies. Civ colonization did it best where each civilian could become a troop, but the city lost population.

Civ games aren't simulation, so "reflects reality" is not an important argument. And do you remember managing units in early civ games? If you wanted to fix city production by disbanded some of units belonging to those cities, that was kind of micromanagement hell. Without unit stacks it would be way worse.

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Moved per request of OP.

 

[Skojardu]

Moderator Action: Moved per request of OP.

Where was this moved to?

 

[Nikolai II]

Where was this moved to?

To the current placement, ideas subsection?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Connecting units to the city from which they were recruited from is not shady at all. It reflects reality. The food represents stuff like care packages sent to the troops and there should be specific sort of war weariness that happens when a troop from a specific city dies. Civ colonization did it best where each civilian could become a troop, but the city lost population.

It most certainly does not reflect any 'reality', "Care packages" are not supply and support (modern term: 'Logistics'). The supply of whatever is needed to maintain a military or civilian unit is only 'tied' to a given city or settlement if there is absolutely no other source of such supply. In fact, the only such 'tie' is generally where the original complement of people is recruited from, but replacements for casualties come from wherever they can get them and all the other support - food, fodder for pack animals, replacement weapons and armor, ammunition, fuel, lubricants and spare parts in late Ages - can come from anywhere that can supply them.

In fact, the supply of replacement people, replacement animals, continuous supply of food and fodder for them, weapons, armor, modern fuel and ammunition, throughout history have been 'sourced' from wherever is most convenient. Stealing most of it (especially food and fodder) from the local civilians wherever you are has, in fact, been the most common method.

If we want to limit the total number of military units by modeling the supply chain for them, at Civ's scale it would be far better to simply tie units to the total population so that you cannot 'recruit' soldiers from people who are already hammering out swords, growing food, pressing olive oil, etc and generally supporting everything. This would be far more accurate and far easier to keep track of - as in, the computer can do it for you and tell you when you've reached a 'penalty point'.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It most certainly does not reflect any 'reality', "Care packages" are not supply and support (modern term: 'Logistics'). The supply of whatever is needed to maintain a military or civilian unit is only 'tied' to a given city or settlement if there is absolutely no other source of such supply. In fact, the only such 'tie' is generally where the original complement of people is recruited from, but replacements for casualties come from wherever they can get them and all the other support - food, fodder for pack animals, replacement weapons and armor, ammunition, fuel, lubricants and spare parts in late Ages - can come from anywhere that can supply them.

In fact, the supply of replacement people, replacement animals, continuous supply of food and fodder for them, weapons, armor, modern fuel and ammunition, throughout history have been 'sourced' from wherever is most convenient. Stealing most of it (especially food and fodder) from the local civilians wherever you are has, in fact, been the most common method.

If we want to limit the total number of military units by modeling the supply chain for them, at Civ's scale it would be far better to simply tie units to the total population so that you cannot 'recruit' soldiers from people who are already hammering out swords, growing food, pressing olive oil, etc and generally supporting everything. This would be far more accurate and far easier to keep track of - as in, the computer can do it for you and tell you when you've reached a 'penalty point'.

I’m not sure about the current Bundeswehr but the German military has used a regional recruitment “Canton” model since the Great Elector, and it’s one of the reasons German units have such tremendous unit cohesion and resilience. The guys you grew up with are the guys you go to war with. The German military went to great lengths to try where possible to return recovered wounded to their “native” formations.

Another tremendous upside, since another part of this policy is stationing units in their “native” area in peace time, is a much, much lower need for coercive discipline. Your soldiers are often stationed in and around where they grew up; desertion or bad conduct will instantly hit your friends and family. You also have them close by for support. The meme of “Draconian Prussian discipline” is complete and utter bullfeathers rooted in typical British dishonest wartime propaganda that became a meme endlessly regurgitated by academic echo chambers, pre 7 years war Prussia actually had a much, much lighter policy.

Prussian soldiers in peace time had two one month training periods and the remaining ten months of the year their time was their own. The only requirement was stay in the garrison town, and wear at least one part of your uniform (usually the pants). Soldiers were not only free but encouraged to seek civilian employment, get married etc. So having a regiment stationed in your town was a net economic benefit; in addition to soldier paychecks you had a stable source of labour. Putting down roots in the community also made a lot of your soldiers “self disciplined”.

This policy is one of the reasons Prussia was able to succesfully support such a large and extremely effective military on such a seemingly slender resource and financial base. It’s also one of the reasons, along with Prussia’s ridiculously terrible geography that Prussian military thought was so focused on fast wars, or avoiding them altogether. Again, it’s comical comparing all the dishonest claims of “German warmongers” with the actual record.

