Who else does think that it's a good idea?
Now the actual description:
If you have a military unit you don't want to use as it costs 2 gold/turn, you can settle it.
Now it becomes an Active Military Camp that costs only 1 G/T.
If you let it be and don't bother it, then after 5-10 turns it becomes a Passive Military Camp that doesn't cost anything. (In areas that are not yours these cannot form, camps remain Active.)
If you want to reactivate it (enemies are coming) then an Active camp can turn into that unit in 1 turn.
A Passive camp needs 2-3 turns to activate.
This would enable the following things:
- Providing places for healing
- Alternatively the way for healing
- Making possible the placement of veteran units
- Lowering the cost of after-war situations
- Making you able to keep armies in reserve for a possible invasion as defensive force
- Enabling us to build up big invasion armies without going bankrupt before the war starts.
For its reality: think the Roman legionary camps along the Limes (active) and their veteran settlement program (passive).
It also resembles Feudalism/Vassalage.
Ideas, flaws, comments?
Last edited by Marthieu du Blois; 06-13-2010 at 02:58 AM.
I generally like the idea, two things though.
1) I don't think units in passive camp should be free. Reserve units and national guard units (for example) do have some cost associated with them even if it's not as high as an active duty one. Greatly reduced cost would be a better option imo.
2) I would just add that a unit in camp has it's strength halved and one in a passive camp has it reduced to 25% (you would need an option to move from camp to passive camp then, I may not want it in certain situations). I think that would prevent abuses like blanketing the area around a choke-point with units in passive mode that don't cost you anything but an enemy would still have to fight through.
Yep, turning to passive should require some action from the player.
I think that the real cost of passivity is that to activate it costs 2-3 turns. See below!
I think that passive camps would be of strength 0, that is, anything could kill them outright.
Active camps would have 25-50% strength, lose all first strikes, and be unable to avoid them even if they are normally immune to them.
These mean that if you cover the choke point only in camps then 1-2 cavalry units can massacre the whole army before it becomes mobile (recovers into units) and then it could evade them (massacre-and-run tactics).
It just occured to me that Passive camps might actually mean Cottages!
THis opens up many new ways of playing.
1) You could speed up cottage development.
2) If you have plenty of towns then you can make a considerable force in few turns.
This is the Militia effect as I call it.
What unit would appear? The one that created that settlement or the one that appears in the 'This city is unprotected, build this unit!' annoying popup message.
3) Levels=Potential military units... so town=4 units (this is not a violation of 1UpH, as these are not actual units).
Last edited by Marthieu du Blois; 06-13-2010 at 03:32 AM.
Yes, there is one huge flaw:
The game is already more or less finished.
Then this is for the mods. Never give up the hope, it doesn't hurt.
A big part of this hope lies in the fans, some of whom might make mods incorporating this idea.
Perhaps a Roman or Medieval mod, although this type of army recruitment was common in other ages as well.
Call to arms
As towns house 4 units, and the mobilization of each unit takes 2-3 turns then Towns can only fully mobilize in 10 turns.
To speed this up, I have a few soultions. Namely:
1) Make Great Generals be able to use an ability 'Call to arms' which would mean that they discard their movement points but make a unit appear. This means that they can turn a town into 4 units in 4 turns.
2) Micromanagement issue: Have a button in Domestic or Military Advisor named National Call-to-Arms, which automatically makes every cottage turn into units as fast as they can.
Full mobilization would be more realistic I think if it would happen accordingly to the following:
1st unit: 3 turns
2nd unit: 2 turns
3rd unit: 1 turn, and last one turns into Camp
4th unit: 1 turn, activated from Camp state
All 4 units=7 turns
Last edited by Marthieu du Blois; 06-13-2010 at 04:47 AM.
Rebellion/Civil war scenario
In case of civ-wide unhappiness some Cottages might spawn units under control of a Rebellious Leader (AI).
If this succeeds in overthrowing your empire (takes your cities) then you lose. As this might happen in alliance with your arch-enemy this is simply the criteria of conquest defeat.
This is most useful in an American Revolution scenario or mod.
The above highly resembles the Instability feature of Rhye. Perhaps they should go hand-in-hand.
