07-06-1999 10:57									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Comments on the Marks comments:

Facing: "Strategic Direction has no relationship with Tactical Facing in battle." That's generally a true assumption, especially given the size of the tiles. I still think facing has a role to play, so how about this. Any time two TFs come in contact, strategic direction is meaningless. We assume they move into a facing position. BUT if a second TF arrives, then that SHOULD constitute a flank or rear assault. That would be consistent with history.

TF's in the same Space: Keep in mind, Druid is not assuming a tile-based movement system. Given that, I think I know where he's coming from. Imagine what would happen if two large divisions decide to pass through the same town at the same time. You're almost better off if one of them's the enemy! At least then you can shoot at the SOB's. This actually happened to the Russians during the Battle of Tannenburg in 1914. Two Corps tried to pass through the same crossroads and the result was utter chaos. In a tile based system, there's a few ways to handle this. 1) TF's retain individuality: Assume that chaos effects are countered by the large size of Clash tiles and the represented time scale (long) of each turn. 2) TF's combine: Require them to cease all movement at that moment (a combination/coordination penalty). One final point. Neither suggestion applies to Air or Naval TF's. Air operates in 3 dimensions, so sharing a tile shouldn't be a logistical problem. Naval TF's have much fewer units than land or air, so a tile is plenty big enough to hold many TF's.

Druid's Model vs. Mark's: IMO the "Real Issue" involves Tactical vs. Strategic combat. We can argue relative merits till the cows come home, but here's the bottom line. Is strategic military combat "FUN". If it is, then "drive on drill sergeant, drive on"! If not then it won't matter how good the AI is, or how realistic all the models are. We'll have a party, but no one will come. On the one hand, we're developing some HIGHLY detailed models for the economy, research, culture, & government. But on the military side, it looks a lot like "my big buncha guys against your big buncha guys". Is the basic assumption in Clash that doing a good job with the first four will let you build a "bigger buncha guys", and thus win the wars? Historically that WAS usually true. But we'll have to ensure that it's fun.

	07-06-1999 11:35									#32
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Military Model Comments:

1) Crossing Oceans: In a world with continents separated by large oceans ("x" number of tiles, with "x" TBD), should we attempt to follow history? As a reminder, assuming the existence of "decent" ships in Eurasia @1000BC, it took 2000 years before the Vikings made it to the Americas, and another 500 before they were truly exploited. None of the strategy games even attempt to model this. But it could be fun, insofar as some civs could develop in near total isolation from one another.

2) Unit obsolescence: Please. "Tank vs. Phalanx" should be darn near impossible. I refer not to a conflict between civs of vastly different tech level, but rather to the ability (as in Civ and CtP) to retain these ancient units well into modern (even future!) times. There must be a mechanism which gives you the choice to either upgrade them, sell them (see "Arms Bazaar"), or disband them as your technology improves. Kind of a built in "Leonardo's Workshop", except it'll cost ya!

3) Fortifications: Do they degrade over time? (Especially the ones "left in the field" by units who move on?) Do they face in any particular direction? Do they degrade under attack (ie. from level 6 to 5 to 4, etc.)? Maybe only the ones beyond level 5 (ie. built w/engineer) are "permanent". In addition to "beyond 5" capability, what about speed of construction? Should engineers help there?

4) Mercenaries: These were a critical component of almost ALL warfare until relatively recent times. For many nations, they were the rule rather than the exception. There's lots of interesting things we can do here, so to my mind they are a MUST component for the Clash military.

5) Arms Bazaar: A follow-up to a Manurein idea. Yes, this should be available, BUT, only for non-organic units. You can't sell an obsolete phalanx (wouldn't that be slavery!?), but tanks, planes, and ships are fair game. This is also something fairly easy to automate and hand off to your Advisor. FE: We know the build cost of each unit and the maintenance cost. The AI will also know what else is on the market (a supply and demand factor). All a player need do is specify which units are for sale and let the AI take over. Heck, the AI could probably even figure that out for you, and just present a list of candidates. Shouldn't be much different from any other trade good.

6) Upgrading Units: Closely linked to Arms Bazaar (maybe even either/or). If you upgrade your existing phalanx to a legion, it should be much cheaper than building one from scratch since you are re-equiping and training an existing force. But with non-organic units, there are two roads to follow. 1) Sell the hardware on the Arms Market. 2) Upgrade the units at a cheaper price (the rationale is retention of trained troops plus scrap value of old equipment).

There's a lot more I should add, but I have to catch some "Z"s and shortly after that, a plane. See y'all in a few days!

	07-06-1999 17:06									#33
	Tired of ads?

Kull:

On the Fun Factor... Yeah, I thought about this. And worried a bit about it. It depends on the kind of player and what they want. It isn't a problem in modern warfare, because everyone needs to be spread out enough so that front-level decisions can become more important than the size of the bunch-o-guys. In essence any system that allows stacking up to some realistic limit is driven to this. I don't think the Fun Factor Gap is a big difference between what Druid proposed and what I have. That's because you're almost always better concentrating your troops in one square as much as possible in pre-modern warfare.

However, we need to be happy with the Fun Factor of whatever system we use, or we're in trouble. One thing you do still retain are all the important Strategic decisions. If you're fighting A and B, how do you apportion your forces, can you buy A off, all that is still fun. The fun concern is also one of the reasons I think we need the Tactical combat system. It would help those who Really want to get their hands on something.

From those who have played CTP:
Does the big stack'o'guys effect wreck the fun in the military system? I've heard lots of criticism of CTP on different levels, but this hasn't been one of them.

-Mark

	07-06-1999 23:31									#34
	Got spare money?

Mark,

I hope I am misunderstanding what you're talking about for the Combat AI element. Cause what I think you said sounds very very complicated -- both to implement [programming] and to understand for the eventual player.

What I think you said -- and remember that I'm not an AI-type -- is that you're suggesting letting the AI run do the combat resolution. For every TF on the map, ... vs all it's current opponents, ... for all Civ's, ... multiple times, ... for the first pass... and then doing ALL THAT multi-times.... in the time frame when the player is looking at "Now resolving combat"

That's what I think you said.