The downside to this is if a particular unit is hit hard repeatedly, it may take longer to return to full strength if it’s catchment area is depleted. If the catchment area is occupied replacements may be imposssible to find. Soldiers may also be pretty unhappy if mixed into a “foreign” unit. I’ve noticed that in several memoirs; Otto Cauis got “promoted” from his original Tiger company to a Jadgtiger unit and hated every moment of it.

During the 7 years war when various parts of Brandenburg-Prussia were under French, Russian or Austrian occupation this was part of Frederick the Great’s juggling act, especially for East Prussian units given the lengthy occupation of East Prussia by Russian forces. Silesian regiments were sometimes given special treatment to bolster the loyalty of troops recruited from a recently occupied province

The use of Saxon troops by Frederick seems nuts unless you keep the regional model in mind. After Saxony was blitzkieged by Frederick the surviving Saxon troops were “Voluntold” into the Prussian Army. Amazingly they were kept in their own regiments with Prussian officers appointed instead if being mixed into often depleted Prussian regiments who could have used replacement because having some Saxon regiments of questionable motivation was judged to be better than mixing “foreigners” into Prussian regiments and disrupting them

Here is a real world example of a major military power, certainly the best pound for pound using what looks a LOT like a military support model based on what city the unit is raised from.

How would you model this in Civ terms?

Using Civ5/Civ6’s combat model since I suspect this is what we will be seeing going forward:

Military Policy Card: Cantons

Effects:

Military units have no maintenance costs in peace time.

During war maintenance costs are increased

Units do not have their combat strength reduced by damage

Unit healing rate cannot be increased or decreased by outside effects, it remains at default values.

Each military unit is “attached” to the city it was built in, if control of that city is lost, the unit cannot heal.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I’m not sure about the current Bundeswehr but the German military has used a regional recruitment “Canton” model since the Great Elector, and it’s one of the reasons German units have such tremendous unit cohesion and resilience. The guys you grew up with are the guys you go to war with. The German military went to great lengths to try where possible to return recovered wounded to their “native” formations.

Another tremendous upside, since another part of this policy is stationing units in their “native” area in peace time, is a much, much lower need for coercive discipline. Your soldiers are often stationed in and around where they grew up; desertion or bad conduct will instantly hit your friends and family. You also have them close by for support. The meme of “Draconian Prussian discipline” is complete and utter bullfeathers rooted in typical British dishonest wartime propaganda that became a meme endlessly regurgitated by academic echo chambers, pre 7 years war Prussia actually had a much, much lighter policy.

Prussian soldiers in peace time had two one month training periods and the remaining ten months of the year their time was their own. The only requirement was stay in the garrison town, and wear at least one part of your uniform (usually the pants). Soldiers were not only free but encouraged to seek civilian employment, get married etc. So having a regiment stationed in your town was a net economic benefit; in addition to soldier paychecks you had a stable source of labour. Putting down roots in the community also made a lot of your soldiers “self disciplined”.

This policy is one of the reasons Prussia was able to succesfully support such a large and extremely effective military on such a seemingly slender resource and financial base. It’s also one of the reasons, along with Prussia’s ridiculously terrible geography that Prussian military thought was so focused on fast wars, or avoiding them altogether. Again, it’s comical comparing all the dishonest claims of “German warmongers” with the actual record.

The downside to this is if a particular unit is hit hard repeatedly, it may take longer to return to full strength if it’s catchment area is depleted. If the catchment area is occupied replacements may be imposssible to find. Soldiers may also be pretty unhappy if mixed into a “foreign” unit. I’ve noticed that in several memoirs; Otto Cauis got “promoted” from his original Tiger company to a Jadgtiger unit and hated every moment of it.

During the 7 years war when various parts of Brandenburg-Prussia were under French, Russian or Austrian occupation this was part of Frederick the Great’s juggling act, especially for East Prussian units given the lengthy occupation of East Prussia by Russian forces. Silesian regiments were sometimes given special treatment to bolster the loyalty of troops recruited from a recently occupied province

The use of Saxon troops by Frederick seems nuts unless you keep the regional model in mind. After Saxony was blitzkieged by Frederick the surviving Saxon troops were “Voluntold” into the Prussian Army. Amazingly they were kept in their own regiments with Prussian officers appointed instead if being mixed into often depleted Prussian regiments who could have used replacement because having some Saxon regiments of questionable motivation was judged to be better than mixing “foreigners” into Prussian regiments and disrupting them

Here is a real world example of a major military power, certainly the best pound for pound using what looks a LOT like a military support model based on what city the unit is raised from.

