Units, Upgrade tree, Combat, Healing and Equipment

[Knasp]

Nice! But are captured weapons supposed to disappear from a unit?

Playtest example:
On turn 16 my Warrior/Clubsguy captured 63 wooden spears from a Barbarian Spearmen (they went to Rear instead of Front?). I finished building a Spearman unit some turns later in my city and there was no transfer of spears happening during production or when the unit was finished.
But on turn 22 (6 turns after capture) the 63 spears disappear from the unit. They seem to be transferred to the city. Because the city stock says +63 spears.
Edit: In fact I seem to be able to build Spearmen units without having spears in stock. They are fully equipped with spears regardless.
Edit: Horses can't be captured, but I guess that's to be added eventually?
Edit: Melee units can't capture ranged weapons (Wooden bows)?

Also, maybe you could hinder the barbarians from spawning horsemen and horse archers so early in the game? Standard speed, 31 turns in, 3550 BC. Or maybe I should play at a slower speed?

/Otherwise I'm still working on compiling tables of population size, army size, unit size etc. Gonna post as soon as I've got something comprehensible to show.

 

[Gedemon]

Thanks, yes, seems that I have introduced a few bugs with the last serie of updates, I had some too in my playtest, I'll have a look at the logs.

The horses are not captured yet, I forgot about them, but capturing them was planned (and still is)

 

[Knasp]

I just had a thought about automatically reclassifying units or automatic "upgrading".

Just throwing it out there:
What if the class (base stats/combat role) could be altered due to cicumstances?

For example: if a Warrior/Light Skrimisher unit captures spear and shields enough to outfit >50% it is automatically upgraded into a Spearman unit?

Basically you could have a system where a unit's class/base strength is re-evaluated due to the current equipment and experience?

Or maybe unit type should be independent of equipment level (armor and weapon metals used etc) and have more to do with training/organisation/tactics/combat role. I.e. you could have classes like:

• Skirmisher
• Skirmisher Cavalry
• Infantry
• Shock cavalry
• <!-- Elite infantry (For breakthrough/Holding the line)?-->
• Artillery

Ships could have similar types or simply use embarked units (requiring sailors/oarsmen personnel in the Rear for rowing the ships)

The class would be determined by the number of horses (or later vehicles), and composition of weaponry. A unit where a majority of the soldiers has ranged weapons will be classified as Skirmisher. If they have >66% horses they are upgraded to Cavalry.

An Elite unit can be obtained by gaining XP or special training. Or maybe skip the Elite class alltogether and just leave XP and promotions.

A unit with spears and ranged weapons will prefer skirmishing. A unit with spears and shields will prefer Infantry role. A unit with spears shields and bows will prefer shirmishing.
A unit with spears, shields and armor will prefer Infantry.
A unit with horses will prefer Cavalry if enough horses are in stock and they have time for training (maybe retraining for X turns).

However lack of training would influence a unit's requirements for changing its combat role/unit type. I.e. if soldiers are trained using a spear and shield, they won't start using bows without good reasons. Maybe a promotion awarded upon recruitment and also social policies, depending on unit type, could alter requirements. A cavalry skirmisher will have an easier time switching to foot-skirmisher (when they lose horses), while a foot-skirmisher will be more inclined to keep staying on foot (due to lack of training). A unit trained to use bows, won't start fighting in melee just because they capture swords and armor. (Rather their melee defense will increase)

A modern example could be a Mechanised infantry division being downgraded to a Motorized infantry div. when the share of armored vehicles are 50< %. Regardless of the types of personnel weapons or how many anti-tank cannons they carry.

The benefits to the system above is that you could have the same unit classes through the entire game. The only changing parameters would be equipment and horses/vehicles.

 

[Gedemon]

That's a concept that makes a lot of sense at the scale of the game, and what I want to do with equipment will allow parts of it when coded.

We have a kind of "same unit classes through the entire game" in the current design: units attributes will change depending of the different equipment types they got in the classes they are allowed to use. For a late game example, imagine the equipment "torpedoes" being part of the ammo classes available for an attack aircraft unit.

