Ranks in the Military. . .

Tim White · October 21, 2000, 21:21

I think Ranks would be great to add in Civ 3, instead of the old "Veteran Status". When you first create a unit, it is Private, it must win one combat to be promoted to a Corporal, Although it only has a 50% chance of getting promoted. When corporal, the unit must win 2 combats, and be in an organized army, then it has a 45% chance of being promoted to a Staff Sergeant. Then, he must win 3 combats, one of those being wounded to the "RED" zone. He must win 2 of those combats. He must also be part of an army for at least 5 turns. Then he has a 40% chance of being promoted to a Sergeant. Here, he must win 3 combats, be wounded to the "RED" zone in one of those combats, he must be in 2 different armies, one of those going into battle with. He must also spend at least 10 turns in defence duty in a city. He must also go to a city that has a "Officers Academy" improvement, and stay there for 5 turns to be trained for being a NCO (Non Comissioned Officer). THen he becomes a NCO. THen he must be in at least 3 different armies, two of those for at least 20 turns. he must go into battle, and be wounded to the "YELLOW" zone at least once. he must win at least 2 combats. then he must again visit a city with an Officers Academy to be retrained for being a Commissioned Officer for at least 5 turns. When a Lieutenant, he must lead one army for at least 10 turns, he must win 5 different combats, and must be wounded twice to the "YELLOW" zone. he must also be in sentry duty (same as defence) for at least 30 turns. he then has a 35% chance of getting to the rank of Captain. The Captain must lead at least 2 armies for at least 10 turns each, one of those armies leading into battle. he must win at least 5 combats, and be wounded in at least 2 of those battles to the "RED" zone. He then has a 30% chance of getting promoted to a Major. At this rank he must win 8 different combats, lose at least 2 combats, lead at least 4 armies, 2 of those into battle. One of those armies must reach the size of 10 units. Then, he has a 25% chance of promotion to the General. The General must do all of the requirements of all of the ranks completely over again, to get to the rank of 5 star General. He then has a chance of 20% to get to that rank. When a 5 Star General, a unit is free to do whatever he wishes. he is the most respected of all ranks, and the highest ranks of all troops. You may name your 5 star Generals (it is garrentied you wont have many troops of that rank).

I like this Idea, and hope that many others share my oppinion.

Shogun Gunner · October 22, 2000, 00:19

What is the advantage of these ranks?

This is rather complicated.

Nikolai · October 22, 2000, 10:34

I think it's too complicated!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? do we need Civ? YES!!

red_jon · October 22, 2000, 14:14

Yeah, I can really see phlanxes and legions promoting their troops to 'corporal' and 'major'

I think its a fairly good idea if you make it less complicated (maybe like AC?) and different names for different untis (legions can be upgraded to 'centaurion' for example)

------------------
...And if the British Commonwealth and its people live for a thousand years, man will still say "this was their finest hour"- Winston Churchill.

October 22, 2000, 14:19

quote:

Originally posted by red_jon on 10-22-2000 02:14 PM
I think its a fairly good idea if you make it less complicated (maybe like AC?) and different names for different untis (legions can be upgraded to 'centaurion' for example)

it's still centurio and has nothing to do with "Centauri" but rather with "centum" - "100"

Me too I think the idea is too complicated although tempting. Try to simplify it a bit.

------------------
Wernazuma alias Cheshirecat alias Wörn

Master Mind of the World of Arendra

Dienstag · October 22, 2000, 14:39

Forgive me, but I honestly can't tell whether or not the first post in this thread is a joke or not. If nothing else, this idea is highly flawed just because of its sense of TIMING. It would take hundreds of years (more if you're not at constant war) to get your first general-level unit. For this and other reasons, I really don't think this is a good idea.

red_jon · October 22, 2000, 14:56

Wernazuma, I didn't think that 'centurian' had anything to do with the word 'centauri'- I didn't mean to get the references between AC and legionairres mixed up.

zyxpsilon · October 22, 2000, 15:36

[What is the advantage of these ranks? This is rather complicated.[/quote]

Wew... As an extension to Veterans, it has the advantage to define new challenges in outfitting an accurately designed "invading force"!