How would you model this in Civ terms?

Using Civ5/Civ6’s combat model since I suspect this is what we will be seeing going forward:

Military Policy Card: Cantons

Effects:

Military units have no maintenance costs in peace time.

During war maintenance costs are increased

Units do not have their combat strength reduced by damage

Unit healing rate cannot be increased or decreased by outside effects, it remains at default values.

Each military unit is “attached” to the city it was built in, if control of that city is lost, the unit cannot heal.

I knew someone was going to bring up the Prussian canton/German 20th century Wehrkreis system as soon as I posted that, but you only prove my point: as a general system it is simply wrong because it was largely a European model, and then only for a relatively limited time period.

Nor was it limited to Prussia. In fact, the Swiss cantons started calling up men by regional area (the 'canton', in fact) as early as 1450 CE, in which all men in a given unit were from a specific civil area and all replacements as much as possible came from that same area as needed.

And the direct model for Prussia's system was the Swedish Utskrivning, started around 1620, which called up a given number from each district in Sweden for specific regiments. The limitations of the system to the civil economy were also graphically shown by modern studies of the Swedish system: the parish of Bydgea had 250 farmsteads and 468 males between the ages of 15 and 60 in 1620 when the recruiting system was introduced. By 1639 after Sweden's major participation in the Thirty Year's War was nearly over, the parish had 288 men left over the age of 15, and over a third of the farms were untended.

Also, Prussia's system was supplemented by other recruiting systems, most notably recruiting by fair means or foul from foreign subjects or hired foreign mercenaries. Frederick the great himself estimated that 1/3 of the Prussian army was composed of foreigners, each of which he estimated as worth three men to Prussia: one more 'Prussian' soldier, one less soldier any enemy could recruit, and one more Prussian peasant who could stay home and work and pay taxes - he knew too well the potential dangers of recruiting too many men into his army and out of the economy. That turned out to be a recurring German problem because when the Wehrmacht expanded in 1941 for the war against the Soviet Union, the German economy immediately went into a manpower crunch that was never solved for the rest of the war, even when they tried using slave labor from Soviet prisoners and involuntary immigration from France, Belgium, Poland and the Netherlands.

As a specific adoptable Policy it makes much more sense, but I would add to your proposed system a direct connection between calling up men of military/working age en mass and its effect on the Economy of the settlement/city from which they are recruited. Perhaps something like a settlement under the Canton Card has no population increase during wartime and can therefore not work any new tiles or improvements until the war is over or the settlement lost.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I knew someone was going to bring up the Prussian canton/German 20th century Wehrkreis system as soon as I posted that, but you only prove my point: as a general system it is simply wrong because it was largely a European model, and then only for a relatively limited time period.

Nor was it limited to Prussia. In fact, the Swiss cantons started calling up men by regional area (the 'canton', in fact) as early as 1450 CE, in which all men in a given unit were from a specific civil area and all replacements as much as possible came from that same area as needed.

And the direct model for Prussia's system was the Swedish Utskrivning, started around 1620, which called up a given number from each district in Sweden for specific regiments. The limitations of the system to the civil economy were also graphically shown by modern studies of the Swedish system: the parish of Bydgea had 250 farmsteads and 468 males between the ages of 15 and 60 in 1620 when the recruiting system was introduced. By 1639 after Sweden's major participation in the Thirty Year's War was nearly over, the parish had 288 men left over the age of 15, and over a third of the farms were untended.

Also, Prussia's system was supplemented by other recruiting systems, most notably recruiting by fair means or foul from foreign subjects or hired foreign mercenaries. Frederick the great himself estimated that 1/3 of the Prussian army was composed of foreigners, each of which he estimated as worth three men to Prussia: one more 'Prussian' soldier, one less soldier any enemy could recruit, and one more Prussian peasant who could stay home and work and pay taxes - he knew too well the potential dangers of recruiting too many men into his army and out of the economy. That turned out to be a recurring German problem because when the Wehrmacht expanded in 1941 for the war against the Soviet Union, the German economy immediately went into a manpower crunch that was never solved for the rest of the war, even when they tried using slave labor from Soviet prisoners and involuntary immigration from France, Belgium, Poland and the Netherlands.

As a specific adoptable Policy it makes much more sense, but I would add to your proposed system a direct connection between calling up men of military/working age en mass and its effect on the Economy of the settlement/city from which they are recruited. Perhaps something like a settlement under the Canton Card has no population increase during wartime and can therefore not work any new tiles or improvements until the war is over or the settlement lost.

