05-02-2001 11:33									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Streuth, Out of the frame for only 2 days and I get a pile of questions. (No complaint really.)


Mark
First up, Indeed we have no reason to use integers, I have only done so to make the math examples easy. I would suggest a 5 step breakdown for reporting or possibly a cute % bar on a right click info screen etc. Green, experienced, seasoned, veteran and hardened or any other descriptives that are desired. Similarily with training we could range from raw, trained, competant, expert and elite etc.

As to element size I thought we were always going to use ~500 with each hit equivalent to 100 men. A quick overview is as follows. A element is given a basic firepower dependant on it's primary weapon, Other weapons can be attached as additions or replacements. For example a Swedish musketeer battalion has a raw firepower of 120 in contact and 80 at short range. Their king decides that he would like the battalions too now include some light artillery (battalion guns) to assist with ranged fire. The king has 2 choices either - add the guns, leaving the base firepower untouched, adding an additional hit and also the manpower cost. - Or include the guns with the battalion not growing in size but losing 1/5th of its base firepower.

I can see the elements as being capped in the number of attachments allowed to probably 3. Allowing for a heavy weapons attachment, a Anti tank attachment and even an Anti aircraft attachment in a modern battalion. The specialties are definetly a whole element training method and most specialties would also not have many attachments. (Very few engineering battalions with attached artillery as standard.)


Laurent
The unit is what we order around the element is the definable subparts of that unit. A TF can include many units. The reason for the definable elements at this stage is to allow for the player to make their own unit structures, not just accept some raw unit definitions.
For example Your legion may contain 10 legionary elements and cost X amount of production. My legion may have 8 legionary elements a cav atachment and a engineer attachment and cost Y (probably about 20% more). Your legion and mine would be nearly equal in some situations but mine has additional scouting and engineering support and will probably beat yours if I get to build some field fortifications or need to cross a river or need to build some siege equipment vs a walled city etc. Both legions have a similar number of men but one is structured to be more flexible and more expensive.

The definition of unit structure I would like to see left up to the player so that they can do some basic experimentation. In most situations players will probably follow a fairly historical approach but If we were to map the availability of resources etc the n maybe a continent has no horses (eg america) and so the civilisations there may make up for the lack of horsecavalry in their units by including more Skirmishing infantry. (I am unsure if we plan on mapping the availability of resources at this level, but I think it would be a good thing.)

The reason I do not support a TF is made up of a mass of elements approach is that it adds too much to the players management. The control of the elements within each unit is basically a administrative function and the player can only alter the structures to a limited and possibly costly degree. Example, At the start of WW1 England had a 2 brigade, 2 regiment, 3 battalion structure too its infantry divisons(12 battalions). In late 1915 they decided to remodel the whole army in a triangular 9 battalion structure. This increased the number of divisions and each division had a higher proportion of support equipment backing a reduced manpower compliment. The divisions could still hold the same frontage due to the support but did lose some of their assault ability. Mind you the 1914-15 divisions rarely survived in good enough order to make their additional assault power count.


F. Smith
Support methods could change dependant on government types and administrative methods. Feudal governments would probably raise a unit from a region and the region would support it. Later on republics with improved centralisation had units raised regionally but supported nationally (Napoleon-WW1 era). Finally we have nations raise units and support them (WW2 on). I am unsure how this should be modelled at present. I am certain though that we will not modell element support but instead model unit support. The element is just a building block, probably the smallest distinct buildable part of a unit but it is not actually a unit.


Mark again -
Dispersion/defence, I do agree to some extent but I currently have Assault Firepower existing as a seperate value that I expect to be effected by the dispersion of the element. We will also have a very restricted range of dispersal values usable by the archaic forces as the dispersal values are limited by communications and organisational tech advances. So the values we will be playing with will be very low. Between a legion and a Phalanx formation we will have a trade off between higher assault power for the phalanx and the slightly higher defence and mobility of the legion. They effectively give a wash in engagements between similar tech forces.

As well the defence value will probably not be used (or will be limited) in any assault where the one side is definetely holding a static position.(defending fortifications etc) A unit can only use its defence if it can still maneuver and remain dispersed. Mind you the static force could then get different benefits.

