Inflation in Glori du Roi Military Costs

I was wondering if may players have noticed the effects inflationary effects of R & D on military costs in Glori and if this has a influence on the positions they pick and how they develop them?

Taking G7 Spain as a example I would say the costs of its Cavalry have remainded fairly stable even with all the Spanish riding schools and keen interest in horse breeding. Meanwhile the cost to raise a unit of foot has is somewhere between double and triple the base cost and that is with the Spanish taking view that the grenado is a standard bit of kit used by all troops in the taking and more particularly the defence of fortresses so we do not need to copy the Austrian example and have specialist companies.

Artillery costs have also increased sharply and armies these days seem to demand so much more in the way of support functions just to go at the same speed!

However, the real increase in costs seem to have come with Navies! The costs of new Spanish Warships remains a State Secret but the treasury stll says that no war ship needs a Ebony Dance Floor to entertain visitors even if it is the Flag Ship (Cost £10,000 if anyone want one).

At one stage in Gloire du Roi I can re-call every ruler in Glori wanted a Navy and we had the Austrian Marine Corp, The very substantial Prussian yacht Squadron and even the development of a mighty Polish Navy which dominated the Baltic and even helped the Abyssians in the red sea against the mutual Ottoman foe. But with the development of huge up-gunned First Rates loaded with the cutting edge C18 technical developments are players now going "that looks a bit rich" and not looking to develop navies in quite the same way?

An interesting question Stuart

I think part of it is Glory has been going for a long time and so we've developed a lot of new and improved units and weapons, and it's logical that the unusual or improved would cost more than the basic  In the earlier games, where is was 1730 or later, nations had built up their economies quite a bit and so the extra costs of such units were something we could absorb without worrying.  In fact I seem to recall in G2 and G3 some nations economies had reached almost jokingly large sizes and players simply couldn't spend money fast enough.  I know Hanover was in that position in G2 and I think England had the same 'problem'.  

The games we still have running are all quite young, even G7 is only at 1712.  Our income levels are a lot lower.  Us longer term players are use to raising units with all the fancy bits...and we now notice the cost much more as our smaller economies can't afford every unit to be so equipped.

Navies are a good point.  When G3 was still running, someone in a forum discussion described the game as having "Fleet Inflation", e.g. everyone had a fleet (hell, Poland at least had a bit of a naval history, even the Pope had a battle fleet in G3!) and their fleets were massive compared to history.  Instead of a mission that historically consisted one or two ships, in G3 a nation sent a whole fleet.  A basic fleet most probably costs no more than before but as you say, if you want to add fancy bits, that dramatically increases the costs.  However again we are still early in the 18th C, our economies are smaller and let's be honest, if it keeps fleets a bit more historical, it most probably helps with the realism of the game.

I think the rise of logistics in game is a separate matter.  I "only" started playing in about 2001/2002 but I think in the very early days Glory was much more of a wargame?  By the time I started nation building elements had come in and in the last 15 years or so, that side has built up much more (possibly it's related to developments in similar computer games that include such elements?).  So it's natural I guess that alongside that the logistics of warfare become more obvious in-game.  Again going back to when I started, you could send fleets off around the world and not worry about supplies (which had some nations having them do grand tours in peacetime) and the same applied to armies; your biggest concern was sickness and then all you had to do is not move them for a month or two as sickness levels cleared 'naturally' (without you needing to give an order to rest or repair).  I must admit to liking being able to add logistical units, makes me feel like I care more about the well-being of my fictional forces

Have just noticed that last post from Jason was sent from civilization rather than the wilds of Scotland? What is going on?

Have to admitt I do like the "logistics" side of the game and take a degree of pride working out a logistics basis for campaigns and in the generally low sickness levels of my forces.

Also like the development of forces which give them a slight edge and allow forces to develop their own "character" but object to mass "inflation" in Army/Navy size. Some how 1/3 of the population being in the Army or 100 Line ship strong Papal Fleets seems all wrong.

Prefer the Scabble method of allowing a upper limit of Home Country Units which can be re-built in time, plus additional Colonial & Mercenary units as this keeps battles at more realistic sizes for the period.

I was recently given the unique opportunity of an exciting new job in the West of England...well it was that or unemployment...

Stuart Bailey wrote:Have just noticed that last post from Jason was sent from civilization rather than the wilds of Scotland? What is going on?