The Skirmisher / Skirmisher Cavalry / Infantry / Shock Cavalry / Artillery are the upgrade lines, the change of "equipment class" in a line will only occur in late game with the infantry/skirmishers having access to firearms and later the horses being replaced by motorized vehicules.

The actual implementation is based on the existing civ6 units, not what we'll have in the final mod. For example, I've designed the "blunt weapons class" as a placeholder to test the code using the "warrior" unit of civ6, but we could have some "Pre-firearm Infantry weapon classs" and "Firearms Infantry weapon classes" that would be enough to cover the whole game's length for the Infantry line (wich could have 3 sub-classes that we don't have actually, ie professional army, mercenaries, mobilized population)

The "upgrade" representing the organizational change of an unit (more personnel, faster resupply, etc...), without changing its equipment class.

Technically, it would be possible to allow switching to one class to another depending on the circumstances, but I'd prefer to keep the choice of the current units specific role under direct control (by producting/hiring/conscripting in cities)

It's true that an unit that has not enough equipment of a class to heal does not heal until it gets that equipment, in turn that could lead to waste of other resources (especially if that unit is killed), your solution would prevent that (and also has the advantage of dynamism, and would not require any AI coding)

Now, what I'd like to do is to allow adjacent units to directly exchange personnel/materiel/equipment (for example, an unit A with captured equipment required by unitB could transfer that equipment allowing B to "heal")

An alternative to your idea would be that in some cases (enough personnel available, some equipment available but unusable for that unit, and none of the required equipment available) "split" the unit.

Say an infantry unit with captured bows but no access to blunt weapons (or the other weapon classes it could use) and more personnel that it can possibly send in front line with the equipment left (that surplus in personnel could come from cities if it's only the weapons supply/production line that is cut, or from healed wounded or bonus personnel from goody huts or liberated prisonners...) could automatically create a skirmisher unit out of those resources in excess, the health of the new units being relative to those values.

The two mechanisms above would prevent some waste of resources, without changing the role of any pre-existing units but still allowing your army to automatically adapt (a bit) to circumstance.

 

[Knasp]

Technically, it would be possible to allow switching to one class to another depending on the circumstances, but I'd prefer to keep the choice of the current units specific role under direct control (by producting/hiring/conscripting in cities)
[...]
The two mechanisms above would prevent some waste of resources, without changing the role of any pre-existing units but still allowing your army to automatically adapt (a bit) to circumstance.

Sharing equipment and splitting units both seem like viable solutions/complements. But if splitting up means that the resulting units are weaker (since they fight alone?) then it could screw up your strategy. Regarding unit type flexibility, I just thought it would make sense for the units to adapt to it's current situation. For example: if they're being harassed by chariots or horse archers, trying to charge them with melee weapons instead of using backup slings/bows would probably be a waste of time and lives.

Maybe captured weapons could offer a unit tactical bonuses/adaptibility (at least for defending themselves), even though the unit's type/class is retained?

And finally, a difficult question regarding scale and design of warfare:

The issues we're discussing are dependent on which geographical and time scale the mod is supposed to simulate. Civ-games have always been rather flexible about scale. You've mentioned earlier that ideally a tile would represent about 10000 km2 or 100 km distance (center to center). But if the military units are to operate on a similar scale, then your army and/or all your units would generally occupy the same tile (like Civ 4's stacks of doom).
But if the scale is to be maintained along with 2 UPT, that would mean you'd have your army divided into 2 parts, the ranged and the melee part (artillery and cavalry w). Another way is to continue the path of Civ 5-6, and have warfare operate on a parallel and larger scale (simulating a smaller battlefield/land area).

I've been pondering about these questions for some time, and I believe that they are highly relevant for the design of Units and Armies, and especially how we want combat to be represented.