All that so you dont have to have an attack # and a defense # ? I'm REALLY not trying to be a wiseA**, but this does not look like "handling it simply", to me. This looks like several minutes on a moderate-power PC, when the game gets to the "several large civs involved in a war" stage.

But even all that aside... how much does it gain?

I'd rather have a complex and sophisticated AI do things like put the right set of units into a TF, put it in the right place, with the right direction, and the roll the dice for an outcome. IMO, the problem has never been that the outcomes are way out of line [some obvious exceptions: phlanx vs battleship, but we can deal with those easily]... it is that the AI in these games has been doing the wrong thing.

SO, I'm suggesting we adopt a fairly simple logic paradigm for the Combat Resolution, and focus on getting the PC to do the right thing in building and ordering units.

	08-06-1999 02:41									#35
	Suffering from ads?

Druid2:

Your hope was realized, it appears you're misunderstaning
and I'm mis-communicating

I think you're talking about the part
"Some notes on the AI issues I discussed above:"
All the complicated stuff was to do AI right IMO. It has
nothing to do with combat Resolution for battles the player
participates in. Battle resolution will be quick in either of
the proposed systems. The problem is when you have to do it
hundreds of times to evaluate different strategies in the AI I
envision. If the combat system is complicated to model in a
simple way, it will be Very Difficult to get the AI decent
(And of course this all has to be done within Kull's context
of it being Fun too).

A good result for the Military AI has Everything to do with
assembling the right TFs to achieve the required missions, and
adapting the plan to unforseen changes in circumstances. I
think we agree on that. The first step is to give the Mil AI
good rules-of-thumb. Civ2 clearly fails miserably even on
this limited goal. I agree with what I think you're saying,
in that getting the basic rules right is the most important
step. I think we can achieve this with some simple rules, the
Map AI and some other stuff. But Any set of simple rules
inevitably has problems with it in practice.

What I described above with the 100s of permutations is the
next step. Essentially its using the AI to 'wargame' the
strategies that come out of the rules and see how they do. I
think people do some of this when considering strategies, "If
I do x he could do y"...

When the set of simple rules we come up with has problems this
second layer of AI is to weed out some of them. It should
also sometimes produce really good strategies. People with
slow systems can skip this step, but it will be at the expense
of worse AI.

Now, what I had in mind for the AI may be misguided for a
number of reasons. But I think if we make the combat system
simpler (while still fun) it will pay off in good AI in the
end whether my specific ideas turn out to be right or not.

So my main problem with your proposed system is that it has,
in what I would call one 'battle' a cascade of potentially
many attacks, attackers, and defenders. The result can depend
on small details like facing...(If I understand it, and I may
be off here...) For two big stacks fighting each other I
think there's not much difference between the two proposed
systems. Its only when you get to a number of smaller TFs
that I think yours gets more complicated. The problem with
this IMO is that it complicates the AIs job without giving the
player clear benefits in terms of fun or realism. (I might be
wrong on this too) So, once we understand what each other are
saying, i think my suggestion for the combat model will be the
simpler one. Of course its possible I don't understand your
point(s) either.

On attack # vs defense #, that is a completely separate issue
than the simplicity thing. On that issue we just need to pick
the way that works best and go with it. I don't agree with
the general idea of separate
A and D #s as I explained, but the biggest problem IMO is the
implication that one side should shoot first, then another.

I realize the one issue you focused on bothered you so much
you had to see what was going on with it. If possible I'd
like to hear soo what you have to say about the other points I
raised.

Sorry to put you through all this, but we just need to thrash
through all these things. I think that active discussion will
result in our having a better game.

-Mark

	08-06-1999 04:30									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Wow! Excellent work, Druid2 - and a long thread with many (good) ideas.

As typical for my input in the previous weeks, I'll stress the "atmosphere & fun" aspect again:

1) I agree with Mark that in a game of this level e.g. facing has no use. Clash is even above strategic level, so tactical issue shouldn't appera - i.e. IF there isn't a special "game within a game" on tactical level. Beware, though: There better be some good guys dedicated to a tactical combat system exclusively, otherwise we should simply forget about it. I'm still abhorred by the unbelievably silly "tactical" screen of Civ:CtP. IF the is a tactical option, two things must be given:

a) The tactical combat must be optional, so a player can deliberately go into the details of a decisive beattle while he can leave this to his commanders where not that important.

b) If handled on strat level only (option "tactical OFF"), the result must be close to the one that can be expected when the player takes over tactically. I played some games of good ol' Master of Magic lately and saw that battles in which I got defeated without exception when the tactics option was switched off were ALL won by me when I resolved them on tactical level. Not good - this kinda forces the player to be busy commanding the individual units and effectively make the "optional" tactics a must.

2) On tileless movement: As before, I second it - strongly. Mark, I don't see the real advanteges of sub-tiles, really. Why not instead really do it on pixel level? Where's the difference in having a 3x3 or a 32x32 or 64x64 grid? For the algorithm - none. But a finer grid "feels" more realistic. The only true difference between tilebound and tileless movement is that the coordinates of a unit look different, and even that is no necessity. Maybe the best way to go is to simply give a unit, say coordinates X16545, Y7856 and calculate the actual tile by dividing by the tile size. This would even allow to reflect the actual size of any military body in the gfx (a unit icon and a shaded circle around it describing the actual area occupied by the unit or task force). So, a unit would be defined by it's type and various "circles", showing actual occupied terrain, "controlled" terrain (i.e. terrain within the unit's weapon range, weapon range meaning not only ranged weapons but e.g. an enlarged zone of control for mounted / mobile forces), and viewed / monitored terrain.

