Should military units cost population and require buildings?

historix69

Emperor
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,412
Currently a settler unit costs 1 population and requires a min city size of 2.
The military engineer requires an Armory.
The archaeologist requires an archaeological museum and is limited to 1 per museum.

Based on these special properties I wondered how the game would change if most or all units in the game would have :
- population cost (e.g. 1 per unit),
- min city size to train unit (higher city size for late game units)
- a special building requirement like harbor, ship yard, barracks, armory
- a limit in number based on special buildings, e.g. 4 per barracks

To compensate the population loss, the population growth rate might be increased. Population in cities would still be limited by housing and amenities.

To be able to react on immediate crisis, there should still be kind of generic cheap militia / draft unit type for each era which can be produced without building requirement but has inferior combat values compared to the high quality units from buildings.

Deleting units in a city should provide some food and production to the city based on cost and tech level of the unit, e.g. deleting a warrior (base cost 40) would give 20 production and 20 food while deleting a modern infantry unit (base cost around 400, maybe min city size 10) would give something like 200 production and 200 food. (The food refund should corelate with min city size to train a unit.)


Spoiler :
<Row UnitType="UNIT_SETTLER"
BaseMoves="2"
Cost="80"
AdvisorType="ADVISOR_GENERIC"
BaseSightRange="3"
ZoneOfControl="false"
Domain="DOMAIN_LAND"
FormationClass="FORMATION_CLASS_CIVILIAN"
FoundCity="true"
PopulationCost="1"
PrereqPopulation="2"

Name="LOC_UNIT_SETTLER_NAME"
Description="LOC_UNIT_SETTLER_DESCRIPTION"
CanCapture="False"
CostProgressionModel="COST_PROGRESSION_PREVIOUS_COPIES"
CostProgressionParam1="20"
PurchaseYield="YIELD_GOLD"
PseudoYieldType="PSEUDOYIELD_UNIT_SETTLER"/>


Spoiler :

<Unit_BuildingPrereqs>
<Row Unit="UNIT_MISSIONARY" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_SHRINE"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_APOSTLE" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_TEMPLE"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_APOSTLE" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_STAVE_CHURCH"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_INQUISITOR" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_TEMPLE"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_INQUISITOR" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_STAVE_CHURCH"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_MILITARY_ENGINEER" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_ARMORY"/>
<Row Unit="UNIT_ARCHAEOLOGIST" PrereqBuilding="BUILDING_MUSEUM_ARTIFACT" NumSupported="1"/>
</Unit_BuildingPrereqs>
 
Costing 1 population might be a bit harsh to our domination loving friends here.
Why not either make it take up 1 housing in the city that built it? Or cost one food in this city as long as it is alive?
 
Take up 1 housing = send "unborn" troops
Cost 1 Food : Food is plentiful in Civ 6, so 1 Food might only be a problem in the very first turns of the game.

Societies have farmer, worker and soldiers. The more soldiers a society fields, the less men can farm and work at home. Population, production and economic income decline. By taking away population, the player would experience this loss.

Definetely it is an idea for a mod since most people would not enjoy such a realistic experience.
 
I like these ideas!

Currently military are wonderously the only units that don't escalate in cost, or have other restrictions. I think this is at the root of the current "problem" that conquest is way to rewarding when compared to other uses of production. Some way to make the player pay for an army would be good (beyond the current hilariously low, and easily trivialized, upkeep costs).

Take for example the current early game meta: I can invest a couple hundred hammers into getting a settler, districts and builders for improvements... or i can just spend a fraction of that on military and take all those things from someone else. Of course the latter option comes out ahead!
 
I guess there is a mod that makes military units cost population.

I don´t know if military units should require buildings but I guess the AI will fail even more, so at the moment this should apply only to very special units (Like ww-units).
 
I like these ideas!