 

[Gedemon]

I'd like to have something like 4 to 6 (combat) UPT in late game (2-3 "division"-sized, 3-4 "regiment"-sized, we could even have n-UPT when n is based on the "size" of the units), a kind of middle ground, to avoid both stack of doom (or having each unit representing an army groups) and archer firing across the Mediterranean sea... DLL access will be required, so we'll test on 2UPT until then, but the design should be for 6UPT (again, late game, say 2-3UPT at start)

We have to manage the fixed scale of the map (even if having the map scale changing by era is an idea that is lingering in the back of my head since some time now) and the evolution of military organisations and conflict during 10,000 years... we need to keep some flexibility

About splitting, the units won't be weaker in that scenario, the new unit will always been made from the "reserve"/"rear" of the initial unit, which will keep it's actual "frontline" (and that's the "health" value of the unit, if the first unit is at 25HP, it will still be at 25HP after the split), what we'll be doing is taking the part of the unit that can't reinforce the "frontline" because of lack of equipment and make another unit that can fight alongside the first one, instead of waiting to be captured/killed when the last elements of the frontline collapse (spawning a small barbarian unit from the reserve of a defeated unit would also be possible BTW)

 

[Gedemon]

Update on GitHub

economic tweaks, to correct a few bugs in transfer:
- raise max variation per turn percent (25, was 15)
- raise values to calculate max/min cost from base cost (x10, x0.1, was x4, x0.25)
- make transport cost a percentage of the current cost, not just a fixed value based on distance

I'm going to use Knasp's method for the upgrades in an unit's line, I'll try to code a prototype with the current units.

Basically, the equipment class of the unit will include every equipment it can use from start to finish, the units are already requiring equipment based on their "desirability" (that was coded as part of my old design, which was based by type -ie "Swords" or "Blunt weapons", I didn't thought to use it on a bigger scale, ie "Wodden Club" to "Assault Rifle"...), and once it has a majority of equipment defining an unit "type", it will upgrade (or downgrade) to that type (assuming it has enough personnel/materiel to do so)

It's more elegant to my previous design which would have been to request the equipment needed for an upgrade, store it in reserve, then upgrade once enough equipment is stored.

It should also be (relatively) easier to code, and, as you've pointed, has the advantage of allowing the unit to benefit of the new equipment bonus (relative to % equipped) before the upgrade.

We'll just need to have a smooth enough transition in number of personnel/materiel required by an unit type to allow a lower type to upgrade to the new type without loosing too much "health", basically the "reserve" + frontline personnel of a previous unit should always be bigger (or at least not much lower) than the frontline personnel of it's upgrade type.

 

[Knasp]

Update on GitHub

economic tweaks, to correct a few bugs in transfer:
- raise max variation per turn percent (25, was 15)
- raise values to calculate max/min cost from base cost (x10, x0.1, was x4, x0.25)
- make transport cost a percentage of the current cost, not just a fixed value based on distance

I'm going to use Knasp's method for the upgrades in an unit's line, I'll try to code a prototype with the current units.

Basically, the equipment class of the unit will include every equipment it can use from start to finish, the units are already requiring equipment based on their "desirability" (that was coded as part of my old design, which was based by type -ie "Swords" or "Blunt weapons", I didn't thought to use it on a bigger scale, ie "Wodden Club" to "Assault Rifle"...), and once it has a majority of equipment defining an unit "type", it will upgrade (or downgrade) to that type (assuming it has enough personnel/materiel to do so)

It's more elegant to my previous design which would have been to request the equipment needed for an upgrade, store it in reserve, then upgrade once enough equipment is stored.

It should also be (relatively) easier to code, and, as you've pointed, has the advantage of allowing the unit to benefit of the new equipment bonus (relative to % equipped) before the upgrade.

We'll just need to have a smooth enough transition in number of personnel/materiel required by an unit type to allow a lower type to upgrade to the new type without loosing too much "health", basically the "reserve" + frontline personnel of a previous unit should always be bigger (or at least not much lower) than the frontline personnel of it's upgrade type.

Cool, really looking forward to try it out!
Btw, I've been looking at population sizes and the share of urban/rural population through history, because I'm intending to weigh on the discussion about moving population out from the cities. But now I feel that I really ought to get back to looking at army/unit sizes again, and looking into the military tree

 

[Wolfdog]

Update on GitHub

economic tweaks, to correct a few bugs in transfer:
- raise max variation per turn percent (25, was 15)
- raise values to calculate max/min cost from base cost (x10, x0.1, was x4, x0.25)
- make transport cost a percentage of the current cost, not just a fixed value based on distance

I'm going to use Knasp's method for the upgrades in an unit's line, I'll try to code a prototype with the current units.