Think, just think for a moment;
ZOC's levels of access,
Stacking units,
Spies duty variations,
Captain Howitzer against Lieutenant Amphibious,
Submarine variable type of weaponry,
Diplomats intelligence dealings,
How about field doctors!!

Builder · October 22, 2000, 16:36

too complicated.

they need to make it like in SMAC IMO.

------------------
That was another post in my long journey to KING.

Dammit Bulldog!
Did you really had to PM me about Area25???

Ralf · October 22, 2000, 16:41

Mostly regulars and veterans for me. Maybe "elite" as a third and final rank (these units must hit the redzone twice and survived back to full green both times). I want to be able to see wich units are elite, regardless of friend or foe.

But, thats it. Nothing more complicated then that.

A new unit that i suggested earlier is "Red cross" that heals wounded units by tanking over from their own damage-bar, before returning to nearest city (with hospital city-improvement) for refueling.
Only one unit per (hospital-equipped) city is alloved.
Red-cross units makes no discrimination between helping friend or foe, so keep them away from damaged enemy-units.

I think the sleep-order in civ-2 should be extended to signify lower resource-cost, but 3-4 turns before full battle-readiness.

Tim White · October 22, 2000, 19:51

quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-22-2000 12:19 AM
What is the advantage of these ranks?

This is rather complicated.

The advantage of ranks would be to add more realism to the game, I mean, the militaries around the world today wouldn't be militaries without ranks.

I like the idea of the Basic Unit, then Veteran, then Elite, idea.

Tim White · October 22, 2000, 19:55

quote:

Originally posted by Dienstag on 10-22-2000 02:39 PM
Forgive me, but I honestly can't tell whether or not the first post in this thread is a joke or not. If nothing else, this idea is highly flawed just because of its sense of TIMING. It would take hundreds of years (more if you're not at constant war) to get your first general-level unit. For this and other reasons, I really don't think this is a good idea.

It may not be a good idea, but it was just a suggestion. I know that it would take years to get from a private to a General!!! How long to you think it takes in real life? My dad was in the military, he retired at the rank of Sergeant 1st Class. IT took him 26 years to get him from a private, to a Sergeant Major. But they took back the promotion because someone near the "TOP" wanted it to be taken away.

Tim White · October 22, 2000, 19:59

quote:

Originally posted by red_jon on 10-22-2000 02:14 PM
Yeah, I can really see phlanxes and legions promoting their troops to 'corporal' and 'major'

I think its a fairly good idea if you make it less complicated (maybe like AC?) and different names for different untis (legions can be upgraded to 'centaurion' for example)

Thanks for your optomism Red_jon. I am thinking on how to make it less complicated. maybe not as many ranks, maybe just, Private(first), then Sergeant, then Lieutenant, then General? then make the requirements less??

rremus · October 27, 2000, 09:00

I think that the idea that only combat can promote units is eronated. Training and sufficient budget is also important, and also works during peace!
Maybe an option to 'Upgrade' a unit? It should take 2-3 turns, and during these turns the unit will consume twice it's normal shields for upkeeping.
The process should take more if the unit is ouside a city and less if the city has Baracks (or even a more specialised improvement, like 'War Academy').

Nikolai · October 27, 2000, 10:25

quote:

Originally posted by rremus on 10-27-2000 09:00 AM

Maybe an option to 'Upgrade' a unit? It should take 2-3 turns, and during these turns the unit will consume twice it's normal shields for upkeeping.
.

rremus, I hope you that don't mean the units will use 2*2 sheelds for the next upgrade, 2*2*2 for the next etc., that would be too complicated.

------------------
Who am I? What am I? do we need Civ? YES!!

rremus · October 27, 2000, 10:43

quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai on 10-27-2000 10:25 AM
rremus, I hope you that don't mean the units will use 2*2 sheelds for the next upgrade, 2*2*2 for the next etc., that would be too complicated.

No. If the unit costs 1 shield per turn, during the upgrade will cost 2 shields. That is only while is upgarding (that few turns) as cost for 'training'.