Of course someone was gonna bring that up, it’s a very well known example of “military support tied to soecific city”.

Frederick’s post 7 year war desire to have more foreign cannon fodder in the ranks was a result of the deep scars the effects of that war on the civilian populaion left on his psyche. Large swaths of his kingdom underwent enemy occupation at one point or another, Berlin itself was occuoied by Russian cavalry at one point, with all the usual depredations this entailed. The casualty bill was extremely high as well, there is the famous example of one noble family losing 20 of 23 military aged males over the course of the conflict. The kingdom’s finances were depleted, etc.

Frederick’s two biggest priorities after the wars was recovery and deterring more fighting.

ANY military power doing a mass mobilization, especially one in the situation Germany found itself in was going to feel a massive manpower crunch, this has nothing to do with the recruitment model and everything to do with ending up in a war with every other World Power at the same time.

What the canton systen gets you is tremendous unit cohesion and resilience combined with an extremely low maintenance cost in peace time.

Mobilizing men, equipping them and sustaining them in the field will be ruinouslly expensive no matter how they are recruited.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Frederick’s post 7 year war desire to have more foreign cannon fodder in the ranks was a result of the deep scars the effects of that war on the civilian populaion left on his psyche. Large swaths of his kingdom underwent enemy occupation at one point or another, Berlin itself was occuoied by Russian cavalry at one point, with all the usual depredations this entailed. The casualty bill was extremely high as well, there is the famous example of one noble family losing 20 of 23 military aged males over the course of the conflict. The kingdom’s finances were depleted, etc.

Actually, the active recruitment of foreigners into the Prussian army started under Frederick's father and was driven by his attempts (largely successful) to have a competitive army on a very small population base compared to his likely enemies. That problem made any casualties even more dangerous to Prussia, and continued during Frederick's reign, most notably as a reslt of the enormous casualties relative to the Pussian population in the Seven Year's War.

But such casualties as you mention were not limited to Prussia. Susane's volumes in his history of the French army tried to cover all the aristocratic officer casualties in the pre-revolution Army, and the result was to graphically indicate the massacre that took place under the circumstances you describe: France and Bavaria fighting virtually the rest of Europe during the War of the Spanish Succession. At Blenheim alone, in a single afternoon one aristocratic family that had raised a regiment for Louis XIV lost the regimental Colonel (head of the family), his brother, his nephew and his son all killed - every adult male member of the family wiped out in a few hours (along with most of the rest of the regiment, which had to be disbanded after the battle). This was not necessarily a negative for Louis XIV, because the king had to approve the family members or distant members who assumed the family aristocratic title, so that by the end of that long and murderous war almost every aristocratic family in France owed many of their titles and positions directly to the King. Note that between 1714 and the revolution there was no hint of any aristocratic revolt against the monarchy . . .

 

[GeneralZift]

Why is the poll so confusing? It doesn't need 30 options.
I vote Yes because it's an interesting drawback. Although I think it should dynamically shift and absorb Food and Gold from nearby Cities where appropriate.

So it would simulate supply lines but you wouldn't have to literally micromanage supply lines.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

That video is showcasing a bug is it not? "Bug" is in the title...

To be totally honest I watched the video and didn't get what kind of bug was referring to... I just saw a wall of units, I'm not sure it was about that or what.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Why is the poll so confusing? It doesn't need 30 options.
I vote Yes because it's an interesting drawback. Although I think it should dynamically shift and absorb Food and Gold from nearby Cities where appropriate.

So it would simulate supply lines but you wouldn't have to literally micromanage supply lines.

It's confusing because having one city state pouring 30 Units when its pop is like 4-7 is confusing...

I could have added other options where instead of "AI" I could have talked about "raging Barbarians" but it would have been even more confusing as there are no Barb camps anymore...

 

[Monene]

I would like each unit to consume 1 food from the tile it is in, or cost extra upkeep if there isn't enough food in the tile. That way, if you have plenty of food, the army can sustain itself, but if there isn't enough food, it requires a strong economy.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I would like each unit to consume 1 food from the tile it is in, or cost extra upkeep if there isn't enough food in the tile. That way, if you have plenty of food, the army can sustain itself, but if there isn't enough food, it requires a strong economy.

It would also work for starving a sieged city. But some units could require more than 1 unit of food per turn. Commanders could help boost supply.
Ai without commanders would struggle.. problem is that units don't have perks, so a "foraging" perk for a Commander is possible, not have this option for Units could ruin gameplay...