3) On the phalanx / tank issue and attack / defense values: Maybe we should introduce a new combat value, called "protective value", i.e. an amount of power a unit "lends" to other units in it's task force. E.g. a Napoleonic battery on it's own would be absolutely defenseless, since there's no one it can lend it's power, but would be a formidable foe indeed if it strengthens the defense value of an accompanying bataillon (in which case Mark's thoughts are absolutely true). This would reflect the proven superiority of combined arms warfare in a realistic way.

Last not least: PLEASE don't get carried away with warfare and it's details. A game like CLASH only can be successful with a good amound of abstraction! I really can't say it often enough: AVOID ANY NUMBERS! AT ALL COSTS!

I'll go even further with this: There should no real numers for e.g. attack / defense values anywhere in the game - not even in the editable (scenario / mod) files. Keep this a secret - let the player get his experience, give him hints, but don't uncover the naked numbers. It's really more fun to build "a unit of strong, fast knights" than a body of "ATT 12, DEF 6, MOV 3 mounted warriors".

Players love the feeling to have accomplished / learned something - let them have it! Don't show off with impressive statistics screens, which in the end only impress those people calculating a game instead of playing it. And, ah, yes... this can be used as a bit of a help for the AI, which, of course DOES know the exact values...


[This message has been edited by Dominique (edited June 07, 1999).]

	08-06-1999 04:40									#37
	Support Apolyton

Mark,

Yes, you're right... I got lost among the levels of AI in your other messg.


Looking back, I see 2 major issues:

1. Resolving all the combats on the map.
2. Units / square vs. Tileless location.

1. Resolving all the combats on the map.


Separate Attack & Defense values vs a Single number. I dont really care, I think the sep.values are more useful in defining different units, but ..(*shrug*)

Unit Facing. I dont really care. Again, I think it adds something without much cost [programming cost or playability cost]. But I'd drop it in a minute if the consensus view is it's not worth it.

The real issue is "all at once" or "one at a time". I suggest the one at a time for programming simplicity. The ComRes module *IS* going to resolve them one at a time, no other choice [*No Java Multi-threading, please! ]. So the question resolves to what to do with the result of each resolution, once it is determined.

- In the "one at a time" method, we update the tables that contain the TF status information, and go on to the next combat situation.

- In the "all at once" method, we have to create temporary tables to store the modified data, because we need the *original* data to use for the next combat resolution.

.......Let me give you an example......

TF A vs (TF 1 & TF 2) :: All 3 are moving and so will "Attack" whatever hostiles they find.

* one at a time: TF A vs TF1.. TF A takes some damage and that new, damaged number is used in the TF A vs TF 2 resolution.

* all at once: The initial combat values for TF A are used when resolving vs TF 1 and vs TF 2. This, to me is less desirable.

* NOTE: that this situation is NOT the TF 1 & TF 2 do a coordinated attack on TF A. The play HAS the option to give that order. If he does, it is a simple procedure: A vs (combined 1&2).

***So, to me, there is a reality issue as well as a programming issue. TF A should not be allowed to use its full, undamaged strength vs more than the first opponent. Plus, there is a programming complexity issue, as noted above.


If you want to, we could *ALWAYS* assume that all units of a 'side' are *ALWAYS* using the combined combat option. But it does get more complex, making that assumption, when there are multiples on each side.

I freely admit that the results might (*WOULD* !!) depend on which combat is resolved first. But, in real life, sometimes the tank shoots BEFORE it runs over the land mine and is destroyed, and sometimes it is destroyed by the mine BEFORE it shoots.

*SOME* thing really does happen before something else.

---

2. Units / square vs. Tileless location.


I think the tileless location issue is, really, a much more important issue, for making this game unique, and setting a standard for "the big boys" to attempt to live up to.

Locating the unit and determining what it's ZOD is without referring to an artificial map grid is a revolutionary change in the way this type of games is done.

There *are* programming problems challenges raised by this approach: the biggest problems, as you say, are transportation feature [road/river/etc.] location. I have a couple of ideas on doing this with some low-level help from the Alpha Geeks Programming Team.

But IMO, the advantages are enormous:

1) It PERMANENTLY puts to rest the "die-cut counter on game board" approach to the game.

2) It will also PERMANENTLY get rid of "phalanx in NYC attacks phalanx in Boston", just because the squares are size so that they are adjacent.

3) It adds the idea that units can pass "near" but not be in contact, without the seemingly strange result that they are both "in the same place"

Basically it divorces the unit placement and movement logic from the artificial oversimplification of "tiles".

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited June 07, 1999).]

	08-06-1999 06:59									#38
	Support Apolyton

My brains are Mush, so I will burble briefly...

Dominique:

1b) Yes the optional tactical and 'strategic' battles must be 'docked' to give approximately the same results. We will do this one way or another.

2) Will think a little more on the details

Numbers) I've put up a poll to gauge the sentiment among the team.


Druid2:

1) On your big issue... I agree one at a time is the way to go for both practical and realism reasons. I didn't know this was your big issue since in the way I'd had in mind, that situation couldn't happen anyway. (the joys of communication) However, I don't think this will happen too often... Usually the TF1/2 side should team up on A or they're asking to lose IMO.

2) Like I told Dominique, I will think a little more on the details


I'll be back when I have a brain

-Mark

	08-06-1999 18:06									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Mark

yes, the two TFs -should always- join forces when fighting an opponent.

Problem is: the Cooordinated Combat Advance is slower than normal movement. SO you'd prob. only do it if you expect to find an opponent there.

Not if you're just moving from here to there, and the opp. has outmaneuvered you and got there first .. Now you *are* attacking them with 2 indiv. units, instead of Coordinated Attack.

	08-06-1999 19:17									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, I'll post a brief reply now, since I'm in a rush....

The biggest problem isn't really coding, since even a 'tileless' environment is still divided into arbitrary small tiles.

The main problem will be complexity and hence time constraints. For a square map, if you multiply the dimensions by n, the area is increased by a factor of n^2.

Time complexity of algorithms such as map intensity will be increased by n^4, A* by AT LEAST n^2, and with the sophisticated AI routines we will be aiming at, I hate to think....