A phalanx has a very large assault value with a low defence due to concentration of manpower. A US Civil War Regiment would be dispersed over 4 times the frontage but would have a massive medium and short range firepower advantage. If the phalanx was able to actually close to assault, the CW troops would probably lose as they will have a lower ( but certainly not insignificant ) assault value. The problem is that unless the CW troops stand and take it like a good pincushion they will fall back and use their dispersal defence, allowing only part of themselves to be engaged at each round of assault combat.

I have not presented a formula for this decrease in assault power due to increase in dispersion yet but a direct correlation could potentially be used. This would certainly mirror the historical concerns that increased ranged firepower caused vs the need for shock (assault) power. If desired a player could have their Assault rifle armed troops attack in an assault column vs troops without such weapons to add to his assault value but heavan forbid the enemy deceitfully manage to purchase a machine gun or two from an ally.

As a set of examples I would roughly compare the following.
Phalanx - No ranged firepower, assault rating of 75, Defence of 1 (2 vs assault), armour of 2, mobility of 2.
Napoleonic Line infantry - Short ranged FP of 50, Assault rating of 30, Defence of 3, Armour of 1, mobility of 4.
British WW1 Infantry Battalion- Long range Fp of 25, Medium range Fp of 100, Short range FP of 225, Assault rating of 25 (decrease due to dispersion off set by improvement in weapons like grenades and pistols etc.), Defence of 8, armour 1, mobility of 6
Israeli modern Para battalion- Long range Fp of 40, Medium range Fp of 120, Short range FP of 350, Assault rating of 60 (decrease due to dispersion off set by increase in assault weapons like Assault rifles and Sub machine guns.), Defence of 12, Armour of 2, Mobility of 8.

The old high density phalanx has an advantage assuming they could start the battle at very short ranges. The problem for them is that this rarely happens with terrain being the main range restrictor on direct fire, and open terrain is also a major factor in the power of dense formations.

Some people would like to use a example like Isandlawhana as a example of archaic beating modern. It is still possible under the system especially when you consider that the odds are 10/15-1 and the british had some supply difficulties and were outscouted. If the Zulu assault went in at night as originally planned then the battle would have been much more one sided in the zulu's favour. The battle does though represent almost the last time a "modern" force has lost to essentially archaic forces at that scale. It is also doubtful if it could be considered a win for the zulu's as their losses have been stated at upto 4 times that of the british. 10000 to 2500. Yes they destroyed one of 3 invading british forces, but they lost a massive chunk of not only their military but also of their population in one afternoon.

Sorry for going on for so long. True tech disparity does lead to simply massive losses for the side that declined to learn. (While in africa I heard the story of the battle of white river. 15000 to 100, the 100 lost but the 15000 were down to 8000.)

	06-02-2001 00:05									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Krenske:

Thanks, that is what I was wondering about. So military units will require manpower support every turn, in the final product.

Cool.

	06-02-2001 04:44									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks for the detailed response to the questions Krenske . We're pretty much focusing on ancient stuff for now in the demo... So we've got some idea on what a Phalanx does from your post. Can you also give your take on similar stats for warriors (pick an era), ancient light horse, and a naval vessel like a trireme? I think with three land and one water unit we can do some interesting stuff. Also do you have any ideas on weapons/hardware costs and training costs for the four units?

At least it seems to me this is what we should get going soonest. Anyone have a better idea?

	06-02-2001 07:07									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

F.Smith

Manpower support would be a factor that could only really be taken into account as long as yearly turns are used with standing armies. Obviously in many Ancient societies there were no standing armies and instead they relied on militia call out to form armies. Later permanent forces were established and they would require a constant flow of personnel out of the domestic sector dependant on the rate of conscription/signup/blah blah. One thing to take into account though is that there will be a lesser flow of people out of the army (retirees) back into the domestic sector. The overall manpower cost would be in the order of 10% of inductees assuming a fairly hiegenic basing regieme (maybe units in peacetime not in barracks have a doubling of rate or something).