Paulypav · October 27, 2000, 11:59

I think that ranks have to be greatly simplified if they are be useful. A combination of combat experience and training (I think the increased maintenance cost during training is the best method to simulate training) would be the logical methods of increasing rank. I think that there really shouldn't be more than 3-4 levels of rank.

One possible downside: Would this complicate the phalanx-battleship problem which is supposed to have been fixed. Would a top ranked phalanx be capable of defeating a low-rank battleship or is the fix capable of adjusting for this.

------------------
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
- Douglas MacArthur

Tim White · October 27, 2000, 13:06

I am praying that Firixas has fixed the ranged combat thing (With the phalanx vs. battleship). IF a battleship attacked a top ranking phalanx, if your smart, you dont have to think who would win. of course the battleship would win. because, in real life, when a battleship did attack a phalanx, (by the way, a phalanx is a battle formation, not a unit) the how could the battleship get wounded from the phalanxe?!?! That is one of the main problems I have with civ2, combat. I mean, would an infantry unit win a combat against a bomber that is at an altitude of 20,000 ft.?!?!

iF you want to talk about combat, go to Combat thread.

Biddles · October 27, 2000, 22:36

President, our first unit was just promoted to 5-star general!

Next turn: Our ship has landed on ALpha Centauri!

No offense but if anyone could figure out what the requirements for the next rank are it wiould still take bloody ages to get that unit promoted. I agree that there should be a lot of "ranks" - around 6 or 7, but the way they get promoted needs to be simpler. The SMAC style was done well. There were 7 morale levels (Very Green, Green, Disciplined, Hardened, Veteran, Commando, elite) and the units were 'promoted' when they were first built (trained units) and simply through battle. This system is simple to understand and has the desired effect.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

Christantine The Great · October 27, 2000, 23:57

I think that the SMAC ranks are fine. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Official Webpage of the Chrisonian Republic

The Viking Archives

The MGE Succession Game Team. Sign Up Today!

Shogun Gunner · October 28, 2000, 00:07

I also don't understand the significance of a unit "surviving" a battle which put the strength bar into the red zone which then leads to a promotion. If anything, wouldn't that reverse the "promotion?" All of your veterens would be dead.

People get ranks, units do not.

I always understood the CIV logic to be battle tested troops versus untested troops (conscripts possibly?). It was a simple as that. You could simulate battle tested by building Sun Tzu or barracks which dedicates money to training, etc. I think this was mentioned earlier.

In history, elite units where troops that had succesfully fought in a campaign or two. But it was more than that, they got the best equipment, they were fed well (reference other posts concerning supply), they were always paid on time (don't want your crack troops disgrunted) and they got a lot of training and the latest technology. The Panzer Lehr division of WWII Germany always got those cool Panther tanks which kicked butt.

Surviving combat was only a part of the whole picture.

rremus · October 30, 2000, 04:23

I think the basic idea is this: quality costs!
You need Elite units? Spend your resources in training and maintenance and your unit will be the best.
CTP has simple model which is pretty good: you could set a global 'military readines'. 'At peace' your units cost almost nothing to maintain, but they of worst quality. When 'At war', your units are costly to maintain, but they're good quality. Its treu, the CTP model did not work an the grade of the unit, but on they strength bar. But it still is a simple yet effective model. The more you spend, the better units you have.
When you don't need them (no conflict at horizont, but who ever saw that?

), reduce military budget. The side effect is that they quality is getting worse...
A fine model would imply zones of military readines. When you have a large empire, you don't need all your units to be ready and super-trained. Only at the troubled border.

Deathwalker · October 30, 2000, 05:55

Great idea, but less complex

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Shogun Gunner · October 30, 2000, 09:17

quote:

Originally posted by rremus on 10-30-2000 03:23 AM
When you don't need them (no conflict at horizont, but who ever saw that?

), reduce military budget. The side effect is that they quality is getting worse...
A fine model would imply zones of military readines. When you have a large empire, you don't need all your units to be ready and super-trained. Only at the troubled border.

I like this. When you start having an increased number of skirmishes or wars, your costs go up, which then applies pressure for peace. The same true for AI.

This is a good idea. In real life, a division of troops from one country is not always equal in strength to a division of another country. This idea would simulate that.