So, if we remove tiles (or reduce them to tiny ones, since we can't escape the discrete nature of computers) then.... well, you work it out.

I agree with Mark totally on this one - we're designing a STRATEGIC level game, so there's no real need for us to attempt to create a non-discrete model of the world.

Attempting to do so will be a waste of programming time, and a waste of user time unless they have the latest supercomputer available to them.

Jim

	08-06-1999 20:45									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Tileless-ness

JimC & Mark,

I think this is another of those discussions that would resolve very quickly if we were in the same room, instead of communicating via terse msgs.

Am I right in thinking that the main issue is NOT placing the unit on the map without regard to tile, but figuring out the movement? Those are the n^2 to n^4 more loops that you have to run thru while figuring the AI? Using something like the "intensity demo" that is posted elsewhere?

The rest of this post is based on that assumption.

1) I re-looked at the "intensity demo" and made some comments over in that thread. I'm sure that the suggestions about pruning, are either already in your app, or already in your plans for the next generation. But they do cut down on the number of loops that need to be calculated between turns.

2) For movement, I have some ideas for further cutting down the iterations.

2a) First off, if the unit has had it's path calculated recently, and there have been no terrain changes, and there is no change in orders, there is no need to recalculate it. I'd suggest we save the list of squares that a unit will pass thru, up to 3x its base movement [some other multiple? dunno]

2b) We can make some simplifying concessions regarding use of roads, rivers, etc. For example: If the TF is in a tile with a transport feature, it's considered to be ON the transport feature for purposes of movement, or if it's within x km of the feature.

2c) Calculate the path using full squares, as you'd be doing now, which presumably moves "center-of-square to center-of-square". Then just do a quick "partial move" of the unit [figure distance only] to put the TF on that already calculated path. This would not be a perfect representation of the "actual desired move" but it would be about 2 calculations longer than the square-to-square method, and still allow all the other benefits of 'tileless-ness' (I think).

	09-06-1999 09:41									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Druid:

Speaking of resolved v. quickly... Netscape communicator's internet phone thing has a whiteboard that you can draw on. Maybe that'd be a way to work on this.

I'd been thinking a little along the lines of your 2b and 2c points. They appear to me to make the problem at least tractable. Essentially with this modification we'd get a somewhat more fluid movement and detection advantage, whithout making the AIs job impossible. I need to think about it some more, but it may be a reasonable compromise.

-Mark

	09-06-1999 01:31									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

-First Post This Thread-

Some semi-random thoughts from a non-programming computer, board and miniatures game playing ex-professional soldier and current military historian...

What a TF or Army can do to another and who can do it first is based on a military quality called Agility (by the US Army today) or "Aktivnost" (by the Soviet Army). What it amounts to is the ability to act faster than the enemy can react: that is, get inside his 'decision loop'.
This ability is not based entirely on mobility. Some major factors are:
Commander's ability to make fast, accurate assessments and decisions- this in turn is based partly on the Scouting capability, recon or 'size of ZOD'
Speed of dissiminating those decisions: the staff and chain of command of the army - if any
Speed of movement - which includes not only how fast the individual can physically move, but how fast the Units (battalons, regiments, etc) can move. As a rule of thumb, big units move lots slower than small units.
If all of the factors are better than the enemy's you get Armies (TFs) that have seemingly awesome capabilities: the French armies under Napoleon 1796-1806, the Panzer Divisions 1939-41, the Mongolian Tumans under Genghis' and company.
And yes, they include the ability to meet, attack, and destroy more than one enemy TF (Army) within the same 100x100km area: "central position" was one of Napoleon's favorite tricks, and smashing one opponent fast enough to smash another before he knows he's now alone was done by Nappy, the Mongols, and the Panzers...
This Agility composite is a major Force Multiplier.
Another is the old concept of Combined Arms, which changes with the technology of the force. To use an example cited in earlier Posts here, the Smooth Bore Artillery was a great multiplier for gunpowder armies. It added more to the attack when the rest of the army had smooth-bore muskets, because the guns could be massed to literally blast a hole through the musketeers. When the infantry had rifles, guns could not be massed as easily, but they retained a big multiplier on defense: George Thomas taught that no infantry properly supported by artillery could be driven from a position, and as a Civil War general, he proved it several times. When the guns became modern Artillery, able to hid behind hills and fire at distant targets, the multiplier became extremely high on both attack and defense again.
There have been armies with extreme Tech level differences that have fought each other: Zulu Spearmen versus Rifles at Isandhlwana in 1879, mounted archers versus rifles at the Little Big Horn, Ethiopian spearmen versus rifles and artillery at Adowa. I use all those examples because in every case the Lower Tech force won by annihilating the Higher Tech force to the last man!
BUT - no armies/nations in contact with higher military tech stayed without it very long. There has to be a mechanism in the game for 'diffusion' of weapons technology and the steady deterioration of units stuck with older weapons: a phalanx kept around for centuries when better weapons are known to them to be available, will be so demoralized as to be worthless.
Finally, a comment on the Fun Factor. The Civ games' success is based on four things:
Exploring the map
Advancing the technology of civilization
Growing an Empire
Conquering other empires.

Every one of those four threads has to provide a mix of 'automatic' (AI) procedures and 'hands-on' - because one man's micromanagement is another's Fun Thing To Do. In the Combat Model as with all others, provide the Option of 'managing' the battle taking place, with all the factors of an Operational Level Battle:
Flanking/facing
Initiative - getting your attack in first
Scouting/Recon - knowing more about the enem than he knows about you
Leadership - Charismatic General takes charge, with a higher chance of getting Heroically Dead in the process.

And, for the Economists and Explorers among us, the Option to have the AI do all this and just provide a Neat Summary of the results: a message from the battlefield with a suitably grimy Cavalryman in the background, grinnng hugely or morose as the situation warrants, or a communique from the general:
"The enemy has been beaten. I am tired. More later."
There are lots of historical examples that could be woven into the Game: that one above is a near-exact quote from Turenne in the 17th century...