Jason wrote:I was recently given the unique opportunity of an exciting new job in the West of England...

The best bit is when you realise you, now, only live 10 miles apart from each other!

As to the topic of this thread, I've never advanced that far in a game to generate increased costs. Hope to with Rozwi, one day, but at present the Treasury can't cover the costs of multiple academies to allow research. Maybe come peace time I'll be able to afford to look into better spears and shields.

Something else to hike those prices up! (or... just spotted this on a blog and thought it looked interesting and worth posting on the forum)

Dalauppror blog wrote:From 1807 no Swedish cavalry carried carbines or musketoons but was armed with Saber and a pair of pistols.  

The pistols was manufactured in pairs. one Smoothbore and one Rifled and they also had a attachable stock that could be mountd on either of the pistols making them in to a small "carbine".

Below a Swedish pistol m/1807 with stock attached.

Another point that I forgot to say in my previous post. I, also, like the way that military units are limited in Scramble. I can remember the huge forces in games of LGDR and I prefer to read about more realistically-sized forces. I don't mind inventiveness with out-of-period tactics, or strategies employed from other, more modern, periods or differing nationalities than represented in the game (heck, I'm using C19th Zulu tactics for my Rozwi). So there's still lots of scope for perfecting that 'perfect military force' in TGOKs. Oh, and Rozwi also employs logistical troops to ride out, ahead, and find water and camp grounds when the army marches (non-combatant troops, not scouts or flankers) and the army does enjoy a healthy level of Sick List attrition when campaigning (if that makes sense?).

I think the Scramble way of limiting units works as it is a simpler game, in regards military units.  Glory has become much more complicated, for example we can now raise a single infantry company as well as a full battalion.  Now I feel saying 1 infantry battalion = 1 mounted squadron = 1 artillery battery works...but not so much 1 battalion = 1 independent company.  Even for warships where in Scramble , for example, torpedo boats are raised in groups, they operate as a single unit so there is a feeling of equality.

I also feel the massive armies and fleets are a product of mature Glory games and I wonder if we will ever get to that stage again of games running for 30 game years?  

Perhaps there is an alternative way.  Have annual recruits still, they are required if you want to establish things like legal and medical services, but place a limit of the size of military forces you can have in regards to your population, say 5% of the population or if there is a more historical figure then go with that.  There might have to be some historical exceptions (for example, does the historical Swedish military model mean they would need a higher figure?) and there would need to be exceptions of certain units.  For example, watches, rat catchers, fire brigades, merchant ships could be excluded from counting towards the 5%.  If you were lucky enough to hit the 5% then you could sell off surplus recruits, keep them as a 'reserve' for wars and raising replacements, or focus on those nation building activities instead like doctors, lawyers, etc.
Of course there would be issues to work out (e.g. against whose total would mercenary units count?) but it might be a compromise that would bring in the limits of Scramble without introducing a bias into Glory against nations that, for whatever reason, feel the need to raise independent companies or a single yacht instead of a full battalion or ship of the line

Jason wrote:
I also feel the massive armies and fleets are a product of mature Glory games and I wonder if we will ever get to that stage again of games running for 30 game years?  

Perhaps there is an alternative way.  Have annual recruits still, they are required if you want to establish things like legal and medical services, but place a limit of the size of military forces you can have in regards to your population, say 5% of the population or if there is a more historical figure then go with that.

I agree, to my mind having the mass levy would be a way to get a larger force for defence if required. Low quality and poorly armed if raised at short notice with no preparation feels more in keeping to me.

As a small glory nation that gets hardly any recruits , I am thankful for the " company " or
" Palace Guard " size units . Gives me something to push around , man watchtowers and far flung and less important places and otherwise do my bidding . do I really need 500 ( 1 unit )Town Watch to look after my 5000 population town .

We have had this discussion before , but how about a 3% to 5% of recruits to maintain your army every year . Your 10,000 strong army loses 500 men every year automatically deducted from your recruit pool so you dont even know its gone .

Firstly let me congradulate Jason on his new job and move to the west country.

Ref capping the number of military units to something like the historic levels:

- If scabble "civilian" units like mobile hospitals, police, the rulers personal yacht (or train or airship) do not count towards the upper cap on Army and Navy units.  Think the same could apply to your friendly local rat catchers and night watch who are essentially civilians and probably no better quality than the men who build your new port or sing in your new Opera.

