05-05-1999 09:32									#1
	Telescoping Time Scales - Like in Civ Put an end to popups!

One tough problem I would like to hear people's opinions about is the usual telescoping time scales in civ-like games.
Specifically I mean how one turn is 25 years at the beginning of the game and one year at the end, and what that does to movement rates, lengths of wars etc. Also even in 1 year realistic movement rates would have a jet circling the globe hundreds of times... I have adopted the same civ-like stance in Clash so far because any alternatives I have thought of were unworkable. For example, if wars take the right amount of time then movement rates need to be awesome... If you shift to a finer time scale in war, then if Clash ever became multiplayer it would be incredibly boring for anyone not involved in a war, etc. If anyone can think of something workable but more realistic I would be very impressed ;-)

To do this quickly I have synthesized this doc from an email conversation…

One proposal from Andrew Warwick (I was also considering something similar) was to split the game into two 'levels' as it were. The first level would be the Economic or 'Strategic' Level, while the second would be the Military Level. Only in times of fighting would you use the Military Level.
Early on the Economic Level would cover a period of 20 to 100 years a turn, and at this level you would collect resources, build, research and the like. Later on (ie 19th-20th century) it would drop to 1 to 2 years a Economic Turn. This would represent that while changes on the economic level take place much faster in modern times, they still aren't overnight. You would allocate resources for building projects to be completed during the turn, (maybe in order of importance). You are also asked if you want to declare war/fight this EconTurn.

Andrew's really interesting suggestion was that If you aren't at war, you are allowed to make strategic moves - which enables you to move any of your troops anywhere *as long as they remain in your territory* (maybe allied territory as well). Over that amount of time, troops could move anywhere, switching from one side of the nation to the other, but would not be allowed to enter 'enemy' lands. If either you attacked an enemy, or an enemy attacked you, you would go to the military
level.

Military Level turns would range from 1 to 5 years early on and 1-2 months later on (maybe 10 to 20 military level turns per economic level turns). Military level would allow you to build only military related stuff (units, fortifications etc [I, Mark, am not sure about the need for this restriction] ) though you could build them on econlvl as well. If you find yourself at war and running short of spare resources and units, you could cancel econlvl building orders and use the resources for units...stimulating the drain on the economy caused by war. You would also be able to move units and fight until the next econ level turn came around. This would allow troops to be able to move and fight a number of times before you had to worry about the 'wider' picture again.

My response was that I think it would be tough to work because in ancient times it
would give a central power fighting two opponents at opposite ends of the empire
the ability to mass against one of them Waaay too easily. One of the largest historical problems with ancient empires was that very same communication and movement-lag phenomenon. But it is a good idea, and maybe with some modification it could be done. I certainly think Civ as it is now is a bit
Too tactical, and not strategic enough. (say in the area of supply lines)

Comments, ways to modify this suggestion or completely fresh ideas welcome.

	06-05-1999 09:38									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The 'Lords of the Realm 2' model of 2 time scales works great single player, but stinks multiplayer, as you said.

Just thinking outside the box here, but -- the model I like is a bit different, on 2 major counts.

First, I like an 'army' model that follows the old 'Diplomacy' game -- you capture 'resource centers' or villages, or whatever. That 'resource center' is tied to a single 'army', and will re-supply/reinforce that 'army' for as long as you control the resource center.

Second, I like those armies to have at least 2 'movement' modes -- 'fast' and 'recon'. The first 'mode' allows them to move *very* far thru controlled territory *ONLY*. Moving thru hostile territory they'd have to use 'recon' mode. That means a jet or air-lifted modern infantry unit could circle the globe in one turn as long as it passed thru allied airspace. But as soon as it encounters resistance, it's movement turn ends, at least until it can extricate itself from combat.

Ancient armies could force-march thousands of miles in a turn thru friendly territory, but if they walk into an ambush in friendly territory again their turn ends.

Of course, an ancient army moving slowly thru enemy territory would be *much* slower . . .

	07-05-1999 22:19									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I don't like the concept of armies attached to specific resource centers for two reasons. When the home center is conquered they shouldn't disappear. (this one could be fixed by a re-assignment scheme) Armies should be able to derive supplies from multiple areas.

The two types of movement Idea championed by Andrew and you is a pretty good one I think. I'd be game to try something with at least a factor of 2-3 difference between movement in friendly areas and "opposed" movement or movement in hostile areas.

	07-05-1999 22:59									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

Personally, I think the 2 types of movement are a must. An army moves thru enemy territory *very* differently than it moves thru friendly territory (at least, it should!).

The armies tied to resource centers idea is for simulating army support elements and a command and control structure. This represents the recruiters, cooks, weaponsmiths, etc in the 'base' village that were employed full-time just supplying that army group. When you lose the resource center, or lose 'communications' with that center -- (find yourself 'without supply lines') you then lose the ability to resupply/reinforce that army group. You can roll the group into another army group, who draws their supplies from another village. But each resource center can supply a certain maximum # of men in the field . . .

I believe this is the only way to do it, personally. As opposed to tracking production, transport and consumption of individual units of supply (recruits, weapons, etc.), which is a micromanagement hassle extraordinaire.

	07-05-1999 23:19									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah I think the two rate of movement is cool, lets do it.

On the supply issue, I think we can actually do supply without hassling the player. Its posted somewhere in detail on the old board. I want to use dedicated merchants (already need to be coded anyway) to supply the troops. All you do is say how much money you're willing to spend to supply x front. The merchant/supply manager does the rest. A bonus of the supply system is that supply lines can be attacked. This allows proper modeling of a modern envelopment battle, one of the coolest martial activities known to man

Below is the original post; i've duplicated most of it above...

I think supply is Very important and have been strggling with how to handle it for some time. The best I have come up with
so far involves a derivative of how merchants work in the game. For the case of military supply you would build essentially a
special class of merchant that would try to purchase goods from the surrounding area (or home if transportation is good
enough). This supply unit would travel with large armies and provide feedback to the army commander about whether (and
at what price) it would be able to supply the army if it went to spot X. Units that were not fully supplied would have the need
to forrage for supplies, reducing movement and effectiveness. Mongol Horsemen could probably forrage fairly effectively,
modern armored divisions hardly at all.
Using a merchant that goes out and buys supplies for you has the advantage that the player doesn't have to orchestrate the
supply itself, but only decide if the price of supply is worth it. It also allows for game effects of cutting supply lines in a
reasonable fashion, since the merchant knows the path for the supply lines. (clearly supply is more important for modern
than ancient warfare, where "reversed fronts" frequently occurred in battles) This would give a lot of correct flavor in terms
of Where large armies could go historically, with little loss in smoothness of gameplay.

-Mark