Should Army Production Reduce Civilian Population

[Kruelgor]

I mentioned this as a footnote in another thread, but I want to shine a little more spotlight on the topic with it's own dedicated thread.

High productivity or even a strong economy doesn't necessarily mean the capability to produce a large standing army. Factory production of guns and equipment is only part of the equation. The missing element in Civ series is the population factor.

Granted it's a game, but in the real world, population size has always been one of the key factors in determining the size of a standing army, but yet it's importance has been left out in the civ series. I would like to see a city's population slightly diminish every time it produces a military unit, except from planes and machine guns.

Let's take a look at some real world statistics: source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mber_of_troops

China - 3,440,00 active troops (#1 army size / #1 population size)
United States - 1,473,900 active troops (#2 army size / #3 population size)
India - 1,414,000 active troops (#3 army size / #2 population size)

Now there are some exceptions to the case like North Korea has the #4 largest army but #47 on population size, but we can also say that N.Korea has taken a huge hit in its GDP/GNP because of it since it has less civilians working. This is why I say that population is one key factor. There are obviously other key factors in determining military troop strength such as government type, leadership ambitions, economy, production capability, etc...

In Civilization 5, I would like to see a more direct factor between population size and troop strength instead of just hammers and money.

[machinelawn]

well china also only spends about 10k per soldier where the us spends around 400k and india should be around 100k in us dollars china is actually in the process of shrinking its army because its units are so ineffective compared to almost every western power.
I think a new unit should be introduced National guard, like workers thry can work tiles in a city but also can be rapidly deployed as an effective fighting force. also i like your idea would make the games longer.

[marcelbutkis]

well china also only spends about 10k per soldier where the us spends around 400k and india should be around 100k in us dollars china is actually in the process of shrinking its army because its units are so ineffective compared to almost every western power.
I think a new unit should be introduced National guard, like workers thry can work tiles in a city but also can be rapidly deployed as an effective fighting force. also i like your idea would make the games longer.

Ooh, love that national guard idea. Maybe they'd make you pay to activate them as soldiers or something, too.

[BlackwatchGuards]

Ooh, love that national guard idea. Maybe they'd make you pay to activate them as soldiers or something, too.

I'd love some sort of quick-draft or militia unit for civ5.

[marcelbutkis]

I'd love some sort of quick-draft or militia unit for civ5.

And on that note, they need drafting and levies before the englightenment. It's not like they didn't draft (levy) soldiers before then. Much of Alexander's armies were such.

[BlackwatchGuards]

And on that note, they need drafting and levies before the englightenment. It's not like they didn't draft (levy) soldiers before then. Much of Alexander's armies were such.

True, much of the armies were made out of militia and such. It was expensive to upkeep a professional army. Much of the armies in England during the Danish invasions were militia (fyrd) and even the Roman Empire created auxiliaries and settled veterans so that they could be called up at a moments notice.

End history rant.

[marcelbutkis]

True, much of the armies were made out of militia and such. It was expensive to upkeep a professional army. Much of the armies in England during the Danish invasions were militia (fyrd) and even the Roman Empire created auxiliaries and settled veterans so that they could be called up at a moments notice.

End history rant.

I was also thinking of the post-Alexander Macedonian and Greek armies (and I'm sure before and during as well) where the rank-and-file were levies. There's also the Persian armies before that that were mostly made (except for the immortals) of levies from throughout the empire.

[madmike]

Ooh, love that national guard idea. Maybe they'd make you pay to activate them as soldiers or something, too.

Looks like you're going to love playing as America- they are going to have a unit called minutemen, according to the official website

[Minor Annoyance]

In civ4 you did get more free unit upkeep with higher population so there was some connection with population and army size. However I have often wondered who these soldiers are that seem to appear out of nowhere.
I disagree with planes not decreasing population though. A fighter plane may have one pilot, or a pilot and gunner, or a small crew for a bomber, but there would be a large support crew to maintain planes on the ground, but it's still probably not a significant number compared to other units.

[Jaybe]

Each unit should take some population, as should major unit rebuilding after losses. However, such population should NOT be based on population points (as done with whipping or drafting in Civ4), but on the food of a 1-pop city. I've always disliked how population points in different sized cities are not equal.

To just take so many food (e.g., 20 or 30) from the city for a turn should work just fine.

[FMRuss]

I completely agree with this proposition. Population is reduced in drafting/recruiting armies as history shows.

Slight tweak on this idea -legions/brigades (-1) population, composition of division (-1.5 population), corps (-3), armies (-7)
as a suggestion of formations or levels of units produced.

Also training should allow units to reach certain levels of morale, efficiency.

Also assigning commanders/ generals should increase these factors (command college idea,).

Units get shattered and lose strength and dont completely disappear unless it is encircled.

