I'd like to give you a warm official welcome to the project!

Until Harli comes up with implementation suggestions, I'll just throw out a few things as thought starters...

We've already discussed getting the pathfinding algorithms that JimC got going. There is also a demo for some more advanced uses of pathfinding that you can reach from the MapAI page of the web page. After that one thing that can probably be coded soon is the ticks system that is up higher in this thread.

Glad to have you in the project!

Logo:
The smallest character I would envision would be something like a 4 star, i.e. head of a TF (at the smallest scale) As for your earlier suggestion it would be great, but only if we can get the AI to do it. Currently the battle resoluition model is up in most of it's entirety, (I haven't heard from kerenske in a while but we shall finish it once I do)

As for new stuff. The next things that I would like to discuss would be: Supply, Guerilla warfare, SF implmentation... Stuff has been posted previously on these topics so I would advise people who have thoughts on them to go back in the fourms / pages and read what has been talked about so that we don't have to replicate a lot of arguments...

Welcome aboard...

I guess I detailed where I kinda want to go next in my previous post. However if you have something specific you want to do that I didn't mention let me know. Also if you have any thougths on the current battle resolution system (on kerske's webpage) let me know.

Logo:
TF's um, basically one or two per a geograpohic area. Ex, Desert storm would likely be one big TF (the hooking bit) and like one blocking TF. A place where you would have several TF's would be like WWII Russian front where you would have like 3-5 per side. (mainly for manouverability purposes) Ex: Army group center, south and north...

quote: Originally posted by Harlikwin on 03-29-2000 09:23 AM TF's um, basically one or two per a geograpohic area. Ex, Desert storm would likely be one big TF (the hooking bit) and like one blocking TF. A place where you would have several TF's would be like WWII Russian front where you would have like 3-5 per side. (mainly for manouverability purposes) Ex: Army group center, south and north...

Hmmmm... At the front level, this is a different conception from what I had. I'd envisioned something like 3 or 4 TFs under one commander would compose each army group (of which we'd have 3-5 for the Russian WWII front) Giving something like 15-20 TFs for a big front.

I agree that operationally there would be 3-5 army groups, but realistically the forces would be spread out over like 20 squares or the dispersions would be all wrong. So at a minimum we would need some patch to fix this problem. I think that could be worked out. We could assume the Army Group size TF has a ZOC or something to simulate forces that are actually in those other squares, but aren't shown for game mechanics purposes.

The more important problem I see is with fun. Players IMO will love to try encirlement strategies etc, and with a small number of TFs that aren't filling the whole 'front' this kind of thing will be much harder to pull off.

That said, your approach would almost certainly make the AI much easier to do, and reduce micromanagement if we can pull it off while still having max fun factor.

I would likely enjoy more units on a big front, from 10-20.

But otherwise, excellent model. Great object design (Taskforce, Unit, element), using both encapsulation and inheritance. Tight integration. Very, very good work.

You can go very far with this design.

Can I suggest one last layer of encapsulation?

Add to 'Element' a 'weapon' and 'armor' object? It would simplify some of the coding. Just a suggestion!

A thing about TF's, I agree with both Mark's and Harli's points, though I do think Harli's system would be easier to manage but mark's might be a little bit more satifying. I'm trying to imagine what they would look like on the battle field but it's just not clicking, I don't think we should worry too much about it, this sounds like one of those problems we really need to try out and see which works better. I don't think 10-20 is at all a realistc number, and I think it might just become really stressful when you get that high, if I'm wrong tell me why (it happens so times )

Has Krenske put together a navel model yet? I remember we were putting off both air and naval until we had land.

A little thought, do we have anything in our model governing night fighting? It sounds pretty complex and I don't know if it really has a place but it did play a big role in several conflicts...

Mark: Your idea is ceratinly feasible. The system can be scaled to that many units, we can have TF's divide into smaller units. It was something Kerenske and I talked about a bit. The smallest unit though would be an element. If we want to go this route the game will kind of look like TOAW (I&II) since there you can subdivide units quite a bit. Though if we do that I would like to include a small factor for each time a unit is divided it looses combat efficiency (the units are trained to fight together and share equipment) But it can certainly be done that way... The system is at this point designed to pander to the wishes of the users

F_smith:

Could you expand a bit on the armor and weapon objects? (if you just want to email its fine)

LOGO:
Night fighting will be generalized under a misc tech modifier.