Basically, the equipment class of the unit will include every equipment it can use from start to finish, the units are already requiring equipment based on their "desirability" (that was coded as part of my old design, which was based by type -ie "Swords" or "Blunt weapons", I didn't thought to use it on a bigger scale, ie "Wodden Club" to "Assault Rifle"...), and once it has a majority of equipment defining an unit "type", it will upgrade (or downgrade) to that type (assuming it has enough personnel/materiel to do so)

It's more elegant to my previous design which would have been to request the equipment needed for an upgrade, store it in reserve, then upgrade once enough equipment is stored.

It should also be (relatively) easier to code, and, as you've pointed, has the advantage of allowing the unit to benefit of the new equipment bonus (relative to % equipped) before the upgrade.

We'll just need to have a smooth enough transition in number of personnel/materiel required by an unit type to allow a lower type to upgrade to the new type without loosing too much "health", basically the "reserve" + frontline personnel of a previous unit should always be bigger (or at least not much lower) than the frontline personnel of it's upgrade type.

This looks really cool. I wonder if you could use the same mechanic to add say man portable anti-armor weapons to infantry units or add pikes to musketmen to create a pike & shot unit.

 

[Knasp]

This looks really cool. I wonder if you could use the same mechanic to add say man portable anti-armor weapons to infantry units or add pikes to musketmen to create a pike & shot unit.

Good idea, in this mixed-equipment system you could add hybrid units, that are specifically equipped with both weapons (musket/arquebus + pike) upon recruitment. The prerequisite would be technology and production of both kinds of weapons, along with maybe a project?

 

[Gedemon]

I'll have a look, i may need to define all speeds, ATM only standard is set. (the warnings are related to the city states units that have been removed on start)

Agree with science, but there is a complete rework planned on that side. I'll balance a bit the speed for now.

Personnel surplus is converted to population, need UI feedback I think.

There is Copper almost everywhere, more than Iron, but I've not changed the deposit yet. We need to think of some fractal layer for resources.

Recruitment will have to be adapted to the upgrade system.

You're going to need that gold *soon*.

This looks really cool. I wonder if you could use the same mechanic to add say man portable anti-armor weapons to infantry units or add pikes to musketmen to create a pike & shot unit.

Looking at the function available in the firetuner, it seems possible to loop through the item of an unit (and so maybe select which one to display), and maybe the member's type (not sure about the last one)

question is: how many different item/members can we assign to an unit ?

there is also the possibility to add an intermediate unit between 2 units type, with mixed members.

 

[Knasp]

I'll have a look, i may need to define all speeds, ATM only standard is set. (the warnings are related to the city states units that have been removed on start)

Agree with science, but there is a complete rework planned on that side. I'll balance a bit the speed for now.

Personnel surplus is converted to population, need UI feedback I think.

There is Copper almost everywhere, more than Iron, but I've not changed the deposit yet. We need to think of some fractal layer for resources.

Recruitment will have to be adapted to the upgrade system.

You're going to need that gold *soon*.


Looking at the function available in the firetuner, it seems possible to loop through the item of an unit (and so maybe select which one to display), and maybe the member's type (not sure about the last one)

question is: how many different item/members can we assign to an unit ?

there is also the possibility to add an intermediate unit between 2 units type, with mixed members.

Sounds good!

Also I do have some questions about Units' "stats-boxes": what does the Materiel in the Frontlines do? Materiel reserves? Food in the Rear?

Anyway, I wrote some comments and suggestions about the UI below, if you're interested.

Spoiler :

I would suggest changing the disposition of the info. Particularly removing some numbers/integers, using percentages instead. Maybe limiting the info available to the player, using categories and estimations. Also clarify some info that is easily misinterpreted.

Or maybe just add a summary on the top of the box, with the most important data? Some exact numerical data could be kept in the bottom, and more useful numbers/percentages could stay up top.

