Barracks Create Veterans?

[Lancer]

Ever think about this? Barracks (training) creates soldiers, otherwise you just have a mob. Combat creates veterans. So, cities without barracks should only produce militia type units, weak and prone to dispersing, (vanishing, mostly in battle, but sometimes for no reason) ) but sometimes capable of rising above thenselves and becoming veteran militia, (no vanishing) through combat. Units created in cities with barracks should be more dependanle because they are trained, but still lack experience. They might disperse in combat, rarely. If they win a battle they might become veterans, having gained experience, and have a combat modifier and also become fearsome to non veteran units, making them more likely to disperse. Or something like that...interested to hear other ideas.

[tniem]

Seems like this idea is quite like the one in New?idea. While it is not a new idea, it basically says that you need to build a building before building an unit.

I don't fully agree with this position, but it is one where I would be happy either way.

[- Groucho -]

If you're proposing that specific units will require specific buildings before they can be built then I disagree. I like the old system with units being available through civ advances alone. It just adds one more micro-managing step (oops, i need tanks, better build a tank factory) and it seems out of keeping with the game. Now, for the most part you only specifically build really big interesting buildings that are such large undertakings that they probably would come up on the supreme rulers radar screen - universities, cathedrals, wonders etc. But if you had to build barracks, it would also make sense to build firehouses, stables, archery ranges, etc. etc. Stuff that would be weird for the head of state to be concerned with.

Now, if you were only talking about morale, barracks aren't a bad equivalent to the SMAC command centres which give an extra two morale points to all ground troops built in the city (but don't effect what kind of units can be built).

[Lancer]

What I'm talking about is experience. Units that have gone through combat become combat veterans, they get better at it and more steady because they know what to expect. That's just logical, that's the core of my point, the rest is a possible way to represent the idea in the game.

[Grumbold]

I'd be in favour of more than two levels of troop experience, with raw troops being what you got from rush-buying, green from building without a barracks, normal from building with a barracks then seasoned and veteran for hard campaigners. Losing too many men and then "healing" would reduce class levels too.

Unfortunately this is too detailed to suit everyone and has a danger of encouraging the old pikeman beats tank result. Still, it has been known for native troops to cause havoc to an unsuspecting armoured column with nothing more deadly than large poles to wedge between the tracks.

I agree, but instead of just one combat win producing a veteran...how about after two combat wins then the unit becomes an "experienced veteran"? And by 2 combat wins, I mean combat against other
"combatants."

Basically what I'm saying is that a warrior can attack a settler and become a veteran - this shouldn't be allowed. What experience did the warrior recieve on killing a noncombatant?

[down th' pub]

Gotta go with Grumbold on this one.

The morale/experience model in SMAC is the best from this family of games, penalty for Green, several bonus levels of experience.

[TacticalGrace]

There are all kinds of ways of modelling combat experience, many of them too complex to be desirable in a game like civ3.

certainly barracks producing veterans is a bit silly and I've removed barracks from my civ2 game.

a nice idea might be that troops become veterans for the type of combat they engaged in (only applies to ground toops):
city defence
city assault
desert
hills/mountain
snow/polar
jungle/swamp
other

so if your riflemen have fought a battle in the mountains they effectively become mountain troops - they are still riflemen but have veteran status when fighting in mountains/hills.

Can we therefore get rid of those blasted alpine troops? (hate it when those Zulu alpine troops come skiing across the sahara)

of course how this integrates with the terrain modifier is interesting but not problematic.

[Theben]

I prefer the one from a game called Pax Imperia. Units were built raw, and I think the others were green, able, veteran, elite, ultra-elite, and legendary. Anyway, no matter what level of barracks you had, or bonuses due to race, new units could not be built at higher than able or veteran (don't recall which). To get better than that ships had to undergo combat. Which ain't too far from what Lancer said.

[Lancer]

Theben, I find we agree on alot of stuff happily. Are you sure you're not a Repub?

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 02-02-2001 09:40 PM Theben, I find we agree on alot of stuff happily. Are you sure you're not a Repub?

Ha, ha. Sometimes I think I might be moving towards the center. Don't tell anyone.

But I'll NEVER be a repub.

[Theben]

Besides, maybe you're more liberal than you care to admit!

[Roman]

The SMAC system of morale levels would work well in Civ 3 too. Like in SMAC, some buildings (barracs) could lift the morale/training level from the outset, while experience would have to do the rest.

