about cost of units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> about cost of units (3/26/2005 10:14:24 PM)

I wonder, is there in CoG a difference in the maintenance cost of garrison units as opposed to campaigning units? I mean,, a field army required a supply train, a bagage train and an artillery train, all of them very expensive to keep, put an army in campaign, leaving winter headquarters, was a massive expenditure, is that reflected in the game?



ericbabe -> RE: about cost of units (3/27/2005 5:14:54 AM)

Units have distinct supply and upkeep costs.

Upkeep is the cost of owning a unit. Upkeep cost varies by unit type. Units garrisoned in cities require only half their normal upkeep cost.

Supply is the cost of supplying a unit via a depot. The base supply cost of a unit is 1 money. A unit in enemy territory requires an additional .5 money. Bad weather in the unit's movement area may further multiply the supply cost, the exact amount depending on the type of weather.

Nations may set their level of "military readiness." If, for example, military readiness is set at 75%, then divisions that enter battle will only be at 75% of their current theoretical strength; however, in this case, upkeep costs for units is reduced by 25% (that is, 100%-75%).

Supply depots are very expensive to upkeep; this helps to model the increased costs of going to war.

Nations can borrow money from the bank to cover the costs of going to war. The base interest rate is 7%, but this increases both with the total number of wars declared in the game and also with the total number of wars in which the nation that borrowed the money is involved.

A nation's feudalism rating defrays the cost of upkeeping units. The level of feudalism can be increased/decreased but this causes (sometimes massive) social unrest and loss of national morale.

A nation's protectorate pays the upkeep cost of its units, even though the nation controls the movement of its protectorate's units. Each minor country has its own (fixed) feudalism rating that defrays this cost.

Failure to meet either upkeep or supply cost causes attrition in the unit.

Nations supplying units must also expend food resources -- 2 food per infantry, 1 for artillery and cavalry. A nation also uses its food to feed its population factors. A nation that stockpiles food experiences an increase in available population.

Nations also need to pay to maintain their draft pool. Nations can adjust several factors related to the draft pool, such things as time new recruits spend in training, the age range of new recruits, and the desired amount of population to recruit into training. Draftees that go through the training process are placed in the "draft pool" and are available to reinforce weakened divisions. The rate at which divisions receive reinforcements from the draft pool depends on whether the division is in or out of supply and whether it is in home, neutral, or enemy territory.


Thanks for the question,

Eric




Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: about cost of units (3/27/2005 10:14:49 AM)

Hi Eric
Many thanks for your swift and detailed answers. Reding that one new questions were rised in my mind, this is a really interesting game!
1) I imagine supply depots greatly increase the capacity to keep troops in a province over foraging, right? is that the only advantage of depots over foraging?
2) I see that infantry takes 2 food and cavalry only one, I assume then that cavalry units are much smaller, right? because cavalry were of course much more expensive than infantry to upkeep
3) I understand that the number of wars over loan interest rates are a sort of premium risk, I would imagine that the total ammount of debt would take also some consideration, so that the more indebted a nation get, the more expensive to meet financiation
4)I see that field armies are more expensive than garrisons then, GOOD!, what about sieges? have you taken into account that a siege operation was by far the more expensive operation in war? Are Siege trains included in the game?
5) Are local and provincial milita represented in the game, or are they represented by the draft pool?
6) I imagine "Feudalism" level varies according to country, is that something that players can alter along the game by themselves? Has feudalism oter impact on, army quality, or in general on economic or politics?
Sorry is they are too many questions, I hope anyway they serve to other people as well as myself to get a more clear picture of this very promising game



ericbabe -> RE: about cost of units (3/29/2005 3:53:10 AM)

Thanks for your penetrating questions!

Depots prevent units from suffering attrition due to insufficient forage, as you mentioned. They also provide support during combat. In quick combat being in-supply is an abstract bonus on combat performance. In detailed combat, being in-supply provides the player with many additional supply caisson units. Depots also provide a bonus to nations when besieging a city.

The maximum strength of cavalry units is roughly the same as infantry, but we consider that for cavalry "strength" is also a measure of the number of horses in the unit. Therefore, Cavalry require fewer population factors to recruit than infantry, despite the fact that both types of units have the same level of maximum strength. Artillery, since we're on this topic, have roughly 1/3rd the maximum strength of infantry and cavalry.

There is a minimum payment a nation must make each turn on its balance of debt; the minimum payment is indeed proportional to the total indebtedness.

There is no additional cost for sieges. We have graphics for a "siege cannon" unit that would be analogous to the siege train unit you were describing. I've implemented prototype code, but I don't think we shall have a chance to test it and to balance the game for it by our scheduled release date. I'll be frank and say that although we still have a number of siege rules and options, we had many things on the drawing board for sieges that I regret having had to cut in favor of other aspects we felt were more central to the Napoleonic era.

There are militia units that are best used to garrison cities. In detailed battles it is possible for local militia to be present in battle that are not seen on the strategic map (the chance of this happening is dependent on the developments in the province).

Players can indeed alter their feudalism levels, though restructuring along these lines is often slow and painful (the nation suffers losses of national morale). It is best to try to change feudalism either very gradually or when the nation has national morale to spare (such as after winning a war).

Feudalism level impacts everything! The most obvious positive aspects are that feudalism provides free units during the Spring levee (the number and type depend both on the level of feudalism and the particular nation). Feudalism also provides fixed military support and supplemental monetary and labor income. The detrimental effects of feudalism are that it lowers trade income, lowers production values of certain types of resources, and greatly increases the time necessary to complete developments in a province.


Thanks again for the interest,

Eric



Rat Race -> RE: about cost of units (3/29/2005 11:46:11 AM)

quote:

Depots prevent units from suffering attrition due to insufficient forage, as you mentioned. They also provide support during combat. In quick combat being in-supply is an abstract bonus on combat performance. In detailed combat, being in-supply provides the player with many additional supply caisson units. Depots also provide a bonus to nations when besieging a city.


In most battles through this time -an in other times indeed- a valid tactic was to cut off an army from its depots, thus forcing a retreat to protect the supply chain or risk being rendered useless.
In a CoG detailed battle, would depots be tactically important enough to force a retreat if cut off from supplies?
Would a manouver to isolate an army from their supply depot be an available offensive option for the attacker?
I hope I make sense



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: about cost of units (3/29/2005 1:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe


The maximum strength of cavalry units is roughly the same as infantry, but we consider that for cavalry "strength" is also a measure of the number of horses in the unit. Therefore, Cavalry require fewer population factors to recruit than infantry, despite the fact that both types of units have the same level of maximum strength. Artillery, since we're on this topic, have roughly 1/3rd the maximum strength of infantry and cavalry.



If I understand correctly, a cavalry unit will have half the number of cavalrymen of an infantry unit, but then why has it only 1 food cost? Horses had to be fed, and usually there were more than 1 horse per soldier. In fact a horse regiment was considerably more expensive than a foot regiment, especially cuirassiers with their expensive chargers.



ericbabe -> RE: about cost of units (3/31/2005 11:42:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar
cost? Horses had to be fed, and usually there were more than 1 horse per soldier. In fact a horse regiment was considerably more expensive than a foot regiment, especially cuirassiers with their expensive chargers.


Cavalry do have a more expensive monetary upkeep cost than infantry. Cavalry consume only half as much food as infantry -- the thinking behind this is that there is much food that horses can eat that soldiers and the population factors cannot.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375