I have always assumed that actual replacements to repair damaged units during time of war would come from a pool of trained troops at the empire level. It may be possible to allow the player to establish the size of the replacement pool. The replacements could be automatically dispatched to the front and used to restock a damaged unit. (with corresponding loss of experience and training) If the replacements are not available then the units remain damaged. Historically some damaged formations were broken up and used to fill gaps in other damaged units. Maybe that could be a useful option for later on.

	06-02-2001 09:20									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Kreske:

So that means temporary armies, early, then? Until a certain level of govt is reached, or some such?

Neat. Hadn't thought of that.

I like that very much. Since your warriors are also your manpower for agriculture/industry, you'd have to be very careful with them or you could win a Pyhhric victory.

For standing armies, if I remember correctly that a turn is 5 years (am I right?), what % of an army would retire/die/become sick/become injured during 5 years, without counting battle attrition?

	06-02-2001 10:51									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The first 'conscripted' armies were during the late greek era and didn't become common until about the roman times. I'm not sure for the asia on this point, but i would assume its about the same. Also in the beginning armies are all conscripted and aren't paid, but live entirely off the land. The idea of paying soliders didn't come until after Rome became an Empire rather than a republic.

	06-02-2001 17:51									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

F_Smith:

A discussion on a proposal for how time scales work with respect to the military model can be found in the mil III thread at http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum21/HTML/000227.html starting with the second post in the thread. But I don't think we have a good answer to the manpower question yet in terms of aging.

In general I think combat losses are easy, they need to be replaced for the unit to be back to full effectiveness. But we can't have units dying of old age when they walk 10 squares .

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 06, 2001).]

	07-02-2001 23:28									#38
	Put an end to popups!

Krenske, in your combat resolution, are units or elements placed in support/front/reserve? (I am mainly thinking of automatic fight, no orders given by the player -just want that to be clear-)
It seems to me elements are those which get killed, leading to units with less strength. I suppose it should be lawful to allow the user to merge two damaged units into one?
Also, is there any size limit against units?
About building units, we envision building units as a whole, i.e. not elment-wise but unit-wise. It should be possible to spread the building of a unit over N locales/squares, since, even if we don't do it that way in the beast, it is actually building N elements?
(Mark, I am just thinking out loud, that may not be practical for either of us to code).

	08-02-2001 08:30									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

For building units over N squares, I would just prefer to build a fraction of the unit in each square, but Not by elements. One reason is that a lousy square might take forever to finish 'its' element.

So suppose I have a Legion with 8 legionary elements a cav atachment and a engineer attachment as Krenske said above. The costs of these in (F, P, S) might be:

F, P, S
0, 7, 5 per legionary element (8 of them)
5,10, 7 per cav element (F being used for horses )
0,10, 5 per engineer element
-------
5,76,52 is the final cost per legion. You could build any fraction of this in any square (they will share the 'unit build' infrastructure class). However everywhere you build, you use the same ratio of ingredients, 5F:76P:52S. And when the total is reached, you've got your legion.

Now building by element does help add flavor, since you can 'build' the cavalry in a place where food is cheap FE, but its Certainly IMO not worth the trouble coding at this early stage. We can reappraise later whether its worth doing in the long run. My guess is not, though...

However I think you should be able to build weaponry separately and then join it with men + training to get a unit. But we're not there yet.

	08-02-2001 14:42									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Building in squares? What happened to pooling resources inside the boundaries of a province? Beware, if one builds military units in a square, one should also build all kinds of infrastructure, meaning pretty much a different instance of the econ model. We should carefully define some things, since we don't come all from the same backgroung and everyone here seems to have his own personal view as to how things should be.

	08-02-2001 16:44									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hi Axi:

Everything is being built/handled in squares for now... production, infrastructure, eventually trade. We will see how things time out, and then if and where necessary agregate up or use other. We also plan to have an option to run the economy on the province level, but I'm trying to get the guts of the model working before I take on that one. There will really be fairly little extra work to take what I have now and convert it to a prov-econ model, since I'm keeping that in mind while coding the square-level one.