Currently military are wonderously the only units that don't escalate in cost, or have other restrictions. I think this is at the root of the current "problem" that conquest is way to rewarding when compared to other uses of production. Some way to make the player pay for an army would be good (beyond the current hilariously low, and easily trivialized, upkeep costs).

Take for example the current early game meta: I can invest a couple hundred hammers into getting a settler, districts and builders for improvements... or i can just spend a fraction of that on military and take all those things from someone else. Of course the latter option comes out ahead!
but that also has the problem that the ai would have an even worse military.
 
but that also has the problem that the ai would have an even worse military.

Indeed, but Civ 5's AI also can't defend it's cities no matter how hard it tries. Yet Domination is not nearly as common a victory there (outside MP at least) because investing in an army and conquest have real downsides and costs associated with them. These are real enough brakes to encourage the player to go for science or culture victories.
 
Similar idea but not the same: city populations in Civ are discreet and small (the difference between 5 and 4 is very large). Civ games have always implied that city size isn't linear growth either, in Civ 5, a size 1 city was 1000 people, a size 2 was like 7000 and a size 3 was 21000 (The formula was 1000 * n^2.8). I think it would be interesting if all of these units subtracted from the growth of the city but didn't actually take away a population point. If a power value smaller than 2.8 was used for population scaling, this might make sense.

On the other hand, the wikipedia article for military formations states that a corps is a unit of 20-40k soldiers and a field army is 80+k soldiers. The level below corps is division, so if we assume that the base unit is a division, that would mean each unit is 10-15k soldiers. (This is a heck of a lot). Perhaps when you build these units, you should lose the equivalent of 10k people from your city. If we DID use a value of 2.8 (per Civ 5), that would mean that a size 3 city producing a unit would drop about half its population in doing so. This is kinda bad, so we'd be better off using a more reasonable unit composition, for example 1000 soldiers (although even this is a lot if you think about it). Realistically, the basic unit size should probably increase through eras. I just can't imagine an ancient city mustering a thousand troops so quickly (let alone a barbarian encampment with 1000 bandits running around).

The other thing I think would be cool would be if units could only heal in (or with line-of-sight to) your territory with zone-of-control breaking line of sight. When healing, the units would take from the growth of the city. This mechanic would make it much better to take as few casualties as possible in every situation because healing is expensive. If that's implemented though, it would make sense to take away the +50 hp for getting promotions (where are the extra soldiers coming from??) but at the same time, it would make sense to add +x HP from clearing barbarian encampments.

Changing the way military combat works could help with the above problem: let's assume that each unit has 10 000 soldiers. We also assume that healing takes citizens directly from the nearest city you own. We can also assume that unit health directly correlates to the % of 10 000 soldiers that remain. In earlier eras, maybe you produce a unit with 10 health, representing 1000 men. Maybe barbarians spawn with even less health than that.

I think unit combat strength is calculated where you get a -1 penalty for every 10 damage you've taken (something like that) but it would make more sense if it was something like -1% for every 1 damage taken.

In this scenario, you can possibly decide how many citizens you want to invest in units. Early barbarians will be a nuisance with pillaging your tiles but probably won't actually cause you any real trouble because they will probably spawn with 3-4 health (representing 300-400 bandits) while your state military will probably have 10 health. This would translate to 2.5-3x the combat strength.

A number of things would have to change if this was implemented: I believe damage is calculated deterministically where you plug in the combat strengths of each side and the damage dealt is output. That's gotta go because in this system you can't take 30 damage like it's nothing (that would be 3000 deaths). Instead, damage is relative. If one unit has 10 health and the other has 5, they're outnumbered 2:1, but the damage dealt to each side would have to be more like -1 and -4 or -5, resulting in 9 health on the stronger unit and maybe 1 health or a kill on the other side.

City strength would also have to be changed to account for unit size because we'd have to take into account the size of the garrison in the city. Perhaps it makes more sense if city bombardment is only possible if there is a military unit in the city. It consumes the movement for that unit and uses that unit's health to calculate damage.

