New Soldier Recruitment model

[anotherdevil]

I don't know Gazz, wouldn't it basically create two slippery slopes? The strong player (with lots of veterans) gets stronger and the weaker player gets even weaker. It slides towards extremes.

Maybe you're assuming an early to late game progression where the player is supposed to become gradually more and more powerful (like in most games) but in X-Com-like games the amount and quality of manpower tends to fluctuate (sometimes wildly), at least for players who don't reload after every loss.

From a purely gameplay perspective (all rationalizations aside), why should the well off player get even better recruits when he's less likely to need them than someone in a worse position? One might argue that it's realistic and if you screw up you deserve what you get and vice versa but I don't think the game should push the player towards success or failure in such an artificial way.

Yes, the strong player will lower his average by hiring a lot thus preventing uber-rookie spam but the weak player has no such rubber band in this case and spirals further down the drain.

Couldn't you have a minimum stat increase over time, so that as the game gets harder, no matter how bad you are doing, the recruits you get are slowly getting better? No idea how to justify this, perhaps the local militaries are dealing with more on their own, so they are getting some exp that way?

This would no way be comparable to you doing well, but it would help prevent that slippery slope of doom.

Thoughts?

[Gorlom]

Couldn't you have a minimum stat increase over time, so that as the game gets harder, no matter how bad you are doing, the recruits you get are slowly getting better? No idea how to justify this, perhaps the local militaries are dealing with more on their own, so they are getting some exp that way?

This would no way be comparable to you doing well, but it would help prevent that slippery slope of doom.

Thoughts?

I'm still wondering if they would be ranked as privates or get a stat equivilent rank. and wether or not they would be able toget a higher max stat since their minimum stat is increased or if they just can't level up if recruited with too high stats.

What's the thoughts on penalizing fireing soldiers rather then penalizing hireing?

(wouldn't that solve any problem people might have with needing to swiftly replace lost soldiers or populating a new base?)

[Bibidibop]

The number of soldiers in the pool is good. My first thought was it would be ten soldiers, but that probably is too few.

I take it, returning fired soldiers to the pool is a way to mitigate the pool replenishment penalty, by keeping it topped off? However, I don't see the point. If you make it so the penalized soldiers are always the first to be replaced by the weekly replacement cycle, then it amounts to the same thing. In either case, after one week, you get a new non-penalized soldier, but this way, the soldier you discarded definitely disappears as soon as possible. If I'm firing someone then I want them gone, so I think fired soldiers should not reenter the pool.

The rapid pool replenishment penalty is good, and I think the timing works out. Although, I find the pool refreshment rate rather rapid, it does make sense for the game and the sake of finding new soldiers.

[Gorlom]

The number of soldiers in the pool is good. My first thought was it would be ten soldiers, but that probably is too few.

I take it, returning fired soldiers to the pool is a way to mitigate the pool replenishment penalty, by keeping it topped off? However, I don't see the point. If you make it so the penalized soldiers are always the first to be replaced by the weekly replacement cycle, then it amounts to the same thing. In either case, after one week, you get a new non-penalized soldier, but this way, the soldier you discarded definitely disappears as soon as possible. If I'm firing someone then I want them gone, so I think fired soldiers should not reenter the pool.

The rapid pool replenishment penalty is good, and I think the timing works out. Although, I find the pool refreshment rate rather rapid, it does make sense for the game and the sake of finding new soldiers.

Maybe someone else likes all his soldiers but need to fire one to have enough money. That person would probably like to rehire him after the next ground mission.

[Inkallim]

My line of thinking is along the same route as irongamer's.

Certainly the whole idea of a pool of potential recruits is one I very much support, but penalising a player for doing badly in addition to the fact they are already going to be leaking money from less than perfect mission completion and from all the body bags going home is a tad harsh.

Making use of it as an insentive to do better on the other hand is great, your organisation is going well so better trained personel are thinking, hey it's a better paying job, sure it's dangerous but these guy's know what they are doing I'll put my name forwards.

[xracer]

I had thought something along this lines and posted on some other game before.

first day on the job you get 12 recruits and every week thereafter you get 3 new recruits. However once a recruit has been on the list for 4 weeks he is removed from the list

Thus it will look something like this

1st day 12

1st week 15

2nd week 18

3rd week 21

4th week 12 (21 + 3'for week' - 12 'for 4 week")

5th week 12 (12 +3 -3)

and so on

The reason for this is that at the beginning of the game is more likely you will loose the most units in a single battle, and also allows for "stocking up" recruits after that the player should be more aware of the combat and be a bit more careful, also and RNG can be created so that every so often you get a fairly high level recruit while the other are about average. And i don't like the idea of dismissing a soldier and having him back on the recruitment list, it just seems unlikely

I am reading about penalizing the player i think that is not necessary, but i do agree that maybe creating a "severance" package could prevent people from just hiring all the recruits and cherry pick.

another $0.02

[anotherdevil]

yeah while I agree there might be a way of doing it by penalising firing, I'm just not seeing it. Costing them money to fire someone = silly and unexplainable. making it so you have to have them for a month (basically so they have to get their first pay check) = explainable but annoying. I can't think of any others, but perhaps someone else has some ideas?