Units should reform at nearby cities at 20-30% of strength with morale and efficiency severely depleted and would cost you to replenish.

This unit would completely shatter if routed at this level.

It is unrealistic that units would just vanish after being hit by another unit without follow-up successive attacks.

This leads to a more credible basic wargame model and give the game more historical flavor.

[Aussie_Lurker]

I voted yes, but I wanted to add the following caveat. As you know, in Civ5 the units which require resources will be limited in number (e.g. 1 iron resource might allow you to build 5 swordsmen). Units like this I don't think should cost any population.

My 2nd caveat is that, rather than reduce the civilian population in any way, I believe that certain non-resource dependent, manpower intensive units (like regular infantry, archers etc etc) should work like settlers & workers in Civ4-i.e. all your production & food goes into building the unit rather than into growing your city's population.

Aussie.

[spoonfish]

I voted it as an option. I'd like to see how it would play out. I love the idea for some kind of national guard. Good discussion though. I look forward to reading some of your other ideas.

[Aussie_Lurker]

well china also only spends about 10k per soldier where the us spends around 400k and india should be around 100k in us dollars china is actually in the process of shrinking its army because its units are so ineffective compared to almost every western power.
I think a new unit should be introduced National guard, like workers thry can work tiles in a city but also can be rapidly deployed as an effective fighting force. also i like your idea would make the games longer.

In a way it sounds like they've at least partly embraced this idea. With the new 1upt rule, you will be extremely limited in your ability to stack units in cities-so now cities will be able to defend themselves from attack. Would not be surprised if there is some tech/building called "National Guard" (probably a National Wonder-if it's a building) that will boost the ability of your cities to defend themselves-but maybe at a cost to your production during wartime. Just a thought.

Aussie.

[Aussie_Lurker]

True, much of the armies were made out of militia and such. It was expensive to upkeep a professional army. Much of the armies in England during the Danish invasions were militia (fyrd) and even the Roman Empire created auxiliaries and settled veterans so that they could be called up at a moments notice.

End history rant.

Maybe social policies will play a role in this-whether you push your military development down a Professional path, a militia path or a mixture of the two. Obviously which Social Policy option you pick might effect (a) how long a unit takes to build; (b) the cost of that unit on your population growth & (c) what abilities it has upon completion.

Aussie.

[ta game masta]

what if your units got a bonus depending on the people in the city? but when producing a unit, it takes away population?

[Marthieu du Blois]

I think that units should have types. Let's see the big picture!

1) Regular: the CivIV type. I mean in CivIV all units are regular. These cost food.

2) Militia: drafted or auto-form units. This means that they appear if there are enemy units close to the city. These cost population.

3) Mercenary: paid soldiers, not necessarily from your own nation. Don't cost resources nor population, but have a high gold upkeep, and are very expensive to hire.

Does this make sense?

[KingLosec]

It's also plausible that units are connected to a city where they are from... too long from home may cause unhappy citizens...

[BrockValentine]

It makes no sense to be throwing so many units at each other and not be seeing a decrease in population. Just look at how many people have died in wars.

[Marthieu du Blois]

KingLosec

Militias/Volunteer units should have that 'home town', and if they went too far from it, or died, then that city should receive some ~3 .

Thanks for the idea.

[ta game masta]

also a milita option, which protects city, and you can take a population and make it into miltia, but only with happy citizens. Exept for police state, where you get unlimited militA(only if you have selective breeding tech, or something similar.

[Equisilus]

I think it sounds like an interesting idea, to have military units reduce population in a city by some factor. I'll leave it to the experts to determine how such an element would work and be balanced within the game mechanics, though. I would like it to be coupled with a migration option, though, allowing the player to move populations from city to city (not instantly).

[ShadowBadass]

you could just treat the production of a military unit like worker and settlers. i would prefer if they just pause the city growth. or while you are producing a new unit you lose 2 food off your total food.

[Marthieu du Blois]

forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74080
Check this thread out!

[TDelamay]

What if military units had a food upkeep, meaning that a civilization with larger cities that have access to more food, would be able to maintain a larger army.

[Marthieu du Blois]

What if military units had a food upkeep, meaning that a civilization with larger cities that have access to more food, would be able to maintain a larger army.

Rather change 1UpH to Forage per Hex.

This means that units can accumulate on a tile s long they have enough food (needed food=<yield).
If they start to starve then they would take damage according to the rate of starvation.
That is:
4 units on farm floodplain. 4 food-4 needed=0, OK.
5 units on farm floodplain. 4 food-5 needed=-1, now units will take -1/5=-20% damage/turn.
8 units on farm floodplain. 4 food-8 needed=-4, -4/8=-50% each turn.