A crude example of how the layout could look:

Russia - Warrior
-----------------Military Force--------------------------------
Condition: Confident/Wavering/Tired/Exhausted/Freezing/Deserting/Starving (unranked examples)
Morale: High/Medium/Low --- Improving/Dropping (just showing the trend, maybe add a +/- or green arrow/red arrow)
Soldiers: 93%

• Total: 1300
  
• Frontline: 800
• Reserves: 500

Replenishment time: 2 turns

Mounts: 0 % (of soldiers with mounts)

• Chariots: #
• Horses: #
• Camels: #
• Elephants: #
• Etc

Vehicles: (once engines are invented)
...
-----------------Equipment-------------------------------
Weapons:

• Wooden clubs: 95% (Resupplied in 1 turn)
• Copper spears: 5% (Out of supply)

Protection:

• Wooden shields: 20% (Resupplied in 15 turns)

Horse armor: (if existing)
...
-----------------Supply Train-----------------------------
Civilian personnel: # (goody hut captures? cooks, foragers, etc)
Prisoners: 100 Barbarians (culture of captives)
Wounded: 100 (-10 per turn)
Replacement rate: +40 per turn
Replenishment rate: +50 per turn

Consumption:

• Rations: # (X turns until out of supply)
• Consumption per turn: -# rations
• Foraging: +# rations (Grasslands)
• Resupply rate: +# rations
• Medicine: -Y per turn (Z turns until out of supply)

Resupply from (CITY) at % efficiency

-----------------Statistics-----------------------------------
Kills: #
Losses: #

Changes since last turn:

• Frontline: +100
• Reserves: -100
• Wounded: +100
• Captured: X, Y, Z
• Resources gathered
• Etc

All rates in the example are made up.
Basically, morale could be shown as either: high (67-100%), medium (34-66%) or low (1-33%), instead of giving the player the exact percentage/number.
Same could go for other info because it will be easier for a player to comprehend (and more interesting) if you're only shown a limited representation of the data. I.e. 3 categories giving a hint of morale, rather than exact numbers.

Moderator Action: All posts above and on the previous pages, this one included, have been copied and some may have been edited to fit the topic, but the original (unedited) posts are still available in the main thread - Gedemon

 

[Gedemon]

Question: what should be the rules to "heal" city defenses?

I do not plan to change the separation between the "wall health" and the "garrison health", what I'd like to know is when/how to "repair" those defenses.

Should we use a timer like the base game?

A project for the walls?

Or should we use some mechanisms more related to the mod: no project, no timer, directly "heal" from the city resources (no required resources in city = no healing) , and just maybe implement a ZOC for enemy units related to blocus.

ATM supply routes are stopped by an enemy units, a ship for example can easily blockade all sea routes if the city has access to water only on one tile, same for land units on roads.

But rivers routes and traders still go through, should that be changed?

I could simply use the game's mechanism to detect "blockade" and prevent all trade to/from that city in that case.

 

[Knasp]

Question: what should be the rules to "heal" city defenses?

I do not plan to change the separation between the "wall health" and the "garrison health", what I'd like to know is when/how to "repair" those defenses.

Should we use a timer like the base game?

A project for the walls?

Or should we use some mechanisms more related to the mod: no project, no timer, directly "heal" from the city resources (no required resources in city = no healing) , and just maybe implement a ZOC for enemy units related to blocus.

ATM supply routes are stopped by an enemy units, a ship for example can easily blockade all sea routes if the city has access to water only on one tile, same for land units on roads.

But rivers routes and traders still go through, should that be changed?

I could simply use the game's mechanism to detect "blockade" and prevent all trade to/from that city in that case.

I find it hard to provide an easy answer, because I think the "healing" of cities as well as units to depend upon (1) time era, and (2) how much you're willing to modify the current supply system?

In the current system the attacker (sieging army) is continuously healed from their cities by supply lines, right? By the same logic it would make sense to allow the besieged city's garrison to heal in the same way, but using their own population and stocked resources (100% efficiency).

I'm not sure to what extent walls were repaired during sieges, maybe some emergency repairs were conducted, i.e. building improvised support structures or something. Maybe the repairs could be a city project that slowly raises health of the walls (and the speed of repairs would be significantly reduced when enemies are adjacent or every turn the city is attacked). Meaning that walls are repaired quickly when the enemies are gone, and slowly otherwise.