	09-06-1999 02:57									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Diodorus Sicilus:

I think we'll get at the Agility stuff other than ZOD thru a combination of tech differentials (operational/organizational techs), infrastructure (training and war colleges), culture (do The Best go into military or other paths), and characters(great generals, more likely in a society that values military highly). As you point out, when one side has many of these factors on their side the difference in combat results should be enormous.

Tech diffusion: Definitely

On your four points for a fun game, I think we've got 'em, and several more, but we'll see . Although there will be less exploration than in civ because the world will start out populated, there will be a Lot of Interesting stuff happening right at the start. You'll generally begin with neighbors, civilized or otherwise, and have to sink or swim in a multi-faceted world right from the start.


Druid:

How about we shoot for getting the by-square Combat/Movement thing going for the first alpha? Meanwhile we keep in mind all the things we need for your 2b/c comments above. They could be done in the second alpha round. That way things will be a little more solid on the other issues and I think we could do it with relatively little trouble then. If we try to 'forget' about these features you can keep us honest.

-Mark

	09-06-1999 03:14									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

alpha 2? *LOL* OK...

I'm thinking that, alpha 1 is gonna have a big red X and a big blue X and they will each attack 1 square away, and die with little announcement, moving 1 square at a time..

	09-06-1999 18:30									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Druid:

Well, you got me there. OK, lets shoot for alpha 3.35

	10-06-1999 03:31									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Mark:
Anymore anything over Alpha 3.0 is listed as Beta.

Rebel

[This message has been edited by Rebel (edited June 09, 1999).]

	11-06-1999 02:22									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Mark et al, having finally finished going through the Combat Model, here are some comments, in rough order according to the model:

A. Designations
The size of military unit is going to have to be either abstracted or represent different thing sin different periods. Ancient military forces varied from a few hundred (hunter-gatherer raidng parties) to a few thousand, with only the Hydraulic (Irrigation) Empires getting up to 10s of thousands regularly. All of these would fit into a small portion of a 100x100 km area. The Brigade is a totally incorrect term for your basic Ground Piece, because a brigade from the 17th century to today has always meant a force of 3 - 10,000 men which is all one combat arm: infantry, cavalry, dragoons, artillery, etc. To get your “combined arms” flavor of a piece that is composed of several different ‘units’, the only term that covers both the entire time period and the area of a tile would be Arm, abbreviated AR.
Where more specific designations could be adopted is in defining the individual weapons-units that compose that Army (or Navy Fleet, or Air Wing - better term for the orbital/space piece is Space Force or SF). Thus, the Army could be composed of:
Phalanx: 2000 man units of
organized spearmen
Legion: 3-5000 man units of
organized spearmen and swordsmen
Tuman: 10,000 man cavalry
(Mongolian)
Battle: 1/3 to 1/5 of the total
force- the Medieval ‘Division’
Regiment: 1000-3000 man gunpowder
cavalry or infantry unit
Brigade: 3 - 10,000 man gunpowder
unit
Division: 10,000-20,000 man modern
unit
Corps: up to 100,000 man modern
( musket and later) unit

A Force Multiplier could be the degree of internal organization of the Army: a proper chain of command between/among units would affect the speed of movement (organized use of the road network), speed of reacting to enemy movement, speed of mounting attacks (initiative), and ability to react to flank or rear attacks (ambushes).

Time/Movement/Orders and Combat
The system has a basic flaw which is insurmountable within the basic Civ game concept. The problem is that Civ is not even a Strategic Game, it is in the realm of Grand Strategy or Evolution. With discreet game turns that each cover a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 50, there is no realistic way to show the actual sequence of orders and military movements within the turn: far, far too much can happen within any single turn.
Therefore, any combat system has to be a compromise, and I suggest that the way to go is to use ‘Perceptual Compression’ to the system. The best example of this is in a set of very popular historical miniatures rules for WWII battles used in Britain, called “Rapid Fire”. All the figures are mounted individually, and act like single soldiers. But, the 8-10 man squads actually each represent an entire company, and each man represents 15+ men. Thus, you play the game as if you were a platoon leader with a few squads, but you are representing a brigade-level action. It works because the visual representation or perception is that of the smaller, more intimate battle, even though it is actually very representative.
I think that is what the Combat System will have to do. You cannot realistically portray the delay between issuing orders and getting results in Civ, because at no time in any Civ game is such a delay more than a fraction of the Turn Length. Even Magellan’s Round The World Cruise (3 years) or Necho’s Round Africa voyage (3+ years) both took place (1500sAD, 500sBC, respectively) entirely in 1/2 to 1/12 of a single Turn - and they were exceptionally long endeavors, even for their period. In modern times the delay between ordering and knowing what happens is measured at most in weeks (Europe 17th century) to hours (1960+). Dividing the segments up that fine would make an unplayable or unrunnable game.

So, let’s use nomenclature, and maybe even graphics, that relate to much smaller units and a faster time scale than is actually happening. It can still be much closer than the current CivII/CtP model, but it will never be accurate or exact in a Civ game. The graphics should include individual (or small groups) with the characteristic weapons and equipment for the individual units (which would be the ‘building blocks’ of the pieces) and On Map icons of larger units: masses of marching men, horses, ships, aircraft, etc, with identifying banners flying overhead to identify them. The nomenclature could change with the Tech/Cultural Level of the force, and even be specific to the Civilization. You can get a lot of milage with gamers out of letting them maneuver Armies composed of:
Ancient: Greek Phalanxes
Roman Legions
Nomad/Barbarian Warbands
Turkish Ordos (original of
the word “Horde”)
Zulu Impis
Zenobia’s Squadron of the
Persian Fleet
Medieval: Knightly Banners and Battles
Spanish Tercios
Gunpowder: Swedish Brigades
European Divisions (all
nations) and modern Brigades,
Divisions, and Corps

If you’ve got the room within the program files, both the Pieces and the subdivisions could be named or indicated:
Legion X of the Legions of the West
(Rome 100AD)
The Light Division of Wellington’s Army
of the Pyranees (1814AD)
V Corps of the Army of the Potomac (1863)
Collingwood’s Advance Division of
Nelson’s Fleet (1805AD)
21st Panzer Division of Panzer Army
Africa (1942)
Task Force 34.1 (Battleships) of Halsey’s
Fleet (1944)
5th Fighter Corps of the 8th Air Army
(USSR, 1943)

This would also allow the Units - each specific to a weapons/Tech level - to have separate morale levels and identities, and be ‘swapped’ among Armies/Fleets. The Civilization could have a Guards unit, or several, with exceptional morale/abilities and specialized units with a real ‘color’ to them. This, I think, would be a real sales and playing kick to a lot of gamers, even though it is almost entirely “mind candy”.