I still have some concerns about a square-level model taking too many clocks, but we'll address them when we have better information. That's the current plan, and has been for quite some time. I think the reason you were unaware of it is that much of the mentions of doing things on the square level happens in places like "Economy Model OO Planning" that you may not have checked out. Sorry you were unaware of it... I'll try to be more careful next time!


[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 08, 2001).]

	09-02-2001 10:43									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, I was aware of the difference in opinion among the Team as to how things should be eventually done. I also know that many simplifications have to be done in demo 5. However I thought that in this thread we were planning ahead, for the final version.

You see, as far as coding progress is concerned, I am in utter darkness....
[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 08, 2001).]

	15-02-2001 11:35									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Sorry Everyone, my logon accidently went away last week and was just fixed up a couple of days ago, After that work cut into pleasure somewhat. Mark, To start with here is a bolt from the blue idea - Have the ability to form military units be one of the first military organisation technologies. Until then the civ is limited to single element units running around the screen. This mirrors tribal warbands etc, very well and we could have a supply/support cost modifier in these situations to help the player decide on learning the tech. This way the civs will get to learn about combat etc without immeadiately jumping into unit construction. Also note that the individual element units would die in droves vs integrated units. (another incentive to learn) The 4 basic units you requested. Alright using the element construction method a warrior unit would be made up of X number of warrior bands with Y number of skirmishing warrior bands. X being a number from 5-15 and Y being a number from 0-3 in most historical situations. In the game player A may prefer smaller units with some skirmishers and player B may prefer fewer larger units. I think a default of 8 warband elements would be a normal Warrior as used by the AI and many players. A Phalanx (assuming the greek standard as opposed to the macedonian) would consist of 5 heavy spearmen, 3-4 light spearmen and 1-3 skirmishers. (The macedonian phalanx would have only heavy pikemen and Skirmishers) A ancient light horse unit (of the mongol mold) would consist of 1-3 chargers and 3-6 Skirmishing horse. A Trireme unit would consist of a squadron of 4-10 trireme elements. A brief element description follows.
	Warband	Heavy Spear	Light Spear	Skirmisher	Charger	Cav Skirmisher	Trireme
Firepower (man) Short/Ass	5/20	0/75	0/70	25/25	0/80	20/40	10/0
Firepower (Water) Short/assault	0	0	0	0	0	0	30/60
Defence	2	1(2 in assault)	1(2 in assault)	3	2	4
Armour	2	2	1	1	2	1	1
Mobility	4	2	3	5	6	7	4
Movement	2	2	2	3	3	4	500 (range)
Specials				Skirmish		Skirmish	Transport
Cost / training time	0	2	2	1	2	1	3
Cost resources	assorted personal weapons and armour	Spears and armour	Spears	Weapons	Horses, Armour, weapons	Horses, Weapons	A lot of wood, Weapons

[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 20, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 20, 2001).]

	20-02-2001 23:20									#44
	Put an end to popups!

A little question, mainly for Krenske, about transport:
Suppose a trireme element can board 2 (man)elements,
and you have a TF of 2 units made of 5 triremes each.
They can board 20 (man-size) elements.
If you have a 12-man and a 8-man land units, they could (in terms of space) both board and be carried by the ships. But then what if you want to separate the ship units (disband the TF into individual units)?
Should we forbid the 12-man unit to board because it would have to split up?
I'd tend to have all boarded armies united into one TF, but I may have problems restoring elements to their appropriate unit in that case. One could say if elements are separated from their unit, they lack support and vanish, but I don't really like that. The other way I see requires players to handle elements, but that's too much micromanagement, so anyone has an idea?
BTW, Krenske, your post above sports a quite impressive white space at the beginning, I spent some time before finding the text downwards.

	21-02-2001 03:55									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

Thanks Krenske! Very timely since we're tring to build the new units basically now...

Laurent: One idea would be to produce a split by generating two 'damaged' units. They could retain the old name, but be called #1, and #2 or something imaginative like that . If the two part were ever together again they would automatically fuse together.

	21-02-2001 06:50									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Laurent,

It is some impressive whitespace, isn't it. I can't find the problem though all I was after was a properly formatted table and according to the source for the page that is what I should have gotten??? Anyone else have a weird experience with HTML tables on Apolyton, If this is normal I will have to use fixed text tables that don't look as good.

