18-08-2001 03:46									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sounds OK, it gets the info across. Although I think my proposed solution is more aesthetically pleasing

	19-08-2001 02:00									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I don't like the idea of separate colours for separate moves - it adds one more learning step to an already overburdened system.

As for showing the positions of the units at the end of the turn, that is not a bad idea, but I would make it a separate option, rather than automatic - otherwise there is the "has that one moved yet?" problem. Also, the red line track should only show for the currently selected unit, otherwise the scren will look like a red spider web - not at all aesthetically pleasing.

However, a button to show where the units are expected to be at the end of the turn (the enemy permitting) isn't a bad idea.

Cheers.

	20-08-2001 09:27									#33
	Tired of ads?

I am getting some odd effects from the movement system, which otherwise seems to be working, so I thought I should post the parameters I have used.

Units consist of a number of elements.

Each element has a category and a movement rate.

The movement rate is the movement in kms per day on a good road.

The category is (for land units) one of "foot", "horse" or "wheel" or "track".

The movement rate and category that I have used is:

Warrior	35 km/day	foot
HeavySpear	30 km/day	foot
LightSpear	35 km/day	foot
Skirmisher	40 km/day	foot
Charger	60 km/day	horse
CavalrySkirmisher	80 km/day	horse
Chariot	35 km/day	wheel

The slow speed for chariots arises because chariots were not used for transport outside of the battle field and so move at infantry speed.

Movement is arranged by "ticks", each tick is one tenth of a turn. If a turn is 30 dyas, then a tick is 3 days. Squares are 100km on a side, so it takes 100 / (3 * movement rate) ticks to move from one square to the next. The calculation multiplies diagonal move ticks by sqrt(2). Also the average of the source ticks and the destination ticks are used to indicate that half the time is spent in each square.

If a road exists (and none do in D5) this base tick time is used. Otherwise there is a terrain adjustment.

Terrain causes a multiplier to be applied to the ticks, as follows:

	foot	horse	wheel	track
Terrain:
flat	1.5	1.5	12.0	1.5
rolling	2.0	2.0	na	2.0
broken	3.0	5.0	na	6.0
massif	6.0	na	na	na
Cover:
crops	1.2	1.2	na	1.2
scrub	1.2	1.2	na	1.2
swamp	3.0	na	na	na
forest	1.2	4.0	na	4.0
jungle	1.2	na	na	na
dunes	3.0	2.0	na	3.0

Incidentally, if anyone can tell me how to get rid of the surplus blank lines before a table, I would be happy to hear.

Cheers

	20-08-2001 21:17									#34
	Remove this text

What you have looks good in general. I've got some suggestions for specific modifications, and will try to write them up when I get home from work. But for now... you never said what the problems were that you are encountering. Can you give a few examples of what you think are issues?

At a high level, I have one potential criticism. The flat and road movement rates are way too fast, at least for movement during actual warfare on 'the front' IMO. So your movement rates of something of order 10 squares per turn might be good for 'strategic' movement on roads safely within an empire, but not under conditions pertaining in a war zone. I think your quoted movement rates are acceptable assuming pre-positioned supplies, good knowledge of the terrain, and no need for advance scouting. Hopefully when modifiers for the lack of some or all of these are included the warfare movement rates will be more like the 200km or so per month that is all that is usually achievable in real historical campaigns. (using my best recollection of sources I'll try to cite later).

For one thing I think turns need to be of a length that TFs can only move a few squares under typical warfare conditions. That's because the idea of issuing orders that need to be appropriate throughout the turn without modification can't be successful unless things can't progress too far in an individual turn on the front. There was much discussion of this topic already in (IIRC) the 'lost' mil thread on the web site, and also the mil III thread.

	21-08-2001 00:33									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Do we have provision for uncontrolled terrain in the code?
Each square knows by which civ it is controlled, so we can add a multiplier for all squares whose controlling civ is not the army's civ, something like 10 seems a bit big but that looks like what would be needed to answer Mark's comments.