Supply lines and trade routes should be cut off if it has to pass through an enemy, or maybe even adjacent to one.

Spoiler Military logistics in early Eras? :

My general impression of warfare and sieges in the ancient and classical era, is that continuous supply lines weren't the norm. In general armies would bring with them the manpower and materials they needed, and keep a baggage train following the soldiers. While in enemy territory the army would rely on foraging, purchasing and plundering in order to feed the troops, meaning that a prolonged campaign was difficult to maintain. The lack of supply lines meant that you were usually tied to movement within fertile areas, close to rivers, and armies that ran out of supply could be diminished or destroyed. So for units in general, the replenishment (healing and replacement of wounded) should be slow, especially when outside of friendly territory.

Two possible implementations:

1. Alter the current system of supply for early eras. Reduce the ability to supply/heal units in early eras and make units more dependent on foraging/plundering their current tile, and capturing supplies from enemies.
   
   
2. Alternatively you could introduce a "Baggage train" unit which you move along with your army, an early "Medic" unit (for A.I. understanding). Apart from healing (replacing lost soldiers) your military units could trace their supply to this unit (when outside friendly borders). These units should be capturable, and maybe you'd need to bring several in order to supply a prolonged siege.

If units in these early eras were more dependent on foraging/plundering their current tile, then sieges would be costly simply because your units would have to stay in the city-adjacent tiles for an extended time, and therefore running out of supplies. Cities should have a possibility to prepare for sieges by a city project which would stock up on food, material, strengthening the garrison and so on. A besieged city that still has a supply line to another (friendly) city, water tiles, or to farm plots could still get necessary supplies from elsewhere. But there should definitely be forced to ration and supply should be reduced when enemies are close to the city.

Units should definately have a ZoC when it comes to blocking enemy trade routes/supply lines. It would make sense to be able to cut off a cities supply lines, simply by being close enough to threaten civilians. The city shouldn't have to be completely surrounded in order to cut off supply/trade, just the major routes. And if the besieged city doesn't have a military unit of their own to keep a tile "open" and protected, then that tile would be blocked by an enemy unit.

In order to win a siege you'd need to make a successful assault, or possibly starve them out, which would be costly.

The wikipage on Military logistics describes the development of 3 methods:

Historically supplies for an army were first acquired by foraging or looting, especially in the case of food and fodder, although if traveling through a desolated region or staying in one place for too long resources could quickly be exhausted. A second method was for the army to bring along what was needed, whether by ships, pack animals, wagons or carried on the backs of the soldiers themselves. This allowed the army some measure of self-sufficiency, and up through to the 19th century most of the ammunition a soldier needed for an entire campaign could be carried on their person. However, this method led to an extensive baggage train which could slow down the army's advance and the development of faster-firing weapons soon outpaced an army's ability to supply itself. Starting with the Industrial Revolution new technological, technical and administrative advances led to a third method, that of maintaining supplies in a rear area and transporting them to the front. This led to a "logistical revolution" which began in the 20th century and drastically improved the capabilities of modern armies while making them highly dependent on this new system.[2]

Sun Tzu has some interesting points, especially about capturing enemy supplies.

II. Waging War

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.

9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

10. Poverty of the State exchequer (treasury?) causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.

11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.

12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.

13,14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears andshields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store.

Also regarding sieges:

III. Attack by Stratagem

3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.

 

[Gedemon]

Thanks !

I think dunkleosteus had already mentioned the necessity to rethink the way units are healed in the early (and not-so-early) eras of the game, and how the "reserve" and "rear" concept is completely anachronistic in ancient era.

While I agree on the reasoning, I'm having some difficulties to conceptualize it in the mod (and still leave a small fighting chance to the AI)

I'm struggling with the order of the events to keep the unit's data synchronized with healing and fighting, I'm not sure that I can redo the whole thing differently, I need a kind of "buffer" between cities (or other means of supply) and units, at the unit level. The values will be changed so that the "reserve" is much lower until later eras, and we can also change the name by eras (for example "camp" instead of "rear")

Supply lines too will be much shorter (and will scale with eras/policies/techs) and less efficient.