Finally ships should use this system as well. Ships need two types of health: ship health and crew health. Ranged attacks deal ship damage and some crew damage. Melee attacks deal crew damage (the idea is that you pull aside the other ship and board them. That makes it a man-to-man fight rather than an attack against the ship).

The speed and attack strength of a ship is relative to the crew health (if your ship is only half manned, you won't be able to turn the sails, adjust ropes or fire as effectively, reducing attack damage and movement speed). Ship health affects strength and speed half as much as crew health does (so 50% crew health equals 50% the movement speed and attack damage whereas 50% ship health equals 75% movement speed and attack damage. 50% of each would be 25% movement and attack damage).

Ships are much larger than regular units so it's important to try to determine HOW many ships are in a unit. The number of ships is important because as we discussed earlier, you probably won't be making a full health unit when you produce them, especially early in the game. For the sake of it, let's assume that the number of sailors in any naval unit is 1000 to start and that each ship (I guess depending on the type of ship) is crewed by 100 of them. That means that each point of health represents 10 men and that there are a maximum of 10 ships per unit.

When you produce a naval unit, you have to fully crew it, so you produce 1 ship for every 100 men (if you only invest 500 men, you get 5 ships or half of a normal formation of them). When you attack another naval unit, you can attack as many ships as you have ships (so if you have 3 ships and the opponent has 4 ships, you can only attack at most 3 of them). While each "ship" in a naval unit carries it's own health, the whole unit moves as fast as the slowest ship involved. The damage of the other ships is not affected however. If the ship health drops to 0 on any of the ships in your unit, that ship sinks. 10% of the remaining crew are rescued by each remaining ship (so if you have 4 ships and 1 sinks, 30% of the crew from the sunken ship will join the crews of your remaining 3 ships). If the crew health drops to 0 during a melee attack (but the ship health is still positive) the victorious party captures the ship and adds it to their unit, splitting their crew equally among them. This is only possible in units below the ship limit (10 for a regular unit).

Ships can only be repaired in cities or harbors, crew health can regenerate in your territory.

So, even though this sounds a bit complicated, I think it's pretty straightforward: melee attacks risk your own crew's health in order to attack the opposing crew. The risk is higher but the reward is potentially great: salvaging the opponent's ship and adding it to your own navy. The safer alternative is ranged attacks: you limit your own chance of taking damage by attacking the enemy ship, but damage dealt this way is only half as effective at lowering the combat strength of the enemy and will either sink or badly damage a ship you could potentially capture.
 
Last edited:
Population is usually equally divided into men, women, old people and children, so you can take usually only 25% of population for farming, hunting, working or warfare.
Scout units may consist of 10 men, while warriors are probably around 50-100. Later units until industrialisation may count several hundreds to thousands.
For a long time mankind was restricted to saisonal war and short campaigns since the soldiers were also needed for harvest etc.
Only modern nations with arms industry were able to equip millions of men, e.g. for WW1 and WW2. There were around 110 million soldiers / men under arms in WW2.
The army of Alexander the Great was around 50.000 men.
The Roman Army at its peak was around 500.000 men, half of them Auxiliaries. (Empire pop around 50 millions)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Macedonian_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties#Classical_formation_battles
 
@dunkleosteus @historix69

I'm using some similar numbers in my current project, with a relatively low number of soldiers in early units (few hundred to few thousands) up to division-sized units in the late game.

I've set real population numbers in cities (using the civ5 formula) with supply lines to units (and limited reserve in the unit to "heal" a few turns when cut from the cities.

The mod will be maybe a bit complex in the background, but I think it will give a limitation to army size that may allow on the other hand to set a faster construction speed for units (helping the AI to recover its loss) without making the map overcrowed.
 
Civ games are rather unrealistic regarding unit costs, upkeep and supplies.
A modern rifle costs maybe 1.000 $ but a soldier costs 100.000 $ a year unless you use conscription ... and in a modern army you need maybe 3-4 soldiers to keep one soldier supported/supplied in the field.
 
