18-05-2000 05:27									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I just found out from Harli that the Assault phase model had been posted like a month ago, and at least I was unaware of it. Please let us know what you think about the Assault phase model. I am reviewing the model now, but don't have anything concrete to say yet... Harli warned me that he is likely to be out of circulation for a bit. So don't take offense if he doesn't respond to your comments in a timely fashion.

	29-05-2000 00:08									#92
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I have posted a proposal in the provincial sizes thread that would affect the way the military operations are handled. It should have no effect on the battle number crunching, which I think is done well.

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.

Most fighting would be done in the smaller, more valuable provinces. These will ususally be small, with a regular shape. In many cases they will have land area equal to two or three squares in the current map syatem, so the province based fighting should be about the same as the previous square based fighting.

	29-05-2000 07:02									#93
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually I am not a wargammer. I like everything in your idea except the all or nothing province idea. It is a good idea for speeding up the game, but shouldn't be manditory.

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.

Other than that I like it. In fact I'd perfer that approach, just not ness province based conquest. I haven't ever really been for that type of conquest ever, though. I think its just simplfying things too much like RISK that to me atleast it looses a lot of appeal and would almost make me not want to play it.

	29-05-2000 19:04									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

I assumed that important strategic provinces would be really small anyway, but LGJ is right; there could be some situations where province based fighting is limiting.

Wargamers will want the square by square fighting. I find that this type of thing takes a lot of micromanagement and lasts forever. Perhaps the default could be province based, but players could order special single-square assaults if they felt the need to. For multiplayer, this ability could be turned off if people want a faster game.

	29-05-2000 23:15									#95
	Tired of ads?

Perhaps there could just be an order that you can give to your TF, army group, or whatever, called "conquer entire province."

	29-05-2000 23:48									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

TK:

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 know you are just making a suggestion of a possible alternate method of movement. I agree your approach would streamline the action and drastically simplify the job of writing the AI. But I think we would lose the interest of most of the wargaming types that play civ-type games, including me. And if we do a decent job with the AI you shouldn't have to micromanage unit movement anyway... So I guess I don't understand why you're suggesting we might want to rearrange the whole system, since it should already give you most of what you want. Even in demo 4 you can put your military on automatic. Just add a few more controls (and make the AI a Lot better, I admit) and you should be where you want to be.

	30-05-2000 15:04									#97
	Tired of ads?

My take on this one:

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!

(which could easely happen if you only had one or two provinces in your civ)

	31-05-2000 02:30									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I am aware that my system will only work if we can reduce the square size and make important and strategic provinces small, possibly as small as two squares in the current map. I think that this can be done. If provinces are static, then we can make the square size a lot smaller and save processor time by making large provinces in areas no one will care about. Then, the valuable and strategic places can have small, detailed provinces. Civilizations will then have more provinces on average, so a single province won't be as big or important as it is now. Many of the disadvantages of static provinces should go away with smaller squares and provinces.

More details about this are in the provincial sizes thread.

	04-06-2000 22:56									#99
	Suffering from ads?

Harli (and Krenske when you get back):

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

In general it looks Really good. Sorry I didn't see it earlier....

	16-06-2000 17:50									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hey Mark, sorry it took so long to get back to you... Well, the interaction between the parts of the battle is conducted by a leadership check. The advantage there being a superior general will move to the more casualty/morale inflicting parts of a battle before the crappy general and will likely win. As for quick and dirty, well realisitcally there are only a few formulas to actually deal with, it's just that they have a whole lot of variables... As for docking with the AI I really don't know, though this system will have realistic results so perohaps the AI should evaluate the variables, generalship, troop strength tech differences and such rather than trying to chug through the battle by itself... Thats just my though...

-Harli

	17-06-2000 01:46									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Harli:

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.

The AI will definitely need a quick and dirty shorthand to figure out rough battle results. I guess we can work these out when the battle model is a little further along.

	26-06-2000 01:48									#102
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The strategic iscale of the game is very interesting. Is the game only intended to be played on an epic scale though, and not be scalable downwards to a tactical or semi-tactical level, where some of the most enjoyable action was had in Civ2 scenarioes?

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'?

I assume that TF's can sense within their range. Have you considered multi-faceted detection where different visibility classes have different ranges?

	29-06-2000 22:02									#103
	Support Apolyton

I just want to say tha tme and my friends are all waiting for clash to come out because so far it seems like the most realistic strategy type game ever. For the military aspects of the game the strategic parts look great, but I was confused about some things. I'm going to put my question in the context of the Gulf War. Would I control the individual units (82nd airborne, 101st airmobile) or would I attack have to use them as a TF (XIII corps, VII corps), or all the corps combined (3rd Army)?

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

In my group of friends our opinion is the more tactics the better.

	30-06-2000 08:25									#104
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hi all,

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.

Rodrigo

	01-07-2000 07:13									#105
	Put an end to popups!

I'm not the military guy, so don't take my word as law, but I think the TF's are more or less to reduce micromanagement. Since it's up to the player whether or not to combine units into TF's, if you wanted to move each unit individually, you can. The individual units will be essentially just like those in Civ2, though the mechanics behind them will be more complex and realistic. But there will be some advantage to making TF's,... the combined arms thing.

And if I remember correctly, the size of a "unit" will be app. the size of modern battalions.

	07-07-2000 18:00									#106
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Let's see... I'll try to answer a bunch of questions as briefly as possible.

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.