As to unit transport and the splitting of transporting TF's. If a task based approach is used for navies then the transports will not get a chance to split up as their task is transport unit X from A to B. Let me explain in an example. Your ancient Navy is made up of 3 transports, 7 triremes and 2 light transports (actually units not individual ships). You can assign these various units to certain duties for the length of a turn. For example 2 transports are assigned to trade supporting water based trade routes and generating money and moving food and goods. The last transport is assigned to a conveyance pool. This conveyance pool allows land units( not just military units but diplomats and trade ligations etc, as well) to relocate between friendly ports (the limit on moves will be derived from a lovely formula based on total capacity, speed and distance covered).
Four of the triremes are assigned to patrol duties giving them achance of intercepting pirates and hostile forces. The chance of intercept here uses the home port of the trireme as a key factor. The last three triremes are formed into a task force to transport land units a,b,c and d to a point on the enemy coast. The taskforce executes this task (it may be intercepted and aborted or suffer adversely due to wheather etc.) as a group, there would be no opportunity to split the taskforce after it has been sent on its way. After the Taskforce has landed the troops they could be given a different task. One of the light transports is given explore orders and a direction. It will uncover and map a chunk of the world in that direction. The other light transport is being used to transport a settler to a previously discovered tin mining area on a coast.

Is this a good enough explanation. I do not forsee the traditional National leader maneuvering individual ships approach. Rather a setting of goals and tasks for the groups of ships as a whole. During times of peace there would be minimal fleet management with only a small bit of work reassigning some ships between tasks. During times of conflict there will be the ability to control military missions quite closely without necessarily using a huge amount of player time.

All of the ideas for naval and air missions and rules are not worked out yet, as we decided to tackle land combat first and then move on to them later.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 20, 2001).]

	21-02-2001 07:15									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Krenske: Yeah I've had trouble with HTML tables before... but I can't remember if it Always happens or just sometimes. Last problem I can recall was with a big table.

	22-02-2001 00:20									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have another stupid, out-of-the-blue question:

What about suppression?

Will range units suppress, as well as kill? The idea is common with WWII games, but I think it applies equally here.

And it allows for ranged weapons like archers to be more useful in combined-arms usage, since the suppressed enemy is not dead, and will recover, but if you can close with the enemy while still suppressed, with hand-to-hand units, you will get a far bigger benefit than using either ranged or hand-to-hand seperately!

	22-02-2001 01:17									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

F_Smith:

I would say that should be left up to a tactical level for the ruler to decide if he wants to take prisoners. If no, even if they were supressed they'd be killed and the end result would be the same. If yes, that would be based on each TFs power vs. the other to see if they could i believe.

	22-02-2001 03:18									#50
	Put an end to popups!

Lordy:

I was thinking that since the combat takes place in 'phases', that one phase is 'ranged combat (it is, isn't it?) and that during this phase the archers could do 2 kinds of 'damage' -- kills and suppression.

Kills, of course, are permenant.

Suppression could just last until the next 'round'. So if you have combined hand-to-hand units with the archers, they would not have to suffer return attacks from the suppressed defenders until next phase.

	22-02-2001 03:55									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yeah, I like the suppression idea too! Lets see what Krenske thinks...

Krenske: I do envision the player being allowed, if they want, to move individual naval TFs. But your idea of a more fluid and general system should be available to the player through giving the AI orders. But I agree with you that we should get the land mil. model further along before working much on sea, air and space.

	25-02-2001 20:02									#52
	Suffering from ads?

Two points:
1) What do you mean by suppression? Is it like barrage fire/prevent opponent from moving?

2) Krenske:
In beginning to code the manoeuvre phase, I had a question: You use a square root:

Total Covering strength =
(The square root of the (sum of (friendly cover elements still in the covering force * (1/2 mobility - terrain mod) ) + (total elements * 2)))* scouting bonus * (Generalship factor ^ rounds of maneuvering).