So, taking this Military Camp into a real-life application, it sounds a lot like a military base. but rl military bases have more than 1 battalion (or unit) in each base- they usually have several. So why not let 2-3 units inhabit the same camp, but only allow 1 unit to come out of the camp at any given time?
To keep it simple (both for game mechanics & for newb player understanding), just have different levels of unit supply costs.
Lowest level could be a non-moving unit;
... then go to moving unit, unit moving outside of borders, defending unit, HEALING unit, attacking unit.
I like the idea, and add something where the military units can act as quasi-workers? Anyway, this sort of fits into the Reserves, Draft ideas I've been getting at.
I like the theory of this idea, but the problem is the issue of realism.
What the OP is basically suggesting is the implementation of a Military Reserve, in addition to a standing army. So instead of having to disband military units, they can be "downgraded" into Reserve forces, which are inactive and less expensive.
This is feasible in the modern era; but the problem is that it wasn't feasible as recently as 100 years ago. The problems are administration, communication, and logistics. How could a government or military keep track of thousands of veterans and compel them to return to active duty when called upon?
I suppose if you're willing to ignore the issues with realism (like veterans not wanting to fight in another war), this would be feasible. You position a military unit on an empty hex-tile, click "De-mobilize", and a turn or few later, that unit becomes in-active -- perhaps turns translucent to the Player and invisible to other Civs -- and costs much less (or nothing) to maintain.
If and when war breaks out, for sake of streamlining the interface, perhaps a pop-up window appears asking the Player if he/she wants to activate all de-mobilized units (instead of having to do each one individually). Re-activating a unit would take at least one turn -- perhaps the number of turns would vary depending on the era and various government configurations. Also, perhaps the defending Civ that is attacked/declared war upon can re-activate their de-mobilized units in half the time as the aggressor Civ can.
I suppose I'd be willing to ignore the realistic problems with this idea (that I pointed out) if it were implemented properly.
This is the violence of the fundamental requirement of 1UpH.
Originally Posted by gormegon
If this is allowed, then I put a camp in the choke point, and now you can't break through.
This is referred to as Defensive SoD.
Actually I've just been thinking that military could fully replace Workers. If military could build tile improvements and join cities then Workers wouldn't be needed anymore. No, don't be afraid of this radical idea, it could work very well, I'm pretty sure.
Originally Posted by BlackwatchGuards
Then how did the Romans have camps all along the Limes?
Originally Posted by Soryn Arkayn
What way did Feudalism work?
They did just this way! So no unrealism. Actually totally fitting.
And no, units won't come transparent nor invisible, they'd become neat camps fully visible to other players (or even cottages). Invisibility would allow for ambushing the agressor.
A reserve/conscription system would be good, we would feel stronger what war and peace mean.
Also, it's not exactky the same thing, but there was a thread about forts able to become cities, wich could be an interesting way to colonize new lands (and progressively struggle for them). It's also about reflecting the activity that a constant militar presence can generate or protect (naval comptors, trade posts, etc...)
The Roman Limes were basically military outposts. The soldiers stationed there were active military units that were ready to fight, and they were paid full wages. They weren't "inactive" reserve forces who received reduced wages.
Originally Posted by Marthieu du Blois
Feudalism worked between nobles, because they had a formal hierarchy, and something akin to contracts that obligated the lower rank nobles, like Barons, to fight for a higher rank noble, like a King, in exchange for land and title. However, a noble lord could have much greater difficulty tracking down the veterans that live on their lands, if they didn't want to fight. A tenant veteran could simply pack up his family and escape during the night, move two towns over, and it would be very difficult for his former lord to find him.
Regardless, those veterans wouldn't be classified as "reserves", because they wouldn't be in the military, so they wouldn't maintain their training or receive wages. And if they were called up to fight, they wouldn't be as prepared as standing armies.
You can't have it both ways. Either you downgrade units into "reserves" that are inactive and therefore cost less maintenance, or you simply fortify them and pay full maintenance. And if they were downgraded to reserves, it would make perfect sense for them to become "invisible" to enemy Civs, because they wouldn't be a standing army.
In feudalism the overlord gives a patch of land (the feudum) to the vassal, os that the vassal can have enough income to live and to arm himself as a knight.
When the enemy comes, then the overlord says that 'come here tomorrow armed up' and the vassal goes (with his servants, of course). So veterans can't escape service.