As in most cases, the option should be to Default: AI names or a blank field for the Gamer to name the Unit/Task Force. I’d suggest including a set of ‘sample’ units/forces from historical forces. Most Civilizations have examples from a variety of periods that could be included. Another method would be to use historical ‘tags’ or designations on the weapons/equipment combinations, so that an organized unit of spearmen, for example, would have a pop-up:
Phalanx (Ancient)
Schiltron (Medieval)
Pike Block (Renaissance)

Now to specifics:

F. TF Elements:
The ability of TFs to cooperate is dependant on Tech Level (communcations), internal organization, staffs or lack of them, commander’s abilities, and the terrain. The likelihood that “the best defender in the TF will be available” is based on the Recon ability of the TF (did they see the attack coming), and the Agility of the TF - can they react in time, move the unit(s) to where they’re needed, and formulate a plan of action (staffs, commander again)

G. Combat Elements

The Combat Elements or ‘Units’ have to reflect not only the weapons and equipment, but also the internal organization, command, and cohesion of the group - if any. There is simply a huge difference between a group of armored spear and swordsmen who are a Noble Gallic Warband and the same weapons and equipment applied to form a Roman Legion. For one thing, the Warband will be virtually without training and equipment costs, because the nobles train as individuals and provide their own gear - as long as the Society has the Excess Wealth to support a Nobility (a point to remember in the Economics model). The Legion requires extensive Government investment in the equipment, recruiting and training of the men, but the result is a permanent Unit which can be maintained without disrupting the Societial Economics, because the members of the Legion are Excess to production requirements. The proviso is exact: you cannot have units requiring discipline and long-term training unless your Economy can aford to have those people Non Productive for most of their adult lives.
Standing Armies are a product of Wealthy Civilizations.

Therefore, for example, I’d divide the AG Ground Units somewhat as follows:
Warband (spears, swords, perhaps some
archers)
Phalanx (organized spearmen with sub-
divisions)
Legion (organized swordsmen and spearmen
with sub-divisions)
Foot (or Fusiliers, or Musketeers -
organized gunpowder foot troops)
Infantry (organized with sub-divisions,
armed with rifles to modern
automatic weapons)
Archers (organized or not: the English
Longbowmen were very well
organized, and it was the
chief source of their effect, not
the weapon itself)
Artillery (this generic term has been
used since the medieval catapults
and Trebuchet.Were only
organized long after gunpowder
Bombards and Cannon came into use)
Rocketry (modern battlefield rockets,
organized into Regiments or
Brigades or Divisions)
Light Cavalry, Chariots (covers all the
unarmored, usually armed with
spears, lances, or bows)
Armored Cavalry (equipped with a spear =
Cataphract, with a lance= Knight)
Hussars, Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Mounted
Rifles (all terms for gunpowder
cavalry)
Tanks, Armor, Panzers (all terms for
armored battle vehicles 1917 to
1999)
Scout (including hired Barbarians, a very
common practice since ancient times)
Light Troops (covers Roman Velites in
200BC to British Riflemen in 1815AD)
Recon (modern ‘scouts’ on the ground, may
be foot/helicopter or light armored)
Commandos, Rangers, Special Forces: all very specialized units with both scouting abilities and ‘sneak attack’ capabilities.
Battle Aircraft (the original term for
Ground Attack , used 1917 to 1941)
Fighter Bomber (a mixed breed, both air
superiority and ground support
capability)
Attack Helicopter

In the Water Units the progressions don’t jibe with history.

Bireme, Penteconter, Trireme - were all ancient warships, 0 carrying capacity, limited by Tech to close-range, inshore fighting
River Boat - would be a more modern ‘inshore’ or riverine ship
Longboat was an open-ocean version of the oared ship in the first line.
Cog and Carrack were the first sailing ships that combined Cargo capacity with Combat: a Cog was also the first ship known to carry cannon.
Frigate was a development of the Cog-Carrack: all the oared ships were a dead end Technically: gunpowder and modern warships all developed from the Cog-Carrack sailing line
Ship of the Line was the ultimate sailng-gunpowder naval weapon
Ironclad represents three naval developments: iron alloy armor, steam power, and the exploding shell gun. Armor and steam were both applied to wooden ships (“Steam Frigates”) but the exploding shell gun made wooden ships utterly obsolete in combat.
By using Ironclad to represent all the late 19th century warships, the modern progression becomes:
Ironclad- Dreadnaught - Battleship
Steam Frigate - Ironclad - Cruiser
Ironclad - Destroyer (a response to the Torpedo as a weapon, by the way)
Submarine
Aircraft Carrier (the first ones were modified from Cruisers or Dreadnaughts)
Naval Air - the first were modified regular air Ground Attack and Fighter
Helicopter - not just anti-sub, also anti-missile defense and Surface Attack

Engineers: good historical terms to throw in would be Pioneer Troops or Sappers.
They not only construct, but they also traditionally provide Special Attributes for attacking fortresses or fortifications - in which situations they usually take most of the casualties

Medical Unit.
The presence of any kind of Medical Support has to be related somehow to Tech or Social advances. In ancient armies, about the only ones with Medical services were the Assyrians, Romans, Alexander’s Macedonians, and the Moslem Arabs. They disappeared completely in the Fuerdal armies, didn’t reappear until the Drilled Gunpowder armies of the 18th century. Napoleon’s Chief Surgeon was the one who started the ‘modern’ medical and ambulance services, should be a Tech advance there to greatly improve survival rate of wounded.