Population is usually equally divided into men, women, old people and children, so you can take usually only 25% of population for farming, hunting, working or warfare.
Scout units may consist of 10 men, while warriors are probably around 50-100. Later units until industrialisation may count several hundreds to thousands.
For a long time mankind was restricted to saisonal war and short campaigns since the soldiers were also needed for harvest etc.
Only modern nations with arms industry were able to equip millions of men, e.g. for WW1 and WW2. There were around 110 million soldiers / men under arms in WW2.
The army of Alexander the Great was around 50.000 men.
The Roman Army at its peak was around 500.000 men, half of them Auxiliaries. (Empire pop around 50 millions)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Macedonian_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties#Classical_formation_battles

This is a very good point, and that's something I wanted to note in my idea for army sizes: depending on the type of unit though, different numbers of men can be involved: perhaps most infantry units have a maximum of 10 000 men (meaning each HP of health represents 100 men), but a scout unit might represent say 100 men at full muster where each HP is a single man. This would mean that scouting units are much, much cheaper than infantry units. On the other hand, it means a full unit of scouts is the same number of men as 1 HP of warriors. Again though, barbarians would only spawn with 2-4 health and wouldn't be able to heal. In the early game, your own warriors might come with 5 health and later you could make them with 10 health, and more and more over time. This means that the size of armies is very important. We're using the "health" of the unit to represent the size and this gives us a huge dynamic range of interesting possibilities. The size of your empire contributes directly to the number of troops you can muster and so even if you aren't necessarily up on the tech, you may be able to overwhelm in numbers.

Cavalry units will have to come in smaller numbers as well but that's fine: a single mounted soldier can do a lot more damage than a single foot soldier. Add in the mobility and you have something else all together. I think terrain has to play a more important role: scout units need a combat bonus in forests for example, as they're trained in movement through this terrain and can ambush or surprise. Additionally, they should get a "retreat" bonus on defence: I think this is better than a combat bonus. This means if a scout is attacked, they won't damage the enemy very much but they should be able to escape with fewer casualties. This helps offset their small numbers.

As for what you said about women and children making up the population in addition to men, I agree that that's true. On the other hand, these numbers AREN'T real numbers so we can fudge it and say that 1000 people is more like 1000 families perhaps.

@dunkleosteus @historix69

I'm using some similar numbers in my current project, with a relatively low number of soldiers in early units (few hundred to few thousands) up to division-sized units in the late game.

I've set real population numbers in cities (using the civ5 formula) with supply lines to units (and limited reserve in the unit to "heal" a few turns when cut from the cities.

The mod will be maybe a bit complex in the background, but I think it will give a limitation to army size that may allow on the other hand to set a faster construction speed for units (helping the AI to recover its loss) without making the map overcrowed.
That sounds really exciting! I'm really interested in this, if you feel like sending me a PM I want to hear about this!
Civ games are rather unrealistic regarding unit costs, upkeep and supplies.
A modern rifle costs maybe 1.000 $ but a soldier costs 100.000 $ a year unless you use conscription ... and in a modern army you need maybe 3-4 soldiers to keep one soldier supported/supplied in the field.
This is something I totally didn't consider but makes a ton of sense. Raw numbers of soldiers are difficult to work with when you bring this up. Either you'd have to increase the man-cost for a unit of soldiers drastically or hand-wave the man-power cost of supplying your troops.
 
Civ games are rather unrealistic regarding unit costs, upkeep and supplies.
A modern rifle costs maybe 1.000 $ but a soldier costs 100.000 $ a year unless you use conscription ... and in a modern army you need maybe 3-4 soldiers to keep one soldier supported/supplied in the field.
Agree, and "1 citizen" representing an exponential number of real population when a city growths does not help to balance a supply representation, that's the primary reason I've got back to real population in cities, IMO you can't have full attrition wars without that.

