[R&F] Upgrading units

[Gedemon]

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.

If there were two lines of Social Policies (spanned on multiple eras) for this, do you have any idea for possible names ?

- a line of policies to raise the total % of population that can be drafted at a global production cost
- a line of policies to reduce the effect of war weariness on the number of personnel that can be recruited each turn from population

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If there were two lines of Social Policies (spanned on multiple eras) for this, do you have any idea for possible names ?

- a line of policies to raise the total % of population that can be drafted at a global production cost
- a line of policies to reduce the effect of war weariness on the number of personnel that can be recruited each turn from population

A bunch of them are already in the game, but somewhat mis-used:
(titles of Policies already in the game in Italics)
To raise a greater percentage of the population:
Conscription - (Classical Era)
Foedal Oath - (Medieval Era)
Levee en Masse - (Industrial Era)
Duty and Honor - (Modern Era)
Your Country Calls! - (Modern Era)

To reduce War Weariness:
God Wills It! - (Medieval Era)
The Last Ditch - (Renaissance Era)
Defense of the Motherland - (Modern Era) - and I'd really like to see this renamed 'For the Motherland!' or even 'Za Rodina!'
Martial Law - (Modern Era)
Patriotic War - (Modern Era)

Of course, 'War Weariness' is very subject to the way the war is going: take an enemy city, destroy X number of enemy units in a turn, and War Weariness vanishes in the 'Glow of Victory'. Lose a city, lose X units in a single turn, and War Weariness is likely to increase dramatically. Even in modern totalitarian societies controlling access to information, it is impossible to keep major defeats a secret for long and they can seriously effect civilian morale: Nazi Germany experienced a real drop in civilian morale after the defeats at Moscow in 1941-42 and Stalingrad in 1942-43, and morale in Stalin's Soviet Union became very shaken after the initial defeats in the early summer of 1942.

 

[Jaybe]

Re units/population:
I have misgivings on a 1-1 correspondence since population increase consumes increasing amounts of food as the city grows larger. Instead of population, have units consume food (and potentially production). With food you can have more control over how many food a unit consumes based on the type or the age in the game.

 

[Boyan_Sun]

Is this about reconstructing a new war weariness system? The current system in Civ6 is like this:

• The smaller the population of each city in your empire, the less you are to suffer from high war weariness, because the maximum penalty is determined by the amenity needs from population. Excessive war weariness will be ignored.
• If you completely eliminate a country, the war weariness between you and that country will vanish in an instant, since war weariness is calculated separately, is indexed by both your and your opponent's ID, will be deleted without your opponent's ID.
• Only battle will increase war weariness, for both side. If you want to wear down the enemy with war weariness, try to declare a surprise war, because war weariness is determined by casus belli, on both sides equally.

I personally think this design is weird.

 

[kaspergm]

Re units/population:
I have misgivings on a 1-1 correspondence since population increase consumes increasing amounts of food as the city grows larger. Instead of population, have units consume food (and potentially production). With food you can have more control over how many food a unit consumes based on the type or the age in the game.

I can follow your concern, but I'm not sure it would be too big of an issue. I do agree that if such a thing was done, one would have to go away from the "cities start with 1 pop" concept. At least the capital should start out with 3-4 pop from get-go, and new cities should probably also have at least 2-3 pop, or you should have fairly available means to increase initial pop (Civ5 did this sparingly through policies, Civ6 does this through some dedications, but neither are widely available).

I do think Civ6 has a very effective way to account for increasing food needs by the farm adjacency bonus. I get the impression that people feel it's a suboptimal strategy to make large blankets of farms (an that's probably true), but you can get some massive food yields if you do. Of course this would cater to a food administration system where food was less local and more global, so you could have "farm towns" that would produce food for your entire country. I'm not sure developers would be interested in going that way in terms of management, but of course one could have an automatic distribution like it works for amenities now (although I know many players dislike that kind of features).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I get the impression that people feel it's a suboptimal strategy to make large blankets of farms (an that's probably true), but you can get some massive food yields if you do.

Its only suboptimal because large population cities aren't typically worth the required investment in amenities/housing. Each extra population added to a city has a marginal yield lower than the prior population (once pop => 10) but a higher required production/gold cost to obtain the amenities/housing necessary to get that population. In fact, if the extra population drops your amenity level down below a bonus threshold, its likely that the net impact of the extra population will be to decrease the total yields from the city.

If that extra food was doing something useful, then the "farm towns" approach would be fun to put together.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its only suboptimal because large population cities aren't typically worth the required investment in amenities/housing. Each extra population added to a city has a marginal yield lower than the prior population (once pop => 10) but a higher required production/gold cost to obtain the amenities/housing necessary to get that population. In fact, if the extra population drops your amenity level down below a bonus threshold, its likely that the net impact of the extra population will be to decrease the total yields from the city.

