National Training camps vs. City-type Militias

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  National Training camps vs. City-type Militias

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   National Training camps vs. City-type Militias

Ravenloff posted 09-18-99 05:43 PM ET
When, oh when, are turn-based empire-building games going to get it right. Modern militaries do not build units one at a time in a particular city of origin. Recruits are sent to national training centers for bootcamp. In our current system, the Army has a few, the Navy has a few, and the Marines and Air Force have one each.
This is how I see it. The number of people availible for military service would be a function of both population and social choice (are you required to serve or is it all volunteer). Resources would still support a military as they do in current games, but instead of city supporting only its own units, a percentage of energy, minerals, whatever, would go into a central defence spending fund, effectively paying for the military.
In the beginning of the game, right after Planetfall (I HATE the fact that it's called Planet and not Chiron), militias would be created in the conventional way, one per city at a time. This would have an upper limit, however, citizen militias using only up to laser-weapon tech, for instance. A player would want to build a Military training center, either part of a particular city or out in the middle of nowhere, to build and equip more sophisticated units. Units would be qued up and created in the same way, with a couple of possible exceptions; multiple creation, say four slots (four different training battalions, squadrons etc)...if all four were creating identicle unit types, there would be a mineral bonus, if they were all different, a negative reflecting logistic problems.
The completed units (base morale - hardened), could then be moved to any location. When moved to a location of another identicle unit-type, those two or more units could be combined into company (two) battalion (three) brigade (four) regiment (five) army (six) with the appropriate terms also used for sea and air units, (battle group/fleet or squadron/wing).
These training centers must be protected. If an enemy where to destroy Fort Knox, Kentuck, the United States Army's Armor training center would be history, and our ability to field new armor units would be severely impaired. This should be reflected in the game.
Just a thought, what do you think?
uncleroggy posted 09-18-99 06:19 PM ET
Ravenloff,
I think you're on track with a good idea.
Worth looking into.
A couple of points though.
The Marines train at two bases. Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune. Yes, this is some good natured nitpicking.
I disagree that knocking out Fort Knox would seriously degrade the ability to train tank crews. It would hurt, but that's all. Any armored unit conducts the same training at any post on a daily basis. As a result, a few tanks cadres could be reassigned and life would go on. BTW, I say this with the credentials of being a former Armored Cavalry Officer.
I think the greatest merit of your argument is in the personel and production aspects. Games like SMAC turn great production centers into great troop producers because manpower is not a consideration. Obviously, population and production capacity are mutually exclusive for the most part and I like your idea because it adds the reality of limiting manpower. In addition, I see it as a benefit as it would eliminate the linear unit building of these games. This not only slows the game, but also makes warfare attritional as compared to requiring good generalship.

