Units must NOT fully recover
- Thread starter Fachy
- Start date
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Aegis said:
Oy! I think we have covered this one! Time in civ is screwy, things take too long in years, there's no way around it that I can tell.
There! We can move on!
Xia
Warlord
probably the second oneChose said:
I LOVE THIS SMILEY!!!
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Xen said:
When you commission troops, you use hammers and possibly population. However reinforcements take up neither. In effect you have cheated production and can create troops from resources that might not exist. All we are suggesting is eliminating this paradox.
Not only that, but even if reinforcements costed resources, the new recruits CANNOT have the same bonuses the old ones had. A unit (or group of soldiers) which have been through 10 battles and gain alot of experience cannot be equal to the new "kids" who just joined them
If you're going through the "regular replacements" theory, which is bulsh, then even totally dead units should be replaced with new free recruits!
If you're going through the "regular replacements" theory, which is bulsh, then even totally dead units should be replaced with new free recruits!
It isnt so bad. I mean you still pay the same upkeep costs for a unit that only has 1/3 health, as if it had 3/3 health, or more. In my view the game doesnt handle tactical war that badly.
There are far worse things. In civ3 it is nearly impossible for the AI to stop being in war vs another AI; it will drag everyone it can in its war vs the hated AI enemy, and will not give up, not even when the other is nearly dead. This is very irritating, since you see wars that last for over 100 turns.
It would be better if there was some scripting which would discourage AI civs from playing total war. As things stand if someone can get 2 or more others to ally against another AI it is very likely that the war will drug on for aeons.
There are far worse things. In civ3 it is nearly impossible for the AI to stop being in war vs another AI; it will drag everyone it can in its war vs the hated AI enemy, and will not give up, not even when the other is nearly dead. This is very irritating, since you see wars that last for over 100 turns.
It would be better if there was some scripting which would discourage AI civs from playing total war. As things stand if someone can get 2 or more others to ally against another AI it is very likely that the war will drug on for aeons.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Fachy said:
I would disagree with that. I would think that if the command structure and a core group os soldiers where left after a loss in battle, the experience, tradition, and skills would permeate into the new recruits.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
i have to agree with CHE here. the united states marines, the french foriegn legion, the brittish royal marines and hell even the old ss. suffered massisve defeats(if not defeats,only one because there werent as massacared) through out there history...now i do realize the new recuits are "green" per say.. but once a unit achieves a glorious standing..there standards greatly increase-the US marines for example really established themselves at bellow wood during ww1...lost ALOT of people though, and again in world war 2...responisble for nearly all island invasions in the pacific. Now because they have a tradition of not failing and being the best...there boot camp is the most enduring(of regular armed forces) in america because of high training standards...every marine who leaves boot will be combat effective.
Fachy said:
1st part: If you keep insisting that the veterans who had "seen the elephants" can't be equal to the new "kids" who just joined them, did you consider that these veterans will grow old and die??? Realistic now huh? So evetually if your units don't keep fighting & winning, their experience & veteran status will be gone. How's that for realism??
2nd part: If a unit is utterly destroyed or it routed (very common in war) how do you even replace a unit which no longer exists?? You would need to spend time & effort training a whole new bunch of noobs which is what the game is trying to simulate. Imagine in the game where units run back & forth enemy lines just to "replace" the ranks when waging a war. It's just absurd I tell you
Not flaming just trying to point out my own opinion. My 2 cents
No offense
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
by this same theory...every turn your units would loss strenght due to replacements...a standard civ turn is 25 years..some times longer. is this not realistic??? its just part of the game..units can heal..if it takes two turns to heal..in the late era thats 2 years. i hope that a millitary would be capable of reforming an unit after two years.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Until WWII it was difficult to reinforce units in the field if not impossible. While bringing in new units was an option, reinforcement of the original unit was not tactically flexible. Its very realistic and strategic to make sure you have enough troops you can roll them between supply and front line, or try a daring attack to take lots of territory. You could even add in rolling logistics(healing in the field) once you get Mass Production.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
imidiate replacement,was difficult if not impossible in early warfare .but in early years of the game..one turn is 50 years...you cant tell me that a half beaten unit couldnt get replacements in 50 years..I think this whole idea is good but its soo very unrealistic to have this in the game play..its just one of those things that wont work in civ.
Alphidius said:1st part: If you keep insisting that the veterans who had "seen the elephants" can't be equal to the new "kids" who just joined them, did you consider that these veterans will grow old and die??? Realistic now huh? So evetually if your units don't keep fighting & winning, their experience & veteran status will be gone. How's that for realism??....
we have covered this one allready many times. i sayed that same thing. but try and read the hole thread befor u post.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
sir_schwick said:
All I can say is, if you really want to aim for realism, then whatever you use to replenish units after a combat, must also form the cost of their regular maintenance (even in peacetime). Soldiers and equipment only last so long. So, unless you want to do that, and have units doing nothing cost hammers and population to maintain as well, you might as well abstract the whole thing because it's not anymore realistic to pay just for replenishing a unit after combat, but get replacements over time for free. Similarly one might argue that you should also have to make the same payment when moving in difficult terrain (mountain, swamp, jungle etc) to account for attrition. Personally I think unit maintenance costs in gold are abstracted and not altogether realistic, but for gameplay much easier to implement.
Che Guava said:
Strongly agree.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
frekk said:
You are correct that replacement costs should also be factored into maintenance. It certainly would be a disincentive to maintain unecessarily large militaries because of production and food loss. Unfortunately the issue of how to factor in hammer support has to be solved. This kind of representation would be more interesting than the rather abstract and insignificant maintenance and reinforcement system that currently exists.
Che That brings us to the old question: why then can't you split a good and experienced group into 4 little ones, who'd earn free AND EXPERIENCED recruits, then they'd grow up into 4 full groups..etc
Alphi I'm bored of repeating myself here, but I said that a turn on the tactical map equals a day or several days at most, not like a turn on the research tree which equals anything from 50 yrs to a yr
I agree on your second point. But you also have to agree that units gaining lost soldiers cannot happen without paying these costs and resources!! We usually don't see new recruits popping up for free... or do we??
Alphi I'm bored of repeating myself here, but I said that a turn on the tactical map equals a day or several days at most, not like a turn on the research tree which equals anything from 50 yrs to a yr
I agree on your second point. But you also have to agree that units gaining lost soldiers cannot happen without paying these costs and resources!! We usually don't see new recruits popping up for free... or do we??
If the whole unit isn't destroyed then there's still some survivors, right? Then the survivors could teach others their skills right? So the way i see it is: when a unit health is down by half (ie 2000 of your 4000 men in the battalion's dead), they could retreat (ie flee) to a (friendly) city with a barrack (eg Guantanamo) and get new recruits (ie heal), and then they "teach" the new recruits their skills then the unit can keep whatever upgrades it have. As for additional cost, don't worry about it. If this doesn't happen in real life, then don't let it bother you.
Similar threads
