Woker and Soldier Turnover, Veteran Pool
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:34 pm
Sometimes difficulties at recruiting new workers and Soldiers do not mater, as there is no natural turnover.
If you got enough workers now, you have enough workers in 2 earth months (next turn). A penalty to Worker recruitment does not mater, because you do not need to hire anyone new.
If you got no fighting, being unable to recruit does not mater - there are no losses.
Turnover should be a rather small percentage. Maybe 1% per turn.
For Workers, turnover would simply mean that you always have to hire new ones. As such a large enough penalty to "Worker Recruitment" over a large enough workforce could lead to Worker shortages - because you can not hire them as fast as they are leaving.
For Soldiers, this would be a natural reason to keep recruiting. But those retirees go back to the civilian sector - or might become trainers in the SHQ (Veteran Pool).
A simple implementation would be a 1% chance for each subunit to have their Experience be replaced with that for a new unit, 100 Recruits being lost and 100 population being re-added.
But something more abstracted where units simply loose XP and the Recruitpool has a natural decay would also work.
The Veteran Pool would be a way to keep some of the experience around. Basically a small part of the retiring soldiers are retained as "Drill Instructors", wich train the next generation of soldiers. The numbers are not relevant for the big picture (as 1-2 experienced people can easily traing a company of ~100).
The XP of all retirees (maybe over a few turns) would be averaged. That is the minimum XP newly deplyoed soldiers start at. A army taht sees a lot of action over a long time would have experienced retiress, allowing them to keep the experience level easier. This could even replace the current training mechanic.
Normal Rotation
It is common military knowledge that soldiers need to be rotated "off the front" regulary, or the performance will drop. Even in WW1 that undestood that much: http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/ ... antry.html
This would be both more common, but a less lossy then the above thing.
In this variant subunits would be tagged as "ready for going off rotation". The next time there is logistics for reinforcements and recruits left, they will be replaced - but the soldiers are still in service and go back to the recruit pool rather then retiring entirely.
If a unit that is tagged for rotation does not receive any Logistics points for it (too much used for ammo and food), they will loose performance. Morale and Readiness are both good candidates. Wich should escalate.
Profiles and Turnover:
Naturally Profiles would affect these figures. Fist would have better retention of Soldier experience. Government better retention for workers (rather then the current mostly useless Public Indutry Bonus).
If you got enough workers now, you have enough workers in 2 earth months (next turn). A penalty to Worker recruitment does not mater, because you do not need to hire anyone new.
If you got no fighting, being unable to recruit does not mater - there are no losses.
Turnover should be a rather small percentage. Maybe 1% per turn.
For Workers, turnover would simply mean that you always have to hire new ones. As such a large enough penalty to "Worker Recruitment" over a large enough workforce could lead to Worker shortages - because you can not hire them as fast as they are leaving.
For Soldiers, this would be a natural reason to keep recruiting. But those retirees go back to the civilian sector - or might become trainers in the SHQ (Veteran Pool).
A simple implementation would be a 1% chance for each subunit to have their Experience be replaced with that for a new unit, 100 Recruits being lost and 100 population being re-added.
But something more abstracted where units simply loose XP and the Recruitpool has a natural decay would also work.
The Veteran Pool would be a way to keep some of the experience around. Basically a small part of the retiring soldiers are retained as "Drill Instructors", wich train the next generation of soldiers. The numbers are not relevant for the big picture (as 1-2 experienced people can easily traing a company of ~100).
The XP of all retirees (maybe over a few turns) would be averaged. That is the minimum XP newly deplyoed soldiers start at. A army taht sees a lot of action over a long time would have experienced retiress, allowing them to keep the experience level easier. This could even replace the current training mechanic.
Normal Rotation
It is common military knowledge that soldiers need to be rotated "off the front" regulary, or the performance will drop. Even in WW1 that undestood that much: http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/ ... antry.html
This would be both more common, but a less lossy then the above thing.
In this variant subunits would be tagged as "ready for going off rotation". The next time there is logistics for reinforcements and recruits left, they will be replaced - but the soldiers are still in service and go back to the recruit pool rather then retiring entirely.
If a unit that is tagged for rotation does not receive any Logistics points for it (too much used for ammo and food), they will loose performance. Morale and Readiness are both good candidates. Wich should escalate.
Profiles and Turnover:
Naturally Profiles would affect these figures. Fist would have better retention of Soldier experience. Government better retention for workers (rather then the current mostly useless Public Indutry Bonus).