 |
| |
|
|
Andrew_Jay
|
 |
St. John's, NF
Aug 2001
time: 01:45
|
|
It really shouldn't be too hard, they already have somewhat 'abstract' numbers to represent your population based on the numbers of your cities (i.e. 1,2,3,4. . . etc.) I remember in SMAC, you could obliberate an enemy city after capturing it, and you would be told the death toll ("20,000 Hive citizens have been put to death", etc.). This really isn't too different. So how about it Firaxis , just give each unit a number. A legion could be a couple thousand, a rifle unit might be 20 - 30,000, modern aircraft could be a couple dozen, the Second World War bomber could be a couple hundred and so on. It probably wouldn't be to hard, just spit out some half random numbers off the top of your head. I could keep doing it but I've written enough.
Thanks to whoever thought of this 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Maybe I am the only one, but I really don't think this is that good of an idea.
It adds nothing to the game in terms of gameplay. It doesn't even add a degree of historical authenticity or help bring you into the enviornment that they are trying to create. It is going to be so fake in the numbers and unimportant that you won't be able to help thinking why is this included in the game.
You can't base casualties on an equation of units lost because even victorious units with out very much damage will lose a few people. And you can't base the equation on total population of a nation because then you are no longer dealing with units. No matter the equation picked, you will find it unrealistic to the point of unbelievable.
Now even if you can make an equation that makes some sense, it does nothing for the game. If you have it take population away from the cities then that would make sense but it is not possible under the pop point system that is still going to be used in Civ3. If it is going to be used for city unhappiness that makes some sense but it has to work into a whole framework of nation size and other factors. Think about it, the U.S. lost 50,000 in Vietnam while we lost 300,000 in World War II. Yet the first war was unpopular while the second was very popular. So it seems that again casualty counts are going to have little impact on any element of the game.
So first it is going to be unrealistic in the amount killed at least by the equations that are being proposed. Second these unrealistic counts are going to make you wonder why this is being included in the game and take you out of the whole Tower of Babel theme that has been set up. And the final blow is that it doesn't add a single element to the gameplay. So if it were up to me I would vote no!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Maybe you will harbor resentment against say the Russians because your civ lost a huge number of casualities in a war againist them earlier on, there are literally infinite scenarios that can occur with something like this in place . I really would enjoy situations such as that and I would wager that most other Civ players would enjoy a similar envirionment. |
Now if something like that was going to be included then I would be all for this suggestion. I mean as long as it has some purpose and not just added weight to the game. Because this is going to be added weight that is not going to be realistic and decrease the fun factor. But if it has a purpose than I could see it being important and fun to deal with.
quote:
There are more complex things that can be done to this, perhaps in some cases high casualty counts could lead to unrest or even be involved in some kind of an equation that would reduce the population of some cities if fighting becomes bloody enough. |
Oh there are tons of things that could be added that would increase complexity with this and other ideas but would it be worth it? It is hard to say but the more complexity the harder the game will be and in the end probably less fun as you are trying to micromanage and balance everything. Just not the game I am looking forward to.
quote:
Something along the same vein as basic game demographics that are already calculated in the game. I'm sure these numbers are meaningless to some people (presumably, such as yourself tniem), but there are also a good number that would find this system's inclusion to enrich the game greatly. |
Well personally I have always like the Demographics screen, I just think that this type of screen with casualties following a war is going to be unrealistic and take you out of the flow of the game. There are so many problems with the screen. First just the idea of coming up with a formula for losses. Then what about medicine and hospitals saving those injured. Not to mention when does a war end or a battle for that matter. How do we know? It just seems to be a very hard number to come up with and one that is not going to add much to the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
I think the casualty figures, when given in people killed or wounded, not in units destroyed, is not practical. Though fun.
- How many people make up a unit: For a phalanx (64?); fighter (is that a flight or a squadron?); battleship (1 ship or plus escorts?); armor (brigade or division?)
- I have always considered that when a battleship sinks a frigate that the miniscule damage the battleship takes is due more to 'expendables consumed' than to damage. Or wear and tear on aircraft rather than planes actually destroyed.
- In my wargaming days of olde (1970s), a combat unit might be 'destroyed': not when it loses its last (man, tank, plane or ship), but when it is finished as an effective unit. May include the effects of morale, command-and-control, etc.
- In ground combat, a unit may be destroyed, but many 'stragglers' make it back to your lines, perhaps to be put into the replacement pool.
Come up with solutions for these points, and I'll be quite pleased.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
I like the idea!
We should have a poll going here!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nemo
but the units are made of people. therefore units lost = people lost. no?
sorry, i fail to see a difference. |
But what about winning battles? You still lose some troops. And each unit should have various amounts of troops depending on the unit type. Oh and how much damage is just that you can't use some type of equipment but troops are still alive? There is just not going to be a practical formula that is going to work very easily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
|
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nemo
but the units are made of people. therefore units lost = people lost. no?
sorry, i fail to see a difference. |
Nemo, just in case you didn't get it from tniem's response:
NO. 
A phalanx just looks like 1 man, but it is at least 64 men, some or all whom are killed or wounded in a combat (or just from falling ill during a campaign).