[Gorlom]

You could have stats penalties on the remaining guys because:

- they have done all these drills together with the 5-6 guys you just fired and now that half the squad is gone its messing up their rythm. The newbies replaceing them don't know what to do and aren't reacting in the same way.

- Or the threat of not performing good enough will get them fired causes them stress.

- or they all got drunk on the big goodbye party and now have a hangover and an alcohol addiction. (ok i admitt this last one is rather silly)

(the penalising stats effect shouldn't go into efffect for 1-2 soldiers but rather later on.)

Wouldn't the one month before fireing thing only be annoying for someone that is doing what we want to prevent? Right now I cant really think of any situation where you would hire a soldier and then want to fire him (and him specifically) within a month.

Edit: The fireing costing money could be explaind that it's breaking their contract. The Xenonaut organisation isnt really a national army but rather a mercenary force isnt it?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gorlom

[anotherdevil]

You could have stats penalties on the remaining guys because:

- they have done all these drills together with the 5-6 guys you just fired and now that half the squad is gone its messing up their rythm. The newbies replaceing them don't know what to do and aren't reacting in the same way.

- Or the threat of not performing good enough will get them fired causes them stress.

personally I don't like the idea of the soldiers who I have managed to keep alive and level/skill up losing skill points because I fired some other guy who was crap

- or they all got drunk on the big goodbye party and now have a hangover and an alcohol addiction. (ok i admitt this last one is rather silly)

A wee bit silly, but at least you're thinking! =]

(the penalising stats effect shouldn't go into efffect for 1-2 soldiers but rather later on.)

Too true, good point

Wouldn't the one month before fireing thing only be annoying for someone that is doing what we want to prevent? Right now I cant really think of any situation where you would hire a soldier and then want to fire him (and him specifically) within a month.

But you can imagine a situation that for whatever reason, good or bad, you hired all these soldiers. But now you badly need some scientists or engineers or something, and you can't hire them for a full month because you can't fire the soldiers...

Edit: The fireing costing money could be explaind that it's breaking their contract. The Xenonaut organisation isnt really a national army but rather a mercenary force isnt it?

I believe they hire from other nations armies, so kind of mercenary, but no one is paying them to do a specific mission, unless that mission is "save the world" =p

[Gazz]

Couldn't you have a minimum stat increase over time, so that as the game gets harder, no matter how bad you are doing, the recruits you get are slowly getting better? No idea how to justify this, perhaps the local militaries are dealing with more on their own, so they are getting some exp that way?

Signed!

Modified my post above. =)

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gazz

[anotherdevil]

Signed!

Modified my post above. =)

Nice! I don't understand the mechanics (I never do with your stuff, I trust you for that), but the descriptions seem to make sense to me =]

[Gorlom]

personally I don't like the idea of the soldiers who I have managed to keep alive and level/skill up losing skill points because I fired some other guy who was crap

Why did you hire him to begin with then? Besides as I said its only supposed to be penalising those that fire more then normal (or what is reasonable) to prevent the hire/fire method of getting supersoldiers. So fireing one or a few shouldnt affect your soldiers negativly it's when the game detects that you are setting it into a system.

A wee bit silly, but at least you're thinking! =]

Too true, good point

Looking more attractive now that you don't get penalized for the very first guy you fire eh? :wink:

But you can imagine a situation that for whatever reason, good or bad, you hired all these soldiers. But now you badly need some scientists or engineers or something, and you can't hire them for a full month because you can't fire the soldiers...

Build more living quarters! =P and fire the eingineers you dont need if you need scientists or scientists if you need engineers. A bit of challangeing base management to spice things up imo

I believe they hire from other nations armies, so kind of mercenary, but no one is paying them to do a specific mission, unless that mission is "save the world" =p

TBH I thought the french foreign legion was "mercenary" (could have sworn they called em that on some national geographics documentary or something). Do you have to be paid per mission to be considered a mercenary? Can't you be on a standing contract (or whatever its called) with a montly wage or compensation?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gazz]

But you can imagine a situation that for whatever reason, good or bad, you hired all these soldiers. But now you badly need some scientists or engineers or something, and you can't hire them for a full month because you can't fire the soldiers...