- Its a bit hard to split up a lineship but the effective unit for smaller ships and Infantry is the Flotilla or the Battalion which often did split up into sub units like companies to patrol, hunt pirates, carry supplies/orders etc. Also think a mixed Garrison of fortress guns, foot and the odd engineer and mounted patrol could count as 1 unit.  

- The effective number of "units" a country can field without having to hire mercenary or allied troops tended to reflect its social organization and factors like trained and politically reliable men rather than its pure man power.  Thus countries like Prussia and Sweden should be able to field more units compared to their population than many other powers while powers like Manchu China & Moghul would having very large forces were able to mobolize a lot less percentage wise than Prussia.

- Basically positions should be on a spectrum between Sweden/Prussia - potential to muster lots of units but will go bankrupt fairly quickly if it calls everyone up.

- England/UDP plenty of cash but normally had to hire anywhere between a third to a half of the Army.  Right up to point were in peace time at least the Navy of the Dutch East India company was larger than the Dutch Navy.

Thanks Stuart  My job covers the area "East of Bristol and West of Bath" so possible I've near you at some stage.

My thinking was a way of bringing in the concept of the Scramble limits into Glory without poor Richard having to undertake a major rule rewrite and completely revamp four games...I think he might have a breakdown if he had to do that!

I do like the Spectrum idea though

Mike wrote:As a small glory nation that gets hardly any recruits , I am thankful for the " company " or
" Palace Guard " size units . Gives me something to push around , man watchtowers and far flung and less important places and otherwise do my bidding . do I really need 500 ( 1 unit )Town Watch to look after my 5000 population town .

We have had this discussion before , but how about a 3% to 5% of recruits to maintain your army every year . Your 10,000 strong army loses 500 men every year automatically deducted from your recruit pool so you dont even know its gone .

Think this would work well.........also think various players could end up in the position of the Great Elector of Prussia who grew his army to such a degree that every year even in peace time he had to send his recruiting parties all over Europe just to keep Army Units up to Strength.

Very roughly the Historic C17 Prussian Army under the Great Elector grew to 130,000 to 150,000 strong before it hit the wall.

Can anyone who has played Prussia advise if 5% ie 7,500 recruits needed to replace the retired, deserted, poxed etc would leave Prussian rulers thinking "We need to either stop zee Army expansion or annex Silesia and/or Saxony...........Vooverts onto Dresden by Children"

Stuart Bailey wrote:
"We need to either stop zee Army expansion or annex Silesia and/or Saxony...........Vooverts onto Dresden by Children"

Why do I now imagine Prussia as being rule by Dracula after reading that line? Or is that more Scramble?

Jason wrote:Thanks Stuart  My job covers the area "East of Bristol and West of Bath" so possible I've near you at some stage.

My thinking was a way of bringing in the concept of the Scramble limits into Glory without poor Richard having to undertake a major rule rewrite and completely revamp four games...I think he might have a breakdown if he had to do that!

I do like the Spectrum idea though

Hi Jason,

Do you know the general area you have moved too or is this a first time living in the West?

Think Portishead is quite a nice spot, even if one of their batsman put my bowling into the Duck Pond and my Uncle Roy died in Portishead....pulled out of the water face down while open water swimming aged 83, its the way he would have wanted to go.

If you want want any info on the wider area let me know since if I dont know it I may know someone who does.

Think the capping the number of home country units as per Scramble is probably one for a new game but for more mature games I do think the theory of Mike and Jason Flower to use some recruits to upkeep existing units would actually help to keep mature positions more managable and playable as well as a bit more historic looking.

Most of you are smarter on this than I am, but I'm finding that recruits, not costs, are the limiting factors for me.

You're right Deacon, it is recruits that are the issue for most of us in the games at the moment and will remain so unless we do end up with games in the 1730s again (which I can't see happening).

Some of the smaller positions might be exceptions. Perhaps if you were playing a privateer it might be and to a degree, finances are more of a limitation for Scotland. In G10 I don't have a surplus of recruits as such but it is the financial situation that limits me more than recruits

I don't like the idea of losing recruits every year. You can always do with more recruits, especially the smaller positions. So what is the point of losing recruits each year.? This is a game and supposed to be fun, cannot see how the above is a positive idea.

In reality. Armies that lose recruits each year, also gains them through new recruits each year. So i cannot see any good reason to lose some each year.

