[R&F] Upgrading units

I might need to read all this again, but I think I basically agree. I also don’t think a lot is needed here in terms of units / military, although if you want to really work the economic side of Civ it could get very complicated.



1. Your ability to field units should be based on the size of your economy. We could call that a “force limit” if we want and we could use population as a proxy for economy.

.

The importance of raw manpower shouldn't be underestimated. A major part of why Rome was eventually able to defeat Pyrrhus and Hannibal was its ability to field new armies after disasters like Trasimene and Cannae. By 1814 Napoleon and by 1945 Hitler were reduced to pressing boys and old men into service. Possibly force limit should be used up when units are built and only slowly recover. Possibly war weariness should have more effect on the ability to produce units.
 
The importance of raw manpower shouldn't be underestimated. A major part of why Rome was eventually able to defeat Pyrrhus and Hannibal was its ability to field new armies after disasters like Trasimene and Cannae. By 1814 Napoleon and by 1945 Hitler were reduced to pressing boys and old men into service. Possibly force limit should be used up when units are built and only slowly recover. Possibly war weariness should have more effect on the ability to produce units.

I agree with this.

In game terms, I'd view Napoleon's armies as being far larger than France's cap at the time, i.e. significant excess resources were devoted to building an army that was much bigger than their base infrastructure. When that army was destroyed in Russia, Spain and at Leipzig, France could quickly rebuild only up to its normal cap level. That wasn't nearly enough units to deal with the combined enemies they faced (pretty much all of the rest of Europe). But if you think about the size of the armies Napoleon was able to recruit in 1814, and again on returning to France for the 1815 campaign, those armies were pretty similar in size to those fielded by France during the revolutionary wars. Agreed that many of the new recruits (especially in 1814) were teenagers, but I'd view that as a consequence of the previous overbuild, i.e. exceeding the cap over the prior decade.
 
The importance of raw manpower shouldn't be underestimated. A major part of why Rome was eventually able to defeat Pyrrhus and Hannibal was its ability to field new armies after disasters like Trasimene and Cannae. By 1814 Napoleon and by 1945 Hitler were reduced to pressing boys and old men into service. Possibly force limit should be used up when units are built and only slowly recover. Possibly war weariness should have more effect on the ability to produce units.

I always liked the colonization concept, where you took population units & armed them with muskets/horses/tools to create musketmen, scouts or pioneers. & if these units were defeated, you lost a population unit.
 
What if producing a combat unit consumes 1 pop? (Same as settler.)
I was thinking about this and something similar was mentioned in this thread, it would be interesting to try it out. It would probably curb the initial unit spam very early on.

But then would you think that a scout unit deserves one pop cost? Probably not. How about Ranger? Spec Ops? Yes-no-maybe? Support units? Probably not.
Then could Victor be given a promotion sparing the cost of a pop, similar to Magnus' Provision?
How it would be if you build a corp or an army at once? 2 and 3 pop slash? Or keep it at 1? At that stage cities are already bigger and any additional pop costs more food anyway.

Wouldn't it push things to even wider spam of small cities early on? They regrow faster.
And then again, with the upgrade system unchanged, unit production costs unchanged, this might turn out somewhat samey-ish: you build an early army, conquer a neighbour or two, and then just keep professionally upgrading your units. And if you lose one war, you're probably even more dead than before.
 
I was thinking about this and something similar was mentioned in this thread, it would be interesting to try it out. It would probably curb the initial unit spam very early on.

But then would you think that a scout unit deserves one pop cost? Probably not. How about Ranger? Spec Ops? Yes-no-maybe? Support units? Probably not.
Then could Victor be given a promotion sparing the cost of a pop, similar to Magnus' Provision?
How it would be if you build a corp or an army at once? 2 and 3 pop slash? Or keep it at 1? At that stage cities are already bigger and any additional pop costs more food anyway.

Wouldn't it push things to even wider spam of small cities early on? They regrow faster.
And then again, with the upgrade system unchanged, unit production costs unchanged, this might turn out somewhat samey-ish: you build an early army, conquer a neighbour or two, and then just keep professionally upgrading your units. And if you lose one war, you're probably even more dead than before.

Civ IV had the ability to rushbuy infantry appropriate to your era with pop IIRC. Can't remember if it was restricted to certain governments or tech enabled but that seemed a good way to represent arming the populace in an emergency. I don't think it would work well for normal production. Would as you say encourage many small cities and penalise large cities when they are the ones that you'd think could spare some population.
 