	21-08-2001 03:59									#36
	Remove this text

Hi Laurent:

Control of the square is only a small part of the factor of three or four reduction needed to get from what's in Gary's spec to what I think we need. As you say, it is easy to implement.

Gary:

BTW, the whitespace above tables is a mystery to me too. If it makes you feel any better, I've experienced it lots worse than what you have in your post above!

The other thing that bothered me in your generally excellent spec is chariots. Chariots could go cross-country successfully! At least for several types of terrain. As you have them, they're almost worthless. Remember that battles don't take place on roads themselves (too many people to fit on the road when deployed), and so to have any usefullness chariots Must be able to move over at least relatively flat ground. Keegan in 'A History of Warfare' refers to the 'cross-country chariot' (p165 in the paperback version). It "could be driven across rough ground". Chariots of this type were also used for hunting. IMO chariots should only have extreme trouble in heavy woods and on broken or mountainous ground. Your wheeled category is IMO probably too restrictive even for modern military trucks...

I couldn't find the text on rates of advance under contested circumstances (not necessarily active combat) but I think it was in the same book. If I come across the citation I'll let you know. But the most important point is, as I said above, that we have something like at most 2-3 squares of movement per turn under conditions of advancing in non-friendly terrain etc.

	22-08-2001 03:51									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

There is a book "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army" by Donald Engels, published by the University of California Press. Appendix 5 has a table which I summarize here (I include the mile figures because that is what is in the book, the km figures I calculated). In the original table each figure has a reference cited.

Location	Rate (m/day)/td>	Rate (km/day)	Units
Pelinna-Boetia	18.9(?)	30.4	whole army
Onchestus-Thebes	10.5	16.9	whole army
Therma(?)-Sestos	16.2	26.1	whole army
Arisbe-Percote	7	11.3	whole army
Percote-Praktios River	c. 11	17.7	whole army
Sardis-Ephesus	15	24.1	whole army
Gaza-Pelusium	19.5	31.4	whole army
Paraetonium-Ammon Oracle	22.5	36.2	small light force
Assyria	c. 46	74	cavalry only
Babylon-Susa	12.3	19.8	whole army
Ecbatana-Rhagae	22(?)	35.4	(1)
Rhagae-Airankief	34	54.7	(1)
Comisene	45 in c. 12hours	72.4	500 mounted infantry
Comisene	c. 33	53.1	(1)
Parthia	34.4	56.4	(2)
Sogdiana	c. 37.5-42.4	60.4-68.2	(3)
Sogdiana	43?-57.5	69.2-92.5	(4)
Mallian's territory	c. 30.6	49.2	(5)
Oreitan's territory to Pura	10.5-13?	16.9-20.9	(6)

The forces marked by (1) were:

• mounted scouts
  
• mercenary horse
  
• part of phalanx
  
• archers
  
• Agrianians
  

	22-08-2001 06:21									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Now That's a big white space!

The Keegan reference says little more than what I mentioned on the cross-country chariots. However he cites scholarship that says chariots were originally invented on the steppes... Not many roads there! Anyway, I don't want to debate this too much. Do it whichever way you think matches your sources for now, perhaps considering my input. If it turns out nobody ever builds chariots because of the limitations then we'll know you've limited them too much. During their day they were the equivalent of tanks and invaluable as is stressed in several books I've read.

The march figures Are impressive. Like you said, what you have is something to start with, and we can modify from there. I think just having to grub for food, as was frequently done, will slow them down to 2/3 or 1/2 ideal speed.

	22-08-2001 08:47									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I think just having to grub for food, as was frequently done, will slow them down to 2/3 or 1/2 ideal speed.

I entirely agree. However, the march figures are, if you like, a best case. I see no reason for not having a "supplies multiplier" of around 3 for units that have to forage. This would get it close to the figures you wanted.