Also missiles etc will be dealt with more in the air model but my current stance on this is there are different classes of missiles (like in RL) we have Tac-battleield missels (TOW, Maverick, Hellfire, LAW) ARty missels (MLRS, SCUD, ETC) Strategic missiles (ICBM, IRBM etc. Also cruise missile packages)

Brian:
Glad you like the system.

-Harli

The key to the new plan is that provinces are not split up by military action and that province sizes can be very different. I think that a province based military system could do fine with this kind of map.

I proposed a province based system in another thread. I'll copy it here:

---
I would prefer the following option:

There are no little men on the map. None.

All armies are handled by province. To deal with the armies, you go to the province menu.

All troops garrisoned in a province are normally treated as a single army corps. They attack, defend, and move as one combined arms unit. Of course, it would be possible to split them into two or more corps.

Men age and retire, with average turnover of four to twenty years. If possible, the troops are replaced to keep force strength at the same levels.

Defense is automatic, with a province's garrison automatically engaging to meet any invasion of the province.

To attack or explore, you simply click on an order button and click on a nearby province. Each army has a range of operations, similar to an airplane's range.

Airplanes in the province are assigned tasks in an Air Missions window. They have a certain range, and within that range they can bomb provinces or support military actions.

Navies are treated like airplanes. They can attack, explore, or patrol within their range. Amphibious assaults are handled from the Navy screen.

After a territory is conquered, you can choose to settle the territory or return to base.

If you choose to settle, the attacking army becomes the new garrison and your people start to move in if possible. The province is now under your control, but there might be occasional unrest. If you can't get your own people in, you will have to recruit the locals or let the army wither away.

If you choose to have your army return, the province becomes a satellite state and you deal with them diplomatically. The people keep their own government but pay tribute to your civ. They could revolt if you tax them too heavily, but generally your army in the nearby province keeps them in line. Satellite states would be a good option in many cases, as they are convenient and the locals are happier. They also guard your borders so you don't have to do all the fighting yourself.

If army management was based on provinces rather than units, players would be able to focus more on civ management. The armies would have the same interface as the rest of the civ, so the controls would be a lot more integrated, and military easier to deal with. The game would be less of a wargame and more of a civilization game.

This system would also speed up multiplayer games and make the AI more competent in military affairs.

It is obvious that I care more about civ management than military operations. I know that others prefer micromanaging lots of little units, but I am fairly sure that a lot of non-wargamers would like this approach and would choose it of it were an option.
---

The possibility of different sized provinces means that I will have to modify the proposal. I will concentrate on the ranges of the units and the fighting in the provinces.

The system should work well for small provinces, where most civilizations are and most fighting will be done. However, there could be a few problems with the treatment of larger, wasteland provinces.

Defending forces are assumed to be distributed throughout the province. Attacking forces are assumed to be gathered in some square inside their province of origin. The range of attacking armies would be based on this square.

If a province lies entirely in the range of an attacking army, which it usually will, the province could potentially be conquered in one turn. If part of the province lies outside the range, it will take another turn to finish the conquest.

At any time there are two enemy armies inside a single province or the province is not controlled by a single civ, that province is classified as a war zone. War zone provinces would have many different economic and social characteristics, but that is not important here.

If the two armies are entrenched and/or very closely matched, provinces could be war zones for several years. They could also be war zones for longer periods if an arny cannot conquer them all at once. The time it takes to conquer a province is based on the range from the original starting square.

As an example, suppose you wanted to have an army based in Moscow conquer a large Siberian province that had minimal enemy forces. If no part of that province was in the one-turn range, you could not start the attack this turn and would have to move the armies first. But if some percantage was in range, you could start the conquest this turn.

If no part of the province was outside the two-turn range of your armies, you could finish the conquest in two turns. The province would be a war zone for two turns. But if a signifigant part of the province was outside the two-turn range, the conquest would take three turns and the province would be a war zone for an extra turn.

The effect of this is that the larger provinces can tie up an invading army for several years. This would prevent armies from taking "short cuts" through large provinces like they can in some games with this type of territory system.

It might not make sense that a garrisom army in a large territory could defend the territory as well as a smaller patch of land. Wouldn't they be more spread out and have longer to travel to meet an attacking army? Yes, but the attacker has the same problem. The invading army will have a lot of ground to cover, so the garrison will be able to gather and meet them in battle someplace in the middle of the territory.

Also, large territories will almost always be worthless wastelands with little or no strategic value, supplies, or support facilities. Armies would almost never want to go into them.

