 |
| |
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Supposing I have 2 units made of 4 supporting elements and 6 assault elements, and one is assigned as support unit and one as assault unit, against one unit of 10 nondescript elements, here is the matching I'd like to have (I suppose here the assault elements can handle only 1 nondescript without needing reinforcements):
1 unit in support (all elements),4 supporting elements in and 6 assault elements matched against 1 element each.
That is a recursive approach in terms of code, which means it is small code, fast to write but maybe not fast to execute. In terms of simulation, I prefer this to a (8 supporting elements, 12 assault elements 2 vs 1 twice, and 1 vs 1 8 times) approach. It is less efficient but it represents better the fact that during war, you stick with units of your battalion, sometimes the next one, but a single battalion is not very often broken up into lots of different locations because they would be more efficient there: it would be very hard in terms of logistics and command line to reorganize an army that efficiently. (From my time in the army, I believe it would be really hard for officers).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
I finally coded the model wholly (well, except for tons of stuff like leaders, long range and so on...) so it seems to work fine.
A few questions: How many rounds of fight should there be?
There is no round yet at scouting phase because I have a code that is good only for archaic units. There can be up to 10 rounds, more probably 3 rounds, during manoeuvre phase. How many rounds in assault phase?
Here are a few figures to give an idea of the mortality:
2 Hordes vs 1 Phalanx: 7 rounds: 4% chance of phalanx dying. 9 rounds: 16%. 10 rounds: 28% 12 rounds: 54%
1 Phalanx vs 1 Phalanx: 6 rounds: 2% chance of 1 dying. 7 rounds: 5%. 9 rounds: 16%. 12 rounds: 30%.
1 Light cavalry vs 1 phalanx in 12 rounds gives 30% vs 13% in favor of the cavalry.
Note these are non-experienced, non-trained troops with no leader. Also, defenders don't use fortifications yet.
Casualties begin to appear after a number of rounds roughly equal to the number of elements in the units.
Now, anyone has ideas of figures for bonuses of terrain and foritifications?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Excellent Laurent! That's great progress  .
Now the hard work of playtesting the model starts! I hope Krenske he will have some time available soon... Do you have methods to provide detailed output of what happens during a battle? I haven't looked at the test methods you sent me, so they may be in there already. But if you don't have those yet, I think that is the next step. That will allow playtesters to see what happened in detail, and fix any unforeseen problems.
The results you show are somewhat surprising to me, in that I would really expect a single phalanx to win against two hordes. Greek phalanxes very frequently won battles in which they were seriously outnumbered against the Persians, because of the many advantages of the phalanx shock attack. I would also expect a phalanx to win vs. light cavalry unless the light cavalry had bows and refused to close with the phalanx. Also, I want to dispel this idea that the battle should always go to the death of a unit or TF. Unless one side manages a complete encirclement as at Cannae, the losers will always retreat well before they are annihilated IMO. I seem to recall there are morale checks somewhere in the model, do you have those working yet?
I could make guesses about bonuses for terrain fortifications and defense, but would prefer to wait for Krenske to take a shot at it.
It's great seeing this come together. Thanks for all the hard work!
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited March 18, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Thanks, LDiCesare!
I'd love to playtest the model. I also need to see how different units compare so I can start to set up the military side of the tech tree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Here is a sample output that I get from one round of fight. Note all the messages are passed by observers so you can easily store them in file, scrap them or pop them in a window if you like. There's really a lot of details I can output (I can put more than what's here). Does anyone have a clear idea of what output they would like to see? I don't want to output a 1Mo file for a fight between two units.