An armor unit looks like 1 tank, but it is anywhere from (in my book) a brigade to a division (3,000 to 20,000+ men, depending on when and who you are talking about).
Therefore, units lost = (people multiplied by X) lost
Where X is some number between 1 and (tens of thousands) 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nemo
|
 |
of no one.
Apr 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
[A phalanx just looks like 1 man, but it is at least 64 men, some or all whom are killed or wounded in a combat (or just from falling ill during a campaign).
An armor unit looks like 1 tank, but it is anywhere from (in my book) a brigade to a division (3,000 to 20,000+ men, depending on when and who you are talking about).
Therefore, units lost = (people multiplied by X) lost
Where X is some number between 1 and (tens of thousands) |
True, i always pictured it like that, too (i.e. 1 unit = hundreds/thousands of people) BUT...if you unit sits in the field long enough it re-heals itself. Therefore, none of the unit dies if it is say yellow stat (using the CivII green/yellow/red/dead guage), they are all merely injured. So, no one DIES during combat unless the whole unit is killed, they are all merely injured during combat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
|
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nemo
True, i always pictured it like that, too (i.e. 1 unit = hundreds/thousands of people) BUT...if your unit sits in the field long enough it re-heals itself. Therefore, none of the unit dies if it is say yellow stat (using the CivII green/yellow/red/dead guage), they are all merely injured. So, no one DIES during combat unless the whole unit is killed, they are all merely injured during combat. |
 Sorry Nemo, but many of those people you are saying are injured may have been killed-or-captured, and replaced. OR the damaged unit is now smaller, but has gained experience to make up for it (but not promoted to veteran)!
On the other hand, equipment has also been recovered and repaired. A unit destroyed is usually not lost to the last man.
One could very generically (vaguely??) say that units destroyed could be counted as gone to the last man, and this would make up for those people lost while other units were only damaged-- Comes out in the wash.
You still have to come up with numbers of people contained in the units. Often, different countries will have substantially different numbers of people in comparable units, and it would be EXTREMELY arbitrary to say what a given unit represents in the first place. As in my (brigade/division or flight/wing) examples in my previous post.
My point is, I think having "units of such type have been destroyed" is the best (most elegant) way to go. When a historical scenario is being played, work out the military & civilian casualties on a calculator, or a spreadsheet on another computer. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tniem
If you have it take population away from the cities then that would make sense but it is not possible under the pop point system that is still going to be used in Civ3. |
This is the most relevant point, IMHO. If population number suffers for Units battle casualties, then you have to think twice about the damage of a war, the loss of precious people and so on (BTW the "educational" purpose of the original post of this thread, and the main I can agree: statistics are worthless if you learn nothing from them).
As the Civ III model seems to work (raw resources needed for building new units, money to support them), the effect on population is NOTHING.
It chose to simplify the war concept (and of course it must be simplified somewhat) just sticking to the concept that money buy everything: given enough money (and resources, but you can buy resources by trade), you can build a massive army and win.
Not the best concept in this sad time of "USA against Terrorism", BTW.
If someone don't get the Diseducational line of the simplified model (only a formula to have a final stat on total losses, not related to game effect) you can see how many people are writing on this same thread about the joy of killing many people.
If you shift the stat of losses into another "Score Table" you are missing the whole purpose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Jaybe-
quote:
A phalanx just looks like 1 man, but it is at least 64 men, some or all whom are killed or wounded in a combat (or just from falling ill during a campaign). |
Thanks for getting my point across. That is what I was trying to say just I guess I wasn't able to.
Bisonbison-
quote:
I'd like a little optional pop-up window that listed units lost in any given conflict. It would pop up at the signing of the final peace agreement, and would give you a nice little idea of the course of the war, but I think population numbers are getting a little to close to a grim reality that I prefer to have abstracted. |
I would be for this. List units lost at the end of a war or a campaign to gain a city. But as soon as hard numbers are used to describe losses than everything falls apart. No hard numbers are used at anytime in the game except abstractly (i.e. integers that equate to about a certain population). Find it hard to believe this would be the best time to introduce hard numbers.
Nemo-
quote:
So, no one DIES during combat unless the whole unit is killed, they are all merely injured during combat. |
Come that is just plain silly. The US lost troops in the Fifth Calvary lets say during WWII. By today that division is fully recovered. But that does not mean they did not lose people in earlier fights. Just that reinforcements were brought in. To think otherwise is just plain against what is really happening.
Jaybe-
quote:
You still have to come up with numbers of people contained in the units. Often, different countries will have substantially different numbers of people in comparable units, and it would be EXTREMELY arbitrary to say what a given unit represents in the first place. As in my (brigade/division or flight/wing) examples in my previous post.