Although it can speed up multiplayer games, it doesn't allow for strategic conquests of tiny areas that may be of great importance. Take for instance the war between Iran and Irag not long ago. The fought over a strip of land not 100 miles wide and not much longer either. Basically they ignored the rest of the area except to draw attention from troops or for stategic strikes, not conquest. This area, maybe an entire square in clash terms, if that, was so important because it contained the link to the Persain Gulf which each side wanted more of at the expense of the other. The entire province was NOT a warzone, just that area. With that system This type of system couldn't happen. No, instead one person would eventually have to conquer the entire province or leave.

Also another reason this *MAY* be a problem is the fact that province sizes change over time, espicially early on.

Yep, that is the planned solution. Or at an intermediate level, you can ask the AI to specify a plan and then approve it, or suggest something else at a high level. It will only fail to satisfy the non-military types, I think, if we blow it with the AI...

Richard:

I would prefer computer determined provinces:
Improvements would change province shape but, the improvements effect should be well considered in order to avoid micromanegement (personaly I think this is possible).
This relates to military matters because I would also like the map to retain squares/hexagons (I prefer the last). I am also of the opinion the fight for strategic possessions is a must for added fun. Full scale national wars were relatively rare events compared to all the fight that went on for possession of important resources. For those that want less micromanagement, I think that this approach would still be fun because you could have options like "wage war of attrition", "conquer rich squares A and B", "paradrop/spec op on square c", "demand square A or B in diplomatic options" etc etc.

And last but not least:
Remember that not all wars were quick marches to total victory...or total DEFEAT!

The model looks really interesting, now that I've had a chance to read it and think about a bit. It looks a bit expensive in terms of calculations, but probably not prohibitively so. There are of course a lot of details that aren't quite clear at this level of presentation, but putting those aside I have one important question on the military model. That question is are you confident that you can come up with some quick-and-dirty way to simulate battle outcomes that the AI can use? This would be at the level of putting a few numbers together in an equation with random factors to gauge a likely result. P. In other words, the level of calculations for running the actual battles that occur doesn't bother me so much. But the AI needs a way to figure out how many battles that Might happen are likely to turn out. As I said before I think that "docking" your battle model to a simplified version that the AI can use is critical in getting a decent strategic AI working. Have you thought it all about how to estimate the effective military power of a task force in some way that would allow streamlined estimation of battle results?

The other thing that struck me with the model was the fact that there appears to be no interaction between the different parts of the battle. I may have missed it, or may have been inadvertently left out of the model document, but it seems that once mini-fights in a battle get going, nothing connects them. I think it's critical that a clear-cut victory along one part of the front should translate into an immediate advantage for the victor as they reallocate the troops to turn the tide in an adjacent battle sector. I won't display my ignorance any further until I hear what you have to say about these things

Thanks for the response.

Well, IMO the inability for troops to switch over to a new part of the battle when theirs is finished is a big weakness in an otherwise good model. I might rout the other guys on the right flank first, but because there is no connection, they might actually subsequently beat me in the center and on the left flank. So the model would give the victory, as I perceive it, to the wrong side.

Also, what is the state of play with the map? How about sea cities or space stations?
Are there layers? Can you avoid combat by going 'over' or even perhaps 'under'?

On almost a seperate note if you do use individual divisions what is the smallest scale for tactical decisions (platoon, squad, or perhaps Brigades)?

I usually don't post in military threads, I'm simply not a wargammer. As such, just let me ask you to do your best on AI, so we non-wargammers, can enjoy the game the same without using too much time on military issues.... alright? Anyway, a good mil model is I guess the most important factor for success in this type of games, so go and introduce all the complexity you think is needed!

On a different topic: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me recruiting troops isn't yet a well developed field in the model. The only topic related to this I found was "mobilization" and it wasn't much. I ask it because it has some implications for the govt model, so I want to know how far you've gone with recruiting stuff before I explore its exact relations with the govt model.

Although the game's focus is strategic, you can play it in a semi-tactical way that will have the general feel of Civ2 combat but with many more details and options. Alternatively, in "Rodrigo" mode , you can also play it on a grand-strategic level by putting the AI in charge. The player will also be able to give their military forces arbitrary bonuses or handicaps. That way, even if the AI doesn't play as well tactically as you do you can still put the AI in charge without its screwing up the game. You would just set the bonuses or handicaps so that the results on average with the AI in charge match the results if you were in charge.

On map levels... we have talked a little bit about this, but are mostly sticking to the historical stuff for now. That doesn't indicate the final design direction, but just our limited resources and the fact that we have to get Something working.

TFs sensing... I don't know about that one, Harli may have thought about it.