I think we could use two outputs, one for debugging/twitching the model, and one, less detailed, to give reports to the player about important battles.
code:
Meeting of armies of civs Civ1, Civ2 in square game.data.MapSquare@6ed786
Army:
Attacker of civ Civ1:Att Horde0 of civ Civ1 Att Horde1 of civ Civ1 Att Horde2 of civ Civ1
Army:
Defender of civ Civ2  ef Phalanx3 of civ Civ2 Def Phalanx4 of civ Civ2 Def Phalanx5 of civ Civ2
Scout output phase: 0.0 in favor of Civ2
Fire support for Civ1: 0.0
Fire support for Civ2: 0.0
Fire support for Civ1: 0.0
Fire support for Civ2: 0.0
Fire support for Civ1: 0.0
Fire support for Civ2: 0.0
Manoeuver output phase: 0.13484573 in favor of Civ2
End of manoeuvre: Status:
Attacker of civ Civ1 : 25.0 health
Defender of civ Civ2 : 22.0 health
Fire support for Civ1: 0.0
Fire support for Civ2: 0.0
End of combat: Status:
Attacker of civ Civ1 : 23.0 health
Defender of civ Civ2 : 20.0 health
I corrected a few flaws in the code which ran against the phalanx, but the results are still not good enough. I am going to try and change a few figures to get it right. Without any more input from Krenske, here's what I choose: I'll take 10 rounds of fight in the assault phase, and may increase the health of each element. Currently, 1 element = 1 life = 1 death when a hit is scored (cf assault model).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Here is my take on the model:
It seems to me the following figures apply: Given the same defence, the same health, an army has to have 4 times its opponent's offensive power in order to beat them when outnumbered 2 to 1. Here is why:
(Krenske, please correct if I misread you)
Each side deals Power attacks, which, all other things being equal, deals Power damage. These are divided (more or less evenly).
So if you have side1 with 1 unit, power = 4, and side 2 with 2 units power = 1, side1 deals 4 damage and suffers 2, but side 2 has twice as much life. Thus it is a match.
That's why the phalanx example with 70 attack against a warrior of 20 currently loses 2 to 1.
Do you think players and mod makers will understand that, or do I scale somehow the figures (square, whatever) in order to allow a 2 to 1 ratio to be withstood by an army with only double firepower?
Basically, 2 to 1 is currently 4 times firepower, 3 to 1 is 9 times and so on. This means superior numbers are a very definite advantage.
The squaring would mean deadlier fights given the current figures: Currently, the 1 phalanx / 2 hordes has 18 attacks vs 10 + 10 attacks (with a 10% hit, means 1.8 vs 2 damage sustained).
Squaring the attack and defense (not changing armor), this leads to: 62 attacks instead of 18, and still 20 attacks on the other side. That way, keeping the current unit stats, it would require 3 warriors to outdo one phalanx (because the phalanx loses firepower more reapidly as it is hurt).
Now of course, I may have totally misunderstood the model. ;P
[This message has been edited by LDiCesare (edited March 27, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
A question about Task Forces:
In old threads from 1999, I read about the possibility of "Task Force Workshops" that allowed players to customize their army groups by adding to gether the basic units. They combine the available units of infantry, cavalry, archers, and auxiliaries to create a special army type. Players could experiment with these, trying to make the most cost effective unit or the one that fits their style best. Once the player creates a TF template, it becomes a production option in the Economy model.
Are we still doing this?
Another option is to make TF composition depend on technologies. For example, the game default Phalanx might be a task force of 3 Hoplite units. This technology gives a 15% power bonus to the three units organized in this manner, thanks to the new tactics developed that allow this military organization ot be more than the sun of its parts.
If we did this, we would have to abandon the TF workshop idea or restrict it. If players automatically get the bonus fo combining the 3 units themselves, the technology is useless. We could set things so that combining the 3 units before the Phalanx application is researched wouldn't get the benefit, but that might make the workshop pointless.
What is the current plan for creating task forces?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Hi Mark,
Sorry for not being Active I am just about drowning in work at the moment. I literally have a stack of papers 2 feet high on my desk.
I will try to comment-
Laurent - Two perfectly equal forces will lose strength at a similar rate. They will not just sit around there and take it till they reach 0 strength though. One will quit the field, possibly both. As an example - a phalanx unit with total firepower of 80 vs 4 hordes with firepower 20 each may result in similar losses to each side (Although the phalanx almost certainly has higher experience and training values thus skewing in their favour, but lets pretend.). The phalanx will lose troops at the same base rate as the opposition (although the hordes will probably receive a bonus for surrounding the phalanx) but at a higher percentage rate. That assumes that the actual manpower strengths of the units are in a 4-1 ratio.