Would it be better to have to use recruits to recover from a sick listing level? That way it slows down people trying to conquer the world?

jamesbond007 wrote:I don't like the idea of losing recruits every year. You can always do with more recruits, especially the smaller positions. So what is the point of losing recruits each year.? This is a game and supposed to be fun, cannot see how the above is a positive idea.

In reality. Armies that lose recruits each year, also gains them through new recruits each year. So i cannot see any good reason to lose some each year.

THREE reasons really:

1) The game starts with Armies/Navies at historic peace time levels which are well below the levels they would obtain in the WSS & the Great Northern War. This means an annual influx of recruits allowing you to build up your Army/Navy etc works well at start but a bit like D & D being at its best at level 4/5 and impossible at level 20 at some point positions start to look unrealistic and become ungovernable.

- For example if a German State like Prussia gets starts with a 30,000 strong Army and gets 10,000 recruits per year and sends them all to the Army 1713 (were we are in G7) it could have a 150,000 strong roughly equal to the Army of Frederick the Great. Ok its 40 years early but its a game and people want things inc me want things to go quick. What I dislike is when the Army continues to expand into forces vastly larger than anything in the period and positions become so large and expensive to run that the game fails under its own weight.

2) No cap on the growth of Armies also means that if someone takes on a unplayed position or a small/medium position compared to a large position which has been using its recruits for a number of years its totally unbalanced compared to 1700.

3) I am a wargamer and I like campaigns to have an effect - But if a French/Spanish/Russian army is massive and still gets 50,000 recruits every year on top of a size alraeady at its historic max (or larger) then you get a position were it can suffer a defeat like Blenheim & within months its larger than ever. I am not saying France can not replace 38,000 men and if the French Army is fairly small its fairly manageble but if its already at 300,000 to 400,000 it should not be able to replace its losses without a struggle.

4) The other game advantage from having a max size to the home army is that if people want to grow forces take above a certain point they will have to get out and take actiont! Want to increase the size of the English Navy - Political Union with Scotland or expand the Empire, Want to expand the size of the French or Prussian Army? March on the Rhine or annex Saxony.

Game play in LGDR is very slow. Current game turns are 5 weeks. By cutting recruits you are prolonging how long your actions take. Through reduced recruits. Do people really want that.?

As for positions looking unrealistic and ungovernable. Nobody mentions REVENUE. This is both unrealistic and ungovernable. More so than recruits. Do you not want to cut this as well.?

This is a game and needs to be fun. I think cutting the above detracts from that considerably.

I agree positions can become large and very expensive. But everything we do in game is to expand our game positions. Get ahead of others. That’s the game. Without it, what is there.?

I second Stuart’s congratulations for Jason on the new role in the West Country. Lovely spot. I was born in Gloucester, then Manchester @ 8, London @ 18 & Singapore @ 24. Quite a few of my family are still that way, always enjoy a visit there when I get back to the UK.
On recruits & army caps, it is an interesting one. I can see where at some point, the game ‘comes off’ with unrealistic army/ navy sizes, but at the same time, too low a limit would impact playability of smaller positions. I am finding that all of the none military uses for recruits have helped (me at least) keep force levels a little more realistic.
James

Richard did address the army/navy inflation at one point, I recall.

He said that it was a bit too frustrating for players to work with so few units and have to struggle as much as nations did historically to field even those.

So all the numbers are inflated, but since it's universal, it really isn't a problem. Everybody has 'too many' units, so it balances it out, and we're all a lot less frustrated than we'd be if he actually held us to historic numbers.

I completely agree with this approach.

Just accept that you've got inflated numbers on your sheet, just like everybody else.

Thanks for the congrats guys

Rest assured however that Lord Melville will not suddenly develop a Somerset-twang and begin drinking cider

jamesbond007 wrote:I don't like the idea of losing recruits every year. You can always do with more recruits, especially the smaller positions. So what is the point of losing recruits each year.? This is a game and supposed to be fun, cannot see how the above is a positive idea.

In reality. Armies that lose recruits each year, also gains them through new recruits each year. So i cannot see any good reason to lose some each year.

Yes , it was that reality we were trying to address .

Just disband all the worlds armies and navies save for police forces of various kinds and trade ships and we can live in peace as brothers and save a lot of money.

However in game wouldn't keeping the economy none hot and keeping the forces modest in size solve lots of issues after all it seems wars are expensive.