If that extra food was doing something useful, then the "farm towns" approach would be fun to put together.

-And, by the mid/late game when you can easily hit the high City Population levels, yo are increasingly getting those Amenities from construction (Entertainment Districts and Buildings, Wonders) which puts a premium on the Production Costs, which are already imbalanced because the game never compensated for the loss of multiple Industrial Zone influences.
Playing Civ VI more and more resembles playing Whack-a-Mole with Saber-Toothed Moles...

Now, in regards to the OP, should War Weariness directly influence how easy it is to 'recruit' new population into military units? A case can be made for a direct link: in World War Two in both the USA and the Soviet Union voluntary enlistments varied dramatically based on how the war was going, and once it was obvious late 1942, early 1943) that the war was not going to end soon, only hard effort on the part of propagandists produced any great number of 'volunteers' (Reference: Roger Reese: Why Stalin's Soldieres Fought, Chapter 5). This would seem to me to be directly related to Upgrading and even 'repairing' units, since both should require some new personnel in the units, as well as equipment and (new) weapons.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Now, in regards to the OP, should War Weariness directly influence how easy it is to 'recruit' new population into military units? A case can be made for a direct link: in World War Two in both the USA and the Soviet Union voluntary enlistments varied dramatically based on how the war was going, and once it was obvious late 1942, early 1943) that the war was not going to end soon, only hard effort on the part of propagandists produced any great number of 'volunteers' (Reference: Roger Reese: Why Stalin's Soldieres Fought, Chapter 5). This would seem to me to be directly related to Upgrading and even 'repairing' units, since both should require some new personnel in the units, as well as equipment and (new) weapons.

Just to muddy the waters a little more, two other factors that have had a general impact on the ability of a state to recruit soldiers:

First, the relative economic alternatives. In Roman times, a position in a Legion ensured you'd get your daily requirement of salt (from whence "salary") and eventually after enough service a land grant. In Feudal times, accepting military service allowed you to work the land (and if you did well enough with the land, you could spend your surplus to hire someone else to serve in your place). Post-feudalism, initial army increases are almost always filled primarily by young men for whom the army/navy represented a more financially secure future (i.e. a higher probability of getting fed that day) than the alternatives. When the army/navy ceased to offer a more financially secure future, you ended up with press gangs, appeals to nationalism, or drafts. In Civ terms, this can likely all be ignored and rolled into the war weariness system, i.e. assume that when war weariness is low, there's a pool of under-employed young men who can easily be lured into service, but that this pool shrinks as the war continues, i.e. war weariness rises.

Second, the relative prestige of service. If putting on a uniform raised your social standing, then young men, especially those who had not yet won a bride, were more likely to sign up. I'm on shakier ground here, as for the most part, I'd guess only officers received much of a social bump (and in many societies, it's likely they came from a social class where if there was a bump, it wasn't very big). Occasionally some elite units would provide a more general boost for all enlisted men. And when the war was going well, being a soldier was more likely to be a source of pride; not so much when a war was going poorly. So on balance, while I think relative prestige was a factor, in game terms it can likely be subsumed into the relative economic alternatives factor (wearing a uniform made you more respectable than being a beggar on the street, but not necessarily a better "catch" than being an apprentice if that work was available to you). Unless anyone can think of an historical situation where the perceived prestige of service provided the state with a persistent advantage at recruitment that lasted long enough to have a game level effect?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just to muddy the waters a little more, two other factors that have had a general impact on the ability of a state to recruit soldiers:

First, the relative economic alternatives. In Roman times, a position in a Legion ensured you'd get your daily requirement of salt (from whence "salary") and eventually after enough service a land grant. In Feudal times, accepting military service allowed you to work the land (and if you did well enough with the land, you could spend your surplus to hire someone else to serve in your place). Post-feudalism, initial army increases are almost always filled primarily by young men for whom the army/navy represented a more financially secure future (i.e. a higher probability of getting fed that day) than the alternatives. When the army/navy ceased to offer a more financially secure future, you ended up with press gangs, appeals to nationalism, or drafts. In Civ terms, this can likely all be ignored and rolled into the war weariness system, i.e. assume that when war weariness is low, there's a pool of under-employed young men who can easily be lured into service, but that this pool shrinks as the war continues, i.e. war weariness rises.