Cheers

	24-08-2001 06:20									#40
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The movement stuff is now working, and the combat stuff is working.

Now to get them to work together...

I have reread the material on economic versus military turns. Five year versus one month.

Can I assume that military moves start when a combat situation exists at the end of a turn (that is, the beginning of the next turn) and continue (one month at a time) until there are no combat situations, at which point the remainder of the current 5 year turn is assumed to take place?

Players should be able to give new orders at the end of each military turn. However, economic orders will not take effect until the end of the five year economic turn. This would prevent such things as building city walls as the enemy advanced toward the city.

Is this the way the model is supposed to work?

Cheers

	24-08-2001 07:15									#41
	Got spare money?

Nope, you must have missed some critical posts... We discussed doing it the way you took it to be, but its very difficult and confusing. We do it basically as things are done in Civ, but with it a little more explicit what a turn means so that you don't think your unit is taking many lifetimes to get somewhere.

There is Only one kind of turn. But things happen at different Rates. One month worth of Military stuff always happens within a turn. However much more Economic, Technological etc. stuff than a month's worth can happen in a turn. At the start we currently think it should be about 5 years worth at the start of the game. (By contemporary times could be one season or one month.) It is only the Rate at which things happen as compared to the real world that differ between Military, Economic and the other models.

Some further discussion on this is here .

	25-08-2001 06:06									#42
	Increase Your PM Length

OK, I have checked out the reference. From the coding point of view it seems that there is one military move in each economic move. So it will take Alexander about ten years to get to Persia, just as in Civ. Is this right? It will not take much coding to arrange this.

Cheers

	25-08-2001 06:40									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yep, its that simple. But actually I consider the several turns it takes old Alex to get to Persia as just a few months. I just think I need a good slick explaination to players on how a turn is a month one way and several years another... Or we can just call it a turn and not try and associate a date with it...

	28-08-2001 03:31									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I resist the temptation to reopen the issue. In checking all the posts I didn't see anybody suggest that the military and economic moves run separately and in parallel, meeting every so often when they coincide, in a system where, if there is no military activity (meaning actual combat) there are no military moves. Oh well...

Cheers

	28-08-2001 03:54									#45
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It was discussed. Reasons its bad IMO:

1. In Multiplayer when one player goes to war, everyone else gets bored stupid.

2. Unless you want the AI to play by different rules, then the finer-grained Military turns even in single player Always get run in many places since warefare is common. This takes many resources to do something the player doesn't see.

3. A month is roughly the right amount of time for the military turns to be as has been discussed above. You can multiply out yourself the number of monthly turns you'll get over about 3000-6000 years of history! Even assuming you're at war 1/3 of the time, its still a Lot of turns.

	10-09-2001 09:40									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Keegan in 'A History of Warfare' refers to the 'cross-country chariot' (p165 in the paperback version). It "could be driven across rough ground". Chariots of this type were also used for hunting.

I have now got Keegan's book and checked the reference. It is clear that he actually means "off-road" rather than cross country. There is no suggestion that these chariots were up to travelling hundreds of kilometers over rough terrain. Somewhere (I can't remember where) I read that chariots actually fell apart after a relatively short time. I know that the sulkies used in harness racing are incredibly fragile.

On another subject, and totally against my deepest beliefs, I put a fudge factor in the movement system - all tick times required are multiplied by 2.5 in order to allow time for foraging, finding the best route, general disorganization, and so forth. This figure can be reduced for elite troops when we implement that aspect.

This brings the movement rates down near those you wanted.

Cheers.

	11-09-2001 02:30									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

Chariots: I still don't agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct. But we can see how yours plays out first or wait for a more definitive reference.

Fudge Factor: Well, It'll do for now. We will endevor to get rid of it by D6!

	12-09-2001 03:07									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Chariots: I still don't agree that your interpretation is necessarily correct. But we can see how yours plays out first or wait for a more definitive reference.