uncleroggy out
Ravenloff posted 09-18-99 06:24 PM ET
ARGH! You're right, the marines (notice the small-case letters) do have two locations. However, as far as the US armor units were concerned, my point was that NEW units would be difficult to train if Knox where knocked out...from boot through A.I.T.
Ravenloff posted 09-18-99 06:27 PM ET
Almost forgot...the aspect of generalship is one I think these type of games forget. Where is the stratagy. It usually amounts to 1) get better tech 2) build a lot of units 3) attack en masse. With NTC's (national training centers) both offensive and defensive strats would have to be rethought.
uncleroggy posted 09-18-99 07:14 PM ET
Ravenloff,
Almost like a chat room today.
Actually, boot isn't done exclusively at Ft. Knox. Lots of other places like Leonard Wood, Dix, etc... so this would be no loss at all. AIT isn't all that good anyway (IMHO). Most of it could be done as OJT at the units anyway. As a result, AIT only serves to give a soldier some basic ideas on how the tank works.
For example, this is how it usually works. At AIT you learn how to drive, load and shoot. You also spend a fair amount of time learning the -10 level of maintenance. Things like checking tranny oil and the like. Throw in a brief field exercise and voila, you have a new tanker. And hopefully not one with a case of the clap from being in Louisville.
Now the new guy gets assigned to an armor battalion. New guy gets a position as driver or loader. He now specializes on that task and cross trains as necessary on the others. New guy also gets to do all of the #$%@ work like most of the cleanup after a training exercise. However, no self respecting platoon leader, platoon sergeant or vehicle commander will totally trust the new guy to do the maintenance. Rather, an experienced crewman will be delegated to show the new guy the ropes. That's why on the job training is at the root of all this.
BTW, maintenance and basic military skills take up 90% of a soldier's day. Very little is spent on a gunnery range or in field exercises and that is why boredom is a big part of military life.
Getting back to the games.
I don't know if you were around for the civ III list. However, I contributed the following ideas. You can see that there's a lot of similarity.
1) Militias are the base unit and can only be used in the city radius. This is the same as you.
2) Any unit above a militia requires a barrack, airbase or port facility to be produced. Same as you for the most part.
3) Happiness is affected by levying troops. This forces units to be built in the population centers. I actually don't think requiring population is all that necessary as it is hard to quantify.
4) Production is done for the entire civ, just like the public works in CTP. As a result, armies could be raised en masse. Also, this would greatly speed up the game as production could be done from one screen.
5) I included specific improvements to the combat system based on a "Combined Arms" or realistic model.
These are just a few, but should show that I am very much in agreement with you.

uncleroggy out
Kf6 posted 09-19-99 05:04 AM ET
What the...? They're not just trained at those two bases, the MAIN marine training base is Paris Island in north carolina
uncleroggy posted 09-19-99 05:54 PM ET
Kf6,
Paris Island is part of Camp Lejeune.
Camp Pendleton is in California and they both do Marine Basic trainig.