If I use this directly in your example it gives out 10%, not 16. I suppose the square root must be applied after you subtracted both armies covering strengths in order to make the total. That would give:
Covering strength = (sum(1/2 mobility - terrain) + 2 * total elements) * scout bonus * generalship ^ rounds,
Manoeuvre output = sqrt(higher covering strength - lower covering strength), being a bonus for the higher strength army.
Am I correct?


[This message has been edited by LDiCesare (edited February 26, 2001).]

	26-02-2001 21:01									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

'Suppression' is the idea that ranged fire doesn't only just kill people, it also causes them to duck and cover. This makes the target unit less able to shoot back, and less ready to receive/defend against a closing enemy for a short period of time, until the defenders can 'regroup'.

For modern firearms, we will absolutely have to include suppression. That is the biggest use of heavy weapons. An infantry squad carries a heavy machine gun which is mainly used to lay suppression fire down on an enemy so that the foot soldiers can close with the enemy position -- usually to get close enough to use grenades.

But the idea holds for ancient ranged weapons and units also. The Roman legionairre launched his pilum at the enemy just before attacking. The pilum would render shields useless and cause the enemy to fall over themselves to avoid the incoming missles. Then they closed to fight with sword and sheild.

The biggest game benefit is the bonus to 'combined-arms' units. If you only attack with ranged weapons, the suppressed enemy will regroup. Only by attacking the suppressed enemy with a combo of ranged and close assault troops do you maximize the damage you can do.

	27-02-2001 10:52									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My question is how is it decided that 'surpression' is used as opposed to just outright killing? Obviously there will be the choice of some sort by the generals there, but why i'm asking is when using combined arms, we need to define what has priority is the mathamatical results end up being the same, or will it just be random. Some of this can be dealt with as personalities with the char model and also askew certain numbers (for lack of better term). But say the supply of wood is in short supply, should they risk using cover fire with arrows for their army as it advances or hold off and use it to single out opponents with the sharp-shooters?

	27-02-2001 01:05									#55
	Tired of ads?

Hi, Lordy:

It would depend on the ammunition and weapon type, and the experience level of the troops under fire, I think. No 'decisions' to make at combat time. All ranged fire would have 2 types of effects, instead of 1.

When a Pike Square of men sees the sky darkened with arrows coming their way, one of 2 things happens -- either the soldiers stand fast, or they seek cover. The ones who seek cover are the 'suppression' results of that fire -- they are not immediately available to repel the oncoming cavalry charge that was coordinated with the ranged fire.

So the result likely would be determined by first checking to see how many people bolted, then see how many who stayed were killed.

And the suppression effect becomes far more important than the actual deaths caused, when you reach modern artillery. A concerted artillery barrage can shell-shock all but the most veteran soldiers, leaving them unfit for combat for a long time.

	28-02-2001 23:26									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I hear you F_smith and have no qualms with what you just said. Howeber, your post didn't concern my main point of determining when there is a shortage of ammo whether to use it as cover fire now and not have as much later or save it now and have some for picking out targets later if the opponent seems to have plenty of good soldioers.

	01-03-2001 11:23									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Laurent,
Actually it should be - (The square root of the (sum of (friendly cover elements still in the covering force * (1/2 mobility - terrain mod) ) + (total elements * 2)))* scouting bonus * (Generalship factor ^ rounds of maneuvering) for each side. The bonus being higher - lower to the higher side. I will look at my example tomorrow and fix it up if it is wrong (quite probably is).

Unfortunately I have been very busy and have just made it back on the board after almost a week, sorry I took so long getting back to you.

F_Smitty
Suppression is quite hard to model at operational levels, it is more of a tactical effect and I have decided to treat it as such. High suppression effects give a increase in resulting firepower later on at the tactical level. In the 3hr of operation combat phases that I am modelling suppression is really just additional firepower. In your example of the legionaries and several mixed weapon types as combine arms that is catered for by using higher firepower for the legionarie than either a javelin man or a pure swordsman. The ability of certain weapons to have a major suppressive effect (like MG's) during the tactical advance to contact in modern times is still a firepower effect causing damage and disruption to combat elements.