Recruiting troops... we have discussed this in the past, but I tried to find it using the search feature and couldn't come across it. I'm pretty sure there is a discussion on the old forum if you want to dig for it. Also some of the discussions may have been in e-mails between me and Hrafnkell. I don't have time to search for them right now. However, the discussions we might find with this approach could be fairly brief anyway, and certainly wouldn't be in terms of the new government/social model. I definitely would like to have some information on the willingness of the troops to be fighting, and the general quality of the soldiers in the model. If you would like to take a stab at the most important factors, it certainly something we need to consider in the mid-term.

	15-07-2000 22:56									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If the task force units are based on divisions what are you going to do with the special forces. They don't perform operations on division level. They operate in Companies and each company is then assigned to a division. The special forces/Ranger units are then used to do recon for the division. And in the case of a Counter-Insurgence campaign they'd be used for ambushes and commando raids to disrupt the flow of men and supplies. I'm not being critical because I don't have an answer either. I do think the problem should be addressed because modern warfare is based on small groups of elite troops instead of masses of soldiers like WW1.

	20-07-2000 06:43									#108
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Frank:

I think there is already provision for special forces in the system. You can find hints of it on the Units page. Essentially you could have one combat element of Rangers or whatever be part of the division. Then you would get a benefit in terms of scouting etc.

	09-08-2000 07:39									#109
	Full PM-box? Change here!

In the request thread, roquijad asked about military recruitment. In my upcoming population model, I will have a preliminary plan for determining the proportion of the population suitable for military service. Look at the population model when I finish it. Rodrigo, you might also want to work with the social model about the effects of conscription and military operations.


Mark mentionmed that the military model team is shorthanded. I would love to help, but I am a bit booked at the moment. However, I plan on dealing with terrain effects on operations in the ecology model, and I think I have a good system for the military side of the tech tree. If you need the help, I could tweak the terrain aspect so it also covers things like movement, fortification, and amphibious assaults. Would that be good?

	13-08-2000 12:38									#110
	Remove this text

Ok, this is kinda off the wall, but what if we give units their real world equivilant movement rates? Most units would have 10+ movement points, and it would cost 1 point to move on flat land. If your unit moved into enemy territory, it would still cost the same movement points, unless it encountered resistance, then each "skirmish" would cost, say, 3 move points, each "battle" would cost 5, etc. Would this be plausible, possible, playable, in Clash? It would allow the taking of vast amounts of territory ala, Ceasar's capture of Gaul, as I think Mark has mentioned, happened in less than one Clash turn.

I'm not sure if this issue has already been discussed... I didn't follow the military stuff until model 3... so if it has, just let me know.

	13-08-2000 16:23									#111
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Hi TK:

Yes, this has already been discussed ad nauseam...
1. It eliminates the possibility of any tactical response on behalf of the player unless you then allowed player actions between movement points, which is IMO insanity.
2. Our design of supporting playing multiple turns at the same time essentially makes this possible, but just with smaller numbers of moves per turn, but letting many turns go by the same time.
3. What if you are Gaul? Do you really want a player's whole civ to be able to be conquered in a single turn?

	14-08-2000 10:22									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Actually I think this could be very good, as it would provide a strategic element which is lacking in all games of this genre... defensive strategy.

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.

Also if you were playing the "spirit of the people", then even if you were conquered you could still play on trying to remove the invaders

	14-08-2000 20:14									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Perhaps task forces can be given "guard" or "patrol" orders. They would automatically intercept any enemy units within their movement range that invaded your civ. That way, no one could just walk into your civ.

	15-08-2000 09:24									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Guys:

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.

A turn will not always be 20 years! If accuracy of military movement scales and economic time scales is of paramount importance to you, then set the econ time scale to 1 month and everything will work perfectly as in the real world. But there will be this little problem with playability since you'll need about 100k turns for a game starting in 6000BC...

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited August 14, 2000).]

	15-08-2000 09:52									#115
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That's great then! I didn't know we were allowing people to set the timer on turns, I thought it would be something like in Civ. I actually like playing those long drawn-out games... it gives it me more of a sense of history.

	03-09-2000 00:08									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am starting coding up the demo 5 mil model. There is nobody in charge of the mil model at the moment, so any comments are welcome. If some lurker or regular wants the job, and thinks they know enough about military matters please contact me :-).

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.

I will probably release after steps 2, 4 and 5.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 02, 2000).]

	03-09-2000 02:26									#117
	Increase Your PM Length

Ah, good, your presence here was running a little thin lately. I guess you didn't have much spare time for Clash, until now, am I right? How long is it since the last time you've been coding? This is no reprimend (how could I anyway ), but I was starting to get worried about our Project Lead.

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

	03-09-2000 03:43									#118
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Axi:

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...

Yes, the basic plan is to try and implement part at least of the three-phase system that Krenske put up that he and Harli worked on. That is the current plan anyway.

	03-09-2000 15:01									#119
	Got spare money?

(Sorry for being totally OT)

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

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm only curious. I also think it's good for the team to know what each one of us is doing for Clash outside the discussion part. It's good for morale and it's good for coordination too.

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.

As for Java: As time passes, it sounds to me ever less impossible a task. If I learn Java, you will be the first to hear about it.

	10-09-2000 05:37									#120
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm part way thru coding the tick system for unit movement. (for general info see my post "posted February 29, 2000 18:15" on p2 of this thread for some details, and the 'lost' mil thread on clash Military web page, page 2 for further discussion)

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

Comments?