My point is, I think having "units of such type have been destroyed" is the best (most elegant) way to go. When a historical scenario is being played, work out the military & civilian casualties on a calculator, or a spreadsheet on another computer. |
Agreed. That is what I have been trying to argue since the start. I think once hard numbers are introduced that they will be so unrealistic that it will take you out of the game in terms of the historical feel that the game is trying to protray. However a listing of what units you have lost and killed at the end of a campaign, war, or battle as determined by the game would be a neat touch.
monkspider-
quote:
The original intention of this thread was never to argue for an entire, 100% accurate casualty count that accounts for every possible variable imaginable but a rather abstract, general casualty total that would provide a rough estimate of what your casualties would actually be |
But even an abstract number is going to be hard to add at this time in developement. Research will have to be done to figure out how many troops were used in each unit over time.
And then if you want this to have an impact on actual diplomacy then the idea is way to late in coming. One would have to write code so that people die even when the unit wins. And then on top of that entire AI has to be written to remember loses to enemies and make that an incentive to fight new ones. All in all it will not be an easy task. Something that certainly to late to be added as it would change everything that has been done to this point.
Adm-
quote:
This is the most relevant point, IMHO |
Thanks.
quote:
If you shift the stat of losses into another "Score Table" you are missing the whole purpose. |
I believe that we are in some type of agreement. It would seem that adding this feature would first be hard to get anything near a believable number. So would it be worth it? I don't think so, but if you do want to include it then is it going to mean anything?
If it effected your city population then it might be an interesting concept and add complexity and more choices. Something that certainly will not be included by the Sid rule of less is more. Or even if the number was later used in diplomacy then it might be an interesting concept and add to the evolving story of a game. But that would take even more work. Work that could instead be used on more important matters like an improved AI and MP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:15
|
|
I feel that you may overestimate the difficulty of this project Tniem. Jelly Donut suggest an extremely simplified and abstract algorithim that illustrates how simple this would be.
c=casualties in war
p=population of civ
u=units killed in war
t=total number of units
c=p[0.2(u/t)]
Granted, I'm sure that equation could be tweaked somewhat. But you get the general idea. But if there was ever something that could be easily added, this would be it.I think trying to devise an equation that took into account illness, battle medicine, weather, dessertions, etc would be silly in a game that is already highly abstracted.
I feel that something that would be so highly simple to add, this would add immensely to the overall game story. Just knowing how many men lost their lives in a certain war adds a great human element to the game. For one, it allows you to measure the size of the various wars your civ may fight. Also, it allows you to compare the vastness and cost of wars in different games. For example, you may have thought your war as the Egyptians against the British in one game was the most costly, but one in an another game as the French against the Aztecs may even surpass it. That fact alone may make the Franco-Aztec far more dramatic. It just a little something that would add greatly to the game for many people. it is the one thing I had always wished I was able to keep track of in Civ 2. I don't feel the statement that implementing this would take away from work from the MP game is truly relevant, as this is something that would be exceedingly quick simple to add and at the same time add a lot of story to the game. I can't think of anything else that would add so much to the game for so little effort. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
c=casualties in war
p=population of civ
u=units killed in war
t=total number of units
c=p[0.2(u/t)] |
The equation plain and simply doesn't work. Anything that has total population of your civ is going to be wrong. It has to do more with unit size and what not.
quote:
But if there was ever something that could be easily added, this would be it. |
I agree it would be easy to add. What I am saying is that using a number in a hard such as this but using numbers that are all highly abstract would be detracting from the rest of the game. Not only that I think if anyone thinks about the number generated, they are going to realize that it can't have be anywhere near right. So I just find it not worth the trouble in the end to add.
quote:
I feel that something that would be so highly simple to add, this would add immensely to the overall game story. |
I see what your saying and I wouldn't necessarily be against it. Except that I personally don't think it is worth the coding time beacuse in the end your opponents won't be able to bring up these wars unless the Diplomacy Code was as well tweaked a ton. So I personally am against the idea in terms of adding it on at the last moment to Civ3. That doesn't mean that the idea if worked on for a while could add something, just that it isn't good for this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
|
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tniem
quote:
If you shift the stat of losses into another "Score Table" you are missing the whole purpose. |
I believe that we are in some type of agreement. |
Yes, we are I don't want to say that monkspider idea is wrong: me too posted a bunch of times about the relation between Casualties of Was and Population. Simply, as monkspider proposal will be limited by Civ III money+resources=units (no care of population) it will end into a irrilevant stats, just another "Score number", no more.
Look, I erased 3 millions of Americans, at the cost of only 1 million of German soldiers. A net gain of 2 millions.
That's not funny, nor educational. That's absurd, wrong accounting.
Diplomacy effect is not enough IMHO, not to mention the difficulty to balance the AI consideration. Want some grip to reality? USA, USSR, France, Great Britain fighted against Italy Japan and German, all of them losing millions of people.
Now, after only few "game turns" they are all allies (also Russia is almost an ally now, under current terrorism threat).
So Monkspider, this seems to me a case where half apply of a very good idea isn't half good at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2001 15:16
, that is the type of thing I was advocating. My more complex examples of population decreases and so forth were just an attempt to show that maybe something more could be done with this, if it were implemented well. However, I typically belong to the same school of thought that you do, more complexity is generally a bad thing in this type of game. Yes there may be some issues regarding medicine and hospitals, but I think a simple equation could represent an abstract, and mostly realistic account of real life. 
|