What if producing a combat unit consumes 1 pop? (Same as settler.)

I’m not sure I like settlers costing pop tbh. I’ve never really understood the logic beyond I guess stopping ICS, but here are other ways to curb that surely?
 
Civ IV had the ability to rushbuy infantry appropriate to your era with pop IIRC. Can't remember if it was restricted to certain governments or tech enabled but that seemed a good way to represent arming the populace in an emergency. I don't think it would work well for normal production. Would as you say encourage many small cities and penalise large cities when they are the ones that you'd think could spare some population.

Yes, it was drafting under Nationhood civic, after you researched Nationalism. Could also be a card in Civ VI, giving you a basic melee for one pop.
 
I’m not sure I like settlers costing pop tbh. I’ve never really understood the logic beyond I guess stopping ICS, but here are other ways to curb that surely?

Civ's always had the issue that the first Population in a city is really two: one working the central district and one working the fields. That as much as anything else is what's made Infinite City Spam an issue that all later iterations of Civ have tried to rein in one way or the other.

So even with the Settler costing one Population, that Pop is doubled as soon as the Settler founds a city.
 
And then again, with the upgrade system unchanged, unit production costs unchanged, this might turn out somewhat samey-ish: you build an early army, conquer a neighbour or two, and then just keep professionally upgrading your units.
How shall it ever be possible to "balance" against the (existing, possible) AIs for hundreds of turns a *human* army
composed of an _unlimited number_ of __cheap__ units consisting of _unit types as requested_, _fully upgraded_ and at _full promotion level_?

Call it gamey or arbitrary, less would be more.


{{Edit: eg. like districts seldom used unit types could become relatively cheaper, widespread unit types could become relatively more expensive in order to increase unit type diversity}}
 
Last edited:
What if producing a combat unit consumes 1 pop? (Same as settler.)

Problem is, the population going into a Settler is not the same as the population going into the military. In the classic Settler = found new city equation (example: Classical and pre-Classical Greek colonization of the Black Sea - Mediterranean littoral regions) the 'settlers' were always formed from excess population: younger sons without land or who were excess to the population required to make the city work, and their wives and families. As far as I have read, at no time in history did a bunch of people decide that they would leave good jobs and homes in one place to start over in a brand new place from scratch: they went because there were no jobs, or not enough food to feed everybody. Later, political considerations might also apply: after the failed liberal revolutions in Germany in 1830 and 1848, the USA got a large influx of (liberal) Germans fleeing the police back home, for instance.

By contrast, the military is almost always formed from those people who have a stake in the society, and therefore something to defend. The Greek Hoplites were the upper middle class of society: landowners with enough income to pay for the Hoplite panoply of arms and armor. The Roman legions were originally recruited by class only from Roman Citizens.

So, at least realistically, Population = military is not entirely accurate: the Population point includes women, children, the aged, the
'military manpower' in modern (post-Industrial Era) terms is usually considered to be no more than about 10% of the total opopulation, or men between the ages of 18 and 45. That number changes when things get extreme. As mentioned above, France was drafting 14 - 15 year old boys in 1813 and 1814, Germany was inducting Hitler Youth aged down to 15 by late 1944, and Germany and the Soviet Union had a large percentage of frontline infantry by 1944 who were over 50 years of age, normally considered too old to serve in that capacity.

Limiting total number of Units can, I think, be better done by showing the limitations in the Production caused by taking male factory and farm workers away, lie not allowing a tile/structure to be worked for every unit over the national Unit Cap, which will quickly eat into your Production and Food supplies, as extra conscription did historically.

I agree with this.

In game terms, I'd view Napoleon's armies as being far larger than France's cap at the time, i.e. significant excess resources were devoted to building an army that was much bigger than their base infrastructure. When that army was destroyed in Russia, Spain and at Leipzig, France could quickly rebuild only up to its normal cap level. That wasn't nearly enough units to deal with the combined enemies they faced (pretty much all of the rest of Europe). But if you think about the size of the armies Napoleon was able to recruit in 1814, and again on returning to France for the 1815 campaign, those armies were pretty similar in size to those fielded by France during the revolutionary wars. Agreed that many of the new recruits (especially in 1814) were teenagers, but I'd view that as a consequence of the previous overbuild, i.e. exceeding the cap over the prior decade.

Precisely. And the biggest indicator of 'War Weariness' is when the men/boys being drafted, conscripted or 'called up' refuse to show up. In Napoleon's Army at Waterloo, most infantry battalions were only a little over half their authorized strength because most of the conscripts that were supposed to fill them up never showed up: 'draft dodger' is a very old concept.