The units involved in the combat need to take a morale check to determine if they continue in combat. The Phalanx will suffer penalties for being outnumbered and for the casualties suffered, they will probably pass their morale check and stay for the first 3-4 rounds of combat, until losses really start weighing heavily. The opposition with 4 units will not suffer as many negatives but as there is four of them, there is a greater chance of one of them failing the check . As soon as one fails and retires then the balance of the fight swings towards the phalanx, their morale check value improves due to less damage and not being as outnumbered. In the following rounds the phalanx will do more damage than the remaining hordes and it will be even more likely that more hordes will withdraw from the fight. The last side remaining wins (It may be a costly win but it is still a win.). This is the plan for a encounter battle.
Where one side is defending and has some levels of fortification then a loss of morale will not remove a unit from the fight but will instead drop their fortification level by one. Once that hits zero then they have been pushed entirely out of the fortifications and the next failure forces them out of the fight. Most fortifications until the 1700's were of the single point but high strength type, namely castles and solitary forts etc, occasionally there would be extra large castles or towns with multi walls etc and they may reach level 2. As well some areas would have numerous castles etc and so the square could be rated as having a +1 fortification level. Around the late 1700's more extensive fortifications developed that could reach higher levels. By WW1 fortifications reached the point that they could be given a value of 4 or 5. This means that the attacker could not normally hope to breakthrough and would expend troops attriting the enemy and reducing their fortification level. The defender could then respond with reserves and block the attack and rebuild the defences. (One of the effects of attacking armour may be a check to see how many fortification levels they remove with a successfull attack.)
I think the situation you describe of 4 hordes v 1 phalanx should end up with a 2-1 win rate to the hordes but if the phalanx brings just one friend with it the battle would rapidly swing its way. 4 to 1 manpower odds are hard to overcome if the forces are equally skilled etc. Mind you if the phalanx was a veteran, super trained unit lead by Alexander against average hordes then it will give more and take more and probably win a 4-1 battle.
Mark,
the morale test you quoted is actually an old one, I have revised a chunk of the design and the page is at - http://www.usq.edu.au/users/krenske/game/g/assault.htm
I think I posted this before.
The morale check (or as I have called it the Advance/stay in combat check) itself has been given a formula as follows -
Advance test = ((morale + training + experience + (Mobility / 2) + Generals morale bonus) * 5) - 2 per 1% damage taken so far in the battle.
A high morale(10), well trained(4), veteran(4), inspirationally led (4) panzer(mob=12) division rolling into russia at the begining of Barbarossa could have a very high morale test value for that turn. In fact plugging the values into the formula gets us (10+4+4+(12/2)+4)*5 = 140%. The unit will have a manpower strength of around 100 and so will need to lose 20 strength before it will even consider stopping combat.
Quite often this test will lead the sides to fight several rounds at least before finishing the battle. I would also consider the use of a willingness to take casualties factor (maybe call it ferocity) that would alter the morale check value. This means that the commissars are lined up behind the peasant or the glorious leader has ordered the forces to stand to the last etc. This could be a player settable factor at the TF level each turn.
I can't really see the higher value is bad point you were making though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
So is Fiera drawing emements, units, or Task Forces?
Would a Legion be a unit or a whole Task Force?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Topic 1: Morale -
I implemented the morale stuff and it definitely changes the results. An outnumbered phalanx now resists more than before.
I think I am too much of a berserker to have thought of the impact of morale before...
Anyway, I have one question on the model: The morale formula is quite absolute, i.e. it is always the same whatever your orders may be. In demo4, Mark provided a figure you could twitch so that your TF would be more or less inclined to attack the opponent. I think this same factor could be used in the morale computation, like a bonus given the orders:
Orders like "you can yield terrain" could give -10 morale (break off earlier), while "fight to death" would give a bonus. Additionnally, I didn't see in the formula something to do with being outnumbered. The (perceived?) ratio of firepower could be used, but which way? A multiplier to morale seems a little extreme, how much of a bonus/malus would a +50% firepower yield? A +100%?