That sounds really exciting! I'm really interested in this, if you feel like sending me a PM I want to hear about this!
The thread is here, the 5th post is a general presentation, I welcome feedback, discussions and intrepid pre-alpha testers.
 
Let me throw in some 'real world' figures that might help with Mod-Making in this regard.

The military Staffs in the late 19th - 20th centuries had some 'rules of thumb' for the manpower available for Military Use (conscripting or drafting).
Each year roughly 2% of the total population is composed of people reaching the Age of Conscription - which, depending on the national school/political system, varied from 18 to 21 years of age. Of those, about 50% are women, who are generally excluded from military service. Therefore, again as a general rule, in a city or district/county represented by a city on the game map that has a population of 100,000 people, every year 1,000 men become available for the military WHO ARE NOT PART of the city/area workforce - Free Manpower, if you will. Take more than that, and you are either reducing future population growth by taking younger boys who will therefore probably never live to have children, or reducing your Workforce by taking men who have jobs, businesses, professions and will be missed from your Food/Production totals.
Either of these excesses can be catastrophic: Germany had a workforce shortage from 1940 onwards because so many men were in uniform that there were not enough workers for the factories - production of military equipment actually FELL throughout 1941 as a result. France lost so many young men in 1914 - 1918 that the Draft Years of 1936 - 1940 were called by the French Army 'the Hollow Years': there were only about HALF the usual number of draftees available for conscription because the fathers of the rest had not lived to become fathers.

Another point. Prior to the discovery of Pasteur's 'germ theory' and the scientific basis for infection and disease, infectious illness killed far more warriors than the enemy. By at least 2 to 5 to 1, so that for every 1000 men removed in battle, another 2000 - 5000 evaporate just from marching around in the weather. Certain terrain types will jack that number up dramatically - entire armies have melted away in deserts, marshes, jungles, or mountains, and I don't know of anybody before the Modern Era who even considered taking an army across Tundra or Snow - it would simply be suicidal.

So, every turn you can generate about 1% 'Free' manpower. For every Battle Casualty, assume about 3 other casualties, and that ratio rises dramatically if you try moving through Jungle, Marsh, Desert or Mountains - unless, of course, the terrain is where your people live: the people of the Gedrosian Desert lived there fine (if in very small numbers) but Alexander the Great's Army lost 1/3 of its men trying to move through the same terrain! Generals who know how to take precautions can reduce these casualties, also by dramatic levels: when Suvorov took his Russian Army through the Swiss Alps in 1800, he spent time training them and lightening equipment for the trip and consequently lost very few men to the rigors of the terrain. BUT he had time to prepare, and genius to know how to prepare. From a historical perspective, such combinations are rare and armies suffer as a result.

If you have a Medical Service and/or a scientific basis for medical/infection treatment and prevention (Industrial Era) the non-battle casualties start to drop rapidly, and after Antibiotics (mid-Modern Era) it becomes insignificant: both Germany and the Soviet Union, in fact, managed to return up to 75% of their wounded casualties to military service in WWII, an Order of Magnitude better than any previous set of conflicts.

And, by the way, Medical Service and Germ Theory are not identical: Laffey started Battlefield Ambulance evacuation and emergency surgical services and treatment in the French Army during the Napoleonic Wars, a good 60 - 75 years before Pasteur's findings were widely recognized and put to use.

Hope some of this helps the calculating...
 
- a special building requirement like harbor, ship yard, barracks, armory
- a limit in number based on special buildings, e.g. 4 per barracks

I would suggest a ~military infrastructure:

(1) advanced units that require infrastructure like swordsmen (barracks), horsemen (stables), archers (archery range) & some weak, standard units (warriors, milita, spearmen) that do not require any infrastructure
(2) a "support" system like ~master of orion where certain buildings (barracks, armory, military academy) provide +x support points
which allow you to support a certain number of units for free. Should you exceed that number you have to pay high maintenance.
 
Back
Top Bottom