In game terms, as War Weariness increases, your Unit Cap actually goes down. Modern States with their bureaucratic infrastructure have means to combat this better than states like Napoleon's: despite widespread 'war weariness' during Vietnam, the US Army never ran out of men, and all of the nations fighting World War Two were reaching serious War Weariness/Exhaustion by late 1944, yet the only manpower shortages were caused by losses (Germany, Soviet Union) or the conflicting demands of war industry and the military (Britain, USA). All the states had enough coercive measures ready to hand to 'round up' most of the 'draft dodgers' and put them to work, in uniform, or just shoot them as examples (Germany and the Soviet Union especially: they each executed at least 30,000 of their own men for 'malingering', desertion, or dodging)

That means, Unit Cap/War Weariness, like most things related to the Unit Cap and Maintenance, can be modified by other factors, like Social Policies, Government Type, Civics, Technology, and so on.
 
What if producing a combat unit consumes 1 pop? (Same as settler.)
I would prefer a model where instead of removing the population, you allocate it to work as a military unit. So instead of working a tile for yields, or working a specialist slot for yields + GPP, you can put a citizen to work as a military unit. This solution would have the advantage that you'd still need to supply food for the citizen, which would put an effective cap on how many units you can support in your empire if you want to keep growing. By simply decreasing population, the citizen is completely "paid for" once it is subtracted and thus it doesn't put a hard limit on the number of units you can afford in the same way.
 
I would prefer a model where instead of removing the population, you allocate it to work as a military unit. So instead of working a tile for yields, or working a specialist slot for yields + GPP, you can put a citizen to work as a military unit. This solution would have the advantage that you'd still need to supply food for the citizen, which would put an effective cap on how many units you can support in your empire if you want to keep growing. By simply decreasing population, the citizen is completely "paid for" once it is subtracted and thus it doesn't put a hard limit on the number of units you can afford in the same way.

That is basically exactly what was done in colonization.

You had the possibility to "grab" a pop unit & drag it to a plot it should work, a building it should work in (smithy, church, brewery) or station it outside the walls of the city. If it was outside the city it acted as a poorly armed militia/settler/scout unit.
 
I would prefer a model where instead of removing the population, you allocate it to work as a military unit. So instead of working a tile for yields, or working a specialist slot for yields + GPP, you can put a citizen to work as a military unit. This solution would have the advantage that you'd still need to supply food for the citizen, which would put an effective cap on how many units you can support in your empire if you want to keep growing. By simply decreasing population, the citizen is completely "paid for" once it is subtracted and thus it doesn't put a hard limit on the number of units you can afford in the same way.

Well, that would certainly make population more valuable.

...but I could also see that really punishing players / aid that have fallen behind or have lost cities (further compounding the problem that if you start losing a war your entire empire quickly just collapses).

I just can’t get that excited about allocating or losing pop for units. I don’t think population in civ is really all that precise anyway as a concept. I’m not really convinced your military is even that linked to real population. Maybe head count impacts how many grunt troops you can field, but does it really determine how many tanks or spec ops or aircraft carriers you can field? Isn’t that more about your military and industrial capacity?

What I like about a force limit - working a bit like housing or loyalty - is it could be based on a wider idea of “economy”. Your Palace would give you some minimum force limit, then population would give the bulk of your force limit (so there would be some link between pop and military), but then other infrastructure could come into play - buildings, policies, government, great people, alliances.

My comments here have got very unfocused. I starting talking about upgrades and now I’m going on (and on) about something else. Oh dear.
 
Regarding "military consumes population": this is something easily implementable (a few lines of code) and does not require a lot of overhaul. This could be moded-in right now. All kinds of "force limits" etc. is also possible, but more as a "hack" (with current modding tools).
 
Last edited:
Regarding "military consumes population": this is something easily implementable (a few lines of code) and does not require a lot of overhaul. This could be moded-in right now. All kinds of "force limits" etc. is also possible, but more as a "hack" (with current modding tools).
Not sure how I feel on this. Could make multiplayer more enjoyable? Managing the units necessary to defeat other humans (ie. ALLOT of them) as well as the various districts and builders in under a specified time limit has always deterred me from participating.
 
Well, that would certainly make population more valuable.