Transport:
TRUK: wagons and trucks are not primarily to improve mobility, but to make possible or improve the supply. Wagons were only used to improve troop mobility a few times (Napoleon’s Guards road across France on wagons a couple of times, but never in a combat zone). Trucks were used to Motorize units in WWI, so that’s very early. Biggest use of trucks, though, is to Motorize Artillery so that it can keep up with the infantry: big guns pulled by horses are really, really slow.
TRAL : Air Transports should need a specific Tech or Improvement (Application of Tech?) to carry anything heavier than foot infantry. Sequence should be:
Basic TRAL: Infantry, paratroops
Medium TRAL: Infantry, paratroops, artillery (towed)
Heavy TRAL: Infa ntry, paratroops, artillery (towed or motorized), armor

Note: all of the time effects in the Sections on Command (loss of commander), Orders, Communication, etc are off by orders of magnitude. If the minimum turn is a year, loss of a commander who not paralyse an Army or Fleet for the entire rest of the year, let alone 50 years. All of these will have to be looked at very carefully so that, on the one hand, the penalties are noticeable to the gamer and on the other hand, they are not ridiculous in terms of the game’s time scale.

Whoof! This is taking more space, so I'll divide it into two posts. More later...

	11-06-1999 02:29									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Continuation, or Once more into the slings and errors of Outraged Fortune...

IV. Orders Phase
Defend Values:
The usual rule of thumb was that the defense is three times stronger than the attack: that you need a 3:1 margin to advance. In fact, often in WWII you needed 5:1 or better to advance. The value against attacks from the front should probably be a minimum of 50% BUT 0 or no more than 5% against rear attacks, with negative values against rear attacks if you are completely unprepared to defend.
Building forts should take segments of the turn to build. Otherwise you are saying it will take 10 years minimum to fortifiy a sector: unless you are building the Maginot Line there, that is completely ‘out of the ballpark’: the Russians fortified an area of approximately 5 x 3 times (game terms) at Kursk in 3 months that was as strong a field fortification as ever seen in warfare. Of course, they had lots and lots of labor and engineer units - take that as you maximum and work back from there for times and capabilities.

Ambush: Ambush TFs taking double damage from the air is ridiculous: they are in combat formation, after all. A better rule swould be that if the ambush is detected, the initiative passes completely to the enemy force. That way being in Ambush mode has a negative or positive payoff, depending on how alert the enemy is and in what posture he is advancing.

V. Move Phase
What happens should depend a great deal on the Orders given to the TFs. If two opposing forces both have Preserve or Probe orders (see below), therre will not be much combat between them compared to a set of TFs with Attack orders. Some Commanders will modify their orders whewther you want them to or not, and the Player may not know exactly how they will modify them until the situation arrives. This is a good way to replicate people like Patton or Manstein or the Duke of Marlborough, who cold make beter decisions on the spot than the people who sent them out, and also commanders like McClellan, who was likely to turn any Attack Order into Preserve regardless of the Higher Commander’s wishes!

VI. Communication:
Strategic Orders. This dovetails with Orders Phase and Movement above.
Based on the problems of doing this sort of thing in Miniatures Rules, I suspect that you are going to have to limit the orders to certain Action Orders, each of which will be very carefully defined and which will be allowed to combine only in certain ways. For instance, the possible Action Orders could be:
Explore /Probe:
move in X direction with maximum
recon out
Defend/Preserve:
either move extra cautiously to
preserve your force, or stay in
place and defend/fortify an area
Build: Construct X at Y speed
Attack: move to contact enemy, take the initiative and destroy him
Subdue: Attack order against non-
military population
Loot: Attack Order against area
of terrain/country

VII. Mobilization:
Mobilization options are very, very dependant on Tech level and Social/Cultural elements. An advanced Bureaucratic State, like ancient Rome or any modern European Nation-State, can mobilize a large % of the population, and compensate for the loss of workers to a considerable degree. Fuedal, Pastoral economies, city states, etc, and especially nomadic/hunter groups canot mobilize anyone for any length of time without serious economic and social repercussions.
Equipment is provided by the Mobilized troops for much of history: no Greek city state every provided equipment to the phalanx, knights provided their own gear, and the militia/fyrd/national guard /yeomanry tradition of the English-speaking peoples all relied on the population providing their own weapons and equipment. The government can influence this (the English provided training time and areas in every village for archers by law), but can’t always be sure what, exactly, will show up on mobilizaton unless it has invested in a bureaucracy to keep track - and in many societal/governmental structures, that is impossible.

VIII. Supply
No army can be supplied at any distance over land before railroads. The only way to ship bulk goods like fodder and food is by (river)boat, ship, or to gather it from the countryside as you pass through: a Strategic/Move Order of Loot (which slow down movement).
Roads extend slightly the distance you can haul supplies by pack animal/wagon, but not much. Read van Crefeld’s “Supply in War” for details, but a wagon on a good road can supply for about 150-200 miles Maximum.
One way around the problem, used in the 18th century, was Depots: stock the supplies during peacetime at Strategic Locations (fortresses) and keep maneuvering within 200 miles of those locations. An army that (largely) lives off the land (Loots) can move faster than one waiting on supply, but it also takes casualties - French revolutionary and US Confederate armies were both notoriously good at pillaging the countryside, but both also suffered large losses of troops to straggling - effectively losing combat strength while keeping themselves supplied.
Historical title for Supply Officer (SO) for an Army was Quartermaster General (1600s to 1900s)

IX> TF & Elements Characteristics.