I don't think restrictions on your current soldiers (including firing them) make a lot of sense.

You paid them, trained them... any artificial "management" would just be a chore.

Would it add any interesting gameplay?

I updated my first post above with a twist to that, too.

It would be possible to make it more difficult to "cycle the pool" while making the system more convenient for non-exploit use.

Nice! I don't understand the mechanics (I never do with your stuff, I trust you for that), but the descriptions seem to make sense to me =]

Heh. Just be more cryptic and people can be in awe of your gibberish, too! =P

[Gorlom]

I don't think restrictions on your current soldiers (including firing them) make a lot of sense.

You paid them, trained them... any artificial "management" would just be a chore.

Would it add any interesting gameplay?

I'm not quite sure I see your point with the artificial chore management. Probably because of my play style.

What it would add for me is that it doesnt penalize me the same way a system that only has to do with hireing of soldiers does. I don't hire more soldiers then I need (and I usually rather play with the soldiers I got then trynig a mulligan) so relieveing some of the penalties from the hireing system and putting it on the fireing system to prevent the superselection/poolcycleing would work awesome for me.

Although it seems that I'm not quite understanding some of the problems that might arise when others feel they would need to fire soldiers, and where the mechanics I assumed to be very unabtrusive in smallscale fireings prevents them from haveing fun playing the game.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gazz]

What it would add for me is that it doesnt penalize me the same way a system that only has to do with hireing of soldiers does. I don't hire more soldiers then I need (and I usually rather play with the soldiers I got then trynig a mulligan) so relieveing some of the penalties from the hireing system and putting it on the fireing system to prevent the superselection/poolcycleing would work awesome for me.

What do you think of the twist to pool size limit in post 21?

Wouldn't that more or less do the same thing or are you thinking of a larger time frame?

[nutbarz]

If I'm firing someone then I want them gone, so I think fired soldiers should not reenter the pool.

I Agree. People are fired for a reason, usually they do something wrong or perform poorly. The Word is Fire, or Sack.

You are not laying off these soldiers for a time because there is a lack of work or money, you are kicking them out because they failed, or performed badly, or were caught sleeping on the job.

I know we can argue this, but this is my opinion.

[Gorlom]

What if I am laying him off because I need the money? What should I do then?

Wouldn't Gazz solution to simply add them to the pool without replaceing other potential hireings be a fitting solution? Or is it simply an emotional response that you make up some backstory why you fired him and because of that you never want to see him again?

What do you think of the twist to pool size limit in post 21?

Wouldn't that more or less do the same thing or are you thinking of a larger time frame?

It has potential, it's not perfect but definetly good enough.

Would require a more adaptable interface. Hope Chris is up for that.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gazz]

12 soldiers probably need a scrollbar already.

When you can scroll 12, you can scroll 15 or 20.

I just think that it's a better UI because it never punishes a hasty click on the wrong soldier.

The base screen is for the "relaxed" management while the clock is off.

Now I remember - I think Apocalypse did it that way.

[Bibidibop]

There should be enough room to show all of the recruits at the same time, even with 30 on screen at once, and that's just with a spread sheet. If the soldiers are arranged using cards, and buttons to control and highlight hierarchy, nearly 90 could be on screen at once.

Actually, I wasn't considering how the current Personnel screen is laid out. I don't know how many would reasonably fit if it were all combined.

I don't mind a fired soldier going to the hiring pool, but only if their slots are specially highlighted to indicate their fired stated. The differences are, you can retrieve them for free, and they get fired the moment you go to the world map. That way, there is no need for safety confirmation prompts at all.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Bibidibop

[Chris]

Hmmm. Seems a lot of people are against penalising the player for excessive hiring. That's understandable I guess. The simple adaption to the system would be this:

You have a pool of 12 people, which is cleared and updated every month. If you fire a soldier, he goes back into the pool and displaces a soldier already in the pool. That displaced soldier is remembered, and put in a hidden 'pool' of soldiers which is of unlimited size. When soldiers are refreshed from the main pool (whether due to natural cycling over time or through hiring soldiers in the existing pool) they are drawn from the hidden pool first and only randomly generated once the hidden pool is empty.

That way you can recruit 50 soldiers at the start of the game and cherry pick the best ones if you want, but not only would it be expensive but you'd only be getting the soldiers you didn't initially want appearing for the next four months or so. That would effectively halt the cherry picking that the powergamers used to do, but it won't affect people playing the game normally.