That is, now you could have stacks, but if you put big piles together then they get damaged.
This is a pure and simple way to deal a deathblow to SoDs (causes collateral damage)

[Belgarion]

Should reduce civilian pop by one point for every million men recruited.

[superaub]

What if military units had a food upkeep, meaning that a civilization with larger cities that have access to more food, would be able to maintain a larger army.

I like this idea, but then it becomes difficult to determine which city pays upkeep.

I think that this could really work if food became a manageable commodity (can trade between cities, stockpile, feed soldiers, etc).

[dstahl]

not a fan of this - nor was I ever a fan of cities losing population due to creation of settlers.

The fact that it takes X amount of production and time to make the unit should be enough unless you are going to greatly reduce their costs in which case it might as well be the same as the "slavery" civic in CIV4.

I'd veto this one if I could...

[Marthieu du Blois]

I like this idea, but then it becomes difficult to determine which city pays upkeep.

I think that this could really work if food became a manageable commodity (can trade between cities, stockpile, feed soldiers, etc).

Food should definitely be treated like gold.
It's a pity it's not so in previous civs, let's hope that it is so in V.

[TJ Kahn]

The population living within a city does diminish when soldiers leave for war, but that population returns to a city upon dissolution/end of war. Is it possible to allocate a certain amount of people (perhaps a fraction of a population point per city) per military unit. If they can return safely, they can be re-absorbed into the city and return to productive life.

If a unit is created within a city for defensive purposes, they can remain productive (or perhaps provide reduced production) as long as they remain within city limits.

This could explain city unrest (productive population is not within the city), upkeep (city produces less food or resources with less population), as well as an incentive to return units home to restore cities to full functioning rather than leaving them exploring foreign nations.

[Marthieu du Blois]

TJ Kahn

Wouldn't it be simpler if units took 1 pop. to produce and could be joined to a city (+1 pop.)?

[musketeer925]

I think there should be a 'resource' called manpower. Manpower would vary directly with your amount of cities and their populations, training units lowers it, and it slowly replenishes. If a unit is disbanded within your boarders, it goes up, depending on how much that unit was using. Say a Marine uses 1000 manpower, but the marine is damaged, and then disbanded within your boarders, it may only give back around 500 manpower.

The use of manpower should NOT lower city population, JUST the manpower. This both limits your army size correctly for your civ size, but does not lower population is cities, which wouldnt be very cool. :\

II got this idea from europa universalis III, it uses a manpower system simlar to this.

[Marthieu du Blois]

musketeer925

Possible idea.
However, it can only make it into CivVI. It is either this way in CivV, or not.
But some mod might implement it.

[westchester01]

Just going back to the original question, I believe it should absolutely slightly lower population size. Obviously it is the most realistic option since the population of any given country would slightly decrease when an army is sent to war (although, less so over time since many large countries no long feel that effect). I also think it's a good idea because it would add a new dynamic to how freely we wage war and produce units.

[Kovie]

I vote that the population should b slightly reduced when building units. this is a good idea. but a system less clunky than the "settlers take two population" would be desireable.

As for the units requiring food each turn and having a home city.
If any of you remember, it was almost exactly like that back in Civ II. Though I think that the population was not reduced when you built a military unit. I would have no protest over this system returning in an upgraded form. maybe add in supply lines that had to be defended too (and bring back the ability to establish bases!). make you think twice before declaring war.

also, back then food was send-able from city to city, civ to civ. with caravans you could send food from one city to another (but you had to walk the unit through your country), and resources as well. the caravans could also be used to send food and goods to another nation, once the caravan arrived, I think that you had the choice of whether to establish a trade route or not.
as with the military system, it'd be nice to see this return.

[Marthieu du Blois]

Kovie

I think that the system you described (I haven't played Civ2) requires too much micromanagement even from a normal point of view, and even more so that the developers have launched a crusade against micromanagement.

[ironduke]

i like very much the idea about military units halting population growth when they are being built. It simply is more realistic. For those who fear this idea, keep in mind that because of the new nature of war in Civ 5, which is based more on positioning than plain outproducing, you will make significantly less units, therefore it will not have such a large impact.

I also really like the idea of selling food as a commodity, it will add more to both economics and diplomacy

[Marthieu du Blois]

ironduke

But what about a theoretical city with pop. 1 but with a large production and no food income?
Then a tiny city with no surplus food could field an army.

Anyway food should be a 'fluid commodity like gold' but as far as we know, it isn't.

[lemtoo]

Rather change 1UpH to Forage per Hex.

This means that units can accumulate on a tile s long they have enough food (needed food=<yield).
If they start to starve then they would take damage according to the rate of starvation.
[...]
That is, now you could have stacks, but if you put big piles together then they get damaged.

I might be ok with losing pop when a unit is created, but this changes a fundamental game mechanic that I'm looking forward to playing.