I've already added some kind of plundering from tribal village (food, personnel) and barbarian camps (equipment), units are already collecting food on the terrain, pillaging is of course planned, and attacking cities will give loot too (relative to what's left of the walls at the moment of the attack)

"Baggage train" is a good idea, something I was more planning for later eras, but make sense earlier with shorter supply lines.

Units are not supplied while in enemy territory BTW, that may change when frontline are implemented, and of course the way we may (or not) represent the rural population will be a prerequisite for designing ways to "foraging, purchasing and plundering" on enemy (or neutral/allied) territory (moving frontline, ie "capturing" territory won't be available at the beginning of the game)

Forts will be source of supply (ie supply lines or supply to plunder) linked to units and cities.

 

[Knasp]

Thanks !
I think dunkleosteus had already mentioned the necessity to rethink the way units are healed in the early (and not-so-early) eras of the game, and how the "reserve" and "rear" concept is completely anachronistic in ancient era.

Please excuse my ignorance, but the thread is long and it's hard to keep track of ideas already discussed. Do you have to "release" the mod in order to get a separate forum section for the mod? Because it would be easier if we could establish threads for different topics. The general forums Ideas section isn't ideal for me, since I'm mostly interested in a total conversion/overhaul.

While I agree on the reasoning, I'm having some difficulties to conceptualize it in the mod (and still leave a small fighting chance to the AI)

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but surely the A.I. could handle the early Eras well enough? The vanilla A.I. or at least the Barbarians seem to prefer foraging and plundering to conducting sieges. Which makes sense historically, but less so with the vanilla game mechanics.

I'm struggling with the order of the events to keep the unit's data synchronized with healing and fighting, I'm not sure that I can redo the whole thing differently, I need a kind of "buffer" between cities (or other means of supply) and units, at the unit level. The values will be changed so that the "reserve" is much lower until later eras, and we can also change the name by eras (for example "camp" instead of "rear")

So do I understand correctly then, that there's coding problems/difficulties involved, which is best resolved by giving every unit a "reserve" and "rear" section? How big does the buffer need to be? Are the reserve personnel exempt from combat, and is that why the buffer is necessary?
The loading order makes a different system hard to implement?

Anyway, I don't think it's completely anachronistic to have a Frontline and Rear. The Frontline would consist of the most experienced troops while the Rear would be made up of inexperienced soldiers. At least when heavy infantry appeared, at least the phalanx and the roman legionaries, they were organized in this manor. Maybe every division didn't have their own baggage train, separate from the army, but I don't see it as unrealistic to include those personnel in the Unit itself. Maybe the supply line should simply be a lot shorter, and the rate of replenishment (healing) and transfer of resources reduced.

Otherwise I'd like to see, as dunkleosteus mentions, a system where units would, in most cases, break and flee, instead of fighting-to-the-death. Regarding morale and retreating: I noticed that Poland's UU apparently has an ability to "push" enemy units after combat. Maybe that mechanic can be utilized for units that take too many casualities? A unit whose Frontline is wiped out in a single turn, or is strongly reduced, would lose morale crossing a certain threshold, and therefore be forced to retreat (moving backward or into a friendly hex (if possible). Being forced to retreating in this way could award a temporary promotion, giving a debuff, making the retreated unit weak to chariots/horse units if they are attacked again until or throughout the following turn. This would simulate the retreated units vulnerability to being pursued and run down when routing. But if you have several UPT (who are holding their ground) or an adjacent unit which isn't broken, then that unit could cover the retreated unit either directly or by ZoC.

 

[Gedemon]

I've asked if we could get a subforum for the project, there is a lot of posts that should be in their own threads, yes.

We'll see for the AI, maybe I worry to much, that will depend of the passive mechanisms to plunder and get supply on the field.