Regarding a cost for firing soldiers - not keen on that. You pay an upfront cost to hire them already, which is the penalty incurred if you immediately fire them afterwards.

Re: Gazz's suggestion about having troops getting better through time. I'm not convinced by this philosophy, and I never was. I think by the end of the game you won't have a squad of 16 super-elite troops anyway, I think you'll have about 6-7 super-elite guys and then another 7-8 reasonably experienced guys.

Yeah, you might lose a couple of super-elite troops on a mission and have to hire rookies in their stead, but they're not expected to replace the super-elite troops anyway. The replacement for your super-elite guys would come from the reasonably experienced guys completing a few more missions, and the rookies would become reasonably experienced themselves with a few missions under their belts. It's more of a sliding scale of ability in your team than an abrupt cliff - and if it's not, you're either incredibly good (or bad) or save scumming.

[Bibidibop]

That way you can recruit 50 soldiers at the start of the game and cherry pick the best ones if you want, but not only would it be expensive but you'd only be getting the soldiers you didn't initially want appearing for the next four months or so. That would effectively halt the cherry picking that the powergamers used to do, but it won't affect people playing the game normally.

But, you would need to wait roughly three months no matter what for top soldiers in the pool? The matching up of the penalty with the natural refresh rate was what initially confused me until I did the math. If over hiring were somehow pushing the natural refresh rate back, then I would be against it.

Regarding a cost for firing soldiers - not keen on that. You pay an upfront cost to hire them already, which is the penalty incurred if you immediately fire them afterwards.

Someone wants us charged to fire personnel? That would be horrible.

Also, quoting myself on firing.

I don't mind a fired soldier going to the hiring pool, but only if their slots are specially highlighted to indicate their fired state. The differences are, you can retrieve them for free, and they get fired the moment you go to the world map. That way, there is no need for safety confirmation prompts at all.

[edit] I just realized, I prefer it consistent. If firing isn't instant, then I think hiring shouldn't be instant either. Instead, why not just show all the recruits, no hidden recruits at all. The moment you hire one, you start getting degenerate recruits?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Bibidibop

[Gorlom]

I don't recall who first thought of paying to fire someone but I don't think it was ever a really serious suggestion. I was more interested in finding a way to balance the penalty to current soldiers if you fired too many.

Chris why are the fired soldiers cycled into the hidden pool instead of like gazz suggested added as extra numbers into the visible pool?

Would that be too bothersome to design the interface that way or do you simply like that mechanic better?

And I think most of the objections to penalty to new recruits was the low threshold before the penalty started. Or at the very least what people thought was a low threshold. Would you be able to hire 4 or 16 soldiers before your next soldier you recruited would have to have less then average stats? The wording was a bit confusing.

[Chris]

Sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking Bibdibop - I'll try and answer it though.

The idea is that you'll get the same soldiers whether you let them cycle through naturally or artificially cause it with hiring / firing. Hiring LOADS of soldiers at the start of the game will let youi get your hands on the top soldiers immediately, but that just means you'll only have terrible soldiers left for however many months it takes you to cycle through all the soldiers you fired at the start of the game. This means it probably won't be worth the investment of money required to do it.

If you let the game cycle through the soldiers normally - as you lose soldiers in battle or as the pool naturally refreshes at the start of each month - you'll be able to pick up those same top soldiers each month anyway, but you won't have to pay the hire cost of all the mediocre soldiers before them in the list (as you do if you want to make them appear early).

Of course, you could still do the hire / fire thing by launching missions, marching all but one of your soldiers of the Chinook and then aborting the mission (dead soldiers wouldn't go back into the pool), but that would have consequences for your mission score and therefore funding. And if people really want to game the system that hard, there's not too much I can do about it. It'll just be harder than in the original game.

[TheTuninator]

Hmmmm, I still think I might prefer simply turning things over to the RNG after you've torn through the existing pool of soldiers.

As others have noted, if you fired someone it's often because you wanted them gone; not sure how I feel about fired soldiers returning to the hireable pool. If I fire Joe Redshirt, who has 10 Bravery and 30 Firing Accuracy, I want him gone.

Maybe add an option like "retain soldier in pool" for people who want to fire soldiers for cost reasons but have them available later?

[jimbobfury]

The retain soldier option's a good one actually, Tuninator. Kind of like having reserve's who aren't always on active duty but who you can call upon when needed. There could still be a cost involved in keeping them on a retainer (say, 10% of their actual recruitment cost) so you have the cheapest option of getting rid of them completely, the cheapish option of placing them in reserves in case of a sudden need for at least average soldiers and finally the option of outright hiring them.