Topic 2: Training and experience -
I changed my experience code to be consistent with the model. I suppose the scale of experience is 0-5, and progress is sqrt(number of fights done), maxed to 5.
About training, I can add it easily, but how do we integrate training with the econ model? It clearly wants services, but what UI/orders would be given? In particular, you will want to send untrained troops to fight when in a crisis, but train them later, so training can occur at a time different from building unit. How does the econ handle that? As for figures, given the model, I suppose 0-5 would do (training and experience are very similar in the model).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Is there any support of mercenaries planned?
I was wondering (while getting tons of friendly mil units in villages in a civ2 game) whether we could have something like that. I was also playing the Greeks, and Greeks used to be mercenaries. The same could be said of Celts a little later, Franks at the end of the Western Roman Empire and Swiss during Renaissance.
Could we hire mercenaries from nearby civs (or barbarians or neighboring Ethnic Groups) and could we have our own armies for hire? Of course, civs would never hire armies of a civ which seems even moderately threatening, but that might be fun to have. What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark,
Ahh I see, I believe the test value you were refering to was a test based on the overall morale at the end of the battle and if the actual test score was less than 20% of the test value then the unit would actually increase in value. meaning that the morale test was so good it would have passed if the test value was only 1/5th what it was. This is dropped from the current model though.
Would it be best for me to just overwrite games\civ with the contents of games\g ?
Laurent,
I am glad that the morale effects equal things out a bit.
We can certainly apply a Ferocity/tenacity/divine leaders insistence variable to the morale test. Maybe a fanatical government could effect the test by upto +50% eg, Iranian islamic guard, Japanese troops, German SS etc. The reverse effect for flexible defence and delaying actions can also take place.
Your right there is nothing in the formula for situational modifiers like outnumbering etc. I would expect there to be a modifier based on pure number disparity as well as a modifier for firepower disparity and maybe for a defence disparity as well. Maybe we could use something like, A force outnumbered loses %outnumbered x 10 off of their morale test value. EG. A phalanx outnumbered 4/1 is outnumbered by 300% so it loses 30 off its morale test value. A similar test with firepower helps out numbered modern forces vs hordes of savages.
A test for defence is more tricky but would reflect the times when certain troop were near invincible and so caused much panic in the opposition. Eg. Tigers at Kaserine pass and for effectively the next year vs the western allies, Tanks in WW1, Heavy knights vs low grade troops in medieval periods. I don't know how we judge this, maybe instead we just use a comparrison of losses caused in the combat round.
Your idea for experience is quite good, sqrt of fights. Maybe we could flesh it out with the following
- realistic combat maneuvers etc give a couple of free fight points to start with.
- Unit cadre training drops a fight point from higher experienced units and gives them to new units.
- Troop transfer policies can do the same after initial creation with transfering units giving up some points to other units with say less than 50% of the fight points of the lending unit.
- Once a War is over natural attrition should drop a unit by a fight point per year until 'experienced' rating is reached, meaning that 16 or so years after a war your previous veteran units have reverted to experienced status as they lose the veterans through old age.
- Losses of more than 50% actually drop the the fight points by 1 while losses more than 33% nullify fight points for that combat. New replacements coutner the experience gained.
How does that all sound.
Training is easier to implement, it is the skill the unit has with its weapons. A rating of 1 is really low, effectively the equivalent of handing out weapons at parade and going to battle with them the next day. 3 would be the equivalent of 2 months or so's familiarisation with the weapon, 4 would include long term use, 5 would include real world exercises and multi purpose training etc. Effectively we could use a time of build value to closely link to the training of the unit. Raw trooper in 1 week, Basic trooper in 6 weeks, effective after 3 months, specialist after 6 months and Elite after a years delay in training. Of course if a unit starts a war at a certain training level then has to accept lower trained replacements then the overall unit rating will drop. The replacements themselves will probably have a training rating. EG. During WW1 and WW2 the Germans spent 6 months training up most of their troops until near the end when demands made them shorten the period and quality went out the window. So when replacements were received by forward formations they were already trained to a high level, so the overall training rating of the german forces remained high.