Let’s try something different. As described, the elements are variations of the hoary old boardgame concepts of Defense Factor, Attack Factor, Movement Factor, Other.
Instead, why not describe the TF and components by their Doctrinal effects. Each element/unit would be rated on:
Shock
Firepower
Flexibility

(this is partially based on Victor Hansen’s “Western Way of War”, to share the credit/blame!)
Shock is the ability to scare the enemy off: to break him by breaking his morale. Classic examples of Shock Units are the Phalanx and Knights, which aimed to charge in close and roll over the enemy, and early Tanks, which were designed simply to roll up and crush the enemy at short range so the infantry could round him up.
Firepower is fire power: shoot at him until he’s either dead or goes away. This is less decisive, because people tend to hide or dodge and it can take a long time to kill/wound enough of them. However, it can also support other elements by weakening the enemy before Shock forces hit him. Musket infantry started as almost pure Firepower, but by the 18th century some were becoming Flexible in that they would try to maneuver before shooting you up. Artillery is pure Firepower, all the time.
Flexibility is the ability of an element to combine fire and shock, or apply fire or shock at the correct time and place. The Roman Legion would be primarily a Flexibility force, because although it gets it’s effects primarily through Shock (closing with the enemy) it can maneuver to Shock you from the flanks or rear as well as the front.
Weapons and equipment are modified, and modify, the Doctrine. Having a unit with Doctrine: Firepower and equipping it with long spears would result in a unit with a Very Low Combat ability: the weapons have no firepower component to them. On the other hand, putting an archer on a horse gives him high ratings in both Firepower and Flexibility: he can maneuver rapidly to pour firepower into the enemy from selected points or all sides.
Combined Arms now becomes how many and how strong a set of factors you have in 2 or more of the Basic Doctrines. A force with strong values in Shock, Firepower, and Flexibility (a Panzer Division, for instance) will have big multipliers when operating in suitable terrain for its equipment, against a TF that has high values in only one Doctrine. Combining any two Doctrines in the same TF/Unit Element would be multiplyiing(Force Multipliers) effects: Shock and Flexibility like the Legion, Shock and Firepower like a well-drilled Musket Infantry unit with bayonets, Firepower and Flexibility like a Mongolian Tuman (horse archers)

X. Combat Units

How are these going to be defined? Traditionally in Civ games they were defined entirely by their weapons and equipment. This is insufficient, as I’ve pointed out in other Posts elsewhere. A bunch of spearmen is not a Phalanx, which had internal organization and command & control. A bunch of swordsmen is not a Legion, and a bunch on horseback with lances are not Knights. Byzantine Cataphracts were as heavily armored, yet the Byzantines remarked that a Frankish (European) Knight would “ride through the walls of Constantinople” - there was a difference in Doctrine that overrode the similarities in equipment.
This will probably require that not only Tech advances be used to define when certain units can be formed/built, but also Social or Cultural Advances/changes. To keep using Ancient examples, a Phalanx requires men with the time to train, and even if a government provides the armor and spears to a bunch of subsistance farmers, they will not have the time to train with them into an organized, drilled Phalanx without starving to death. Phalanxes arose when the civ had a large middle class with the money to provide their own metal armor and weapons, and the time to train with them. A Citizenry advance, perhaps?
One other thing to keep in mind is Definitions and Consistancy. None of the Civ games have been consistant in how they defined their units. On the one hand, you have Legions and Phalanxes that are types of Units, on the otherhand you have Archers/Bowmen, Howitzers, Pikemen, Riflemen, etc that are simply types of soldiers or weapons.
Please, however you define the Units in Clash, be consistant.
Note that if you define by Units, most of them will require several types of equipment BUT will allow you to provide Historical designations: Hussar Brigade, Legion, Tuman, Panzer Division, etc. This might help in Player Identification with their TFs, which otherwise might seem a little bland...

	11-06-1999 02:57									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Diodorus Sicilus:

Wow... I haven't the time to respond to all of it at this point, but here's a few things.

Time/Movement/Orders and Combat:

[You may already know this... Parts of your post talk about it. Just hard to be sure, so I'll run through it here.]
The way I look at it (Druid may have an alternate way) a civ-like military system works by having a military "time scale" that's different from the rest of the game. One could have a game with econ turns and military turns both on a monthly basis. With such a system you can have reasonable movement rates, supply effects etc. Clearly this isn't feasible unless virtually nothing happens in a turn. Then when a war flares up you'd do your thing for a bit. I actually toyed with a concept like this a while back, but its Completely unfeasible for multiplayer. This is because the others I'm playing with might have to wait many hours as I fight out a war with the AI.

I view what civ does as an abstratction that breaks the two timescales apart. (just like the abstratction in the miniatures game you cited) You make the econ scale much longer (say 10 years at the longest) but leave the military scale at about a month (or whatever; the turn length may change, but the ratio between the two systems can stay fixed). Now you need to do some patching between the disparate time scales (like in Civ it takes Really long to Build military units... Of course in Clash the Maintence costs will probably be more important). But that's why I think the commander-dies and other things that are clearly inappropriate on a years-long time scale can still find a home in the system.

"the best defender in the TF will be available" in the doc... had slipped by me. I thought we were agregating the combat power. Maybe this is just still in there as a holdover from the old way of doing it. Things like an initiative modifier would include whether the 'best' defender made it to the front in an abstract way.

Thanks for the unit progression info. It sounds good to me. Lets see what Druid thinks (and Kull when he gets up to speed).

Like your suggestions for mods to Ambush mode.

Mobilization:
If you leave them enough money and they feel threatened, the people will invest in building military capability themselves.

Supply:
I have another of van Creveld's books(Technology and War), so I'm familiar with the 200-mile land supply limit. We may modify the real values to improve playability if needed.

I like your Shock, Firepower, Flexibility idea. Its a different way to put in the things we mostly have in the system IMO anyway. Lets see what Druid thinks.

As for social and other effects on the unit capabilities we're not there yet. Any suggestions how to do it? One way would be to increase the maintenance cost of units that train more, and are as a concequence more effective.

I'd like for us to continue this discussion at Military / Combat Model II ( http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum21/HTML/000102.html ) because this one is getting too big, and will become yet slower to load if we keep at it.

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 10, 1999).]