uncleroggy out
ForcePacifist posted 09-21-99 08:08 AM ET
aaaanywayz- definately a good idea, plaus the amount of money you pour into your military budget reflects bonuses or shortcomings in the standard- maintenance and speed of production of military units. you think this could be a v5 proposal or a whole new game?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: National Training camps vs. City-type Militias
Ravenloff	posted 09-18-99 05:43 PM ET When, oh when, are turn-based empire-building games going to get it right. Modern militaries do not build units one at a time in a particular city of origin. Recruits are sent to national training centers for bootcamp. In our current system, the Army has a few, the Navy has a few, and the Marines and Air Force have one each. This is how I see it. The number of people availible for military service would be a function of both population and social choice (are you required to serve or is it all volunteer). Resources would still support a military as they do in current games, but instead of city supporting only its own units, a percentage of energy, minerals, whatever, would go into a central defence spending fund, effectively paying for the military. In the beginning of the game, right after Planetfall (I HATE the fact that it's called Planet and not Chiron), militias would be created in the conventional way, one per city at a time. This would have an upper limit, however, citizen militias using only up to laser-weapon tech, for instance. A player would want to build a Military training center, either part of a particular city or out in the middle of nowhere, to build and equip more sophisticated units. Units would be qued up and created in the same way, with a couple of possible exceptions; multiple creation, say four slots (four different training battalions, squadrons etc)...if all four were creating identicle unit types, there would be a mineral bonus, if they were all different, a negative reflecting logistic problems. The completed units (base morale - hardened), could then be moved to any location. When moved to a location of another identicle unit-type, those two or more units could be combined into company (two) battalion (three) brigade (four) regiment (five) army (six) with the appropriate terms also used for sea and air units, (battle group/fleet or squadron/wing). These training centers must be protected. If an enemy where to destroy Fort Knox, Kentuck, the United States Army's Armor training center would be history, and our ability to field new armor units would be severely impaired. This should be reflected in the game. Just a thought, what do you think?
uncleroggy	posted 09-18-99 06:19 PM ET Ravenloff, I think you're on track with a good idea. Worth looking into. A couple of points though. The Marines train at two bases. Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune. Yes, this is some good natured nitpicking. I disagree that knocking out Fort Knox would seriously degrade the ability to train tank crews. It would hurt, but that's all. Any armored unit conducts the same training at any post on a daily basis. As a result, a few tanks cadres could be reassigned and life would go on. BTW, I say this with the credentials of being a former Armored Cavalry Officer. I think the greatest merit of your argument is in the personel and production aspects. Games like SMAC turn great production centers into great troop producers because manpower is not a consideration. Obviously, population and production capacity are mutually exclusive for the most part and I like your idea because it adds the reality of limiting manpower. In addition, I see it as a benefit as it would eliminate the linear unit building of these games. This not only slows the game, but also makes warfare attritional as compared to requiring good generalship. uncleroggy out
Ravenloff	posted 09-18-99 06:24 PM ET ARGH! You're right, the marines (notice the small-case letters) do have two locations. However, as far as the US armor units were concerned, my point was that NEW units would be difficult to train if Knox where knocked out...from boot through A.I.T.
Ravenloff	posted 09-18-99 06:27 PM ET Almost forgot...the aspect of generalship is one I think these type of games forget. Where is the stratagy. It usually amounts to 1) get better tech 2) build a lot of units 3) attack en masse. With NTC's (national training centers) both offensive and defensive strats would have to be rethought.
uncleroggy	posted 09-18-99 07:14 PM ET Ravenloff, Almost like a chat room today. Actually, boot isn't done exclusively at Ft. Knox. Lots of other places like Leonard Wood, Dix, etc... so this would be no loss at all. AIT isn't all that good anyway (IMHO). Most of it could be done as OJT at the units anyway. As a result, AIT only serves to give a soldier some basic ideas on how the tank works. For example, this is how it usually works. At AIT you learn how to drive, load and shoot. You also spend a fair amount of time learning the -10 level of maintenance. Things like checking tranny oil and the like. Throw in a brief field exercise and voila, you have a new tanker. And hopefully not one with a case of the clap from being in Louisville. Now the new guy gets assigned to an armor battalion. New guy gets a position as driver or loader. He now specializes on that task and cross trains as necessary on the others. New guy also gets to do all of the #$%@ work like most of the cleanup after a training exercise. However, no self respecting platoon leader, platoon sergeant or vehicle commander will totally trust the new guy to do the maintenance. Rather, an experienced crewman will be delegated to show the new guy the ropes. That's why on the job training is at the root of all this. BTW, maintenance and basic military skills take up 90% of a soldier's day. Very little is spent on a gunnery range or in field exercises and that is why boredom is a big part of military life. Getting back to the games. I don't know if you were around for the civ III list. However, I contributed the following ideas. You can see that there's a lot of similarity. 1) Militias are the base unit and can only be used in the city radius. This is the same as you. 2) Any unit above a militia requires a barrack, airbase or port facility to be produced. Same as you for the most part. 3) Happiness is affected by levying troops. This forces units to be built in the population centers. I actually don't think requiring population is all that necessary as it is hard to quantify. 4) Production is done for the entire civ, just like the public works in CTP. As a result, armies could be raised en masse. Also, this would greatly speed up the game as production could be done from one screen. 5) I included specific improvements to the combat system based on a "Combined Arms" or realistic model. These are just a few, but should show that I am very much in agreement with you. uncleroggy out
Kf6	posted 09-19-99 05:04 AM ET What the...? They're not just trained at those two bases, the MAIN marine training base is Paris Island in north carolina
uncleroggy	posted 09-19-99 05:54 PM ET Kf6, Paris Island is part of Camp Lejeune. Camp Pendleton is in California and they both do Marine Basic trainig. uncleroggy out
ForcePacifist	posted 09-21-99 08:08 AM ET aaaanywayz- definately a good idea, plaus the amount of money you pour into your military budget reflects bonuses or shortcomings in the standard- maintenance and speed of production of military units. you think this could be a v5 proposal or a whole new game?