The buffer don't need to be big, but the healing capacity will depend of it's size. For example, if we have a buffer for one sword and one personnel, then the unit will heal of the HP value corresponding to one sword and one personnel, which is 0. So the maximal capacity values should be enough to allow the units to get a few HP (there is also a limit to the HP gained from the reserve in one turn, which we can make variable by era/tech/policies), and enough to allow the unit to move around with enough reserve to heal a few turn (else it would heal only where it can plunder/get supply, which is why I'm afraid for the AI)

Retreats mechanisms are planed, yes.

 

[Gedemon]

The concept of units line sharing the same equipment class when it comes to select what you're going to construct in a city (or when to upgrade/downgrade) is requiring some more changes in the whole design.

Equipment/materiel/horses requirement will be a ratio/factor of personnel requirement, not a fixed value per unit.

Required personnel in frontline will be determined by the current "organization level" unlocked by the civilization (from tech/policy/eras)

Organization level will provide a free promotion to raise the base strength of the unit.

The equipment list of an unit will stay the same (to determine when to upgrade/downgrade or if we can directly start building it), the full equipment list for the unit's upgrade line will be associated with the unit's promotion class (which means we'll use promotion class to define an upgrade line)

The full equipment list will be used once the construction of the unit has started and when supplying it on the field.

Organization level will also define the size of the reserve and the efficiency at moving personnel/materiel/equipment from reserve to frontline for "healing", as well as the length/efficiency of the supply line (at first I'll code only the reserve size part)

I think I also have a possible design to conciliate the problem of having "reserve" in early age and my need of a "buffer" attached to the unit for healing it (if we put everything in frontline immediately, then an unit can go from 1HP to 100HP in one turn when plundering enough components): initially the reserve size will be strictly limited to what's missing in frontline (ie you've lost 100 personnel, 10 materiel and 100 blunt weapon in frontline, the max reserve size will be 100 for personnel, 10 for materiel and 100 for blunt weapons)

The organization level (above the first levels) will provide additional size added to the value of what's missing in frontline.

ATM the reserve allow unlimited surplus when not connected to a city, I'll have to find a solution to that (I don't want resources collected on the terrain or plundered to be simply wasted if there is no place in reserve)

 

[Gedemon]

First step : limit "reserve" size to what's missing in frontline, done.

• My warrior has not fight yet, the "reserve" is empty ("Reserve" = "Camp", "Rear" = "Supply Train" and "Frontline" = "Ready for Battle")

• The Iraqi warrior has been involved in combat with the Barbarian Spearmen, Personnel, Materiel and equipment are supplied by Baghdad, but will be limited at what's missing in frontline.

• The Barbarian Spearmen has no supply line, what's in the Camp is the wounded personnel that have healed (and will join the front line next turn), and the equipment that was not captured/destroyed in the previous combat (while the personnel using it was captured/wounded/killed)

 

[Gedemon]

I'm going to make a simple upgrade tree for testing purpose, mixed with a small organization level tree, something like that:

[table=head]|Infantry (Frontline/Combat Ready)|Infantry (Reserve)|Max Supply Line Distance|Max Healing (HP/turn)
Level 0 (Ancient - "Party")| 400 | 0 | 5 | 10
Level 1 (Classical - "Horde")| 700 | 0 | 7 | 11
Level 2 (Classical - "Cohorte")| 1000 | 100 | 8 | 12
Level 3 (Medieval - "Company")| 1500 | 500 | 9 | 14
Level 4 (Renaissance - "Brigade")| 3000 | 1000 | 12 | 16
Level 5 (Industrial - "Division")| 5000 | 2000 | 20 | 18
Level 6 (Modern - "Division")| 6000 | 4000 | 26 | 20
Level 7 (Atomic - "Division")| 5000 | 5000 | 33 | 25
Level 8 (Information - "Brigade")| 4000 | 4000 | 39 | 30
[/table]

With also just 3 more lines (Skirmisher, Cavalry, Siege) for land units, merging some of the current upgrade lines of the games (warrior -> spearmen -> swordsmen -> pikemen -> musketmen...)

I'll add a few buildings for equipping the units past the middle age, all this temporary, the goal being to have a base to test the code for debugging before adding more complex data (more eras, more units line including militia/mercenary/standing army, etc...)

If all goes well, we could have a preview v.2 that would allow a simple (but "full") game.