I have been trawling through my references, so far on Egyptian chariots (which were only introduced after the Hyksos invasion). Invariably there is a ratio of about 10 to 1 of infantry over chariots, and the army travelled at the rate of the infantry.

The following is a contemporary account of a visit to a chariot repair shop, taken from "Egyptian Warfare and Weapons" by Ian Shaw. He is quoting an Egyptian charioteer of the 19th Dynasty.
"You are brought into the armoury and workshops surround you - you do all that you have wished. Take care of your chariot so that it is no longer loose. Your pole is freshly trimmed and its attachments are fitted on. They put bindings on your collar piece ... and they fix up your yoke. They apply your ensign, engraved with a chisel, and they put a handle on your whip and attach a lash to it. You sally forth quickly to fight at the pass and accomplish glorious deeds."

The chariots were little more than wicker frameworks, with no provision for supplies for the two horses or the two crew. Again, the chariot, over any distance such as 100 km, would travel at the rate of its support.

I repeat, the chariot was a short range attack weapon, not a long range scouting weapon.

Cheers

	12-09-2001 03:36									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

A bit more information, this time from "Armies of the Pharaohs" by Mark Healy.

The battle of Megiddo took place in 1479 BC or 1482 BC depending on which source you believe. Megiddo was in what is now northern Israel. It took nine days for Tuthmoses III and his army to reach Gaza from the border of Egypt, suggesting a marching rate of about 15 miles per day (for the whole army). This is equivalent to 1.38 ticks per square, or 7.2 squares per turn. And this is the infantry rate!

Thereafter the speed fell to 8 miles per day, presumably because of the possible presence of enemy forces.

The book describes the approach to Megiddo in detail. Tuthmoses had a choice of three routes, an easy one, a hard one, and an impossible one. Reasoning that the Canaanites would defend the easy route, and probably the hard route as well, he over-ruled his generals and elected to take the impossible route. This meant single file, and carrying the chariots over a steep hill trail. They did it, deployed the army on the plain and chased the enemy back into the city.

The point here is that, again, the chariots moved at infantry rates, they were not self sufficient in their operations.

Understand, I am not talking about tactical speed, just strategic.

Cheers

	12-09-2001 06:57									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I never suggested chariots could move quicker than infantry strategically... I'm not sure how you got the impression that I meant that. All I was questioning is that your spec *Prohibited* cross-country movement of chariots (wheel) over rolling terrain! That doesn't match the facts as I understand them. Hopefully now that you fully understand my position we don't have a disagreement. Anyway these things are trivial to change after playtesting, so lets not debate about it too much...

	13-09-2001 05:49									#51
	Remove this text

I guess you are right. The chariots that went from Egypt to Megiddo certainly didn't travel on roads.

Cheers

	19-09-2001 00:50									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas I guess you are right. The chariots that went from Egypt to Megiddo certainly didn't travel on roads. Cheers

Actually, the way to model that might merely be to say that chariots are "foot" units. (assuming that classification only affects the movement calculations) If the chariot's wheels are only useful tactically, then their wheels should only show up in "attack /defense" values, ie the actual combat between units in the same square.

	19-09-2001 23:19									#53
	Remove this text

That is a good point. I understand (in a foggy sort of way) that units have another movement factor called "mobility". This is the one used for combat. So chariots could have a low movement factor, but a high mobility.

Cheers

	20-09-2001 13:00									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

Yes. Mobility is tactical, as opposed to movement which is strategic. That would probably work.
What about modern wheeled units, though?

	20-09-2001 22:19									#55
	Support Apolyton

quote: Yes. Mobility is tactical, as opposed to movement which is strategic. That would probably work. What about modern wheeled units, though?

That is a problem which will need to be worked out. Essentially we have THREE types of movement, tactical, strategic, and "logistic". The last is what limits chariots.

On the other hand, does modern wheeled (as opposed to tracked) transport operate off-road?

Cheers