We can send units off to training after they are constructed, maybe we could use a point system like your idea for experience. For each month of training gain a point most units would start with 5-6 points. Make in service training cost a fraction of the unit cost, (ammunition expenditure etc) So you don't train all units all the way to elite status. Some units would be trained higher and a slow drop in training of 1 point per year could also apply as units lose their training edge unless maintenance is paid.
Mercenaries - We certainly could have some but they would be computer generated units from the relevant civ. They would probably have lower morale and would go away completely once support stops while native units would slowly melt away. Mercenary units would also be less reliable, twice as likely to be bought out etc. The ability to hire your own units out could be good. Some hostile civs would even supply mercenaries to fight against themselves. In lots of situations this is what roman auxiliary troops were.
Q. How should we treat the situation where one side is willing to give up territory in a battle because it has better distance fighting abilities. EG. Mongol Horse Archers striving to keep the distance open while the medieval european cav want to close. Should it just be a decision for the AI or player intervention? What if we applied a extra test in situations like this where one side wants to keep the range open. The pursuer(side wanting to close) must pass a mobility test to close a range band else fighting stays at the previous range. Obviously neither side gets fortification benefits and the runner will probably get 1/2ed terrain benefits. The test could be 50% + ((pursuer mobility - runner mobility) * 5). A high mobility force would have little difficulty closing while a slower force would still be able too, but it would be hard. We could include terrain modifiers to mobility so infantry could have a easier time catching faster forces in forest etc. What do you think?
Read you later
Paul.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited April 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Question about naval combat:
In the pre-industrial world, many 'naval' combats were actually ship-to-ship ground combats. The preferred tactic of the Roman navy was to draw up to an enemy ship, lash them together, and send over a century or two. The end result was usually a lot of dead troops and two relatively intact Roman ships.
Will this be implemented in Clash?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 04-03-2001 08:49 AM
Question about naval combat:
In the pre-industrial world, many 'naval' combats were actually ship-to-ship ground combats. The preferred tactic of the Roman navy was to draw up to an enemy ship, lash them together, and send over a century or two. The end result was usually a lot of dead troops and two relatively intact Roman ships.
Will this be implemented in Clash?
|
Sounds feasible, but I am not going to code the naval stuff yet. I think that ships could have different orders for attacking and defending at close range, e.g. ramming against boarding. If we can have a good model of what Paul suggested above (i.e. that some parties don't want to close in), then it might fit easily in.
Paul: Thanks for the answers and suggestions. I think that you can also have cases where both parties want to avoid getting to assault (like ships which don't want to ram into each other, or artillery fighting artillery if that happened). Thus each army could say which range they want to stop fighting at, and specify whether they want to flee or continue combat at that range (e.g. the mongol horde in your example will try to fight from afar, but you could give orders to archers like "fight till the knights are close, then run away").
About decay of experience, that should be easy. As for training, I need to have some ideas from Mark or the econ people as to how much pay/training the army receives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
On Training/Experience:
Right now econ only handles building of a unit with some predetermined amount of training. In the future we plan to have
1. stockpiling of weapons (and trading of weapons as such)
2. demobilizing of troops (weapons kept maintained, optional training too)
3. purchasing of training for already-built units
I think small modifications of these can allow the player to do virtually anything they want.
Since I think we need to have separate training costs supported anyway, my best guess is that we should build new units at the "stick weapon in guys hands" level. Then you can optionally train them or not. So by that definition the current econ code has too much services cost in the build...
So the player will have 1. Build Legion, 2. train legion (perhaps done automatically unless overridden), 3. optionally invest in more than the usual training.
As to pay, that will have motivational effects, and perhaps quality effects (recruiting better people). But I haven't thought much along these lines, so comments are welcome.
Does what I've said seem adequate for now? If not, let me know where you want things more refined.