[loinburger]

MOO2 used differing levels of experience. If you created a spaceship without a space academy on the planet, then your ship crew was Green level (unless you were a Warlord race, in which case they were Regular level). If you had a space academy on the planet then your ship crew was Regular level (or Veteran level if you were a Warlord race). Every turn taht a ship was parked in the same system as a Space Academy the ship's crew gained two experience points, until eventually they became Elites. This meant that fifty turns of training could yield the same benefits as one or two battles, so it was a good idea to train crews well before you were going to need them.

I agree that barracks should not confer veteran status, but should instead confer regular status. As for morale: I don't like morale as much as experience. The most elite fighting force in the world is going to have a poor morale if they all have syphilis, haven't eaten in a week, and are short on ammunition behind enemy lines, whereas green volunteers might have extraordinary morale since they think that they are supermen.

[Roman]

Yes, technophile, experience was what I meant to say. Sorry for the confusion.

[DrFell]

I think, at the very least barracks should provide something other than auto-veteran units. Maybe experience levels are the key. In civ2 i wouldnt bother building a non-vet unit later in the game. Barracks made veteran units a neccessity. Now in some scenarios barracks are disabled, so you cant build veteran units, they have to earn it through combat. This makes you really value those vet units, which is the way it should be.

[Lancer]

Theben, more liberal than I thou...hey! No reason to get insulting.


Well, this thread is getting somewhere. It seems that there is a trend developing of people who are like thinking. Some have mentioned morale, some experience, but everyone seems to agree that barracks simply provide training, turning civies into soldiers. It takes actual combat to make a man good at being a soldier, and even more important, to turn a group of soldiers into a true team. Myself, I'm with Technophile. Whether or not you feel good about your job doesn't preclude you from doing it well, or poorly. Morale definatly influences the trend of a large group, but combat vets with morale problems and green troops with morale problems are going experience the same problems, but! The depressed vets would still be a higher level of troop than depressed green troops. Morale wouldn't influence the differential and might be hard to represent in a game, while experience should be fairly easy I would imagine.

DrFell hit the nail right on the head. You got a combat veteran unit, something you can't ever build, and that's like a kid having a cookie, it's fun. Fun is one of the reasons we play these games, yes?
[This message has been edited by Lancer (edited February 04, 2001).]

[dennis_caver]

I think a Barracks type city Improvement is a
requirement. Using Civ2 as the example, 3 levels sound
about right. 'Green(no Bar), Regular(w/Bar), Veteran
(w/Battle Exp.). Also the barracks should probably
appear later in the game, to coincide with advanced
training techniques. Also there may be several training
improvements available in the modern era where tactics
and technology changes require personnell updates.
These training centers could be Empire\Nation wide
rather then city based.

Spelunk 'til y puke,

Dennis

[colossus]

I like the idea-barracks don't create veterans!

In civ2, we don't border to have our vet units killed. As long as the barracks are there, we could pump out infinitely more vets.

But if barracks no longer produce vets, we will be at pains replenquishing the lost veterans. It will then be much more difficult to take out an enemy with a small but elite army. Quality makes up for quantity!

[Straybow]

One of the major problems with all the civlike games is the disparity between the cost of building things and the cost of maintaining them. This is combined with what I call Small Integer Syndrome, which limits the flexibility of the costs. For example it takes 40 shields to build a typical army/navy unit and one shield per turn to maintain it. SIS means that we can't increase support cost proportional to morale, we can only double or triple it. Cost disparity means it takes forever to build up a mighty military but next to nothing to support it.

While I could cite the "realism" bugaboo, I appeal to gameplay instead. If a typical military unit instead cost 12 shields to build and 4 to maintain the strategic complexion of the game is changed. A big city can build several units in one turn, but is then saddled with hefty support costs. Building improvements then takes much longer, forcing a truly strategic decision making process.

By increasing the support cost it becomes possible to have a cost increment associated with morale. Green troops would cost 3, regulars 4, vets 5, elite 6. Then training has a meaning: it would cost an extra x shields and perhaps some money to upgrade morale one step. Allowing fractional resource and money units wouldn't hurt. Any city improvement that allows the production of vet units doesn't relieve the burden of the incremental cost.

One way to limit "instant armies" would be to allow only one regular unit to be produced per turn, all others being green units. Barracks would allow one vet, one regular, and others green. The green units would still cost as much as the regulars. Units that take damage can become degraded in morale, representing dilution of the experience pool. Units could be voluntarily degraded to save support costs during peacetime.

"Healing" a unit would then be controlled by support cost as well, and speeding the healing of a unit by increasing materials and personnel recruiting would be modeled by extra shield (and maybe money) costs.

Motorized units would have an increase in support cost, i.e., +1 shield due to vehicle fuel and maintenance/repair parts. Mech, armor, and air units might need +2 shields. These costs would not be effected by morale.