I still say that if units become invisible then the enemny invader
1) is blocked out by an invisible obstacle (1UpH)
2) suddenly finds his army surrounded by several times more units popping out of nowhere.
So that's why I say that they should become visible campsites. Is it now better?
Originally Posted by Feudalism
I think we're quibbling over the fine details of Feudalism -- which by the way was a complex system that was never really formalized; and the term wasn't even applied to it until centuries after it became obsolete.
Originally Posted by Marthieu du Blois
Let's just focus on the gameplay issues.
1) In "reserve" unit wouldn't block other units, because they'd be inactive. If a reserve unit was re-activated while an enemy unit occupied its hex, they're either fight over the hex, or perhaps the unit simply couldn't become active until its hex was unoccupied; you could call it another drawback of de-mobilizing units intended for game balance.
2) One of the benefits of de-mobilizing units and converting them in reserves would be to hide the strength of the defender's army. I have no problem with an invader suddenly finding themself confronted by a map-full of re-activated military units, and getting wiped out.
There would have to be advantages and disadvantages to being able to de-mobilize units. The advantages would be that they cost less maintenance and they'd be invisible to the enemy. The disadvantage would be that they'd take at least a turn to re-mobilize, which might allow a well-prepared invader to take over some of the defender's cities before their reserves were re-activated. It's all about game balance.
1) But what if the enemy unit pillages my military camp?
I guess that the answer is this: a) I'm a sucker that I let this happen b) when military units start to become active then some weak phantom of that unit appears on that tile (e.g. the unit appears at 33% strength and gains further 33% each turn). So now that tile is occupied.
2) If the unit is turned into a Camp or Cottage then the enemy won't know what type of unit that is, it would only know that there is a unit.
3) 1UpH addition: if some units are very damaged then more than 1 unit could occupy the same tile. That is, is the units' HP percentage is not 100% if added up, then those units could occupy the same tile.
But if they reach the 100% together then they can't heal more. So if I have 3 units down to 20% HP then I can stack them up. Say that 1 is killed in the maintime, 2 left, and they can heal up to 50% when I have to move them apart (ur be unable to heal).
4) 1UpH addition: what if I could paradrop onto an enemy unit, and then they would combat to the death.
I like this idea!
For the military camps (passive); I think the unit should be at 33% strenght, and should regain 33% back each turn (or starting at O% strength).
If any enemy happens unpon your passive military camp it has two options; raze or pillage. If the enemy pillages your camp, then they attack it with the intent of capturing as many men as possible. The capture then turn into worker/slaves of the enemy civilization.
If the enemy chooses to raze your camp, it destroys your camp and the people there.
How about that?
I like the concept of military camps, such camps were standard practice for Rome during much of their imperial era and the United States in peticular is still fond of using them. I would have to say that having passive camps in addition is an unnecessary complication to an otherwise brilliant idea. A slightly lowered combat strength would make a sensible trade-off for the cost decrease but they would have to be reasonably preportionate. The camps would need to be in friendly territory both for realsim and practicality. I hope to see such a development either in a mod or in a future Civilization.
Call to Power had a pretty easy solution for this.
In the military upkeep screen there was a slider that let you set the readiness for all your forces. Set on max and all units had full cost and full health bars. You could set it to 75%, 50%, and 25% with cost and health moving accordingly. Of course it took time for the bars to move up and down, so you wouldn't want to stay low if you know someone had units close to you they might try and take advantage of your weakness.
Of course, that affected all your units.
Perhaps you could just have such a control on each unit in addition to the main readiness slider.
I think you could create Active Camps anywhere, yes even in enemy territory (Iran), but you could create Passive camps only in friendly territory.
Originally Posted by Brodeo
This allows you to keep a big force ready to jump with a lowered cost at that unruly colony, but prohibits you from settling somewhere to such degree that you could lock out everyone else. (On an island, for example.)
I think that it would be easily bearable if we had both kinds. Even the 'casual player' can understand what they are good for. Then no more problem.
Something on the order of reserve units? units would be at 1/4 strenght (and have 1/4 of costs) and take 2~3 turns to reach full strenght. Sounds like a good ideia
Now THIS is how I would like reserves to be.
Originally Posted by Kronephon