Second, the relative prestige of service. If putting on a uniform raised your social standing, then young men, especially those who had not yet won a bride, were more likely to sign up. I'm on shakier ground here, as for the most part, I'd guess only officers received much of a social bump (and in many societies, it's likely they came from a social class where if there was a bump, it wasn't very big). Occasionally some elite units would provide a more general boost for all enlisted men. And when the war was going well, being a soldier was more likely to be a source of pride; not so much when a war was going poorly. So on balance, while I think relative prestige was a factor, in game terms it can likely be subsumed into the relative economic alternatives factor (wearing a uniform made you more respectable than being a beggar on the street, but not necessarily a better "catch" than being an apprentice if that work was available to you). Unless anyone can think of an historical situation where the perceived prestige of service provided the state with a persistent advantage at recruitment that lasted long enough to have a game level effect?

In the armies of Europe starting about the middle of the 18th century Sergeants had to be able to read and write, because they were increasingly required to keep and make written reports. Consequently, a retired Non-Commissioned Officer was frequently in a very good position to get a job as an office worker with the government, because he was both literate and used to taking orders and keeping things orderly. In the Prussian State of Frederick the Great and later, this was explicit: a retired NCO was the preferred choice for any government job, including local town clerks, postmasters, and other functionaries. It was a virtually guaranteed, well paid second career until you were too old to work at all!

So, perhaps there should be a new set of Social Policies:
Classical Era (Roman model):
Veteran's Land Grants
- each city loses 1 Gold per turn, but gains +2 Food and +1 Unit Cap
Representing that farmland is not available for lucrative sale, but it is in the hands of hard-working veterans and they provide a model of Government Benevolence to encourage recruiting.
(Early) Industrial Era: (Prussian Model):
Veteran's Preference
- each city gains +1 Gold and +1 Unit Cap.
Representing more efficient administration of everything in the city from mail to tax records, and a role model visible to everyone of the benefits of an army career.

 

[Scaramanga]

Military Science certainly requires Printing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Military Science certainly requires Printing.

That case can certainly be made. In fact, some of the earliest 'writing' found were lists of military gear (chariot parts, weapons, shields, etc) stored in palaces! Military bureaucracy goes back a loooong way...

 

[Gedemon]

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.

What % would you suggest for the other (earlier) eras ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What % would you suggest for the other (earlier) eras ?

Since very few societies took censuses and the numbers of men even in individual battles is frequently Wild Guesses on the part of some chronicler who wasn't there, it's hard to come up with 'hard' figures. Here are some indicators, though:

1. The Roman Empire had a population of at least 50,000,000, and possibly as much as 100,000,000, but the Roman military, even counting barbarian auxiliaries, never exceeded 500,000. That means, even with a fairly sophisticated infrastructure and very good 'industrial' base to provide weapons and equipment (they had virtual factories n northern Italy turning out legionary armor and weapon) they barely mobilized 1% of the total population.
2. In 9th - 11th century CE Saxon England, every 5 families was supposed to provide one infantryman for the Fyrd, equipped with a shield and spear - no armor, no metalworking-heavy swords or helmets, and of course a 'family' has to be considered to be at least 4 - 7 men, women and children each. That's about 20%, but it was only from families that worked land (admittedly, the majority of the population at the time), and not particularly well equipped, and they could only be 'called up' for a maximum of 60 days a year (which is why Harold's Army at Hastings was missing most of the Great Fyrd - he had to send them home)
3. In the High Years of the French Empire 1805 - 1811, Napoleon had upwards of 1,000,000 men in uniform out of a French population of a little less than 30,000,000. However, a large percentage of the troops were not French: the total included units raised from Dutch, Belgian, German, and Italian populations under French control, and the 500,000 man force that went into Russia in 1812 was only about half French: it also included just over 150,000 Austrian and Prussian 'allied' troops plus contingents of Germans, Poles, Dutch, etc. And, of course, the total was not sustainable: by 1813 a combination of war weariness and economic strains at home were making it very difficult to get any more troops out of France, and 'draft dodging' was reaching the point where 2 out of every 3 men called up failed to report.
4. The population of the Athenian Demes in the classical period (around 450 BCE) has been estimated at just under 500,000 (and this may be wildly off: the Athenians even when they did count people, never counted slaves and women!). Athens never put more than 10,000 hoplites into the field, but at its height her navy had a little over 200 ships with about 45,000 crewmen. Of course, 'crewmen' were mostly rowers who didn't have to provide any equipment, while a hoplite had to provide his own armor, spear, helmet, and shield.

Overall, then, and this is based on few hard figures and a lot of 'SWAG" ("Scientific Wild-A** Guessing") I would estimate that most Ancient to Renaissance Era societies could regularly put 1% of the total population into the military, but possibly as many as 6 - 10% IF they didn't have to be well-equipped - no fancy metalwork, swords, armor, etc - And the higher figures could not be kept away from the economy for more than a fraction of the year unless Someone Else was providing food for the rest of the population - Athen's navy was being fed with imported grain from the Greek cities along the Black Sea coast and North Africa, for example.