Morale/Orders:
I just want to say that giving demoralized or unmotivated troops a "fight to death" order will not have Any significant effect, so that needs to be included in any model changes.
Mercs: Yes we'll have them, and they have been discussed from time to time. Try searching on "mercenaries" maybe. Agree with Paul's basic take on it.
Experience/Training:
The outline you guys are working on sounds good!
Keeping distance sounds reasonable also... I basically support Laurent's statements about naval aspects of keeping distance in combat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Richard
On Ancient Naval combat. You are quite correct most fights were indeed boarding actions up to the Elizabethan period. The armada battles lasted for a huge period of time compared to previous naval battles due to the unprecedented refusal of the english to close to contact.
How could this be handled???? We have a assault value for naval vessels that can be used but I think it could be used in different ways. You could order your task force to go for the capture or the sinking, The default being the capture until a certain tech application like advanced wooden hull form (allowing Mass gun ports). At this point we swap to a default of sink for naval task forces. A force ordered to sink the enemy that finishes off the enemy at assault ranges will 70% of the time sink the enemy, Due to putting ruddy huge holes in the sides of them. A force ordered to capture would have a 70% capture rate for ships finished off at assault range. Note some ancient navies did not have the necessary manpower to support additional captured vessels and so they set out to sink the opposition.
Also certain weapon types on board could alter these percentages somewhat. If a ship uses Greek Fire then the capture chance should be halved, If the ship has castle construction then the capture has a better chance. As well at time of construction a ship could have a additional marine contingent added for extra assault firepower in capture mode for a cost. How do these ideas sound??
At present though we are looking mainly at land combat.
Historical abbarition question. How do we cater for well advanced tech features in minor powers that appear and then vanish for 500 or so years. I am thinking of Greek Fire, Korean Iron clads, Archimedian (??) solar reflector arrays, etc. I am sure there are more but they do seem to fall outside of the standard tech system but have had some large effects on world history. IE, The Japanese lost so badly to the Koreans it put a 200 year freeze on their expansion during a time of chinese weakness. Maybe occasionally a minor power should just get a massive advantage for 20 or 30 years or something ??????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark,
Yes that would be the way to handle the training build all units raw and assign money and time to training right then. Maybe initial, on construction, training could be half cost for the first N points based on tech advances in military theory and improvements. (A barracks allows you to train cheaply for 4 points, a Training centre allows 8, a simulator tech allows 12 and a virtual reality system allows 16 or something.)
As to low morale/demoralised troops receiving stand and die orders they can work if you are willing to be sufficiently ruthless. Ie. The commissars are only 100m behind you and have already shot sergi, petr and ivan for doubting you can stop the yankees/germans/french/poles/swedes. The mongols also used chinese assault troops to take chinese cities, how did they guarantee these low morale troops would do the job? They brought their families along behind and simply executed some and said the rest will die unless you take that city, repeat with the new cities population. This is a major reason for the 20% population drop in china over the decade long mongol invasion. Of course international diplomacy and civilian morale should suffer in these situations.
Of course a civilised leader would not use these techniques but could still issue the orders. A 50% bonus to something small is just 50% bigger than small so it will probably have a lower effect then giving the same order to a force with huge morale.
Radical idea, Governemnts with fanatical tendancies could buy morale in a similar way to training through indoctrination techniques etc. A complete fanatical society could buy massive morale over time where as other societies would not start with high morale but their forces could gain morale through wins etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
In the tech system, small states are certainly competitive, and tech loss is a possibility. So some of that may already be in teh system. After testing, we'll tweak it to add details like that if needed.
For the naval battle, can we just treat it like any other battle, involving all the troops on the ships. The ships themselves would classified as artillery. If the 'artillery barage' does enough damage at long range, some ships will sink. (This artillery phase would also include ramming, etc.) Then after that it switches to close range, like a normal battle, the land troops present will slug it out. So you can go for an artillery based navy like the Greeks or a troop based navy like the Romans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
Mark, a suggestion on training costs. I agree that default training is 0.
