Reservists

[punchy123]

As the title says i think it would be good to add reserve units in the game.

How this would work is that you have an option when purchase a miltary unit example rifleman, to either purchase a full unit or reserve. the difference could be that reserve unit are then same and have the same abilities but have less strenght and cost less to produce.

I think this would then add another level of strategy. eg some civs may create large forces with only a few reservists and others would do it another way.

what you think

 

[Harv72b]

My first thought on seeing "reservists" in relation to Civ would be giving us the ability to place units of our choice in "reserve", at which point their upkeep costs are reduced (say, by 50%) but they cannot be moved or interacted with in any way. The unit would obviously have to be in your own territory before it could be reserved.

It would then require a set number of turns (varying by game speed) to re-activate the unit, at which point it functions just like any other of its type. Maybe add in a one-time cost in gold or a temporary increase in unhappiness for re-activation.

And yes, now that you've jogged my creative impulse on this, that capability would rock!

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think that a mechanic related to Conscription would be more relevant, as it has been in History.

Conscription would be available since Gunpowder, as shooting with a canon requires less ability and less specialization than fighting in a melee with a sword and armor.

Conscripts would appear in cities, cost 1 pop, be pikemen (upgradable) and cost a temporary sum of happiness. (4 for 30 turns without Nationalism, 2 for 20 turns with)

 

[Adjuvant]

Conscription has existed throughout history, but the first notable example was by the Romans. The term "legion" (legere) is even derived from an annual conscription process or "levy" of all citizens to serve in at least one campaign. It was part of their "duty", as Switzerland or Israel today.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Conscription has existed throughout history, but the first notable example was by the Romans. The term "legion" (legere) is even derived from an annual conscription process or "levy" of all citizens to serve in at least one campaign. It was part of their "duty", as Switzerland or Israel today.

But legions had very little effectives...

 

[Adjuvant]

I suppose if you mean "Legion as military structure only allowed the Romans to control a great percentage of their known world instead of nearby planets", then sure, it had limits.

 

[Naokaukodem]

wut

I just read somewhere that legions were pretty not numerous compared to the territory they had to keep. In comparison with later european wars which conscripted MILLIONS people.

 

[Adjuvant]

I guess I took your word "effectives" to mean "effectiveness". An individual legion generally had 4,000 to 5,000 men, varying from losses, but generals (duces) might command several legions. Scipio, for example, in the battle of Zama, had about 40,000 men.

There weren't millions of people to conscript in classical antiquity, unless you included women and children. I think the entire earth at that time had "maybe" 150 million.

edit: by comparison, world population in WWI was about 1.7 or 1.8 billion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Roman empire has however around 60-70 millions inhabitants, maybe over 100 millions, that's comparable to France nowadays. However, France conscripted around 2 millions warriors 1 or 2 centuries ago... (where the population was much lower than nowadays)

 

[qwerty25]

Roman empire has however around 60-70 millions inhabitants, maybe over 100 millions, that's comparable to France nowadays. However, France conscripted around 2 millions warriors 1 or 2 centuries ago... (where the population was much lower than nowadays)

That just means that the legions were extremely effective, being able to control more people with less warriors.

For the reservists thing, I'd rather keep it simple. Instead of having two separate unit types, just keep it as one unit.

But, have units in be able to switch from the two states of "active duty" and "reserve duty".

Active duty: would be the normal units that we have now. Full Strength. Costing heavy gold maintenance per turn. Can fight immediately.

Reserve duty: would be an inferior version of active duty units. Diminished Strength (3/4?). The maintenance would be a lot lower. Basically are like stand-by units when not at war.

Keeping your units on reserve duty would save gold, but make them susceptible to attack if surprised. It'd take around 4-5 turns for reserve duty units to change into active duty. (basically getting ready for war) So if you know someone is about to attack you, you'd have to change into active duty ahead of time.

For

 

[dexters]

I think that a mechanic related to Conscription would be more relevant, as it has been in History.

Conscription would be available since Gunpowder, as shooting with a canon requires less ability and less specialization than fighting in a melee with a sword and armor.

Conscripts would appear in cities, cost 1 pop, be pikemen (upgradable) and cost a temporary sum of happiness. (4 for 30 turns without Nationalism, 2 for 20 turns with)

Yeah in Civ3 you can initiated draft to pull extra units. These well be recruits (2 hp bars) and cost 1 pop point IIRC.

The AI's naturally would be using this alot during wars and they tended to suffer, so I think if a conscription/draft mechanic is something we consider, the first thing is to make the cost less drastic, especially considering population is now tied much more directly to science output as well.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That just means that the legions were extremely effective, being able to control more people with less warriors.

Sure, but that's not the point of my remarks. I'm just trying to relativize the importance of drafting in ancient times.