Frank... We're also anxiously awaiting being able to play the game! As was said, you can always break up your task forces into units if you want to try some bit of tactical brilliance. But the general level of play is expected to be moving task forces. Right now units are basically divisions and the task force/division dynamics work as TK said. If you want more information on what is involved in units, you can read the Units Model. Because of the scope of the basic game I don't think we can go much lower than division size. For scenarios, you could of course go to a much finer level of detail if you have the patience for it.

1. this is already handled well enough by units "supporting" each other as in demo 4, except with more movement points, a few TF's could defend a very large empire, especially once good roads and rail are in place.

2. well if it takes more turns, it's not quite the same... you can't conquer an enemy in 20 years (one turn), it would take you 60 or more (3 or more turns)

3. Actually, yes. Like I said, it adds that defensive strategy element, which I've never seen in a game like this. In Civ2 FE, I never put units anywhere but in cities unless I was going out to attack, simply because with 2 defensive units and citywalls it was pointless to do so, no unit could take the city.

Yes we will have patrol and support orders. They Do Not adequately cover TKs case. Pre-programmed defense can not be made sufficiently versatile IMO to answer all possible attacks. The more stuff that can happen over a given horizon, the more incabable pre-planned defesive plans are of handling an attack. The ultimate limit is like in Civ, where my units can wander all over your country in a single turn with railroads. It is almost impossible for an AI or plan to be flexible enough to handle this kind of stuff. This was discussed in some detail in the mil threads around the first of this year, and in the dead mil thread you can read on the web site. Please read them. I just don't have the time to go over the arguments again. I know it bothers you if the timescales aren't perfect. Sorry, but IMO gameplay trumps realism. We will be able to test this kind of stuff at a later date, but not until the game is much further along than it is now.

Implementation order will be
1. the tick system for movement (see my post "posted February 29, 2000 18:15" for some details, and the 'lost' mil thread on clash Military web page, page 2 for further discussion)
2. pathfinding (naturally should be Before 1, but Eduardo is theoretically doing it, I Hope )
3. unit specs (incl elements of units as here.
4. building units, in conjunction with Laurent (econ) and possibly Richard (Population) if that model is coded up earlier than expected.
5. first stab at new combat model, though I hope it gets more comments/discussion first.

quote: first stab at new combat model, though I hope it gets more comments/discussion first

I'm not that interested in the Mil Model, I'm just curious.

My presence on the forums has been thin for two reasons. First, a very busy week at work. Second, I am trying to keep my discussions on the forum to the minimum amount that I think is essential, since I think my contributions to the project as a coder need to be larger. And I am already spending about 60% of my available non-work time on Clash, so there isn't much give in the schedule that way. At least I need to do more coding while there are only three programmers really working on the project. If you must know, the last time I was coding was approximately two weeks ago on the Econ model. There was a period when Laurent's son was being born that he wasn't going to be able to code for awhile, so I stepped into push the Econ model coding forward.

I do not particularly appreciate the accusatory questions... You are obviously smart, and at least fairly committed to Clash, why don't you learn to program in Java so you can help code? That is what the project really needs, as you seem to be aware of...

quote: I do not particularly appreciate the accusatory questions...

Myself, I have begun working on a full spreadsheet implementation of infrastructure and, as it seems, an update of my govtecon spreadsheet. I am trying to work according to the guidelines of the econ model. I also have some ideas about how to handle emergencies (like war or natural disasters) in the govt model which I am planning to elaborate. It seems that I'm going to have quite alot of time for Clash this month.

These are some more things I came up with while coding the TF_Action class that helps to determine tick costs. I think most things are self-explanatory. Remember there are 10 ticks in a month, and moving across clear friendly ground takes about 4 ticks per square.

Tick Cost Modifiers (additive)

NONCOMBAT_MOVE 0.0
ADVANCE_CAUTIOUSLY 1.0
ADVANCE_NORMAL 0.5
ADVANCE_RAPIDLY 0.0

ASSAULT 2.0
BESEIGE 1.5
RAID 1.5
DEFEND 0.0

PILLAGE_NORMAL 2.0
PILLAGE_SAFE 2.0
PILLAGE_WIDELY 3.0

FORAGING_NORMAL 1.0
FORAGING_SAFE 1.0
FORAGING_WIDELY 1.5

FORTIFYING_MINIMAL 0.5
FORTIFYING_NORMAL 1.0
FORTIFYING_EXTENSIVE 3.0
FORTIFYING_CITY 0.5
FORTIFYING_FORTRESS 0.5