...but I could also see that really punishing players / aid that have fallen behind or have lost cities (further compounding the problem that if you start losing a war your entire empire quickly just collapses).
I don't really agree with this assessment, however. Quite on the contrary, I feel a mechanism where you assign population for military units would give you a significantly better chance of surviving a war once your standing army got destroyed. If you could draft one or even several population from a city each turn to create an instant military unit (which you could back in one of the old games, I don't recall if it was Civ2 or Civ3), you wouldn't be completely lost, whereas basically you are just a sitting duck in the current system, where creating one military unit takes anywhere between 5 and 15 turns in late game.

Also, one could expand this so that when you capture an enemy city, a number of the citizens reject your rule and instantly create a number of military units loyal to the old owner - again something we used to have in the old games if I'm not mistaken, and something that would make it much less trivial to just run over an entire empire (not to mention that it would actually be fairly realistic). This could even tie into some other game mechanics like the districts (any district not occupied by your military units will spawn a hostile military unit), and it could tie into loyalty and influence (the higher your loyalty pressure on the conquered city is, the fewer hostile units will spawn, a bit like the culture meter which we had back in Civ4 (or was it Civ3?).
 
I don't really agree with this assessment, however. Quite on the contrary, I feel a mechanism where you assign population for military units would give you a significantly better chance of surviving a war once your standing army got destroyed. If you could draft one or even several population from a city each turn to create an instant military unit (which you could back in one of the old games, I don't recall if it was Civ2 or Civ3), you wouldn't be completely lost, whereas basically you are just a sitting duck in the current system, where creating one military unit takes anywhere between 5 and 15 turns in late game.

I believe Gedemo is working on something like this in his Massive Rework of Civ mod: each unit consists of Population plus Resources, and the resources can be 'stockpiled' so that you could, theoretically, 'call up' men, arm them, and have a new unit in a hurry. That is much closer to the 'real world' model of raising an army than the system in Civ now.

Also, one could expand this so that when you capture an enemy city, a number of the citizens reject your rule and instantly create a number of military units loyal to the old owner - again something we used to have in the old games if I'm not mistaken, and something that would make it much less trivial to just run over an entire empire (not to mention that it would actually be fairly realistic). This could even tie into some other game mechanics like the districts (any district not occupied by your military units will spawn a hostile military unit), and it could tie into loyalty and influence (the higher your loyalty pressure on the conquered city is, the fewer hostile units will spawn, a bit like the culture meter which we had back in Civ4 (or was it Civ3?).

I think this is part of what the Loyalty mechanism is supposed to emulate, in that if the newly conquered city doesn't like you enough, they revolt and become a 'Free City'. I don't think the mechanism is quite accurate, since historically, usually if they revolted they immediately reverted to their old allegiance and the earlier Civ model where they immediately formed 'partisan units' was actually more accurate, but more rarely led to the actual loss of the city.
Spawning new military units in a conquest situation would really also be a product of War Weariness. If the population is Weary enough, they won't spawn anything, but sullenly accept the conquest. Historical Example: when the Allies entered France in 1814, there was almost no civilian resistance: the French were dog tired of war, and just wanted it over (Napoleon was starting to have very serious problems getting people to respond to calls for recruits as well). By contrast, after the speedy destruction of the French Armies in 1870, the Germans faced a nasty guerrilla war all over occupied France until peace was finally declared the following year: the 'regular' war had ended before people got War Weary, and so they reacted to the enemy invasion violently.
 
Problem is, the population going into a Settler is not the same as the population going into the military. In the classic Settler = found new city equation (example: Classical and pre-Classical Greek colonization of the Black Sea - Mediterranean littoral regions) the 'settlers' were always formed from excess population: younger sons without land or who were excess to the population required to make the city work, and their wives and families. As far as I have read, at no time in history did a bunch of people decide that they would leave good jobs and homes in one place to start over in a brand new place from scratch: they went because there were no jobs, or not enough food to feed everybody. Later, political considerations might also apply: after the failed liberal revolutions in Germany in 1830 and 1848, the USA got a large influx of (liberal) Germans fleeing the police back home, for instance.

By contrast, the military is almost always formed from those people who have a stake in the society, and therefore something to defend. The Greek Hoplites were the upper middle class of society: landowners with enough income to pay for the Hoplite panoply of arms and armor. The Roman legions were originally recruited by class only from Roman Citizens.

So, at least realistically, Population = military is not entirely accurate: the Population point includes women, children, the aged, the
'military manpower' in modern (post-Industrial Era) terms is usually considered to be no more than about 10% of the total opopulation, or men between the ages of 18 and 45. That number changes when things get extreme. As mentioned above, France was drafting 14 - 15 year old boys in 1813 and 1814, Germany was inducting Hitler Youth aged down to 15 by late 1944, and Germany and the Soviet Union had a large percentage of frontline infantry by 1944 who were over 50 years of age, normally considered too old to serve in that capacity.