I envision that the losses of hitpoints will result in only a portion being considered actual deaths and the remainder being repatriated in later strategic ticks of the clock. I am presently thinking along the lines of 10% per month equivalent returned as replacements up to 50%, with 20% in the first month (as stragglers).

	08-03-2001 23:39									#58
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I am busy coding the assault part of the model (currently, scouting and manoeuver are done, but combat still uses the simple version I first coded -it works fine, but the current figures give a bonus to attack that's quite unfair-).
Anyway, I have a few questions about the assault phase and the unit stats:

Are the units or elements put in front line/reserve/support?
If it is the units, it means an archer element in a light infantry unit is quite useless because its ranged power is not useful (it will close to hand to hand with the others). I'd find it better if it were the elements. I'd just have to make sure that support elements support their own unit rather than others. I could do it the following way: have little battles inside the big ones; i.e. put units in front line, and then once they are matched to another unit, match the elements in front/support/reserve there too. What do you think?

Dispersion and frontage:
I can use dispersion to compute frontage, but how do I compute dispersion? Is it based on what kind of elements make up the unit? Why don't elements have dispersion too?
If 2 units, frontage 10 and 2, face 4 units of frontage 3, should we match them 10 vs 3 +3 +3 and 1 vs 3 (outnumbered) or 10 + 1 vs 4*3 (no outnumbered, but bo real matching either)? I am afraid there will be strange groupings sometimes.
For the moment (no units in reserve), the code output looks like this:
Civ1 : 5 units
Civ2 : 10 units
Army 1 front line
4 armies: elements = 1: elements = 2: elements = 1: elements = 1
Army 2 front line
4 armies: elements = 2: elements = 2: elements = 1: elements = 1
Army 1 support
1 armies: elements = 1
Army 2 support
4 armies: elements = 1: elements = 1: elements = 1: elements = 1
I have to tweak the code in order to get the supporting elements go help the outnumbered front line.

I'll just make it simple for the moment since archaic units would all have more or less the same dispersion, but when I have the whole matching/support fire/range/resolution stuff done, I'll get back to it.
[This message has been edited by LDiCesare (edited March 09, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by LDiCesare (edited March 11, 2001).]

	15-03-2001 04:56									#59
	Tired of ads?

Hey Laurent:

It looks like Krenske has forgotten about us . Probably you should just e-mail him and let him know you have questions...

I think your suggestion on putting elements in the frontline/reserve/support is quite reasonable, and don't see how it could work any other way!

On the frontage thing, you've got an interesting point there... I have to go with your suggestion that doesn't produce arbitrary outnumbering just because of unit sizes. I suppose that will leave you with "packets" of facing units on the battlefield. Another option would be just to string everyone on each side in a line, keeping track of the length of frontage each unit (or even element) covers, and letting each unit/element, attack anyone along their piece of frontage. But let's see what Krenske has to say. If you get to the point where things are being slowed out by having not heard from him, let me know, and we will just figure out something at least fairly sensible by ourselves.

	16-03-2001 10:54									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

I still exist,
but have just had a loss of staff at work and seem to lack any spare time to do anything but work. I only get about 1 hour of personal access a day and for the last week that has been more like 2 minutes.

As to dispersion, I have indeed left out a dispersion value at the element level.

As to matching up the units, we could work it this way:- We could break the units up into the various elements and match them. The elements can be defined as combat and support in the unit description. So we could have 2 units with a pool of 12 combat elements and 4 support elements.

These are matched element to element with the oposition. Some elements will be left over from a side and they start to double up on the opposition elements. If they get to the point of getting to more than double then support elements are forced into combat.(this example assumes identical element dispersion) Dispersion complicates it by expanding the potential number of oposition elements before the elements are overmatched. EG. 5 combat element with a dispersion of 7 could each take on 7 dispersion 1 elements before they are matched and could take on 14 by being overmatched. I see some modifiers being applied to a element that still has remaining dispersion vs the opposition due to having some troops effecting the flanks of the opposition, while a element that is overmatched is stretched extra thin and will suffer -ve modifiers to its firepower.

The other alternative is to match up the units based on dispersion and if the dispersions are not equal, force support elements into combat or apply modifiers.

Anyway I have to go to a meeting, read you later.