It would be nice though to have an option in the UI for the player to specify basic training for units (want level 1 - 5). This would add to the services cost, the troops would then come out fast with the appropriate training level so you don't have to train them all by hand. I think I can put the necessary stuff in mil model code this sunday.
Also, from a user interface point of view, we could have a "initial training" slot in some panel, (and later a "train units in cities up to level X" slot in the same panel).
I think it would be good to limit the training based on existing facilities(barracks...). I don't know how this can be modelled.
Paul, a remark on experience: I currently compute experience at the element level, thus the effect of big losses will be taken into account: When the unit is filled with new elements to replace losses, you have an overall experience decrease. e.g. A unit of 10 elts loses 6, the other 4 manage to survive undamaged. They have reached individually experience level 2. The unit when replenished will have an experience of 0.8.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Laurent,
So the experience is used as an average of the elements experience within a unit. This may as well be called and worked out as unit based experience. All we need to do is at the time of determining the new rating we just apply a system of breaking down the current strength of the unit and determining average experience each time. We then factor in the new elements and refigure the unit average.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 04-04-2001 07:27 PM
Laurent, there's a thing we need to discuss about the TF Movement code:
TF move orders shouldn't actually move the TF... but they should move it in graphics so the player can see what has moved. Do you have a way in mind to handle this? I think something like moving the TF to "targetSquare" in graphics with an arrow that starts at "currentSquare" or whatever would look good and give the player enough info. Sorry I didn't bring this up sooner, but I forgot it was an unresolved issue.
|
Currently, orders and move are implemented this way:
Unit receives an order to do something in square x (attack, garrison,...).
A MovementManager manages ticks in the turn (probably we have one tick in a turn until we get all tested). Each army then moves to its target square if it is not already there, and complains if it is too far (but goes there anyway for the moment).
I could call army.notifyObservers("NewOrder") when a new order is received. The UI could observe its TFs and then ask them where they want to go and paint them there although they didn't move yet. (Must be methods like getCurrentOrder().getTargetSquare() to do that).
Now when we get a path algorithm and units move by themselves rather than teleport, what will happen?
(New turn) Player can move whatever they like, the above visual applies with a perk like getCurrentOrder(). getSquareYouWillHaveReachedAtEndOfTurn()) (I'll find a better method name when I code it).
(End turn). Actual move resolves. The unit may just run into another one before completion of the move. That means it may fight in a square between the one it started the turn in and the one it was depicted in. Could this happen? It would be somewhat startling, I'm afraid:
e.g.
Squares 0,0 to 4,4. Army 1 in 0,0 could normally go to 0,4. Player says so, it appears in 0,4. Moves are resolved. Unfortunately, Army2 went from 2,2 to 2,0. When it reaches 2,0, it meets Army 1 on its way. A fight happens there, and army1 is so exhausted that it stays there at the end of the turn. How do we handle/avoid that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Laurent, I'm in agreement pretty much with all you say in the top. When can I have it ?
quote:
Now when we get a path algorithm and units move by themselves rather than teleport, what will happen?
(New turn) Player can move whatever they like, the above visual applies with a perk like getCurrentOrder(). getSquareYouWillHaveReachedAtEndOfTurn()) (I'll find a better method name when I code it).
(End turn). Actual move resolves. The unit may just run into another one before completion of the move. That means it may fight in a square between the one it started the turn in and the one it was depicted in. Could this happen? It would be somewhat startling, I'm afraid...
|
That's not a bug its a Feature  . First of all, we have thought of this and discussed it before you came to the project. The land forces combat movement rates are set up so that in a turn you can only go about 2 squares, meaning your plans can only be dirupted a certain amount without a chance to react. (200km per month is about all that can be managed for a combat advance except for extreme cases in the real world.)
But unexpected collisions Can Happen. A good plan should not fall apart because of a lack of complete predictability. This is a problem real generals face that is completely ignored in civ2 and other games. The surgical precision will be gone from combat, and I for one think it will be great... I guess think about it a bit, and see if it Really bothers you. We will test it out soon, and of course if it turns out to be not fun, then we'll abort to a different plan.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-03-2001 04:10
|