Limiting total number of Units can, I think, be better done by showing the limitations in the Production caused by taking male factory and farm workers away, lie not allowing a tile/structure to be worked for every unit over the national Unit Cap, which will quickly eat into your Production and Food supplies, as extra conscription did historically.



Precisely. And the biggest indicator of 'War Weariness' is when the men/boys being drafted, conscripted or 'called up' refuse to show up. In Napoleon's Army at Waterloo, most infantry battalions were only a little over half their authorized strength because most of the conscripts that were supposed to fill them up never showed up: 'draft dodger' is a very old concept.

In game terms, as War Weariness increases, your Unit Cap actually goes down. Modern States with their bureaucratic infrastructure have means to combat this better than states like Napoleon's: despite widespread 'war weariness' during Vietnam, the US Army never ran out of men, and all of the nations fighting World War Two were reaching serious War Weariness/Exhaustion by late 1944, yet the only manpower shortages were caused by losses (Germany, Soviet Union) or the conflicting demands of war industry and the military (Britain, USA). All the states had enough coercive measures ready to hand to 'round up' most of the 'draft dodgers' and put them to work, in uniform, or just shoot them as examples (Germany and the Soviet Union especially: they each executed at least 30,000 of their own men for 'malingering', desertion, or dodging)

That means, Unit Cap/War Weariness, like most things related to the Unit Cap and Maintenance, can be modified by other factors, like Social Policies, Government Type, Civics, Technology, and so on.

I don't really agree with this assessment, however. Quite on the contrary, I feel a mechanism where you assign population for military units would give you a significantly better chance of surviving a war once your standing army got destroyed. If you could draft one or even several population from a city each turn to create an instant military unit (which you could back in one of the old games, I don't recall if it was Civ2 or Civ3), you wouldn't be completely lost, whereas basically you are just a sitting duck in the current system, where creating one military unit takes anywhere between 5 and 15 turns in late game.

Also, one could expand this so that when you capture an enemy city, a number of the citizens reject your rule and instantly create a number of military units loyal to the old owner - again something we used to have in the old games if I'm not mistaken, and something that would make it much less trivial to just run over an entire empire (not to mention that it would actually be fairly realistic). This could even tie into some other game mechanics like the districts (any district not occupied by your military units will spawn a hostile military unit), and it could tie into loyalty and influence (the higher your loyalty pressure on the conquered city is, the fewer hostile units will spawn, a bit like the culture meter which we had back in Civ4 (or was it Civ3?).

I believe Gedemo is working on something like this in his Massive Rework of Civ mod: each unit consists of Population plus Resources, and the resources can be 'stockpiled' so that you could, theoretically, 'call up' men, arm them, and have a new unit in a hurry. That is much closer to the 'real world' model of raising an army than the system in Civ now.



I think this is part of what the Loyalty mechanism is supposed to emulate, in that if the newly conquered city doesn't like you enough, they revolt and become a 'Free City'. I don't think the mechanism is quite accurate, since historically, usually if they revolted they immediately reverted to their old allegiance and the earlier Civ model where they immediately formed 'partisan units' was actually more accurate, but more rarely led to the actual loss of the city.
Spawning new military units in a conquest situation would really also be a product of War Weariness. If the population is Weary enough, they won't spawn anything, but sullenly accept the conquest. Historical Example: when the Allies entered France in 1814, there was almost no civilian resistance: the French were dog tired of war, and just wanted it over (Napoleon was starting to have very serious problems getting people to respond to calls for recruits as well). By contrast, after the speedy destruction of the French Armies in 1870, the Germans faced a nasty guerrilla war all over occupied France until peace was finally declared the following year: the 'regular' war had ended before people got War Weary, and so they reacted to the enemy invasion violently.

Well, I’ve obviously got my own ideas on how things should would work. But I really like that people don’t just have different ideas, but have thought through them so much and they ideas come from such different places - historical, mathematical. Frankly, I think I actually like these boards (you guys) more than the game...
 
Well, I’ve obviously got my own ideas on how things should would work. But I really like that people don’t just have different ideas, but have thought through them so much and they ideas come from such different places - historical, mathematical. Frankly, I think I actually like these boards (you guys) more than the game...

Good Ideas come out of Everywhere, and nobody has a monopoly on them. To me, that's the main point of these boards...
 
Back
Top Bottom